Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: Propensity Score-matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the current study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a high-volume center. BACKGROUND: Despite RPDs prospective advantages over OPD, current evidence comparing the 2 has been limited and has prompted further investigation. The aim of this study was to compare both approaches while including the learning curve phase for RPD. METHODS: A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis of a prospective database of RPD with OPD (2017-2022) at a high-volume center was performed. The main outcomes were overall- and pancreas-specific complications. RESULTS: Of 375 patients who underwent PD (OPD n=276; RPD n=99), 180 were included in propensity score-matched analysis (90 per group). RPD was associated with less blood loss [500 (300-800) vs 750 (400-1000) mL; P =0.006] and more patients without a complication (50% vs 19%; P <0.001). Operative time was longer [453 (408-529) vs 306 (247-362) min; P <0.001]; in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma, fewer lymph nodes were harvested [24 (18-27) vs 33 (27-39); P <0.001] with RPD versus OPD. There were no significant differences for major complications (38% vs 47%; P =0.291), reoperation rate (14% vs 10%; P =0.495), postoperative pancreatic fistula (21% vs 23%; P =0.858), and patients with the textbook outcome (62% vs 55%; P =0.452). CONCLUSIONS: Including the learning phase, RPD can be safely implemented in high-volume settings and shows potential for improved perioperative outcomes versus OPD. Pancreas-specific morbidity was unaffected by the robotic approach. Randomized trials with specifically trained pancreatic surgeons and expanded indications for the robotic approach are needed.

Portal Vein Resection in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Risk of Thrombosis and Radicality Determine Survival.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of pancreatic cancer [pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)] surgery with concomitant portal vein resection (PVR), focusing on the PVR type according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). BACKGROUND: Surgery offers the only chance for cure in PDAC. PVR is often performed for borderline or locally advanced tumors. METHODS: Consecutive patients with PDAC operated between January 2006 and January 2018 were included. Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed and tested for survival prediction. RESULTS: Of 2265 PDAC resections, 1571 (69.4%) were standard resections and 694 (30.6%) were resections with PVR, including 149 (21.5%) tangential resections with venorrhaphy (ISGPS type 1), 21 (3.0%) resections with patch reconstruction (type 2), 491 (70.7%) end-to-end anastomoses (type 3), and 33 (4.8%) resections with graft interposition (type 4). The 90-day mortality rate was 2.6% after standard resection and 6.3% after resection with PVR ( P <0.0001). Postoperative portal vein thrombosis and pancreas-specific surgical complications most frequently occurred after PVR with graft interposition (21.2% and 48.5%, respectively). In multivariable analysis, age 70 years and above, ASA stages 3/4, increased preoperative serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9, neoadjuvant treatment, total pancreatectomy, PVR, higher UICC stage, and R+ resections were significant negative prognostic factors for overall survival. Radical R0 (>1 mm) resection resulted in 23.3 months of median survival. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest single-center, comparative cohort study of PVR in PDAC surgery, showing that postoperative morbidity correlates with the reconstruction type. When radical resection is achieved, thrombosis risk is outweighed by beneficial overall survival times of nearly 2 years.

Celiac Axis Stenosis is an Underestimated Risk Factor for Increased Morbidity After Pancreatoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assesses the prevalence and severity of CAS in patients undergoing PD/total pancreatectomy and its association with major postoperative complications after PD. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CAS may increase the risk of ischemic complications after PD. However, the prevalence of CAS and its relevance to major morbidity remain unknown. METHODS: All patients with a preoperative computed tomography with arterial phase undergoing partial PD or TP between 2014 and 2017 were identified from a prospective database. CAS was assessed based on computed tomography and graded according to its severity: no stenosis (<30%), grade A (30%-<50%), grade B (50%-≤80%), and grade C (>80%). Postoperative complications were assessed and uni- and multivariable risk analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 989 patients, 273 (27.5%) had CAS: 177 (17.9%) with grade A, 83 (8.4%) with grade B, and 13 (1.3%) with grade C. Postoperative morbidity and 90-day mortality occurred in 278 (28.1%) patients and 41 (4.1%) patients, respectively. CAS was associated with clinically relevant pancreatic fistula ( P =0.019), liver perfusion failure ( P =0.003), gastric ischemia ( P =0.001), clinically relevant biliary leakage ( P =0.006), and intensive care unit ( P =0.016) and hospital stay ( P =0.001). Multivariable analyses confirmed grade B and C CAS as independent risk factors for liver perfusion failure; in addition, grade C CAS was an independent risk factor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and gastric complications. CONCLUSIONS: CAS is common in patients undergoing PD. Higher grade of CAS is associated with an increased risk for clinically relevant complications, including liver perfusion failure and postoperative pancreatic fistula. Precise radiological assessment may help to identify CAS. Future studies should investigate measures to mitigate CAS-associated risks.

