Long-term quality of life after hybrid robot-assisted and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single center: a comparative analysis.

PURPOSE: Due to improved survival of esophageal cancer patients, long-term quality of life (QoL) is increasingly gaining importance. The aim of this study is to compare QoL outcomes between open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E) and a hybrid approach including laparotomy and a robot-assisted thoracic phase (hRob-E). Additionally, a standard group of healthy individuals serves as reference. METHODS: With a median follow-up of 36 months after hRob-E (n = 28) and 40 months after Open-E (n = 43), patients' QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Esophagus specific QoL questionnaire 18 (QLQ-OES18). RESULTS: Patients showed similar clinical-pathological characteristics, but hRob-E patients had significantly higher ASA scores at surgery (p < 0.001). Patients and healthy controls reported similar global health status and emotional and cognitive functions. However, physical functioning of Open-E patients was significantly reduced compared to healthy controls (p = 0.019). Operated patients reported reduced role and social functioning, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, and diarrhea. A trend towards a better pain score after hRob-E compared to Open-E emerged (p = 0.063). Regarding QLQ-OES18, hRob-E- and Open-E-treated patients similarly reported eating problems, reflux, and troubles swallowing saliva. CONCLUSIONS: The global health status is not impaired after esophagectomy. Despite higher ASA scores, QoL of hRob-E patients is similar to that of patients operated with Open-E. Moreover, patients after hRob-E appear to have a better score regarding physical functioning and a better pain profile than patients after Open-E, indicating a benefit of minimally invasive surgery.

Omission of perioperative morphine reduces postoperative pain in proctological interventions: a single-center analysis.

There is an increase in outpatient procedures and this trend will continue in the future. For hemorrhoidectomy, it is the standard of treatment in many health care systems. Perioperative management including adequate pain control is of paramount importance to ensure successful ambulatory surgery. This study investigates the role and effect of morphine compared to short-acting opiates applied before, during, or after proctological interventions and with focus on hemorrhoidectomy. A retrospective analysis of a prospective database was conducted comparing two populations. The control cohort received morphine (Yes-Mô) intra- and postoperatively, while the intervention group did not receive morphine (No-Mô) between January 2018 and January 2020. Both cohorts were balanced by propensity score matching. The outcomes were postoperative pain measured by numeric ratings scale (NRS) one hour postoperatively, pain 24 h postoperatively, success rate of outpatient management, and complication rate including postoperative nausea and vomiting as well as urinary retention. The intervention population comprised 54 patients and the control group contained 79 patients. One hour after surgery, patients in No-Mô reported lower NRS (1.44 ± 1.41) compared to Yes-Mô (2.48 ± 2.30) (p = 0.029). However, there was no difference in NRS 24 h postoperatively (No-Mô: 1.61 ± 1.41 vs Yes-Mô: 1.63 ± 1.72; p = 0.738). 100% of No-Mô was managed as outpatients while only 50% of Yes-Mô was dismissed on the day of the operation (p = < 0.001). There was no difference in postoperative complications (including postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and urinary retention) between the two groups (PONV No-Mô 7.4% vs Yes-Mô 5.6%, p = 1.0 and urinary retention No-Mô 3.7% vs Yes-Mô 7.4%, p = 0.679). No-Mô received an oral morphine equivalent of 227.25 ± 140.35 mg intraoperatively and 11.02 ± 18.02 mg postoperatively. Yes-Mô received 263.17 ± 153.60 mg intraoperatively and 15.97 ± 14.17 mg postoperatively. The difference in received morphine equivalent between the groups was not significant after matching for the intraoperative (p = 0.212) and postoperative (p = 0.119) received equivalent. Omission of perioperative morphine is a viable but yet not understood method for reducing postoperative pain. Omission of morphine leads to a lower use of total morphine equivalent to attain satisfactory analgesia. The reduction of the overall opiate load and using opiates with a very short half-life potentially leads to a reduction of side effects like sedation. This in turn promotes discharge of the patient on the day of surgery. Omission of morphine is safe and does not increase postoperative complications.

Robotic Versus Conventional Minimal-Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair: Study Protocol for a Prospective, Randomized and Blinded Clinical Trial.

