The Impact of a Modular Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision Training Program on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes in Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Structured training programs for robotic colorectal surgery are limited, and there are concerns about surgical outcomes and operating times. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer performed by expert consultants and surgical trainees in a modular surgical training program. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Conducted at a colorectal training referral center for robotic surgery. PATIENTS: Consecutive robotic total mesorectal excision cases between May 2013 and December 2017 were evaluated retrospectively from a prospectively maintained institutional database and divided into 2 groups: group I comprised expert surgeons and group II comprised supervised trainees. Robotic total mesorectal excision training modules (5 modules) were performed stepwise with increasing complexity. Patients' demographic, perioperative, and oncological data were collected. INTERVENTIONS: Modular robotic training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparable R0 resection rate, lymph node harvest, and oncological outcomes between experts and trainees, suggesting good quality in oncological resection. RESULTS: A total of 177 robotic total mesorectal excision resections were performed (group I: n = 80, group II: n = 97). Four trainees completed 37.5 modules each. Patients' age, sex, and BMI were similar between groups. Group II had a higher ASA III score (6.3% vs 25.8%, p = 0.002). Clinical TNM and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy rates were similar. Group II had a longer operative time (225 [197.5-297.5] vs 250 [230-300] minutes, p = 0.004). No conversion occurred. There were no differences in intra- or postoperative outcomes between groups. The rate of R0 resection and the number of harvested lymph nodes were also similar between groups. The median follow-up was 75 (64.0-81.7) and 47 (38.0-55.0) months, respectively. Local and distant recurrence rates, 5-year overall survival (81.1% group I vs 81.3% group II, p = 0.832), and 5-year disease-free survival (79.7% group I vs 80.7% group II, p = 0.725) were similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: The groups operated in 2 consecutive periods. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic total mesorectal excision modular surgical training program maximizes training experience without significantly affecting the perioperative and oncological outcomes of patients with rectal cancer. See Video Abstract. EL IMPACTO DEL PROGRAMA MODULAR DE ENTRENAMIENTO EN ESCISIN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ROBTICA EN LOS RESULTADOS PERIOPERATORIOS Y ONCOLGICOS EN LA CIRUGA ROBTICA DEL CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:Los programas de entrenamiento estructurados para la cirugía colorrectal robótica están limitados debido a preocupaciones sobre los resultados quirúrgicos y los tiempos de operación.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios y oncológicos de la escisión mesorrectal total robótica para el cáncer de recto realizada por consultores expertos y aprendices de cirugía en un programa modular de entrenamiento quirúrgica.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Realizado en un centro de referencia de entrenamiento colorrectal para cirugía robótica.PACIENTES:Se evaluaron retrospectivamente casos consecutivos de escisión mesorrectal total robótica entre mayo de 2013 y diciembre de 2017 a partir de una base de datos institucional mantenida prospectivamente y se dividieron en dos grupos: Grupo I: cirujanos expertos; Grupo II: aprendices supervisados. Los módulos de entrenamiento robótico de escisión mesorrectal total (cinco módulos) se realizaron paso a paso con complejidad creciente. Se recogieron datos demográficos, perioperatorios y oncológicos.INTERVENCIONES:Entrenamiento modular en robótica.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tasa de resección R0 comparable, extracción de ganglios linfáticos y resultados oncológicos entre expertos y aprendices que sugieren buena calidad en la resección oncológica.RESULTADOS:Se realizaron un total de 177 resecciones por escisión mesorrectal total robótica (Grupo I: n = 80, Grupo II: n = 97). Cuatro alumnos completaron 37,5 módulos cada uno. La edad, el sexo y el IMC fueron similares entre los grupos. El grupo II tuvo una puntuación más alta de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiólogos III (6,3% frente a 25,8%, p = 0,002). Las tasas clínicas de TNM y quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante fueron similares. El grupo II tuvo mayor tiempo operatorio (225 (197,5-297,5) vs 250 (230-300) minutos, p = 0,004). No se produjo ninguna conversión. No hubo diferencias en los resultados intra o posoperatorios entre los grupos. La tasa de resección R0 y el número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos también fueron similares entre los grupos. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 75 (64,0-81,7) y 47 (38,0-55,0) meses, respectivamente. Tasas de recurrencia local y a distancia, supervivencia general a 5 años (81,1% Grupo I vs. 81,3% Grupo II, p = 0,832) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años (79,7% Grupo I vs. 80,7% Grupo II, p = 0,725) fueron similares entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Los grupos operaron en dos períodos consecutivos.CONCLUSIONES:El programa de entrenamiento quirúrgico modular para la escisión mesorrectal total robótica maximiza la experiencia de capacitación sin afectar significativamente los resultados perioperatorios y oncológicos de los pacientes con cáncer de recto. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez).