Completion Pancreatectomy After Pancreatoduodenectomy: Who Needs It?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the indications for and report the outcomes of completion pancreatectomy (CPLP) in the postoperative course after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). BACKGROUND: CPLP may be considered or even inevitable for damage control after PD. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing PD between 2001 and 2019 was searched for patients who underwent CPLP in the postoperative course after PD. Baseline characteristics, perioperative details, and outcomes of CPLP patients were analyzed and specific indications for CPLP were identified. RESULTS: A total of 3953 consecutive patients underwent PD during the observation period. CPLP was performed in 120 patients (3%) after a median of 10 days following PD. The main indications for CPLP included postpancreatectomy acute necrotizing pancreatitis [n=47 (39%)] and postoperative pancreatic fistula complicated by hemorrhage [n=41 (34%)] or associated with uncontrollable leakage of the pancreatoenteric anastomosis [n=23 (19%)]. The overall 90-day mortality rate of all 3953 patients was 3.5% and 37% for patients undergoing CPLP. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that only very few patients (3%) need CPLP suggests that conservative, interventional, and organ-preserving surgical measures are the mainstay of complication management after PD. Postpancreatectomy acute necrotizing pancreatitis, uncontrollable postoperative pancreatic fistula, and fistula-associated hemorrhage are highly dangerous and represent the main indications for CPLP after PD.

Co-expression of YAP and TAZ associates with chromosomal instability in human cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the oncogene yes-associated protein (YAP) is frequently detected in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA); however, the expression pattern and the functional impact of its paralogue WW domain-containing transcription regulator 1 (WWTR1; synonym: TAZ) are not well described in different CCA subtypes. METHODS: Immunohistochemical analysis of YAP and TAZ in iCCA and extrahepatic CCA (eCCA) cohorts was performed. YAP/TAZ shuttling and their functional impact on CCA cell lines were investigated. Target genes expression after combined YAP/TAZ inhibition was analyzed. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical analysis of iCCA and eCCA revealed YAP or TAZ positivity in up to 49.2%; however, oncogene co-expression was less frequent (up to 23%). In contrast, both proteins were jointly detectable in most CCA cell lines and showed nuclear/cytoplasmic shuttling in a cell density-dependent manner. Next to the pro-proliferative function of YAP/TAZ, both transcriptional co-activators cooperated in the regulation of a gene signature that indicated the presence of chromosomal instability (CIN). A correlation between YAP and the CIN marker phospho-H2A histone family member X (pH2AX) was particularly observed in tissues from iCCA and distal CCA (dCCA). The presence of the CIN genes in about 25% of iCCA was statistically associated with worse prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: YAP and TAZ activation is not uncoupled from cell density in CCA cells and both factors cooperatively contribute to proliferation and expression of CIN-associated genes. The corresponding group of CCA patients is characterized by CIN and may benefit from YAP/TAZ-directed therapies.

Enucleation for benign or borderline tumors of the pancreas: comparing open and minimally invasive surgery.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility and safety of minimally invasive enucleation (ME) for benign or borderline pancreatic tumors is still unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ME and open enucleation (OE). METHODS: All patients undergoing pancreatic enucleation between October 2001 and January 2020 were analyzed from a prospective database. Consecutive patients undergoing ME were compared with patients undergoing OE in a matched-pair analysis (1:2). RESULTS: Of 358 patients, undergoing enucleation, 120 matched patients (ME n = 40, OE n = 80) were included. Patients undergoing ME had less blood loss (median 50 vs. 100 ml, P = 0.025) and had a higher proportion of patients discharged by 7 days, than patients undergoing OE (38% vs. 18%, P = 0.016). The rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and major complications (Clavien grade ≥ 3) were similar between both groups. Risk factor analysis for POPF B/C showed no significant parameters associated with POPF, including tumor size and proximity to the main pancreatic duct. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional OE, ME reduces the amount of bleeding and allows earlier postoperative discharge, without increasing the incidence of major complications. Thus, minimally invasive enucleation should be considered for benign tumors of the pancreas when technically and oncologically feasible.

