Factors affecting operative morbidity and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for presacral tumours: a multicentric cohort study from the Turkish Collaborative Group for Quality Improvement in Colorectal and Pelvic Surgery.

AIM: Data regarding the operative management of presacral tumours present various dilemmas due to their rarity and heterogeneous nature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management strategy, factors associated with operative morbidity and long-term postoperative outcomes in a large group of patients undergoing surgery for presacral tumours. METHOD: This study was designed as a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Records of patients who underwent surgery for presacral tumours at 10 tertiary colorectal centres between 1996 and 2017 were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty seven patients (44 men) with a mean age of 46 years and body mass index of 27 kg/m2 were included. Fifty eight per cent of the patients had low sacral lesions (below S3). The operative approaches were transabdominal (17%), transsacral (65%) and abdominosacral (17%). The postoperative morbidity was 19%. Thirty per cent of the patients had a malignant tumour. Longer duration of symptoms (p = 0.001), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.01), abdominosacral operations (p = 0.0001) and presacral tumours located above S3 (p = 0.004) were associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. Overall long-term postoperative recurrence and mortality were 6% and 5%, respectively, within a 3-year mean follow-up period in patients with presacral malignant tumours. CONCLUSION: Reduced physical condition, omission of symptoms prior to surgery, combined resections and high sacral tumours are the risk factors associated with postoperative complications in patients undergoing surgery for presacral tumours. Meticulous planning of the operation and intensified perioperative care may improve the outcomes in high-risk patients.

Short-Course Radiotherapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy Is Safe and Effective in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Comparative Short-term Results of Multicenter Propensity Score Case-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Consolidation chemotherapy strategies have demonstrated improved pathological complete response and tumor downstaging rates for patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and pathological complete response rates among different neoadjuvant treatment strategies in patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer. DESIGN: Propensity score case-matched study. SETTING: High-volume tertiary care centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing curative total mesorectal excision between January 2014 and June 2021 were queried. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into 3 groups: long-course chemoradiation therapy with (N = 128) or without (N = 164) consolidation chemotherapy or short-course radiotherapy (N = 53) followed by consolidation chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, preoperative tumor characteristics, histopathologic outcomes, and postoperative complication rates were reviewed and compared. Propensity score match analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 345 patients (mean age: 58 ± 12 years; female: 36%) met the study inclusion criteria. Time interval from neoadjuvant treatment until surgery was longer for patients receiving consolidation chemotherapy ( p < 0.001). Pathological complete response rates were comparable among patients receiving long-course chemoradiation therapy (20.3%) and short-course radiotherapy with consolidation chemotherapy (20.8%) compared to long-course chemoradiation therapy alone (14.6%) ( p = 0.36). After the propensity score case-matched analysis, 48 patients in the long-course chemoradiation therapy with consolidation chemotherapy group were matched to 48 patients in the short-course radiotherapy with consolidation chemotherapy group. Groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, clinical stage, tumor location, type of surgical approach, and technique. Pathological complete response rate was comparable between the groups (20.8% and 18.8%, p = 0.99). LIMITATIONS: Study was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Among recent neoadjuvant treatment modalities, pathological complete response rates, and short-term clinical outcomes were comparable. Short-course radiotherapy with consolidation chemotherapy is safe and effective as long-course chemoradiation therapy as in a short-term period. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C174 . LA RADIOTERAPIA DE CORTA DURACIN SEGUIDA DE QUIMIOTERAPIA DE CONSOLIDACIN ES SEGURA Y EFICAZ EN EL CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO RESULTADOS COMPARATIVOS A CORTO PLAZO DEL ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSION: ANTECEDENTES: Las estrategias de quimioterapia de consolidación han demostrado una mejor respuesta patológica completa y tasas de reducción del estadio del tumor para pacientes diagnosticados con cáncer de recto.OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados perioperatorios y las tasas de respuesta patológica completa entre diferentes estrategias de tratamiento neoadyuvante en pacientes sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total por cáncer de recto localmente avanzado.DISEÑO: Estudio de casos emparejados por puntaje de propensión.ENTORNO CLINICO: Centros de atención terciaria de alto volumen.PACIENTES: Pacientes consecutivos sometidos a escisión mesorrectal total curativa por cáncer de recto localmente avanzado entre enero de 2014 y junio de 2021.INTERVENCIONES: Los pacientes se dividieron en tres grupos según la modalidad de tratamiento neoadyuvante: quimiorradioterapia de ciclo largo con (N = 128) o sin (N = 164) quimioterapia de consolidación o radioterapia de ciclo corto (N = 53) seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El punto final primario fue la respuesta patológica completa. Se revisaron y compararon los datos demográficos, las características preoperatorias del tumor, los resultados histopatológicos y las tasas de complicaciones posoperatorias entre los grupos de estudio. Se realizó un análisis de casos emparejados por puntaje de propensión.RESULTADOS: Un total de 345 pacientes (edad media de 58 ± 12 años y mujeres: 36%) cumplieron los criterios de inclusión del estudio. El intervalo de tiempo desde el tratamiento neoadyuvante hasta la cirugía fue mayor para los pacientes que recibieron quimioterapia de consolidación ( p < 0,001). Las tasas de respuesta patológica completa fueron comparables entre los pacientes que recibieron quimiorradioterapia de larga duración con quimioterapia de consolidación (20,3 %) y radioterapia de corta duración con quimioterapia de consolidación (20,8%) en comparación con la quimiorradiación de larga duración sola (14,6%) ( p = 0,36). Después del análisis de casos emparejados por puntaje de propensión, 48 pacientes en el grupo de quimiorradioterapia de ciclo largo con quimioterapia de consolidación se emparejaron con 48 pacientes en el grupo de radioterapia de ciclo corto con quimioterapia de consolidación. Los grupos fueron comparables con respecto a la edad, sexo, estadio clínico, ubicación del tumor, tipo de abordaje quirúrgico y la técnica. La tasa de respuesta patológica completa fue comparable entre los grupos (20,8% y 18,8%, p = 0,99). La morbilidad postoperatoria a los 30 días y las tasas de fuga anastomótica fueron similares.LIMITACIONES: El estudio estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva.CONCLUSIONES: Entre las modalidades de tratamiento neoadyuvante recientes, las tasas de respuesta patológica completa y los resultados clínicos a corto plazo fueron comparables. La radioterapia de corta duración con quimioterapia de consolidación es segura y eficaz como terapia de quimiorradioterapia de larga duración en un período corto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C174 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Standardization of the Definition and Surgical Management of Splenic Flexure Carcinoma by an International Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Technique: Room for Improvement?

