Outcomes and Cost Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopy for abdominoperineal resection has been well defined, the literature lacks comparative studies on robotic abdominoperineal resection. Because robotic abdominoperineal resections typically do not require splenic mobilization or an anastomosis for reconstruction, the mean console time is expected to be shorter than low anterior resection. We hypothesized that robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection would provide similar oncologic and financial outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncologic, and economic outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. DESIGN: This was a retrospective, case-matched patient cohort. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: This study included all patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic abdominoperineal resections between January 2008 and April 2017; they were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age ±5 years, BMI ±3 kg/m 2 , and sex criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative, oncologic, and economic (including survival) outcomes were compared. Because of institutional policy, actual cost values are presented as the lowest direct cost value as "100%," and other values are presented as proportional to the index value. RESULTS: We examined 68 patients (34 in each group). Both groups had similar preoperative characteristics, including preoperative chemoradiation rates. Operative time (319 vs 309 min), length of stay (7.2 vs 7.4 d), postoperative complications (38.2% vs 41.2%), conversion to open (5 vs 4), complete mesorectal excision (76.4% vs 79.4%), radial margin involvement (2.9% vs 8.9%), and direct hospital cost parameters (mean difference 26%, median difference 43%) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection groups, respectively (all p > 0.05). Local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates (85.3% vs 76.5%) were also similar after 22 months of follow-up between the groups. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the variety in concomitant procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic abdominoperineal resections provided in carefully matched patients with rectal cancer showed similar perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections. Our study was not powered to detect a significant increase in cost with robotic abdominoperineal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . RESULTADOS Y ANLISIS DE COSTO DE LA RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL LAPAROSCPICA VS LA ROBTICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS: ANTECEDENTES:Si bien la resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica está bien definida, la literatura carece de estudios comparativos sobre la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Dado que las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas generalmente no requieren movilización esplénica o una anastomosis en casos de reconstrucción, se supone que el tiempo medio en la consola sea más corto que durante una resección anterior baja. Hipotéticamente las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas y laparoscópicas nos proporcionarían resultados oncológicos y económicos similares.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos de la resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Esta fue una cohorte de pacientes retrospectiva, emparejada por casos.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones abdominoperineales LAParoscópicas o ROBóticas entre Enero de 2008 y Abril de 2017 fueron identificados y emparejados según la edad ±5, el IMC ±3 y los criterios de sexo en una proporción de 1:1.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos (incluida la sobrevida). Debido a la política institucional, los valores de costos reales se presentan como el valor de costo directo más bajo al 100% y los otros valores se presentan como proporcionales al valor índice.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron 68 pacientes (LAP-34 y ROB-34). Ambos grupos tenían características preoperatorias similares, incluidas las tasas de radio-quimioterapia pre-operatoria. Los tiempos operatorios fueron de 319 y 309 minutos, la estadía hospitalaria de 7 días en los dos grupos, las complicaciones post-operatorias fueron de 38,2% LAP frente a 41,2% ROB, la tasa de conversion fué de 5 a 4, la excisión total del mesorrecto de 76,4% frente a 79,4%, la resección radial con afectación de los márgenes de 2,9% frente a 8,9% y los parámetros de costes hospitalarios directos (diferencia de medias 26%, diferencia de medianas 43%) fueron comparables entre los grupos, de resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica, respectivamente (todos p > 0,05). Las tasas de recurrencia local, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y sobrevida general (85,3% frente a 76,5%) también fueron similares después de 22 meses de seguimiento entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva y la variedad de procedimientos concomitantes fueron las principales limitaciones de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas proporcionaron resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a corto plazo similares en pacientes con cáncer de recto cuidadosamente emparejados en comparación con las resecciones abdominoperineales laparoscópicas. Nuestro estudio no fue diseñado para detectar un aumento significativo en el costo relacionado con la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Survival outcomes after surgical management of sporadic or familial adenomatous polyposis associated duodenal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Duodenal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients. In this study, we compare oncologic outcomes between sporadic and FAP-associated duodenal cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients who underwent surgeries between 2000 and 2014 for either sporadic or FAP duodenal cancer were identified. The patients were grouped based on diagnoses and perioperative and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients with duodenal cancer (43 sporadic, 13 FAP) who underwent surgery were identified. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) was the most common procedure performed. The overall median survival was 7.5 years (1 year: 92%; 5 years: 58.1%). FAP patients had earlier tumor, node, and metastasis stage, less margin involvement, less perineural, and angiolymphatic invasion but had a comparable survival to sporadic patients. The median survival for FAP duodenal cancer was 7.4 vs 9.6 years for sporadic (P = .97) with similar utilization of adjuvant chemotherapy. Although not statistically significant, PD had an improved median survival compared to segmental duodenal resection (SDR) (9.6 years for PD vs 3.6 years for SDR, P = .17). Non-periampullary location and presence of positive lymph nodes were significant predictors of mortality on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: FAP duodenal cancer has no survival advantage compared to sporadic duodenal cancer despite an improved stage of resection with extraampullary lesions having a worse survival.