Prognostic Impact of Ventral Versus Dorsal Tumor Location After Total Mesorectal Excision of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer, including neoadjuvant treatment, total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant chemotherapy, have improved oncological outcome. Preoperative radiation therapy is advocated by national and international guidelines in all patients with AJCC stage II and III rectal cancer. Although this treatment reduces local recurrence rates with no effect on overall survival, there are possible short- and long-term side effects of radiation exposure, so patients should be carefully selected for neoadjuvant radiation therapy. METHODS: We analyzed whether ventral or dorsal tumor location affects local recurrence rates following radical rectal resection. Patients who underwent radical rectal resection for mid or low rectal cancer in our department between October 2001 and December 2013 were included. Prognostic indicators for local recurrence were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 480 patients met the inclusion criteria. Univariate analysis identified surgical procedure (hazard ratio [HR] 1.9, p = 0.006), ventral tumor location (HR 3.8, p < 0.001), and a pathologic circumferential resection margin (pCRM) (HR 9.3, p < 0.001) as prognostic factors of local recurrence. Multivariate analysis revealed tumor location (HR 3.5, p < 0.001) and pCRM (HR 6.0, p = 0.002) as independent factors for local recurrence. Neoadjuvant treatment of AJCC stage II and III tumors reduced the local recurrence rate at ventral but not at dorsal tumor locations (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ventral versus dorsal tumor location is an independent prognostic factor for local recurrence. Tumor location may aid in patient selection for neoadjuvant treatment.

Promising Long-Term Outcomes After Pelvic Exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex and challenging surgical procedure. The reported results of this procedure for primary and recurrent disease are limited and conflicting. METHODS: This study analyzed patient outcomes after all PEs performed in the authors' department between October 2001 and December 2016. Relevant patient data were obtained from a prospective database. Morbidity and mortality were reported for all patients. For patients with malignant disease, differences in perioperative outcomes, prognostic indicators for overall survival, and local and systemic disease recurrence were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The study enrolled 187 patients. Of the 183 patients with malignant disease, 63 (38.2%) had primary locally advanced tumors and 115 (62.5%) had recurrent tumors. The 10-year overall survival rate was 63.5% for the patients with primary tumors that were curatively resected and 20.9% for the patients with recurrent disease (p = 0.02). The 10-year survival rate for the patients with extrapelvic disease who underwent curative resection was 37%. Multivariable analysis identified margin positivity (p < 0.01), surgery lasting longer than 7 h (p = 0.02), and recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as predictors of poor survival. Multivariate analysis of local and systemic disease recurrence showed recurrent disease (p < 0.01) as the only significant prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic exenteration has good long-term results, even for patients with extrapelvic disease. The oncologic outcome for patients with recurrent disease is worse than for patients with primary disease. However, even for these patients, long-time survival is possible.

Impact of Surgeon's Experience on Vascular and Haemorrhagic Complications After Kidney Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the independent risk factors of vascular and haemorrhagic complications after kidney transplantation (KTx) and to evaluate how the surgeon's experience affects the rate of vascular and haemorrhagic complications. METHODS: After exclusion of paediatric and multi-organ transplantations, 1462 KTx operations between 2000 and 2016 were analysed. Independent risk factors were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression analysis. The generalised estimating equation logit model was used to display learning curve progression and determine the best cut off number of KTx operations to reduce vascular and haemorrhagic complications. RESULTS: Vascular and haemorrhagic complications occurred in 38 KTx cases (2.6%). Renal vein thrombosis was the most common complication (0.6%). Graft loss occurred in 11 of 38 (28.9%) cases. Donor age of >60 years (OR 3.687, 95% CI 1.663-8.175, p = 0.001), recipient cardiovascular disease (CVD) (OR 2.270, 95% CI 1.071-4.810, p = 0.032), and surgeon's experience (OR 0.875, 95% CI 0.783-0.977, p = 0.018) were independent predictors of vascular and haemorrhagic complications. Twenty-six previous KTx operations are needed to decrease predicted probability of post-KTx vascular and haemorrhagic complications below 2.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The surgeon's experience is an independent risk factor for vascular and haemorrhagic complications after KTx. Acceptable post-operative vascular and haemorrhagic complications are achieved after a minimum of 26 KTx. As a donor age of >60 years and recipient CVD are also independent risk factors for vascular and haemorrhagic complications, it is suggested that these patients should preferably be operated on by surgeons who have performed more than 26 KTx operations.