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of splenic flexure carcinoma remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish an expert international consensus on splenic flexure carcinoma management. DESIGN: A 3-round online-based Delphi study was conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: The first round included 18 experts from 12 different countries. For the second and third rounds, each expert in the first round was asked to invite 2 more colorectal surgeons (n = 47). Out of 47 invited experts, 89% (n = 42) participated in the second and third rounds of the consensus. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 35 questions were created and sent via the online questionnaire tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of recommendation based on voting concordance were graded as follows: more than 75% agreement was defined as strong, between 50% and 75% as moderate, and below 50% as weak. RESULTS: There was moderate consensus on the definition of splenic flexure (55%) as 10 cm from either side where the distal transverse colon turns into the proximal descending colon. Also, experts recommended an abdominopelvic CT scan plus intraoperative exploration (moderate consensus, 72%) for tumor localization and cancer registry. Segmental colectomy was the preferred technique for the management of splenic flexure carcinoma in the elective setting (72%). Moderate consensus was achieved on the technique of complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation principles for splenic flexure carcinoma (74%). Only strong consensus was achieved on the surgical approach for minimally invasive surgery (88%). LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience and not evidence based. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first internationally conducted Delphi consensus study regarding splenic flexure carcinoma. The definition of splenic flexure remains ambiguous. To more effectively compare oncologic outcomes among different cancer registries, guidelines need to be developed to standardize each domain and avoid arbitrary definitions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . ESTANDARIZACIN DE LA DEFINICIN Y MANEJO QUIRRGICO DEL CARCINOMA DE NGULO ESPLNICO ESTABLECIDO POR UN CONSENSO INTERNACIONAL DE EXPERTOS UTILIZANDO LA TCNICA DELPHI ESPACIO PARA MEJORAR: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Establecer un consenso internacional de expertos sobre el manejo del cáncer del ángulo esplénico.DISEÑO:Se condujo un estudio Delphi en línea de 3 rondas entre septiembre de 2020 y febrero de 2021.ESCENARIO:La primera ronda incluyó a 18 expertos de 12 países distintos. Para la segunda y tercera rondas, a cada experto de la primera ronda se le pidió que invitara a 2 cirujanos colorrectales más de su región (n = 47). De los 47 expertos invitados, el 89% (n = 42) participó en la segunda y tercera ronda del consenso.INTERVENCIONES:Se crearon y enviaron un total de 35 preguntas a través de la herramienta de cuestionario en línea.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los niveles de recomendación basados en la concordancia de votos fueron jerarquizados de la siguiente manera: más del 75% de acuerdo se definió como fuerte, entre 50 y 75% como moderado y por debajo del 50% como débil.RESULTADOS:Hubo un consenso moderado sobre la definición de ángulo esplénico (55%) como 10 cm desde cualquier lado donde el colon transverso distal se convierte en el colon descendente proximal. Así también, los expertos recomendaron la tomografía computarizada abdominopélvica más la exploración intraoperatoria (consenso moderado, 72%) para la localización del tumor y el registro del ángulo esplénico. La colectomía segmentaria fue la técnica preferida para el tratamiento del cáncer de ángulo esplénico en el caso de ser electivo (72%). Se logró un consenso moderado sobre la técnica de escisión completa del mesocolon y los principios de ligadura vascular a nivel central para el cáncer de ángulo esplénico (74%). Solo se logró un fuerte consenso sobre el abordaje quirúrgico para la cirugía mínimamente invasiva (88%).LIMITACIONES:Decisiones subjetivas basadas en la experiencia clínica de expertos individuales y no basadas en evidencia.CONCLUSIONES:Este es el primer estudio internacional de consenso Delphi realizado sobre el cáncer de ángulo esplénico. Si bien encontramos un consenso moderado sobre las modalidades de diagnóstico preoperatorio y el manejo quirúrgico, la definición de ángulo esplénico sigue siendo ambigua. Para comparar de manera más efectiva los resultados oncológicos entre diferentes registros de cáncer, se deben desarrollar pautas para estandarizar cada dominio y evitar definiciones arbitrarias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C143 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Optimizing the Personalized Care for the Management of Rectal Cancer: A Consensus Statement.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Turkey. The current guidelines do not provide sufficient information to cover all aspects of the management of rectal cancer. Although treatment has been standardized in terms of the basic principles of neoadjuvant, surgical, and adjuvant therapy, uncertainties in the management of rectal cancer may lead to significant differences in clinical practice. In order to clarify these uncertainties, a consensus program was constructed with the participation of the physicians from the Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar and Koç Universities. This program included the physicians from the departments of general surgery, gastroenterology, pathology, radiology, nuclear medicine, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and medical genetics. The gray zones in the management of rectal cancer were determined by reviewing the evidence-based data and current guidelines before the meeting. Topics to be discussed consisted of diagnosis, staging, surgical treatment for the primary disease, use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, management of recurrent disease, screening, follow-up, and genetic counseling. All those topics were discussed under supervision of a presenter and a chair with active participation of related physicians. The consensus text was structured by centralizing the decisions based on the existing data.