Robotic colorectal surgery training: Portsmouth perspective.

This study aims to discuss the principles and pillars of robotic colorectal surgery training and share the training pathway at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust. A narrative review is presented to discuss all the relevant and critical steps in robotic surgical training. Robotic training requires a stepwise approach, including theoretical knowledge, case observation, simulation, dry lab, wet lab, tutored programs, proctoring (in person or telementoring), procedure-specific training, and follow-up. Portsmouth Colorectal has an established robotic training model with a safe stepwise approach that has been demonstrated through perioperative and oncological results. Robotic surgery training should enable a trainee to use the robotic platform safely and effectively, minimize errors, and enhance performance with improved outcomes. Portsmouth Colorectal has provided such a stepwise training program since 2015 and continues to promote and augment safe robotic training in its field. Safe and efficient training programs are essential to upholding the optimal standard of care.

Radical cholecystectomy without liver resection for peritoneal side early incidental gallbladder cancer.

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. Simple cholecystectomy may be an adequate treatment only for very early disease (Tis, T1a), whereas reoperation is recommended for more advanced disease (T1b and T2). Radical cholecystectomy should have two fundamental objectives: To radically resect the liver parenchyma and to achieve adequate clearance of the lymph nodes. However, recent studies have shown that compared with lymph node dissection alone, liver resection does not improve survival outcomes. The oncological roles of lymphadenectomy and liver resection is distinct. Therefore, for patients with incidental GBC without liver invasion, hepatic resection is not always mandatory.

Quadruple Assessment of Colorectal Anastomosis after Laparoscopic Rectal Resection: A Retrospective Analysis of a Propensity-Matched Cohort.

Background: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most feared complications in colorectal surgery, with an incidence of 12-39% and associated risk of mortality of 2-24%. The causes of AL and the ways to prevent it are currently under investigation. This study aims to verify if a quadruple assessment of colorectal anastomosis could reduce AL incidence. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on rectal cancer surgery performed from January 2015 to December 2017 and from January 2021 to December 2023 at a tertiary referral cancer centre was performed. Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated. Results: A total of 293 patients were enrolled. AL incidence was lower in the quadruple assessment group than in the control group, reaching a statistically significant result (7.7% vs. 16%; p = 0.001). This result was also confirmed after a propensity score match analysis (PSM), in which the AL rate was lower in the quadruple assessment group (5.4% vs. 12.3%; p = 0.01). Conclusions: This study shows how the systematic implementation of a quadruple assessment when performing a colorectal anastomosis could increase awareness on anastomotic success and reduce the incidence of AL.

An Institutional Shift from Routine to Selective Diversion of Low Anastomosis in Robotic TME Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients Using the KHANS Technique: A Single-Centre Cohort Study.