EMX2 gene expression predicts liver metastasis and survival in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Empty Spiracles Homeobox (EMX-) 2 gene has been associated with regulation of growth and differentiation in neuronal development. While recent studies provide evidence that EMX2 regulates tumorigenesis of various solid tumors, its role in colorectal cancer remains unknown. We aimed to assess the prognostic significance of EMX2 expression in stage III colorectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Expression levels of EMX2 in human colorectal cancer and adjacent mucosa were assessed by qRT-PCR technology, and results were correlated with clinical and survival data. siRNA-mediated knockdown and adenoviral delivery-mediated overexpression of EMX2 were performed in order to investigate its effects on the migration of colorectal cancer cells in vitro. RESULTS: Compared to corresponding healthy mucosa, colorectal tumor samples had decreased EMX2 expression levels. Furthermore, EMX2 down-regulation in colorectal cancer tissue was associated with distant metastasis (M1) and impaired overall patient survival. In vitro knockdown of EMX2 resulted in increased tumor cell migration. Conversely, overexpression of EMX2 led to an inhibition of tumor cell migration. CONCLUSIONS: EMX2 is frequently down-regulated in human colorectal cancer, and down-regulation of EMX2 is a prognostic marker for disease-free and overall survival. EMX2 might thus represent a promising therapeutic target in colorectal cancer.

Comparative Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Treatment Prior to Total Mesorectal Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Alone in Selected Stage II/III Low and Mid Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines advocate that all rectal cancer patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages II and III disease should be subjected to neoadjuvant therapy. However, improvements in surgical technique have resulted in single-digit local recurrence rates with surgery only. METHODS: Operative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes of patients with and without neoadjuvant therapy were compared between January 2002 and December 2013. For this purpose, all patients resected with low anterior rectal resection (LAR) and total mesorectal excision (TME) who had or had not been irradiated were identified from the authors' prospectively maintained database. Patients who were excluded were those with high rectal cancer or AJCC stage IV disease; in the surgery-only group, patients with AJCC stage I disease or with pT4Nx rectal cancer; and in the irradiated patients, patients with ypT4Nx or cT4Nx rectal cancer. RESULTS: Overall, 454 consecutive patients were included. A total of 342 (75 %) patients were irradiated and 112 (25 %) were not irradiated. Median follow-up for all patients was 48 months. Among patients with and without irradiation, pathological circumferential resection margin positivity rates (2.9 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.5) were not different. At 5 years, in irradiated patients compared with surgery-only patients, the incidence of local recurrence was decreased (4.5 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.5); however, systemic recurrences occurred more frequently (10 vs. 17.8 %, p = 0.2). Irradiation did not affect overall or disease-free survival (neoadjuvant treatment vs. surgery-only: 84.9 vs. 88.2 %, p = 0.9; 76 vs. 79.1 %, p = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: The current study adds to the growing evidence that suggests a selective rather than generalized indication for neoadjuvant treatment in stages II and III rectal cancer.

