Analysis of conversion factors in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgical management of rectal cancer has a series of advantages which might facilitate the surgical approach to the pelvic cavity and reduce conversion rates. The aim of the present study is to identify independent factors for conversion during robotic rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A total of 67 patients underwent preoperative CT scan in order to obtain a three-dimensional image of the pelvis, the tumour and prostate. We measured maximum and minimum ilio-iliac, sacral promontory-pubis, coccyx-pubis diameters and maximum lateral axis. Further variables under consideration were age, BMI and use of neoadjuvant therapy. We recorded short-term follow-up outcomes of the resected tumour. RESULTS: The present study included 67 patients (39 males) with an average age of 65.11 ± 10.30 years and a BMI of 27.70 ± 3.97 kg/m(2). Operative procedures included nine abdominoperineal resections and 58 low anterior resections. There were 15 (22.38 %) conversions. Mean operating time was 192.2 ± 42.73 min. Minimum ilio-iliac, maximum ilio-iliac, promontory-pubic and coccyx-pubis diameter as well as maximum lateral axis were 100.38 ± 7.65, 107.10 ± 10.01, 109.97 ± 9.20, 105.61 ± 9.27 and 129.01 ± 9.94 mm, respectively. Mean tumour volume was 37.06 ± 44.08 cc; mean prostate volume was 42.07 ± 17.49 cc. The univariate analysis of the variables showed a correlation between conversion and BMI and minimum ilio-iliac and coccyx-pubis diameters (p = 0.004, 0.047, 0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent predictive factor for conversion was the BMI (p = 0.004).No correlation was found between conversion and sex, age, tumour volume or the rest of pelvic diameters. CONCLUSION: BMI is an independent factor for conversion in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

[Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection]. / Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado: cirugía laparoscópica con asistencia robótica versus cirugía laparoscópica convencional en la resección del cáncer colorrectal.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery is playing an increasingly important role in the last few years in the treatment of colorectal oncological disease. However, there are still no studies that objectively demonstrate the advantages of this type of surgery. We present a prospective randomised study in order to compare the short-term results between colorectal robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 56 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2008 and January 2009, were randomised and assigned to the robotic or laparoscopic group. Age, body mass index, tumour location, conversions in each group, complications during and after surgery, and histological characteristics of the specimens obtained, were all compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between age (P=.055), body mass index (P=.12), or tumour location (P=.91). Only one patient in the robotic group required a transfusion and none in the laparoscopic group. The percentage of conversions was the same in both groups, however, the preparation times and operating times were significantly longer in patients intervened using the robotic device (P=.0001 and P=.017, respectively). There were no differences as regards the rate of complications or in the percentage of re-interventions (14.2% and 7.1%). The mean hospital stay of the patients was 9.3 (8.1) days in the robotic group and 9.2 (6.8) days in the laparoscopic (P=.79). The distal resection margin was greater in the specimen obtained using robotic surgery (P =.003) as well as the number of lymph nodes obtained in the specimen (P =.23). CONCLUSION: Robotic colorectal was performed safely and effectively, and with similar clinical results. International Trial Number for this study is: ISRCTN60866560.

Role of fibrin glue in the prevention of peritoneal adhesions in ventral hernia repair.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of fibrin glue on the prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesion to prosthetic materials used in ventral hernia repair. METHODS: Ten pigs were included in this study. The abdomens of the animals were opened by means of a median subumbilical laparotomy to place four prostheses that were cut into square pieces of 4 x 4 cm. The two prostheses in the most cephalic position were polypropylene meshes, and the other two prostheses in a more caudal position were expanded polytetrafluoroethylene prostheses (Dualmesh Plus Corduroy). The prostheses on the right side of each animal were previously impregnated with fibrin glue. After 5 weeks, the animals were reoperated on to assess the quantity and quality (consistency) of the adhesions. RESULTS: There were fewer intraperitoneal adhesions and they were more labile in the case of prostheses impregnated with fibrin glue. Moreover, we also observed that in many of the animals the polypropylene mesh did not show any adhesions, although polypropylene has been considered to be a typical adhesion producing material. CONCLUSIONS: Fibrin glue reduces both the quantity and consistency of adhesions, even in the case of polypropylene meshes.

Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado: cirugía laparoscópica con asistencia robótica versus cirugía laparoscópica convencional en la resección del cáncer colorrectal / Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection

Introducción La cirugía robótica está tomando protagonismo en los últimos años en el abordaje de la dolencia oncológica colorrectal. Sin embargo, no existen todavía estudios que muestren ventajas objetivas de este tipo de abordaje. Presentamos un estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado cuyo objetivo es comparar los resultados a corto plazo entre la cirugía robótica y la cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. Material y método Entre enero de 2008 y enero de 2009, 56 pacientes diagnosticados de cáncer colorrectal fueron aleatorizados y asignados al grupo de cirugía robótica o laparoscópica. Se compararon la edad, el índice de masa corporal, la localización tumoral, las conversiones de cada grupo, las complicaciones intra- y postoperatorias y las características histológicas de las piezas obtenidas. Resultados No hubo diferencias significativas en la edad (p=0,055), el índice de masa corporal (p=0,12), o la localización tumoral (p=0,91). Sólo un paciente precisó ser transfundido en el grupo robótico y ninguno en el grupo laparoscópico. El porcentaje de conversiones fue idéntico en ambos grupos, sin embargo el tiempo de preparación y el tiempo operatorio sí fue significativamente mayor en los pacientes intervenidos mediante el dispositivo robótico (p=0,0001 y p=0,017 respectivamente). No existieron diferencias en cuanto al índice de complicaciones ni el porcentaje de reintervenciones (14,2% y 7,1%). La estancia media de los pacientes fue de 9,3±8,1 días en el grupo robótico y de 9,2±6,8 días en el laparoscópico (p=0,79). El margen distal de resección fue mayor en el espécimen obtenido mediante cirugía robótica (p=0,003) así como el número de ganglios obtenidos de la pieza (p=0,23) (AU)

Introduction: Robotic-assisted surgery is playing an increasingly important role in the last few years in the treatment of colorectal oncological disease. However, there are still no studies that objectively demonstrate the advantages of this type of surgery. We present a prospective randomised study in order to compare the short-term results between colorectal robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. Material and method: A total of 56 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January2008 and January 2009, were randomised and assigned to the robotic or laparoscopic group. Age, body mass index, tumour location, conversions in each group, complications during and after surgery, and histological characteristics of the specimens obtained, were all compared. Results: There were no significant differences between age (P=.055), body mass index (P=.12),or tumour location (P=.91). Only one patient in the robotic group required a transfusion and none in the laparoscopic group. The percentage of conversions was the same in both groups, however, the preparation times and operating times were significantly longer in patients intervened using the robotic device (P=.0001 and P=.017, respectively). There were no differences as regards the rate of complications or in the percentage of re-interventions(14.2% and 7.1%). The mean hospital stay of the patients was 9.3 (8.1) days in the robotic group and 9.2 (6.8) days in the laparoscopic (P=.79). The distal resection margin was greater in the specimen obtained using robotic surgery (P =.003) as well as the number of lymphnodes obtained in the specimen (P =.23).Conclusion: Robotic colorectal was performed safely and effectively, and with similar clinical results (AU)