Robotic complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer.

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation for right-sided colon cancer has been proven to provide superior oncologic outcomes and survival advantage when compared to standard lymphadenectomy [1]. A number of studies comparing conventional laparoscopic versus open CME have shown feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic approach with acceptable oncological profile and postoperative outcomes [2, 3]. The introduction of robotic systems with its technical advantages, including improved vision, better ergonomics and precise dissection, has further revolutionized minimally invasive approach in colorectal surgery. However, there seems to be a relatively slow adoption of robotic approach in the CME technique for right-sided colon cancer. This video demonstrates our detailed operative technique and feasibility for performing right-sided CME robotically. The surgical procedure is performed with a medial-to-lateral approach through four 8-mm robotic and one assistant ports. First, the ileocolic vessels are isolated, clipped and transected near their origins. Cephalad dissection continues along the ventral aspect of the superior mesenteric vein. Staying in the embryological planes between the mesocolon and retroperitoneal structures, mesenteric dissection is extended up to the root of the right colic vessels, if present, and the middle colic vessels, which are clipped and divided individually near their origins. After the terminal ileum is transected using an endolinear staple, the colon is mobilized fully from gastrocolic tissue and then from its lateral attachments. The transverse colon is transected under the guidance of near-infrared fluorescence imaging. Creation of an intracorporeal side-to-side ileotransversostomy anastomosis and extraction of the specimen complete the operation. We consider robotic CME to be feasible, safe and oncologically adequate for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. Its technical advantages may lead to further dissemination of the robotic approach and better standardization of this surgical technique.

Does enzalutamide related PSMA upregulation affect outcomes of lutetium-177 PSMA radioligand therapy?

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide is an antiandrogen drug used prior to lutetium-177 prostate specific membrane antigen (Lu-PSMA) radioligand therapy and has shown promising results for upregulating the PSMA expression on prostate cancer cells. In this study, we aim to compare prostate specific antigen (PSA) level changes in prostate cancer patients who received enzalutamide to those who did not. METHODS: Prostate cancer patients who underwent Lu-PSMA between 2021 and 2023 were retrospectively included. Patients were grouped based on prior enzalutamide therapy: those who received enzalutamide (EZ+) for at least 14 days and those who did not (EZ-). PSA changes and F-18 DCFPyL SUV (Standardized Uptake Values) were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included, 18 EZ+ and 19 EZ-. The median age, Gleason score, and prior chemo/hormonal therapies were similar for EZ+ and EZ-, except for radium-223. Eleven patients (61%) in EZ+ and 13 patients (68%) in EZ- showed a decrease in PSA after the first cycle (p = 0.64). Four patients (22%) in EZ+ and seven patients (37%) in EZ- had more than 50% decrease in PSA after the first cycle (p = 0.33). The average percent decline at the end of the treatment was 23.3% in EZ+ and 50.4% in EZ- (p = 0.4). There was no difference in terms of lesion with highest SUVmax, mean SUV, total tumor volume or activity on pre-therapy PSMA imaging. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide treatment prior to Lu-PSMA does not improve patient outcomes when applied remotely. Larger studies evaluating the combination therapies and the timing of enzalutamide are needed to assess its correlation with Lu-PSMA outcomes.

The diagnostic accuracy of perfusion-only scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the era of COVID-19: A single-center study of 434 patients.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the diagnostic accuracy of perfusion (Q)-only studies in the absence of ventilation images. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Q-only imaging in the pandemic era. METHODS: Patients who underwent Q-only imaging for pulmonary embolism between March 2020 and February 2021 were analyzed. Patients who underwent lung quantification analysis were excluded. Q-only test results were reported as per modified PIOPED II criteria and single positron emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) imaging was performed as needed. Patients were considered concordant or discordant by correlating the Q-only results with CT angiogram (CTA) or clinical diagnosis made through chart review. The diagnostic accuracy was calculated after excluding intermediate probability and nondiagnostic studies. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four patients were identified. One hundred and twenty-eight patients (29.4%) underwent ultrasound Doppler, 37 patients (8.5%) underwent CTA, and 16 patients (3.6%) underwent both. After excluding patients with intermediate probability or nondiagnostic studies and who did not have follow-up (a total of 87 patients [20%]), 347 patients were enrolled in the final analysis. The combined planar and SPECT/CT sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% (72.2%-93.9% confidence interval [CI]) and 98.7% (96.9%-98.6% CI), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Q-only imaging was 89.1% (77.3%-95.1% CI) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.2% (96.4%-99% CI). The sensitivity with SPECT/CT reached 100% (CI: 71.5%-100%) with a specificity of 92.3% (CI: 64%-99.8%). The PPV was 85.7% (CI: 62.1%-95.6%) and the NPV was 100%. CONCLUSION: Q-only imaging provides clinically acceptable results. The sensitivity of the Q-only scan is increased when coupled with SPECT/CT.