Radical surgery with total mesorectal excision in patients with T1 rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radical resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) is the accepted standard of care for most rectal cancers. However, T1 rectal cancers may be at low risk for metastases and are therefore treatable with local resection. The aim of our study was to investigate whether the identification of these patients is possible through existing selection criteria. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2012, radical resection with TME was performed in 68 patients with a histologically confirmed T1 adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Each patient was staged preoperatively as lymph node negative. Patients at low risk to metastasize were defined as proposed by Hermanek and Gall (Int J Colorectal Dis 1(2):79-84, 1986), Kikuchi et al. (Dis Colon Rectum 38(12):1286-1295, 1995) and Hase et al. (Dis Colon Rectum 38(1):19-26, 1995) Postoperative morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: Despite nodal negative staging, 9 of 68 patients (13 %) were node positive. Following the proposal of Hermanek and Gall, Kikuchi et al., and Hase et al., 14 % (5/37), 12 % (3/26), and 16 % (6/38) of patients, respectively, with low-risk tumors had lymph node metastases. In the univariate analysis, none of the investigated parameters could predict lymph node metastases. Following radical resection, none of the patients, regardless of nodal involvement, developed a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnostics regarding lymphatic tumor propagation and histomorphological assessment of tumor samples as predictors of lymph node metastasis are unreliable. Following radical resection with TME, the oncological outcome of node-positive patients with T1 rectal adenocarcinoma is comparable with that of lymph node-negative patients. Considering the lymph node metastases rate, a local excision should always be complemented with additional therapy.

Anastomotic leakage is associated with impaired overall and disease-free survival after curative rectal cancer resection: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether anastomotic leakage (AL) has a negative impact on survival remains a matter of debate. This study aimed to assess the impact of AL on the overall and disease-free survival of patients undergoing curative resection of stages 1-3 rectal cancer using propensity-scoring methods. METHODS: In a single-center study, 570 patients undergoing curative resection of stages 1-3 rectal cancer between January 2002 and December 2011 were assessed. The mean follow-up period was 4.7 ± 2.9 years. Patients who did and did not experience AL were compared using Cox regression and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 51 patients (8.9 %) experienced an AL. The characteristics of the patients were highly biased concerning AL (propensity score, 0.16 ± 0.12 vs. 0.09 ± 0.07; P < 0.001). Anastomotic leakage was uniformly associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality in unadjusted analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 2.30; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.40-3.76; P = 0.003], multivariable Cox regression (HR 2.27; 95 % CI 1.33-3.88; P = 0.005), and propensity score-adjusted Cox regression (HR 2.07; 95 % CI 1.21-3.55; P = 0.014). Similarly, disease-free survival was significantly impaired in patients who experienced AL according to unadjusted analysis (HR 1.88; 95 % CI 1.19-2.95; P = 0.011), multivariable Cox regression (HR 1.90; 95 % CI 1.17-3.09; P = 0.014), and propensity score-adjusted Cox regression (HR 2.31; 95 % CI 1.40-3.80; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first propensity score-based analysis providing evidence that oncologic outcome may be impaired after curative rectal cancer resection in patients with AL.

Comparative analysis of late functional outcome following preoperative radiation therapy or chemoradiotherapy and surgery or surgery alone in rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the anorectal and genitourinary function of patients treated by preoperative short-term radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery and surgery alone for rectal cancer. METHODS: For this study, a total of 613 patients, who were identified from a prospective rectal cancer database, underwent anterior resection of the rectum between October 2001 and December 2007. Standardized questionnaires were used to determine fecal incontinence, urinary, and sexual function. Relevant clinical variables were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses. Independent predictors of functional outcome were identified by a binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The data of 263 (43 %) patients were available for analysis. On multivariate analysis, neoadjuvant RT (P < 0.01) and low anterior resection (LAR) (P = 0.049) were associated with fecal incontinence. In univariate analysis, fecal incontinence was linked to preoperative neoadjuvant treatment (RT and/or CRT vs. LAR) (P < 0.01). The hazard ratio for developing fecal incontinence was 3.3 (1.6-6.8) for patients who received RT. One hundred twenty-five patients (51.2 %) experienced urinary incontinence following surgery, the majority of whom were female (P < 0.01). On univariate analysis, male sexual function was associated with age (P < 0.01), ASA class (P = 0.01) and LAR (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Multimodal therapy of low rectal cancer increases the incidence of fecal incontinence and negatively affects sexual function. The potential benefits of RT or CRT need to be balanced against the risk of increased bowel dysfunction when determining the appropriate treatment for individual patients with rectal cancer.

Surgical treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: current treatment modalities.