Ileal Pouch Excision can Be Performed With Similar Outcomes in Obese Patients Compared to Nonobese Counterparts: An Assessment From American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Failed pouches may tend to be managed with only a loop ileostomy in obese patients due to some safety concerns. The effect of obesity on ileal pouch excision outcomes is poorly studied. In our study, we aimed to assess the short-term outcomes after ileal pouch excision in obese patients compared to their nonobese counterparts. METHODS: The patients who underwent pouch excision between 2005 and 2017 were included using ACS-NSQIP participant user files. The operative outcomes were compared between obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and nonobese (BMI<30 kg/m2) groups. RESULTS: There were 507 pouch excision patients included of which eighty (15.7%) of them were obese. Physical status of the obese patients tended to be worse (ASA>3, 56.3 vs 42.9%, P = .027). There were more patients who had diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HT) in the obese group (26.3% vs. 11.2%, P = .015; 11.3 vs. 4.4%, P < .001, respectively). Operative time was similar between 2 groups (mean ± SD, 275 ± 111 vs. 252±111 minutes, P = .084). Deep incisional SSI was more commonly observed in the obese group (7.5 vs 2.8%, P = .038). In multivariate analysis, only deep incisional SSI was found to be independently associated with obesity (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.02-7.67). Obese patients were readmitted more frequently than nonobese counterparts (28.3 vs 16%, P = .035). The length of hospital stay was comparable [median (IQR), 7 (4-13.5) vs. 7 (5-11) days, P = .942]. CONCLUSION: Ileal pouch excision can be performed in obese patients with largely similar outcomes compared to their nonobese counterparts although obesity is associated with a higher rate of deep space infection.

