The impact of COVID-19 on general surgical trainees' surgical exposure in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the provision of surgical services in Australia. To prepare for a surge of COVID-19 patients, elective surgery was mandatorily reduced or ceased at multiple timepoints in Australian states between 2020 and 2022. Operative exposure is a critical component of surgical training in general surgery, and readiness for practice is an ongoing priority. However, the impact of COVID-19 on operative exposure in Australian General Surgical Trainees (AGST) has not been quantified. METHODS: This study was a retrospective longitudinal cohort study using de-identified operative logbook data for Australian General surgical Trainees (AGST) from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) Morbidity and Audit Logbook Tool (MALT) system between February 2019 and July 2021. Bivariate analysis was used to determine the impact of COVID-19 on general surgical trainees' exposure to operative surgery and trainees' operative autonomy. RESULTS: Data from 1896 unique 6-month training terms and 543 285 surgical cases was included over the data collection period. There was no statistically significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AGST operative exposure to major, minor operations, endoscopies, or operative autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of COVID-19 on surgical trainees globally has been significant. Although this study does not assess all aspects of surgical training, this data demonstrates that there has not been a significant impact of the pandemic on operative exposure or autonomy of AGST.

Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs. RESULTS: During the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 ± 83.4 versus 243 ± 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 ± 8235 versus A$15,525 ± 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 ± 14,770 versus A$26,083 ± 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA ≥ 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Robotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy: Feasibility and short-term outcomes.

AIM: To explore the feasibility and safety of robotic beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy. METHODS: Patients undergoing robotic beyond TME resections for primary or recurrent pelvic malignancy between July 2015 and July 2021 in a public quaternary and a private tertiary centre were included. Demographic and clinical data were recorded and outcomes analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (50% males) were included, with a median age of 58 (45-70.8) years, and a BMI of 26 (24.3-28.1) kg/m2 . Indication for surgery was rectal adenocarcinoma in nineteen, leiomyosarcoma in two, anal squamous cell carcinoma in one and combined rectal and prostatic adenocarcinoma in two patients. All patients required resection of at least one adjacent pelvic organ including genitourinary structures (n = 23), internal iliac vessels (n = 3) and/or bone (n = 2). Eleven patients had a restorative procedure. Of the 13 nonrestorative cases, nine needed perineal reconstruction with a flap. There was one conversion due to bleeding. The mean operating time was 370 (285-424) min, and the median blood loss was 400 (200-2,000) ml. The median length of stay was 16 (9.3-23.8) days. Fourteen patients (58.3%) had postoperative complications; eight of them (33.3%) were Clavien-Dindo III or more complication. Twenty-three (95.8%) patients had an R0 resection. During a median follow-up of 10 (7-23.5) months, five patients (20.8%) had systemic recurrences. No local recurrences were identified during the study period. CONCLUSION: Implementation of robotic beyond TME surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy is feasible within a highly specialised setting.

Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?

BACKGROUND: Although currently limited, the requirement for colorectal trainees to attain skills in robotic surgery is likely to increase due to further utilization of robotic platforms globally. The aim of the study is to describe the training programme utilized and assess outcomes of fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A structured robotic training programme was generated across a tertiary hospital setting. Review of four prospectively maintained fellow operative logbooks was performed to assess caseload and skill acquisition. Operative and patient-related outcomes were compared with consultant trainer performed cases. Data were analysed using R with a P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: The structured robotic training scheme is a two-tiered system over a 12-month period. The trainer-directed pathway comprised of a robotic console safety course followed by cart-side assisting, a wet lab animal course, dual-console accreditation training course and onsite proctoring, prior to becoming an independent console surgeon. Over 2 years, 265 robotic (n = 143 primary/component surgeon) cases were undertaken with fellows A, B, C and D involved in 63, 77, 75 and 50 robotic colorectal cases, respectively. Individual learning curves revealed independent procedure competency at cases 11, 14, 15 and 12, respectively, for robotic anterior resection. There was no significant difference observed in operative time (P = 0.39), blood loss (P = 0.41), lymph node harvest (P = 0.35), conversion rates (2% versus 4%), anastomotic leaks (1% versus 3%) and R0 resection rates (100% versus 98% colonic, 96% versus 96% rectal, P = 0.48) between surgical fellows and consultant trainers. Clavien-Dindo(III-IV) complications were similar (10% versus 6%,P = 0.25) with no mortalities encountered. CONCLUSION: It is feasible and safe to train fellows in robotic colorectal surgery without compromise of operative- and patient-related outcomes.

Revising the definition of vertical margin involvement following endoscopic polypectomy may reduce unnecessary surgery in patients with malignant colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps (MCPs) present a dilemma regarding whether the risk of residual disease justifies a major bowel resection. Overtreatment is common, and the vast majority of patients who undergo resection have no residual tumor. The aim of this study was to investigate whether revising the definition of vertical margin involvement following MCP polypectomy could reduce unnecessary surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cohort study of consecutive patients with MCPs treated at a tertiary hospital between 2004 and 2018. Data on demographics, index colonoscopy, polyp pathology, and any subsequent surgical resection were analyzed. Polypectomy resection margins were reviewed and measured to the nearest decimal place. The ability of existing guidelines (requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 1 mm) to predict residual disease was compared to a revised version requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 0.1 mm. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients with an MCP were included. Of these 129 patients, 77 (60%) underwent surgical resection, of which 62 (81%) had no residual tumor. Existing guidelines, requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 1 mm, classified 28 patients as being at "low risk" for residual disease. Of these, four underwent surgery, but none had residual tumor (P = 0.031). Revised guidelines, requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 0.1 mm, classified 44 patients as "low risk." Of these, in the 13 that had surgery, no residual tumor was found (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Revising the definition of vertical margin involvement leads to more patients being correctly classified as being at low risk of residual disease. This has the potential to reduce unnecessary surgery in patients with MCPs.