(1) Background: In recent years, there has been a change in practice for diverting stomas in rectal cancer surgery, shifting from routine diverting stomas to a more selective approach. Studies suggest that the benefits of temporary ileostomies do not live up to their risks, such as high-output stomas, stoma dysfunction, and reoperation. (2) Methods: All rectal cancer patients treated with a robotic resection in a single tertiary colorectal centre in the UK from 2013 to 2021 were analysed. In 2015, our unit made a shift to a more selective approach to temporary diverting ileostomies. The cohort was divided into a routine diversion group treated before 2015 and a selective diversion group treated after 2015. Both groups were analysed and compared for short-term outcomes and morbidities. (3) Results: In group A, 63/70 patients (90%) had a diverting stoma compared to 98/135 patients (72.6%) in group B (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences between the groups in anastomotic leakages (11.8% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.312) or other complications (p = 0.117). There were also no significant differences in readmission (3.8% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.312) or reoperation (3.8% vs. 2.6%, p = 1.000) after stoma closure. After 1 year, 71.6% and 71.9% (p = 1.000) of patients were stoma-free. One major reason for the delay in stoma reversal was the COVID-19 pandemic, which only occurred in group B (0% vs. 22%, p = 0.054). (4) Conclusions: A more selective approach to diverting stomas for robotic rectal cancer patients does not lead to more complications or leaks and can be considered in the treatment of rectal cancer tumours.

Comparing total mesorectal excision with partial mesorectal excision for proximal rectal cancer: evaluating postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

The treatment role of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) in proximal rectal cancers (PRC) is still debated. Partial Mesorectal Excision (PME) can reduce morbidity in PRC patients. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes between the two groups. A total of 157 PRC patients were enrolled in this study (114 performed with PME and 43 with TME). The two groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. The overall postoperative complications rate was higher in TME group (18.4% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.05). The incidence of diverting ileostomy was also significantly higher in TME group (86.0% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.001). Overall survival rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group accordingly were: 94.6%, 89.3%, 81.5% and 93.2%, 87.6%, 78.4% (p = 0.324). Disease-free survival rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group were: 90.2%, 84.5%, 78.6% and 88.7%, 81.2%, 75.3% (p = 0.297), respectively. Local recurrence rates for 3, 5, and 7 years in PME and TME group were: 2.6%, 6.1%, 8.8% and 4.6%, 9.3%, 11.2% (p = 0.061), respectively. PME is feasible and can be safely performed in PRC patients with favorable oncological outcomes. TME is associated with increasing risk of surgical complications and requires a two-step surgery for stoma takedown.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for nonmetastatic pT4 colon cancer: A European multicentre propensity score-matched analysis.

AIM: Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly adopted for locally advanced colon cancer. However, evidence comparing robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) for nonmetastatic pT4 cancers is lacking. METHODS: This was a multicentre propensity score-matched (PSM) study of a cohort of consecutive patients with pT4 right colon cancer treated with RRC or LRC. The two surgical approaches were compared in terms of R0, number of lymph nodes harvested, intra- and postoperative complication rates, overall (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Among a total of 200 patients, 39 RRC were compared with 78 PS-matched LRC patients. The R0 rate was similar between RRC and LRC (92.3% vs. 96.2%, respectively; p = 0.399), as was the odds of retrieving 12 or more lymph nodes (97.4% vs. 96.2%; p = 1). No significant difference was noted for the mean operating time (192.9 min vs. 198.3 min; p = 0.750). However, RRC was associated with fewer conversions to laparotomy (5.1% vs. 20.5%; p = 0.032), less blood loss (36.9 vs. 95.2 mL; p < 0.0001), fewer postoperative complications (17.9% vs. 41%; p = 0.013), a shorter time to flatus (2 vs. 2.8 days; p = 0.009), and a shorter hospital stay (6.4 vs. 9.5 days; p < 0.0001) compared with LRC. These results were confirmed even when converted procedures were excluded from the analysis. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS (p = 0.757) and DFS (p = 0.321) did not significantly differ between RRC and LRC. CONCLUSION: Adequate oncological outcomes are observed for RRC and LRC performed for pT4 right colon cancer. However, RRC is associated with lower conversion rates and improved short-term postoperative outcomes.

Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (r-TAMIS): perioperative and short-term outcomes for local excision of rectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is an advanced technique for excision of early rectal cancers. Robotic TAMIS (r-TAMIS) has been introduced as technical improvement and potential alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in early rectal cancers and in frail patients. This study reports the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of r-TAMIS for local excision of early-stage rectal cancers. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected r-TAMIS database (July 2021-July 2023). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included. Median age and body mass index were 69.5 (62.0-77.7) years and 31.0 (21.0-36.5) kg/m2. Male sex was prevalent (n = 12, 60.0%). ASA III accounted for 66.7%. Median distance from anal verge was 7.5 (5.0-11.7) cm. Median operation time was 90.0 (60.0-112.5) minutes. Blood loss was minimal. There were no conversions. Median postoperative stay was 2.0 (1.0-3.0) days. Minor and major complication rates were 25.0% and 0%, respectively. Seventeen (85.0%) patients had an adenocarcinoma whilst three patients had an adenoma. R0 rate was 90.0%. Most tumours were pT1 (55.0%), followed by pT2 (25.0%). One patient (5.0%) had a pT3 tumour. Specimen and tumour maximal median diameter were 51.0 (41.0-62.0) mm and 21.5 (17.2-42.0) mm, respectively. Median specimen area was 193.1 (134.3-323.3) cm2. Median follow-up was 15.5 (10.0-24.0) months. One patient developed local recurrence (5.0%). CONCLUSIONS: r-TAMIS, with strict postoperative surveillance, is a safe and feasible approach for local excision of early rectal cancer and may have a role in surgically unfit and elderly patients who refuse or cannot undergo TME surgery. Future prospective multicentre large-scale studies are needed to report the long-term oncological outcomes.

Detection and Real-Time Surgical Assessment of Colorectal Liver Metastases Using Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging during Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Resections.

BACKGROUND: The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) recommends, with strong evidence, the use of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging combined with intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) to improve identification of superficial liver tumors. This study reports the use of ICG for the detection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) during minimally invasive liver resection. METHODS: A single-center consecutive series of minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) hepatic resections for CRLMs was prospectively evaluated (April 2019 and October 2023). RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were enrolled-11 undergoing laparoscopic and 14 undergoing robotic procedures. The median age was 65 (range 50-85) years. Fifty CRLMs were detected: twenty superficial, eight exophytic, seven shallow (<8 mm from the hepatic surface), and fifteen deep (>10 mm from the hepatic surface) lesions. The detection rates of CRLMs through preoperative imaging, laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS), ICG fluorescence, and combined modalities (ICG and LUS) were 88%, 90%, 68%, and 100%, respectively. ICG fluorescence staining allowed us to detect five small additional superficial lesions (not identified with other preoperative/intraoperative techniques). However, two lesions were false positive fluorescence accumulations. All rim fluorescence pattern lesions were CRLMs. ICG fluorescence was used as a real-time guide to assess surgical margins during parenchymal-sparing liver resections. All patients with integrity of the fluorescent rim around the CRLM displayed a radical resection during histopathological analysis. Four patients (8%) with a protruding rim or residual rim patterns had positive resection margins. CONCLUSIONS: ICG fluorescence imaging can be integrated with other conventional intraoperative imaging techniques to optimize intraoperative staging. Rim fluorescence proved to be a valid indicator of the resection margins: by removing the entire fluorescent area, a tumor-negative resection (R0) is achieved.

Robotic approach to colonic resection: For some or for all patients?

The robotic approach is rapidly gaining momentum in colorectal surgery. Its benefits in pelvic surgery have been extensively discussed and are well established amongst those who perform minimally invasive surgery. However, the same cannot be said for the robotic approach for colonic resection, where its role is still debated. Here we aim to provide an extensive debate between selective and absolute use of the robotic approach for colonic resection by combining the thoughts of experts in the field of robotic and minimally invasive colorectal surgery, dissecting all key aspects for a critical view on this exciting new paradigm in colorectal surgery.

Effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on anorectal function assessed with anorectal manometry: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Improvement in oncological survival for rectal cancer increases attention to anorectal dysfunction. Diagnostic questionnaires can evaluate quality of life but are subjective and dependent on patients' compliance. Anorectal manometry can objectively assess the continence mechanism and identify functional sphincter weakness and rectal compliance. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is presumed to affect anorectal function. We aim to assess anorectal function in rectal cancer patients who undergo total mesorectal excision, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation, using anorectal manometry measurements. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies comparing perioperative anorectal manometry between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and upfront surgery for rectal cancers. Primary outcomes were resting pressure, squeeze pressure, sensory threshold volume and maximal tolerable volume. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the systematic review, of which seven were included for metanalysis. 155 patients (45.3%) had neoadjuvant chemoradiation before definitive surgery, and 187 (54.6%) underwent upfront surgery. Most patients were male (238 vs. 118). The standardized mean difference of mean resting pressure, mean and maximum squeeze pressure, maximum resting pressure, sensory threshold volume, and maximal tolerable volume favored the upfront surgery group but without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Currently available evidence on anorectal manometry protocols failed to show any statistically significant differences in functional outcomes between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and upfront surgery. Further large-scale prospective studies with standardized neoadjuvant chemoradiation and anorectal manometry protocols are needed to validate these findings.

Stereotactic Navigation-Assisted Laparoscopic Resection of Challenging Low Pelvic Tumors: A Case Series.

(1) Introduction: The laparoscopic approach to low pelvic tumors is challenging and hindered by suboptimal tumor visualization and dissection, with possible oncological failure. Stereotactic navigation provides real-time image guidance that may optimize safety, accuracy, and precision when dissecting challenging low pelvic tumors. (2) Methods: Preoperative CT images were acquired with eight skin-fixed fiducials and loaded into a navigation system. A patient tracker was mounted on the bed side. Patient-to-image paired point registration was performed, and an instrument tracker was mounted on a laparoscopic instrument and calibrated for instrument tracking. Surgical operations were performed with real-time stereotactic navigation assistance. (3) Results: Three patients underwent stereotactic navigation surgery. Fiducial registration errors were good to optimal (±1.9, ±3.4, and ±3.4 mm). Lesions were easily identified and targeted with real-time navigation. Surgeries were uneventful. Histopathology examinations identified one retro-rectal schwannoma, one lateral pelvic recurrence from rectal adenocarcinoma, and one advanced anal canal carcinoma. No navigation-related complications, readmissions, or postoperative mortalities were observed. (4) Conclusions: The application of laparoscopic stereotactic navigation surgery to complex low pelvic tumors is feasible and could impact oncological surgical quality by enabling tumor targeting and ensuring resection margins. Further wider series are needed to confirm stereotactic navigation's impact on challenging low pelvic tumors.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series.

BACKGROUND: Around 20% of rectal tumors are locally advanced with invasion into adjacent structures at presentation. These may require surgical resections beyond boundaries of total mesorectal excision (bTME) for radicality. Robotic bTME is under investigation. This study reports perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic bTME for locally advanced rectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected robotic bTME resections (July 2015-November 2020). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated. RESULTS: One-hundred-sixty-eight patients (eight centres) were included. Median age and BMI were 60.0 (50.0-68.7) years and 24.0 (24.4-27.7) kg/m2. Female sex was prevalent (n = 95, 56.8%). Fifty patients (29.6%) were ASA III-IV. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was given to 125 (74.4%) patients. Median operative time was 314.0 (260.0-450.0) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 150.0 (27.5-500.0) ml. Conversion to laparotomy was seen in 4.8%. Postoperative complications occurred in 77 (45.8%) patients; 27.3% and 3.9% were Clavien-Dindo III and IV, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (n = 2). R0 rate was 92.9%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 72 (42.9%) patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 (10.0-65.7) months. Distant and local recurrences were seen in 35 (20.8%) and 15 patients (8.9%), respectively. Overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 91.7, 82.1, and 76.8%. Disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 84.0, 74.5, and 69.2%. CONCLUSION: Robotic bTME is technically safe with relatively low conversion rate, good OS, and acceptable DFS in the hands of experienced surgeons in high volume centres. In selected cases robotic approach allows for high R0 rates during bTME.

