Robotic resection of presacral tumors.

BACKGROUND: Presacral tumors are a rare entity typically treated with an open surgical approach. A limited number of minimally invasive resections have been described. The aim of the study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of roboticresection of presacral tumors. METHODS: This is a retrospective single system analysis, conducted at a quaternary referral academic healthcare system, and included all patients who underwent a robotic excision of a presacral tumor between 2015 and 2023. Outcomes of interest were operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, length of stay, margin status, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (11 females and 5 males) were included. The median age of the cohort was 51 years (range 25-69 years). The median operative time was 197 min (range 98-802 min). The median estimated blood loss was 40 ml, ranging from 0 to 1800 ml, with one patient experiencing conversion to open surgery after uncontrolled hemorrhage. Urinary retention was the only postoperative complication that occurred in three patients (19%) and was solved within 30 days in all cases. The median length of stay was one day (range 1-6 days). The median follow-up was 6.7 months (range 1-110 months). All tumors were excised with appropriate margins, but one benign and one malignant tumor recurred (12.5%). Ten tumors were classified as congenital (one was malignant), two were mesenchymal (both malignant), and five were miscellaneous (one malignant). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic resection of select presacral pathology is feasible and safe. Further studies must be conducted to determine complication rates, outcomes, and long-term safety profiles.

Risk factors for conversion in laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to review risk factors for conversion in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients operated on from February 2005 to April 2018. Adult patients undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal adenocarcinoma by a minimally invasive approach were included. Exclusion criteria were lack of research authorization, stage IV or recurrent rectal cancer, and emergency surgery. Risk factors for conversion were investigated using logistic regression. A subgroup analysis of obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m2 or more) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The overall conversion rate was 9·2 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed a 72 per cent lower risk of conversion when patients had robotic surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·28, 95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 0·52). Obese patients experienced a threefold higher risk of conversion compared with non-obese patients (47 versus 24·4 per cent respectively; P < 0·001). Robotic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of conversion in obese patients (OR 0·22, 0·07 to 0·71). CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery was associated with a lower risk of conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, in both obese and non-obese patients.

ANTECEDENTES: El objetivo del estudio era revisar los factores de riesgo para la conversión en una cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de recto sometidos a cirugía abdominal mínimamente invasiva. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo de pacientes consecutivos operados desde febrero de 2005 hasta abril de 2018. Se incluyeron pacientes adultos sometidos a resección anterior baja o resección abdominoperineal por adenocarcinoma primario de recto mediante abordaje mínimamente invasivo. Los criterios de exclusión fueron falta del consentimiento informado, cáncer de recto en estadio IV o recidivado y cirugía urgente. Los factores de riesgo para la conversión se determinaron mediante regresión logística. Se realizó un análisis de subgrupo en pacientes obesos (índice de masa corporal, IMC ≥ 30 kg/m2 ). RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron en el análisis un total de 600 pacientes. La tasa global de conversión fue del 9,2%. El modelo multivariado mostró un riesgo 72% menor de conversión cuando los pacientes fueron tratados mediante cirugía robótica (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 0,28, i.c. del 95% 0,15-0,52). Los pacientes obesos presentaron un riesgo de conversión tres veces mayor en comparación con los pacientes no obesos (47,3% versus 24,5%, P < 0,001). La cirugía robótica se asoció con una menor probabilidad de conversión en los pacientes obesos (OR 0,22; i.c. del 95% 0,07-0,71). CONCLUSIÓN: La cirugía robótica se asoció con un menor riesgo de conversión en pacientes sometidos a cirugía mínimamente invasiva de cáncer de recto, tanto en pacientes obesos como no obesos.

Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18-68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery.

