Permanent stoma rate and long-term stoma complications in laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The surgical resection of rectal carcinoma is associated with a high risk of permanent stoma rate. Primary anastomosis rate is suggested to be higher in robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision, but permanent stoma rate is unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for MRI-defined rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in 11 centers highly experienced in laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision were included in this retrospective study. Permanent stoma rate, stoma-related complications, readmissions, and reoperations were registered. A multivariable regression analysis was performed for permanent stoma rate, stoma-related complications, and stoma-related reoperations. RESULTS: In total, 1198 patients were included. Permanent stoma rate after low anterior resection (with anastomosis or with an end colostomy) was 40.1% in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, 21.3% in patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery, and 25.6% in patients undergoing transanal surgery (P < 0.001). Permanent stoma rate after low anterior resection with an anastomosis was 17.3%, 11.8%, and 15.1%, respectively. The robot-assisted and transanal techniques were independently associated with a reduction in permanent stoma rate in patients who underwent a low anterior resection (with anastomosis or with an end colostomy) (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.25, 0.59] and OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.22, 0.55]), while this was not seen in patients who underwent a restorative low anterior resection. 45.4% of the patients who had a stoma experienced stoma-related complications, 4.0% were at least once readmitted, and 8.9% underwent at least one reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The robot-assisted and transanal techniques are associated with a lower permanent stoma rate in patients who underwent a low anterior resection.

Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Versus Transanal Low Anterior Resection: 3-Year Oncologic Results for a Population-Based Cohort in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account. METHODS: This retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression. RESULTS: The 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes were equal between the three techniques. The 3-year OS rate was 90% for laparoscopic resection, 90.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 87.6% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year DFS rate was 77.8% for laparoscopic resection, 75.8% for robot-assisted resection, and 78.8% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year local recurrence rate was in 6.1% for laparoscopic resection, 6.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 5.7% for transanal procedures. Cox-regression did not show a significant difference between the techniques while taking confounders into account. CONCLUSION: The oncologic results during the 3-year follow-up were good and comparable between laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal technique at experienced centers. These techniques can be performed safely in experienced hands.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres. METHODS: Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ. CONCLUSION: In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres.

The results of this study showed similar and acceptable short-term results for laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision performed in expert centres. In centres with robot-assisted or transanal technique, more primary anastomoses were made.

Morbidity and costs of diverting ileostomy in transanal total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of diverting ileostomy is debated in rectal cancer surgery with primary anastomosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the associated morbidity and hospital costs of diversion after sphincter saving TaTME surgery. METHODS: All patients undergoing TaTME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between January 2012 and December 2019 in a single centre in the Netherlands were included. Patients with diverting ileostomy creation during primary surgery were compared with those without ileostomy. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, anastomotic leakage rates and total hospital costs at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred and one patients were included in the ileostomy group, and 46 patients were in the non-ileostomy group. The number of female patients was 31 (30.7%) in the ileostomy group and 21 (45.7%) in the non-ileostomy group Mean age was 64.5 ± 11.1 years in the ileostomy group and 62.6 ± 10.7 years in the non-ileostomy group The anastomotic leakage rate was 21.7% in the non-ileostomy group and 15.8% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.385). The grade of leakage and number of anastomotic takedowns did not differ between groups. Mean costs at 1 year after surgery was €26,500.13 in the ileostomy group and €16,852.61 in the non-ileostomy group. The main cost driver was longer total length of hospital stay at 1 year (mean 12.4 ± 13.3 days vs 20.6 ± 12.6 days, p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and associated costs after diverting ileostomy are high. The incidence and morbidity of anastomotic leakage was not reduced by creation of an ileostomy. Omission of a diverting ileostomy after TaTME could possibly result in a reduction in treatment associated morbidity and costs.

Locoregional recurrences after transanal total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer during implementation.

BACKGROUND: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been proposed as an approach in patients with mid and low rectal cancer. The TaTME procedure has been introduced in the Netherlands in a structured training pathway, including proctoring. This study evaluated the local recurrence rate during the implementation phase of TaTME. METHODS: Oncological outcomes of the first ten TaTME procedures in each of 12 participating centres were collected as part of an external audit of procedure implementation. Data collected from a cohort of patients treated over a prolonged period in four centres were also collected to analyse learning curve effects. The primary outcome was the presence of locoregional recurrence. RESULTS: The implementation cohort of 120 patients had a median follow up of 21·9 months. Short-term outcomes included a positive circumferential resection margin rate of 5·0 per cent and anastomotic leakage rate of 17 per cent. The overall local recurrence rate in the implementation cohort was 10·0 per cent (12 of 120), with a mean(s.d.) interval to recurrence of 15·2(7·0) months. Multifocal local recurrence was present in eight of 12 patients. In the prolonged cohort (266 patients), the overall recurrence rate was 5·6 per cent (4·0 per cent after excluding the first 10 procedures at each centre). CONCLUSION: TaTME was associated with a multifocal local recurrence rate that may be related to suboptimal execution rather than the technique itself. Prolonged proctoring, optimization of the technique to avoid spillage, and quality control is recommended.

ANTECEDENTES: La escisión total del mesorrecto por vía transanal (Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision, TaTME) se ha propuesto como abordaje quirúrgico en pacientes con cáncer de recto medio e inferior. La técnica TaTME se ha introducido en los Países Bajos mediante un proceso de formación estructurado que incluye la supervisión. Este estudio evaluó el porcentaje de recidiva local durante la fase de implementación de TaTME. MÉTODOS: Se recogieron los resultados oncológicos de los primeros 10 procedimientos realizados mediante TaTME en cada uno de los 12 centros participantes como parte de una auditoría externa de implementación del procedimiento. Se reunió una cohorte más amplia de pacientes procedentes de 4 centros para analizar los efectos de la curva de aprendizaje. El criterio de valoración principal fue la presencia de recidiva locorregional. RESULTADOS: La cohorte de implementación de 120 pacientes tuvo una mediana de seguimiento de 21,9 meses. Los resultados a corto plazo incluyeron una tasa del margen de resección circunferencial positivo del 5% y una tasa de fuga anastomótica del 17,4%. La tasa global de recidiva local en la cohorte de implementación fue del 10% (12/120) con un intervalo medio de recidiva de 15,2 (DE 7) meses. El patrón de recidiva local fue multifocal en 8 de 12 casos (67%). En la cohorte ampliada (n = 266), la tasa global de recidiva fue del 5,6% (4,0%, excluyendo a los primeros 10 pacientes). CONCLUSIÓN: TaTME se asoció con un porcentaje de recidiva local multifocal que puede relacionarse con una ejecución subóptima, más que con la técnica en sí. Se recomienda una supervisión prolongada, la optimización de la técnica para evitar la diseminación tumoral, así como un control de calidad.

Simultaneous Large Paraesophageal Hernia Repair and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Single Institution's Experience.

This study reviews a single institution's experience with simultaneous (redo) laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and primary large paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair. A retrospective review was done of all 13 patients who underwent simultaneous LRYGB and large PEH repair between February 2014 and December 2017 at our institution. All patients had a large type III or IV PEH. All patients underwent primary crural repair, without the use of a reinforcing mesh. No patients underwent additional surgery for obstruction of the gastric pouch or for symptomatic recurrence of PEH. No mortality was reported. Our study highlights that simultaneous primary large PEH repair and primary or redo LRYGB is safe and feasible.