Robotic Approach to Paediatric Gastrointestinal Diseases: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for paediatric surgery has been on the rise since the early 2000s and is complicated by factors unique to paediatric surgery. The rise of robotic surgery has presented an opportunity in MIS for children, and recent developments in the reductions in port sizes and single-port surgery offer promising prospects. This study aimed to present a systematic overview and analysis of the existing literature around the use of robotic platforms in the treatment of paediatric gastrointestinal diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA Statement, a systematic review on paediatric robotic gastrointestinal surgery was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, and Scopus. A critical appraisal of the study was performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, of which seven were on Hirschsprung's disease and eight on other indications. Included studies were heterogeneous in their populations, age, and sex, but all reported low incidences of intraoperative complications and conversions in their robotic cohorts. Only one study reported on a comparator cohort, with a longer operative time in the robotic cohort (180 vs. 152 and 156 min, p < 0.001), but no significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, or conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery may play a role in the treatment of paediatric gastrointestinal diseases. There is limited data available on modern robotic platforms and almost no comparative data between any robotic platforms and conventional minimally invasive approaches. Further technological developments and research are needed to enhance our understanding of the potential that robotics may hold for the field of paediatric surgery.

Perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a retrospective study of 672 patients.

Although there's growing information about the long-term oncological effects of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, the procedure is still relatively new. This study aimed to assess the long-term oncological results of total mesorectal excision (TME) performed laparoscopically versus robotically in the setting of rectal cancer. Restrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. A total of 489 laparoscopic (L-TME) and 183 robotic total mesorectal excisions (R-TME) were carried out by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2023. The groups were compared in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. In the R-TME and L-TME groups, male sex predominated (75.4% and 57.3%, respectively), although the robotic group was significantly greater (p = 0.008). There was no conversion in R-TME group, whereas three (0.6%) converted to open surgery in L-TME group. The R-TME group had a statistically significant higher number of distal rectal tumors (85%) compared to the L-TME group (54.6%). Only three (1.7%) patients in the R-TME group received abdomineperineal resection (APR); in contrast, 25 (5%) patients in the L-TME group received APR (p < 0.001). For R-TME, the mean follow-up was 70.7 months (range 18-138) and for L-TME, it was 60 months (range 14-140). Frequency of completed mesorectum was significantly greater in R-TME group (98.9% vs 94.2%, p < 0.001). The 5 year overall survival rates for R-TME and L-TME groups were 89.6% and 88.7%, respectively. The 5 year disease-free survival for R-TME and L-TME groups were 84.1% and 81.1%, respectively. The local recurrences rates were 7.6% and 6.3%, respectively in R-TME and L-TME groups (p = 0.274). R-TME is characterized by no conversion and improved mesorectal integrity. R-TME had longer operation time. The long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between groups.

Role of Oxaliplatin in the Neoadjuvant Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: a Review of Evidence.

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is a challenging situation for radiation oncologists and colorectal surgeons. Most current approaches recommend neoadjuvant fluorouracil or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery as a standard of care. Intensification of concurrent chemotherapy by adding oxaliplatin to fluorouracil or capecitabine backbone to get better outcomes is the matter that has remained unresolved. In this review, we searched Medline and Google Scholar databases and selected 28 prospective phase II and III clinical trials that addressed this question. We discussed the potential advantages and drawbacks of incorporating oxaliplatin into concurrent chemoradiation therapy. We tried to define whether adding oxaliplatin to concurrent chemoradiation with excellent performance and high-risk features benefits some subpopulations. The available literature suggests that by adding oxaliplatin there are some benefits in enhancing response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, however, without any translated improvements in long-term outcomes including overall and disease-free survival.