Does Obesity Impact Surgical and Pathological Outcomes in Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision for Colon Cancer?

Background: Obesity is one of the contributing factors to technical difficulties in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. However, there are no data regarding the outcomes for obese patients undergoing robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon cancer. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether robotic CME in obese patients can be performed with similar morbidity and pathological results compared with nonobese patients. Methods: Patients who underwent robotic CME between 2014 and 2019 were classified into obese and nonobese groups. Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. Demographic data, perioperative outcomes and pathological results were compared between the groups. Results: There were 42 and 105 patients in the obese and nonobese group, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding preoperative characteristics. There were no significant differences with respect to operative times (244 ± 64 versus 304 ± 75 minutes, P = .29), blood loss (median, 50 versus 80 mL, P = .20), intraoperative complications (0% versus 3.8%, P > .99), and conversions (0% versus 1.9%, P > .99). No differences were detected in length of hospital stay (6 ± 1 versus 6 ± 2 days, P = .73), anastomotic leak (2.4% versus 1.9%, P > .99), septic complications, reoperations (2.4% versus 3.8%), and readmissions (2.4% versus 2.9%) (P > .05). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (33 ± 11 versus 34 ± 13, P = .79), resection margin status, and mesocolic fascia grading were similar. Conclusion: Robotic CME in obese patients can be performed with a similar morbidity and pathological profile compared with nonobese patients. The Clinical Trial Registration number is not applicable for this study.

Metastasis to lymph nodes around the vascular tie worsens long-term oncological outcomes following complete mesocolic excision and conventional colectomy for right-sided colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncologic outcomes after complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer are under investigation. The aim of our study was to compare CME and conventional colectomy (CC) in terms of pathological and oncological outcomes for right colon cancer and to evaluate the impact of lymph node metastasis around the vascular tie on survival. METHODS: Consecutive patients with right colon cancer who had CME or CC between January 2011 and August 2018 at two specialized centers in Turkey were included. Statistical analyses were performed with respect to demographic characteristics, operative and pathologic outcomes, harvested and metastatic lymph nodes around the vascular tie (LNVT), recurrences, and survival. RESULTS: There were 91 patients in the CME group (58 males, mean age 64 ± 16 years) and 192 patients in the CC group (96 males, mean age 66 ± 14 years). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (CME: 42 ± 15 vs CC: 34 ± 13, p = 0.01) and LNVT were higher in the CME group (CME: 3.2 ± 2.2 vs CC: 2.4 ± 1.6, p = 0.001). LNVT metastases were 7.7% and 8.3% in the CME and CC groups, respectively (p = 0.85). Three-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 96.4% and 90.9% in the CME group and 90.4% and 87.6% in the CC group in stage I-III patients (p > 0.05). In stage III patients, the 3-year overall survival (92.5% vs 63.5%, p = 0.03) and disease-free survival (85.6% vs 52.1%, p = 0.008) were significantly better in LNVT-negative patients than in LNVT-positive patients. CONCLUSION: LNVT metastasis seems to be the key factor associated with poor disease-free and overall survival in right colon cancer regardless of the radicality of surgery.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gastric cancer in Turkish population.

Objectives: In this study, it was aimed to compare short-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open surgery for gastric cancer in the Turkish population carrying both European and Asian characteristics. Material and Methods: Short-term (30-day) outcomes of the patients undergoing minimally invasive and open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenec- tomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2013 and December 2017 were compared. Patient demographics, history of previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, short-term perioperative outcomes and histopathological results were evaluated between the study groups. Results: There were a total of 179 patients. Fifty (28%) patients underwent minimally invasive [laparoscopic (n= 19) and robotic (n= 31)] and 129 (72%) patients underwent open surgery. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index and ASA scores. While operative time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive surgery group (p <0.0001), length of hospital stay and operative morbidity were com- parable between the groups. Conclusion: While both laparoscopic and robotic surgery is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes in selected patients, long operating time and increased cost are the major drawbacks of the robotic technique preventing its widespread use.

