A review of minimal access surgery provision and training within the United Kingdom.

When combined with healthcare pressures, the exponential growth of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has impacted UK-based training outcomes, including the learning curve to competency. Aim: To ascertain the current provision of RAS and investigate differences in access to minimal access surgical (MAS) facilities and training across the UK. A two-armed electronic survey was conducted. The first arm questioned clinical leads regarding robotic practice and future training provisions. The second investigated trainee and trainers' perceptions of MAS training and facilities. 64% (52/81) of responding trusts utilise a robotic system. The majority (68% [55/81]) have plans to expand or acquire a system within 3 years. 171 responses from 112 UK and Republic of Ireland hospitals were collected for Arm 2. Laparoscopic categories queried whether trainees had access to a formal curriculum, training days and sim-boxes. Most consultants (51.9%) and trainees (51.6%) reported that there was no formal local training curriculum for robotic surgery. Combined responses demonstrated 42.1% (n = 195/463) said "yes", 39.5% (n = 183) "no" and 18.4% (n = 85) "don't know". For combined robotic categories (simulation, training days and operative lists) 28.3% (n = 134/473) responded "yes", 51.6% (n = 244) said "no" and 20.1% (n = 95) said "don't know". This study provides insight into the current provision of robotic-assisted surgery at UK trusts and highlights the need to facilitate regular clinical training and equitable access to MAS simulation within a formal curriculum. This may aid regulation of training in parallel with the expansion of robotic practice and avoid a significant skill acquisition gap and risks to patient safety.

Survival following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is known to provide increased benefits to patients during the postoperative recovery period. Initial scepticism over the oncological adequacy of resection has been dismissed by a number of major randomized trials. Emerging evidence indicates that laparoscopic surgery may provide a potential survival benefit in colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open resection for colorectal cancer between October 2003 and December 2010 were analyzed. Data were collated and a database compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 665 resections were performed with 457 laparoscopically and 208 open. The median length of stay was 4 days following laparoscopic resection and 7 days following open (p < 0.0005). There was no significant difference between the two groups apart from gender (p = 0.03), ASA (p = 0.03), and the number of patients with extranodal metastatic disease (p = 0.01). The 5-year overall survival (OS) in the completed laparoscopic group was 75.8 versus 72.5 % in the open group (p = 0.12). The 5-year OS in patients who were converted was 52 %. The 5-year OS for nonmetastatic disease in the completed laparoscopic group was significantly greater at 79.4 versus 74 % in the open group (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in OS for rectal cancer (p = 0.66), but there was an OS advantage for laparoscopically resected colon cancer (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for nonmetastatic colon cancer may provide an overall survival advantage.