Introduction: Inguinal hernia repairs are commonly performed procedures. The surgical techniques vary from open procedures to minimally invasive and robotic-assisted surgeries and include totally extra-peritoneal hernia repairs (TEP) and robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal hernia repairs (rTAPP). So far, there is no randomized and blinded clinical trial comparing these two surgical approaches. Our objective is to investigate whether rTAPP is associated with a decreased postoperative level of pain. Methods: This is a prospective, single center, randomized and blinded clinical trial. Patients will receive either rTAPP or TEP for uni- or bilateral inguinal hernias. All patients and assessors of the study are blinded to the randomization. The perioperative setting is standardized, and all surgeons will perform both rTAPP and TEP to eliminate surgeons` bias. Primary endpoint is the assessment of pain while coughing 24 hours after surgery using the numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary endpoints include the assessment of multiple pain and quality of life questionnaires at several defined times according to the study schedule. Furthermore, intra- and postoperative complications, duration until discharge, procedure time, duration of postoperative sick leave and the recurrence rate will be evaluated. Registry: The trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the registry number NCT05216276. Highlights: Trial comparing robotic and conventional minimal-invasive inguinal hernia repairRandomized and patient/assessor blinded trialEarly postoperative pain as primary outcome (24 hours)Secondary patient outcomes include pain and quality of life scores up to one yearFurther secondary outcomes: complications, costs, surgeon's stress level.

Continuously sutured versus linear-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted hybrid Ivor Lewis esophageal surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a single-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer surgery is technically highly demanding. During the past decade robot-assisted surgery has successfully been introduced in esophageal cancer treatment. Various techniques are being evaluated in different centers. In particular, advantages and disadvantages of continuously sutured (COSU) or linear-stapled (LIST) gastroesophageal anastomoses are debated. Here, we comparatively analyzed perioperative morbidities and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing hybrid robot-assisted esophageal surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), with COSU or LIST anastomoses in a single center. METHODS: Following standardized, effective, nCRT, 53 patients underwent a hybrid Ivor Lewis robot-assisted esophagectomy with COSU (n = 32) or LIST (n = 21) gastroesophageal anastomoses. Study endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Duration of operation, intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital stay were also evaluated. Furthermore, rates of rehospitalization, endoscopies, anastomotic stenosis and recurrence were assessed in a 90-day follow-up. RESULTS: Demographics, ASA scores and tumor characteristics were comparable in the two groups. Median duration of operation was similar in patients with COSU and LIST anastomosis (467 vs. 453 min, IQR 420-521 vs. 416-469, p = 0.0611). Major complications were observed in 4/32 (12.5%) and 4/21 (19%) patients with COSU or LIST anastomosis, respectively (p = 0.697). Anastomotic leakage was observed in 3/32 (9.3%) and 2/21 (9.5%) (p = 1.0) patients with COSU or LIST anastomosis, respectively. Pleural empyema occurred in 1/32 (3.1%) and 2/21 (9.5%) (p = 0.555) patients, respectively. Mortality was similar in the two groups (1/32, 3.1% and 1/21, 4.7%, p = 1.0). Median ICU stay did not differ in patients with COSU or LIST anastomosis (p = 0.255), whereas a slightly, but significantly (p = 0.0393) shorter overall hospital stay was observed for COSU, as compared to LIST cohort (median: 20 vs. 21 days, IQR 17-22 vs. 18-28). CONCLUSIONS: COSU is not inferior to LIST in the performance of gastroesophageal anastomosis in hybrid Ivor Lewis operations following nCRT.

From open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy to a hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approach: a single-center experience over two decades.

PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted procedures are increasingly used in esophageal cancer surgery. We compared postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes following hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (Rob-E) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E), performed in a single mid-volume center, in the context of evolving preoperative patient and tumor characteristics over two decades. METHODS: We evaluated prospectively collected data from a single center from 1999 to 2020 including 321 patients that underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, 76 underwent Rob-E, and 245 Open-E. To compare perioperative outcomes, a 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed. Endpoints included postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics revealed increased rates of adenocarcinomas and wider use of neoadjuvant treatment over time. A larger number of patients with higher ASA grades were operated with Rob-E. In case-matched cohorts, there were no differences in the overall morbidity (69.7% in Rob-E, 60.5% in Open-E, p value 0.307), highest Clavien-Dindo grade per patient (43.4% vs. 38.2% grade I or II, p value 0.321), comprehensive complication index (median 20.9 in both groups, p value 0.401), and 30-day mortality (2.6% in Rob-E, 3.9% in Open-E, p value 1.000). Similar median numbers of lymph nodes were harvested (24.5 in Rob-E, 23 in Open-E, p value 0.204), and comparable rates of R0-status (96.1% vs. 93.4%, p value 0.463) and distribution of postoperative UICC stages (overall p value 0.616) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates similar postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes after Rob-E and Open-E. However, the selection criteria for Rob-E appeared to be less restrictive than those of Open-E surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer: a single-centre cohort study.

Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) of locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with challenging surgical treatment and increased postoperative morbidity. Robotic technology overcomes laparoscopy limitations by enlarged 3D view, improved anatomical transection accuracy, and physiologic tremor reduction. Patients with UICC stage II-III rectal cancer, consecutively referred to our institution between March 2015 and June 2020 (n = 102) were treated with robotic (Rob-G, n = 38) or laparoscopic (Lap-G, n = 64) low anterior resection (LAR) for total meso-rectal excision (TME) following highly standardized and successful nCRT treatment. Feasibility, conversion rates, stoma creation, morbidity and clinical/pathological outcome were comparatively analysed. Sex, age, BMI, ASA scores, cTN stages and tumour distance from dentate line were comparable in the two groups. Robotic resection was always feasible without conversion to open surgery, which was necessary in 11/64 (17%) Lap-G operations (p = 0.006). Primary or secondary stomata were created in 17/38 (45%) Rob-G and 52/64 (81%) Lap-G patients (p < 0.001). Major morbidity occurred in 7/38 (18.4%) Rob-G and 6/64 (9.3%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.225). Although median operation time was longer in Rob-G compared with Lap-G (376; IQR: 330-417 min vs. 300; IQR: 270-358 min; p < 0.001), the difference was not significant in patients (Rob-G, n = 6; Lap-G, n = 10) with ≥30 BMI (p = 0.106). Number of resected lymph nodes, ypTN staging and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were comparable. Resection was complete in 87% of Rob-G and 89% of Lap-G patients (p = 0.750). Robotic LAR is not inferior to laparoscopic LAR following nCRT. Larger, randomized studies are needed to confirm lower conversion in robotic, compared to laparoscopic resection.

Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic repair of complete upside-down stomach hiatal hernia (the RATHER-study): a prospective comparative single center study.

BACKGROUND: Complete upside-down stomach (cUDS) hernias are a subgroup of large hiatal hernias characterized by high risk of life-threatening complications and technically challenging surgical repair including complex mediastinal dissection. In a prospective, comparative clinical study, we evaluated intra- and postoperative outcomes, quality of life and symptomatic recurrence rates in patients with cUDS undergoing robot-assisted, as compared to standard laparoscopic repair (the RATHER-study). METHODS: All patients with cUDS herniation requiring elective surgery in our institution between July 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Patients undergoing primary open surgery or additional associated procedures were not considered. Primary endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. During the 8-53 months follow-up period, patients were contacted by telephone to assess symptoms associated to recurrence, whereas quality of life was evaluated utilizing the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were included. 36 operations were performed with robot-assisted (Rob-G), and 19 with standard laparoscopic (Lap-G) technique. Patients characteristics were similar in both groups. Median operation time was 232 min. (IQR: 145-420) in robot-assisted vs. 163 min. (IQR:112-280) in laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 5/36 (12.5%) cases in the Rob-G group and in 5/19 (26%) cases in the Lap-G group (p = 0.28). No conversion was necessary in either group. Minor postoperative complications occurred in 13/36 (36%) Rob-G patients and 4/19 (21%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.36). Mortality or major complications did not occur in either group. Two asymptomatic recurrences were observed in the Rob-G group only. No patient required revision surgery. Finally, all patients expressed satisfaction for treatment outcome, as indicated by similar GERD-HRQL scores. CONCLUSION: While robot-assisted surgery provides additional precision, enhanced visualization, and greater feasibility in cUDS hiatal hernia repair, its clinical outcome is at least equal to that obtained by standard laparoscopic surgery.