Laparoscopic transanal minimally invasive surgery (L-TAMIS) versus robotic TAMIS (R-TAMIS): short-term outcomes and costs of a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has gained worldwide popularity as a method for the local excision of rectal neoplasms. However, it is technically demanding due to limited working space. Robotic TAMIS offers potential enhanced dexterity and ability while allowing for a more aggressive resection with a stable platform. The objective of this study was to review a single institution experience between laparoscopic (L-TAMIS) and robotic TAMIS (R-TAMIS) for treatment of rectal neoplasms and determine if there are significant differences on outcomes. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with rectal neoplasms underwent L-TAMIS or R-TAMIS by two colorectal surgeons from January 2012 to April 2017. We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database to analyze demographics, peri-operative data, pathology, post-operative complications, and cost. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between L- and R-TAMIS on patient demographics. R-TAMIS showed a statically significant increase in cost of surgery by $880. Median direct cost of L-TAMIS was $3562 compared to $4440.92 for R-TAMIS (p = 0.04). Wider range of total duration for L-TAMIS is likely due to the variability of body habitus and location of rectal neoplasm, which can significantly limit L-TAMIS compare to R-TAMIS. There was a trend toward decreased blood loss in the R-TAMIS group. Mortality was 0% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: After reviewing our experience, we conclude there is no significant difference between L- and R-TAMIS other than total direct cost. We confirmed that both L- and R-TAMIS are safe and associated with low morbidity. The limitations of this study include its small sample size. In the future, we hope to show promising data on R-TAMIS with increased sample size and experience, which may allow for transanal resection not previously feasible. Studies with long-term follow-up assessing oncological and functional results will be mandatory.

Soy isoflavones as safe functional ingredients.

In recent years, isoflavones have increased in popularity as an alternative to estrogen therapy, particularly after the Women's Health Initiative demonstrated an increased risk of breast cancer, stroke, and heart attacks in response to estrogen and progesterone intervention. Isoflavones are heterocyclic phenols with structural similarity to estradiol-17beta and selective estrogen receptor modulators. Actions at the cellular level depend on the target tissue, receptor status of the tissue, and the level of endogenous estrogen. Clinical studies of soy-based diets evaluating the relation between soy consumption and serum lipid concentrations revealed that soy consumption significantly decreased total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels. Epidemiological studies suggest a protective effect of soy protein on breast tissue as evidenced by the lower rates of breast cancer in East Asian countries where soy is a predominant part of the diet. Soy products also alleviate menopausal symptoms by reducing hot flashes. However, whether these biological effects of soy products originated from isoflavones is not clear. Furthermore, data available from human studies on the effect of isoflavones on osteoporosis are limited, and additional studies are needed to support a role in osteoporosis prevention. To date, no adverse effects of short- or long-term use of soy proteins are known in humans, and the only adverse effects known are those reported in animals. In conclusion, isoflavones are biologically active compounds, and current data are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions regarding the use of isoflavones as an alternative to estrogen for hormone replacement in postmenopausal women. Large, long-term intervention studies examining adverse effects and disease outcomes are needed before definitive conclusion can be drawn.