Randomized clinical trial of liposomal bupivacaine transverse abdominis plane block versus intrathecal analgesia in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is considered an effective alternative to neuraxial analgesia for abdominal surgery. However, limited evidence supports its use over traditional analgesic modalities in colorectal surgery. This study compared the analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine TAP block with intrathecal (IT) opioid administration in a multicentre RCT. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective small bowel or colorectal resection were randomized to receive TAP block or a single injection of IT analgesia with hydromorphone. Patients were assessed at 4, 8, 16, 24 and 48 h after surgery. Primary outcomes were mean pain scores and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered within 48 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included duration of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative ileus and use of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. RESULTS: In total, 209 patients were recruited and 200 completed the trial (TAP 102, IT 98). The TAP group had a 1·6-point greater mean pain score than the IT group at 4 h after surgery, and this difference lasted for 16 h after operation. The TAP group received more MMEs within the first 24 h after surgery than the IT group (median difference in MMEs 10·0, 95 per cent c.i. 3·0 to 20·5). There were no differences in MME use at 24 and 48 h, or with respect to secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: IT opioid administration provided better immediate postoperative pain control than TAP block. Both modalities resulted in low pain scores in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery and should be considered in multimodal postoperative analgesic plans. Registration number: NCT02356198 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Impact of enhanced recovery on oncological outcomes following minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncological outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer depend on the quality of surgical and oncological management. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have yet to be assessed for their oncological impact when used in combination with minimally invasive surgery. This study assessed outcomes with or without an ERP in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive adult patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for primary rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent between February 2005 and April 2018. Both laparoscopic and robotic procedures were included. Short-term morbidity and overall survival were compared between patients treated according to the institutional ERP and those who received conventional care. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery, of whom 320 (53·3 per cent) were treated according to the ERP and 280 (46·7 per cent) received conventional care. ERP was associated with less overall morbidity (34·7 versus 54·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Patients in the ERP group had improved overall survival on univariable (91·4 versus 81·7 per cent at 5 years; hazard ratio (HR) 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·28 to 0·99) but not multivariable (HR 0·78, 0·41 to 1·50) analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed age (HR 1·46, 1·17 to 1·82), male sex (HR 1·98, 1·05 to 3·70) and complications (HR 2·23, 1·30 to 3·83) as independent risk factors for compromised overall survival. Disease-free survival was comparable for patients who had ERP or conventional treatment (80·5 versus 84·6 per cent at 5 years respectively; P = 0·272). CONCLUSION: Treatment within an ERP was associated with a lower morbidity risk that may have had a subtle impact on overall but not disease-specific survival.

Does obesity impact postoperative outcomes following robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer?

INTRODUCTION: Obesity has been identified as a risk factor for both conversion and severe postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection. Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is proposed to overcome some of the technical limitations associated with laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of our study was to determine if obesity remains a risk factor for severe morbidity in patients undergoing robotic-assisted rectal resection. PATIENTS: This study was a retrospective review of a prospective database. A total of 183 patients undergoing restorative RAS for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016 were divided into 2 groups: control (BMI < 30 kg/m2; n = 125) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2; n = 58). Clinicopathologic data, 30-day postoperative morbidity, and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups. The main outcome was severe postoperative morbidity defined as any complication graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3. RESULTS: Control and obese groups had similar clinicopathologic characteristics. Severe complications were observed in 9 (7%) and 4 (7%) patients, respectively (p > 0.99). Obesity did not impact conversion, anastomotic leak rate, length of stay, or readmission but was significantly associated with increased postoperative morbidity (29 vs. 45%; p = 0.04) and especially more postoperative ileus (11 vs. 26%; p = 0.01). Obesity and male gender were the two independent risk factors for postoperative overall morbidity (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.02-3.94; p = 0.04 and OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.10-4.76; p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: Obesity did not impact severe morbidity or conversion rate following RAS for rectal cancer but remained a risk factor for overall morbidity and especially postoperative ileus.

Does prolonged operative time impact postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing robotic-assisted rectal resection for cancer?

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown a correlation between longer operative times and higher rates of postoperative morbidity for open and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of prolonged operative time on early postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection. METHODS: The study was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database conducted in two centers of the same institution. A total of 260 consecutive patients undergoing with robotic-assisted resection for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016 were included. Patients were divided into two groups regarding median operative time: > 300 min (prolonged operative time; n = 133) and ≤ 300 min (control; n = 127). Patient characteristics, operative and postoperative data were compared between groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine whether prolonged operative time was a predictive factor of 30-day postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Prolonged operative time was noted more frequently in males (p = 0.02), patients with higher BMI (p < 0.01), more severe comorbidities (p < 0.01), in tumors of the mid-rectum, and in surgery performed after neoadjuvant chemoradiation or upon surgeons' learning curve. The two groups had similar overall postoperative morbidity (32 vs. 41%; p = 0.16) and severe morbidity (6 vs. 6%; p = 0.92) rates. Prolonged operative time was associated with longer hospital stay (3.8 ± 2.5 vs. 5.0 ± 3.7 days; p = 0.004) in univariate analysis. Prolonged operative time was not independently associated with postoperative morbidity or with increased hospital stay on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In our study, prolonged operative time was not associated with an over-risk of morbidity in patients undergoing robotic resection for rectal cancer. These results suggest that more difficult robotic procedures do not lead to increased postoperative morbidity.

An unusual cause of anal pain following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a safe and effective operation in properly selected patients, but a variety of potential complications can occur. We present a case of a 56-year-old female who underwent a double-stapled IPAA for refractory ulcerative colitis and postoperatively developed unrelenting, severe anal pain requiring daily narcotics. Examination under anesthesia revealed that her pain was a result of staples from the anastomosis that had migrated into the highly sensitive anoderm below the dentate line. Removal of these staples led to resolution of her symptoms.