Learning curve analysis of robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the learning curve (LC) for inguinal hernia repair with robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) approach. METHODS: Between April 2016 and October 2019, patients who underwent R-TAPP were retrieved. Patient demographics, operative variables and postoperative outcomes were assessed. The moving average method and cumulative sum of operation times (OT) were used to evaluate the LC. The surgeon (BB) in this study had completed his laparoscopic (Lap) TAPP experience. RESULTS: There were 50 (two females) consecutive patients (mean age was 51.7 ± 16.9 years). The first phase (learning phase) included initial 35 operations. The second phase included the next 15 operations. It was observed that, with increasing experience, a statistically significant shortening in the average OT by about 25 min was achieved (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: The LC phase for R-TAPP, for surgeon with previous experience in Lap TAPP, seems to be very quick without compromising the operative morbidity.

Operative and long-term oncological outcomes in patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after robotic versus laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective robotic and laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were included. Perioperative clinical characteristics, postoperative short- and long-term outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were 72 and 44 patients in robotic (RG) and laparoscopic (LG) groups respectively. No differences were detected regarding patients' demographics, histopathologic outcomes, conversion rates and 30-day overall postoperative complication rates. Operative time was longer in the RG (341 ± 111.7 vs. 263 ± 97.5 min, p = 0.001) and length of stay was longer in the LG (4.4 ± 1.9 vs. 6.4 ± 2.9 days, p = 0.001). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were similar (97.1% and 94.9%, p = 0.78; 86.2% and 82.7%, p = 0.72) between the groups. CONCLUSION: This study showed both short and long-term outcomes of a limited number of included patients between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery were similar. However, future studies and randomized trials are necessary to establish these findings.

Totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the outcomes of pure minimally invasive techniques of radical gastrectomy are scarce. We aimed to compare short-term post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing totally minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with the da Vinci Xi® robotic system versus straight laparoscopy for gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Between December 2013 and March 2018, robotic and laparoscopic radical gastrectomy performed in two centres were included. Both groups were compared with respect to perioperative short-term outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were included in the study. Anticoagulant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use were higher in the robotic group (p = 0.02, p = 0.02). There were conversions in the laparoscopy group whereas no conversions occurred in the robotic group (p = 0.052). Operating time in the robotic group was longer (p = 0.001). The number of harvested lymph nodes in the laparoscopic group was higher (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Totally robotic technique with the da Vinci Xi® robotic system provides similar short-term results compared to laparoscopic surgery in radical gastrectomy.

Impact of Prolonged Neoadjuvant Treatment-surgery Interval on Histopathologic and Operative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Total Mesorectal Excision for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study primarily aimed to assess the impact of prolonged neoadjuvant treatment-surgery interval (PNSI) on histopathologic and postoperative outcomes. Impacts of the mode of neoadjuvant treatment (NT) and surgery on the outcomes were also evaluated in the same patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2011 and December 2017, patients who underwent NT and total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer were included. PNSI was defined as >4 and >8 weeks after short-course and long-course NT modalities, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 44 (27%) patients received short-course NT (standard interval: n=28; PNSI: n=16) and 122 (73%) patients received long-course NT (standard interval: n=39; PNSI: n=83). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the standard interval and PNSI in patients undergoing short-course [n=3 (11%) vs. n=3 (19%), P=0.455] and long-course [n=6 (15%) vs. n=16 (19%), P=0.602] NT. PNSI was associated with increased complete pathologic response in patients receiving short-course NT [0 vs. n=5 (31%), P=0.002]. Compared with short-course NT, long-course NT was superior in terms of tumor response based on the Mandard [Mandard 1 to 2: n=6 (21%) vs. 6 (38%), P=0.012] and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) [CAP 0 to 1: n=13 (46%) vs. n=8 (50%), P=0.009] scores. Postoperative morbidity was similar after open, laparoscopic, and robotic total mesorectal excision [n=1 (14.2%) vs. n=21 (21%) vs. n=6 (12.5%), P=0.455] irrespective of the interval time to surgery and the type of NT. CONCLUSIONS: PNSI can be considered in patients undergoing short-course NT due to its potential oncological benefits. The mode of surgery performed at tertiary centers has no impact on postoperative morbidity after both NT modalities.