Laparoscopic versus Open Emergency Surgery for Right Colon Cancers.

BACKGROUND: A laparoscopic approach to right colectomies for emergency right colon cancers is under investigation. This study compares perioperative and oncological long-term outcomes of right colon cancers undergoing laparoscopic or open emergency resections and identifies risk factors for survival. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database between 2009 and 2019. Demographics, clinicopathological features, recurrence, and survival were investigated. Cox regression analysis was performed for risk factor analysis. RESULTS: A total of 202 right colectomies (114 open and 88 laparoscopic) were included. ASA III-IV was higher in the open group. The conversion rate was 14.8%. Laparoscopic surgery was significantly longer (156 vs. 203 min, p < 0.001); pTNM staging did not differ. Laparoscopy was associated with higher lymph node yield, and showed better resection clearance (R0, 78.9 vs. 87.5%, p = 0.049) and shorter postoperative stay (12.5 vs. 8.0 days, p < 0.001). Complication rates and grade were similar. The median length of follow-up was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (20.5 vs. 33.5 months, p < 0.001). Recurrences were similar (34.2 vs. 36.4%). Open surgery had lower five-year overall survival (OS, 27.1 vs. 51.7%, p = 0.001). Five-year disease-free survival was similar (DFS, 55.8 vs. 56.5%). Surgical approach, pN, pM, retrieved LNs, R stage, and complication severity were risk factors for OS upon multivariate analysis. Pathological N stage and R stage were risk factors for DFS upon multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A laparoscopic approach to right colon cancers in an emergency setting is safe in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. Randomized control trials are required to further investigate these results.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical treatment for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer requires oncological clearance with a pelvic exenteration or a beyond total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this systematic review is to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer by evaluating perioperative outcomes, oncological clearance rates, and survival and recurrence rates postrobotic beyond TME surgery. METHODS: The systematic review will include studies published until the end of December 2023. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases will be searched. The screening process, study selection, data extraction, quality assessment and analysis will be performed by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus with a third independent reviewer. The risk of bias will be assessed with validated scores. The primary outcomes will be oncological clearance, overall and disease-free survival, and local and systemic recurrence rates post robotic or robot-assisted beyond TME surgery for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. Secondary outcomes will include perioperative outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this systematic review as no individual patient cases are studied requiring access to individual medical records. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated with conference presentations and peer-reviewed paper publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION OF THE STUDY: CRD42023408098.

Robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving resections have similar peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes in female patients with rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare perioperative, long-term oncological, and anorectal functional outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision in female patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Sixty-eight cases (L-TME, n = 34; R-TME, n = 34) were performed by a single surgeon (January 2014-January 2019). Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications, pathology results, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. Mean operating time was longer in R-TME (165.50 ± 95.50 vs. 124.50 ± 82.60 min, p < 0.001). There was no conversion to open surgery in both groups. Mesorectal integrity was complete in both groups (100%). Length of distal and circumferential resection margins (CRM) did not differ between groups. CRM involvement was observed in 1 (2.8%) and 1 (2.8%) in L-TME and R-TME patients, respectively. Incidence of anastomotic leakage was 5.8% (n = 2) in L-TME and 8.8% (n = 3) in R-TME, respectively. Mean length of follow-up was 62.5 (36-102) months for R-TME and 63 (36-103) months for L-TME. Five-year overall survival rates were 92.8% in L-TME and 89.6% in R-TME. Disease-free survival rates were 87.5% in L-TME and 89.6% in R-TME. Local recurrence rates were 3.0% for both groups. Mean Wexner score for L-TME and R-TME patients was: 9.42 ± 8.23 and 9.22 ± 3.64 (p = 0.685), respectively. Daily stool frequency was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) have similar perioperative, oncological, and anorectal functional results in female patients with rectal cancer. The robotic approach for rectal cancers in female patients could be not as critical as for male patients.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome.

AIM: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol. RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements. CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.