Correlation between physical status measures and frailty score in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the correlation between validated measures of physical status in a prehabilitation regimen with an established frailty score and analyze changes in these measures after completion of a directed prehabilitation program among patients undergoing elective pancreatic resection. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing pancreatic resection from 2019-2021 were enrolled in a pilot prehabilitation program. Three validated measures of physical status were used: the 6-minute walk test, grip strength, and chair-stand test. The prehabilitation program comprised 7,500 steps, 30 grip strength exercises, and 100 chair-stand exercises daily. Patients' frailty score was calculated using the Modified Johns Hopkins Frailty score. Changes in physical status measures after prehabilitation and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with a median age of 69.0 years (interquartile range = 59.5-76.3 years) were included. Patients' median duration of participation was 21.5 days (interquartile range = 16-29 days). There was a negative correlation between increasing frailty score and baseline the 6-minute walk test (R2 = 0.17) and chair-stand test (R2 = 0.18). Patients' mean the 6-minute walk test decreased at the end of the prehabilitation program, while grip strength and chair-stand test were unchanged. When stratified by low or intermediate and high frailty scores, the differences in the 6-minute walk test and chair-stand test were unchanged. Hospital duration of stay, complications, and 90-day readmission rates were not different between frailty groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Correlation of physical status measures with frailty score suggests only one of these measures is sufficient to estimate patients' preoperative physical status. A longer, more comprehensive prehabilitation program or an expedited operation are likely the best strategies to improve patient outcomes.

Colectomy for polyps is associated with high risk for complications and low risk for malignancy: Time for endoluminal surgery?

BACKGROUND: Colectomy for nonmalignant polyps (NMP) is common in the United States. We aimed to study the rate of colectomies performed for NMP and postoperative outcomes. We hypothesized that the annual colectomy rate for NMP is high despite the rare occurrence of invasive cancer found on final pathology. METHODS: We analyzed data from the ACS-NSQIP participant user file, colectomy module, from 2013 to 2019. Patients who underwent elective colectomy with a diagnosis of either NMP or colon cancer were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, colectomy rates and trends over the study period, as well as 30-day postoperative complications and mortality rate were assessed. RESULTS: 67,921 colectomies were performed for the diagnosis of cancer or NMP [14,726 (19%) only NMP]. The postoperative overall morbidity was 21% and mortality was 0.5% (1% for patients older than 70). Only 489 (3.3%) of colectomies performed for NMP had cancer on final pathology. The percentage of colectomies performed for NMP decreased from 22% to 16% over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Colon resections for NMP are still common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a low incidence of invasive cancer on final pathology. Advanced endoscopic interventions for NMP should be considered whenever possible and appropriate.

Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy: Results of a long-term follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups. RESULTS: There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90). CONCLUSION: Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.

Hemorrhoids: A range of treatments.

Hemorrhoids are a common reason for office visits. Each patient is unique, and with a range of treatments available, treatment can be individualized. This article reviews the diagnosis and decision-making process for individualized treatment.

Does laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis reduce infertility compared with open approach?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the association of the mode of surgery on female fertility after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. METHODS: All female patients aged 18 to 44 years who underwent restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis, familial adenomatous polyposis, or Crohn's disease at the Cleveland Clinic Ohio or the Cleveland Clinic Florida from 1983 to 2012 were sent a standardized fertility questionnaire. Infertility was defined as lack of pregnancy after 1 year of unprotected sexual intercourse. Patients who had attempted to conceive after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were compared based on the surgical approach: laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis versus open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. RESULTS: A total of 890 female patients were surveyed, of which 519 (58.3%) responded. Of these, 161 (31%) had attempted pregnancy after surgery: 18 (12%) had laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and 143 (88%) had open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. There were no significant differences regarding demographics between groups. There was no difference in reported infertility rates (61.1% vs 65%, respectively, P = 0.69) between the laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis groups. The median time to pregnancy (3.5 months vs 9 months, respectively, log-rank P = 0.01) was reduced in patients who underwent laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis compared with those who underwent open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. CONCLUSION: Postoperative infertility rates were higher after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis regardless of mode of surgery. However, laparoscopy was associated with a significantly reduced time to conceive compared with the open approach.

Effects of prior abdominal surgery on laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVES: With increased experience and technological advancement, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is reported to be safe and feasible even in the presence of most of the previously recognized contraindications. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of prior upper and lower abdominal surgery on laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of all sequential patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from January 2014 to June 2016 was conducted. Patients were divided into three groups (Group A: patients without any prior abdominal surgical procedures; Group B: patients with prior upper abdominal surgical procedures; and Group C: patients with prior lower abdominal surgical procedures). RESULTS: A total of 329 patients were assessed. Group A consisted of 223, Group B of 18, and Group C of 88 patients. A statistically significantly higher operative time, postoperative pain, and complication rate after laparoscopic cholecystectomy were noted in patients with prior upper abdominal surgery. The groups were comparable regarding patients' demographics and surgery indications. The length of hospital stay was not statistically different between the groups (p=0.065). CONCLUSION: According to the results of the current study, prior upper abdominal surgery leads to a significantly longer procedure time, higher postoperative pain, and complication rates after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the length of hospital stay was not affected by the parameters investigated.