BACKGROUND: Selected patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) have been treated effectively by the combination of cytoreduction surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to summarize the treatment outcomes and general considerations regarding definitions and staging systems of current CRS and HIPEC modalities in malignant peritoneal mesothelioma and in secondary peritoneal malignancies such as peritoneal metastasis from appendiceal, colorectal, gastric, and epithelial ovarian cancers. CONCLUSION: Disease progression within the peritoneal cavity has in the past been regarded as a terminal event. Accumulating evidence underlines the therapeutic potential and the acceptable morbidity and mortality rates of CRS and HIPEC in selected patients.

Robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (EUROPA): a randomised controlled stage 2b trial.

Background: Open partial pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) represents the current gold standard of surgical treatment of a wide range of diseases of the pancreatic head but is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases. Robotic partial pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is being used increasingly, yet, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RPD versus OPD have been published, leaving a low level of evidence to support this practice. Methods: This investigator-initiated, exploratory RCT with two parallel study arms was conducted at a high-volume pancreatic centre in line with IDEAL recommendations (stage 2b). Patients scheduled for elective partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for any indication were randomised (1:1) to RPD or OPD with a centralised web-based tool. The primary endpoint was postoperative cumulative morbidity within 90 days, assessed via the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Biometricians were blinded to the intervention, but patients and surgeons were not. The trial was registered prospectively (DRKS00020407). Findings: Between June 3, 2020 and February 14, 2022, 81 patients were randomly assigned to RPD (n = 41) or OPD (n = 40), of whom 62 patients (RPD: n = 29, OPD: n = 33) were analysed in the modified intention to treat analysis. Four patients in the OPD group were randomised, but did not undergo surgery in our department and one patient was excluded in the RPD group due to other reason. Nine patients in the RPD group and 3 patients in the OPD were excluded from the primary analysis because they did not undergo PD, but rather underwent other types of surgery. The CCI after 90 days was comparable between groups (RPD: 34.02 ± 23.48 versus OPD: 36.45 ± 27.65, difference in means [95% CI]: -2.42 [-15.55; 10.71], p = 0.713). The RPD group had a higher incidence of grade B/C pancreas-specific complications compared to the OPD group (17 (58.6%) versus 11 (33.3%); difference in rates [95% CI]: 25.3% [1.2%; 49.4%], p = 0.046). The only complication that occurred significantly more often in the RPD than in the OPD group was clinically relevant delayed gastric emptying. Procedure-related and overall hospital costs were significantly higher and duration of surgery was longer in the RPD group. Blood loss did not differ significantly between groups. The intraoperative conversion rate of RPD was 23%. Overall 90-day mortality was 4.8% without significant differences between RPD and OPD. Interpretation: In the setting of a very high-volume centre, both RPD and OPD can be considered safe techniques. Further confirmatory multicentre RCTs are warranted to uncover potential advantages of RPD in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. Funding: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: 01KG2010).

Results of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer including quality of life and long-term wound complications.

PURPOSE: Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer has been adopted by centers to improve oncological outcome. The present study aimed to investigate oncological results, wound complications, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Patients who underwent extralevator APR for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2011 were identified retrospectively. QoL status was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR30 and CR29 questionnaires. RESULTS: Thirty laparoscopic (n = 7) or open (n = 23) extralevator APRs were performed in 17 male and 13 female patients. The mortality was zero; circumferential margin involvement occurred in two cases (6.7 %); and there was no bowel perforation. No local recurrence was noted after a median follow-up of 28.3 months; however, six patients died, and eight developed distant metastases. Perineal wound complications were found in 46.6 % of patients, and all were managed conservatively. Fifty percent of the patients reported persistent perineal pain at the follow-up exam. QoL was assessed 7 to 46 months after surgery, and the global health status (70.6) was comparable to the EORTC reference group and published conventional APR series. The QLQ-CR29 module revealed high mean symptom scores for urinary frequency (48.1), incontinence (30.5), and impotence (79.1). CONCLUSIONS: Extralevator APR can control local recurrence but not distant metastases of low rectal cancer. The extended perineal resection appears not to decrease general QoL, but it results in a high rate of perineal wound complications. Genitourinary functions are often impaired, even in the long term, and further improvements to the technique must seek to reduce genitourinary harm.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery.

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).