Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome. METHOD: An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.

Laparoscopic vs. open total mesorectal excision in unselected patients with rectal cancer: impact on early outcome.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare laparoscopic vs. open total mesorectal excision for cancer of the rectum on perioperative outcome and quality of life. METHODS: A total of 187 consecutive unselected patients with rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision during a seven-year period were prospectively evaluated. Patients were monitored 30 days for postoperative complications. Quality of life was evaluated before and at one year after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision, whereas 79 underwent open. Conversion rate was 12 percent. In the laparoscopic group, operating time was 33 minutes longer (P = 0.03) and intraoperative blood loss was lower (P = 0.001). Tumor stage and the number of lymph nodes that were intraoperatively collected were similar in the two groups. The overall morbidity rate was 29.6 percent in the laparoscopic and 27.8 percent in the open (P = 0.78) group. No patient died during the postoperative period. Anastomotic leak rate was similar in the two groups (14.8 percent in laparoscopic vs. 12.6 percent in open; P = 0.88). Patients in the laparoscopic group recovered earlier bowel function (P = 0.01) and experienced a shorter length of stay (P = 0.003). At one-year follow-up, overall quality of life was similar in the two groups. In the laparoscopic group, social functioning item was significantly better (P = 0.05) and trend to a better physical status was observed (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is safe and feasible, does not jeopardize the complication rate, and has the benefits of much less blood during the operation and shorter hospitalization.