Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients: ACS-NSQIP analysis.

Laparoscopic rectal surgery within the confines of a narrow pelvis may be associated with a high rate of open conversion. In the obese and morbidly obese patient, the complexity of laparoscopic surgery increases substantially. Robotic technology is known to reduce the risk of conversion, but it is unclear if it can overcome the technical challenges associated with obesity. The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify obese patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal resection from 2015 to 2016. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2. Morbid obesity was defined as a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2. The primary outcome was unplanned conversions to open. Other outcomes measures assessed included anastomotic leak, operative time, surgical site infections, length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM SPSS, USA). 1490 patients had robotic-assisted and 4967 patients had laparoscopic rectal resections between 2015 and 2016. Of those patients, 561 obese patients had robotic-assisted rectal resections and 1824 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery. In the obese cohort, the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 14% compared to 24% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Median operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (248 min vs. 215 min, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak or systemic sepsis between the laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery groups. In morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 19% compared to 26% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.027). There was no difference in anastomotic leak, systemic sepsis or surgical site infection rates between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with fewer unplanned conversions to open (OR 0.28, P < 0.0001). Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with a decreased risk of conversion to open in obese and morbidly obese patients when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time and despite improvement in the rate of conversion to open, there was no difference in complications or length of stay. Our findings are limited by the retrospective non-randomised nature of the study, demographic differences between the two groups, and the likely difference in surgeon experience between the two groups. Large randomised controlled studies are needed to further explore the role of robotic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients.

Pelvic floor training improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation despite the presence of rectal intussusception.

BACKGROUND: Rectal intussusception is often observed in patients with faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation. The aim of this study is to assess if pelvic floor training improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation in patients with rectal intussusception. METHODS: Case notes of all patients referred to Bankstown Hospital Pelvic Floor Clinic between 2013 and 2018 for the management of faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation and rectal intussusception were retrospectively reviewed using a prospectively maintained database. St Mark's faecal incontinence and Cleveland clinic constipation scores were obtained from patients before and after they underwent pelvic floor training. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-one patients underwent pelvic floor training at Bankstown Hospital Pelvic Floor Clinic between 2013 and 2018. Sixty-one patients had rectal intussusception (22 low-grade and 39 high-grade). Median St Marks score improved following pelvic floor training from 8 to 1 (P < 0.001). Median Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 8 to 5 (P < 0.001). In patients with low grade rectal intussusception, pelvic floor training improved median St Mark's score from 3 to 0 (P = 0.003), whereas Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 9 to 7 (P < 0.001). In patients with high-grade rectal intussusception, pelvic floor training improved median St Mark's score from 9 to 2 (P < 0.001), whereas median Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 8 to 4 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor training without biofeedback therapy improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation. Improvement in symptoms is unrelated to rectal intussusception observed on proctography or at examination under anaesthesia in these patients.

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs hasten recovery after colorectal resections.

Colorectal resection was traditionally associated with significant morbidity and prolonged stay in hospital. Laparoscopic colorectal resection was first described in 1991 as a minimally invasive form of colorectal surgery. It was later on assessed by multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis and was found to be associated with a faster recovery, lower complication rates and a shorter stay in hospital compared with open resection. To assess the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program on postoperative length of stay after elective colorectal resections, a literature review was conducted, supplemented by the results of 111 ERAS colorectal resections at regional NWS Hospital using a protocol based on the Fast Track approach described by Kehlet in 1999. ERAS has been shown to improve postoperative recovery, reduce length of stay and enhance early return to normal function when compared with traditional colorectal surgical protocols. The role of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal resections within a fast-track (ERAS) program is controversial. The current evidence suggests that within such a program, there is no difference between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in terms of postoperative recovery rates or length of hospital stay.