Predictors of endoscopic recurrence in resected patients with Crohn's disease in a long-term follow-up cohort: History of multiple previous resections and residual synchronous disease in the remnant intestine.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aimed to determine the predictors of endoscopic recurrence in a cohort of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) with prior intestinal resections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of the patients with CD were reviewed in a retrospective manner. Eighty-three patients were eligible for the final analysis. Demographic features of these patients and time between resection and colonoscopy, presence of any macroscopic residual disease in the remnant intestine, and postoperative medications were noted. Rutgeerts score was used to define postoperative endoscopic recurrence. RESULTS: The patients' mean age±SD at their final colonoscopy was 42.81±11.99 yr; and 37 of 83 patients (45%) were female. The mean follow-up time between resection and the final colonoscopy was 51.16±51.08 months. A total of 51 of 83 patients (61%) were in endoscopic remission (i0, i1); whereas 32 (39%) had an endoscopic recurrence (i2, i3, i4). History of multiple resections (χ2=6.12; p=0.013) and the presence of any postoperative residual disease in the remnant intestine (χ2=5.86; p=0.015) were risk factors; whereas the regular use of azathioprine (AZA) was significantly more common among patients without recurrence (χ2=4.515; p=0.034). In an age-sex adjusted Cox regression analysis history of multiple resections, presence of any postoperative residual disease proved to be independent risk factor for endoscopic recurrence, whereas the regular use of AZA proved to be ineffective. CONCLUSION: In a retrospective long-term follow-up cohort of resected patients with CD, having multiple resections for CD and the presence of any residual synchronous disease after ileocolonic resection were identified as risk factors for endoscopic recurrence; the latter was never reported in previous studies.

Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal vs robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: Assessment of short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (L-TEP) and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: Patients were classified into two groups: L-TEP and R-TAPP. The groups were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Out of 86 patients, 43 patients were matched in each group based on the study criteria. Demographics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer for the R-TAPP compared to L-TEP (129.1 ± 47.2 min vs 92.5 ± 28.3 min; P < .001). VAS scores at 24 hours after surgery were significantly higher in the L-TEP compared to R-TAPP (36.8 ± 20.1 vs 20.3 ± 18.7; P < .001). Total hospital costs were 4778$ for R-TAPP and 3852$ for L-TEP. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates similar long-term postoperative outcomes and recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a case-matched fashion.

Robotic sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery: A learning curve analysis.

BACKGROUND: Longer operation time is one of the major obstacles in front of the proposed benefits of robotic rectal surgery. We intended to evaluate the learning process for robotic surgery in sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. The variable evaluated for learning curve calculation was the operative time. RESULTS: The learning curve was divided into two phases: initial 52 operations comprised phase 1 and the following 44 operations represented phase 2. Interphase comparisons showed that phase 2 patients had shorter operation times (323.3 ± 102.8 vs. 379.9 ± 108.7 min, p = 0.011), less blood loss (37.2 ± 51.0 vs. 87.7 ± 124.8 mL, p = 0.009), longer distal resection margins (4.5 ± 4.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7 cm, p = 0.008), and higher rates of grade 3 mesorectal completeness (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, we saw that the cut-off level in the learning curve of a laparoscopically experienced surgeon could be beyond the numbers reported in the literature.

Live surgical demonstrations for minimally invasive colorectal training.

PURPOSE: Live surgical demonstrations are considered an effective educational tool providing a chance for trainees to observe a real-time decision-making process of expert surgeons. No data exists evaluating the impact of live surgical demonstrations on the outcomes of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. This study evaluates perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery in the setting of live surgical demonstrations. METHODS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery which was performed as live surgical demonstrations (the study group) performed between 2006 and 2018 were reviewed. These patients were case-matched with those undergoing operations in routine practice (the control group). The study and control group were compared for intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine live surgery cases in the study group were case-matched with its thirty-nine counterparts as the control group. Operating time was longer (200 vs 165 min; p = 0.002) and estimated intraoperative blood loss was higher in the study group (100 vs 55 ml; p = 0.008). Patients in the study group stayed longer in the hospital (6 vs 5 days; p = 0.001). While conversion (n = 4 vs n = 1, p = 0.358) and intraoperative complications (n = 6 vs n = 2, p = 0.2) were more frequent in the study group, these outcomes did not reach statistical significance. Overall complications were higher in the study group (n = 22 vs n = 9, p = 0.003). One patient underwent a reoperation due to postoperative bleeding, and one mortality occurred in the live surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Live surgical demonstrations in minimally invasive colorectal surgery seem to be associated with increased risk of operative morbidity.