Surgical wound infection prevention using topical negative pressure therapy on closed abdominal incisions - the 'SWIPE IT' randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common cause of healthcare-associated infections in surgical patients. It is unclear whether incisional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can reduce the risk of SSIs in patients after open abdominal surgery. METHODS: A prospective, non-blinded multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed to evaluate the incidence of SSI post-laparotomy using incisional NPWT compared with a standard dressing. The primary outcome was the rate of superficial SSI. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients (61 patients in the NPWT arm and 63 patients in the control arm) were included. One hundred and nine (87.9%) patients underwent colorectal surgery; 61 patients (49.2%) had emergency surgery. There were more superficial SSIs in the control group than in the NPWT group, although not statistically significant (20.6% vs 9.8%, P=0.1). Upon multiple logistic regression analysis, control dressings were associated with increased risk of superficial SSI although again, not statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-7.17, P=0.11). There was no superficial non-SSI related wound dehiscence in the NPWT group compared with 9.5% in the control group (P=0.03). There was no difference in postoperative complications (P=0.15), nor in other wound complications (P=0.79). CONCLUSION: NPWT was not associated with decreased superficial SSI in this RCT. However, there was a statistically significant reduction in superficial wound dehiscence with NWPT dressings. The results of this study should be included in meta-analyses for better evaluation of NPWT on closed abdominal incisions.

Robotic low anterior resection: how to maximise success in difficult surgery.

Minimally invasive laparoscopic low or ultra-low anterior resection may present as a complex, technically difficult challenge to even the most experienced of colorectal surgeons. This is because, within the narrow confines of the pelvis, there is usually limited visibility, and difficult manoeuvrability of rigid laparoscopic instrumentation with resulting poor access. The utilisation of robotic technology makes sense within the narrow confines of the pelvis. Several studies including recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohorts have shown reduced rates of conversion to open. Some studies have also shown benefits including improved short-term outcomes and oncological benefits. However, robotic ultra-low anterior resection has a steep learning curve and many of the benefits of robotic surgery have not been fully realised, because the majority of surgeons are in the early phase of the learning curve. This 'How I do It' article provides a detailed description of the important technical points that may help in maximising success in performing robotically assisted laparoscopic ultra-low anterior resection.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse and rectal intussusception: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is a treatment with promising results in external rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. Because of the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery and the technical advantage it provides, we examined the potential role and place of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy. METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, and other databases were searched, by two independent reviewers, to identify studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned conversion to open. The secondary outcomes were morbidity, length of hospital stay and recurrence rate. RESULTS: Five studies (4% male, n = 259) met the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported on conversion rate and showed no significant difference between the conversion rate of robotic and laparoscopic groups [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.09-3.77)]. Robotic surgery was also similar to laparoscopic surgery for both morbidity [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34-1.48)] and recurrence rate [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-1.75)]. Operative time was longer in the robotic group with a MWD of 22.88 minutes (CI 5.73-40.04, p < 0.0007). There was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay with robotic surgery [mean difference - 0.36 days (95% CI - 0.66 to - 0.07)]. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy requires longer operative time with no significant added benefit over laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. The conversion rate was low in both groups and the trends to benefit did not reach statistical significance. More studies are required to clarify whether the potential technical advantage of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy translates to an improvement in clinical outcome.

Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies.

BACKGROUND: The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. The aim of the present study was to determine if robotic surgery results in less conversion to an open operation than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies comparing a robotic vs. laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was conversion to open. All statistical analyses and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14·2, Windows 64 bit (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-one studies were identified through electronic database search. After application of selection criteria as per PRISMA and MOOSE criteria, six RCTs and five PSM articles were analyzed. From the six RCTs, 512 robotic and 519 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower rate of conversion for the robotic surgery arm (4.1% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.00-0.57). Of the five PSM studies, 2097 robotic and 3053 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower conversion to open rate found in the robotic surgery cohort (7.4% vs. 15.6%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.47). Pooled RCT and PSM data demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates for robotic surgery (6.7% vs. 14.5%; OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion to open surgery compared to a laparoscopic approach.

Totally robotic single docking low anterior resection for rectal cancer: pearls and pitfalls.

Total robotic resection of mid- and low rectal cancers confers technical advantages within the confines of the pelvis and allows difficult rectal cancer cases to be performed efficiently with less risk of conversion to open. To maximize the advantage of robotic surgery, we utilize the technique of single docking totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer for both the Da Vinci Si and Xi Surgical Systems. All steps are performed robotically, with the surgery divided into two phases. The first phase consists of inferior mesenteric artery and vein ligation, sigmoid and descending colon mobilization and splenic flexure takedown. Phase two is rectal dissection and pelvic total mesorectal excision. In this article, which is complemented by a video, we describe in detail our surgical technique for totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer using a standardized 'medial to lateral' approach with emphasis on the pearls and pitfalls of this surgery.

Three steps and a join: a simple guide to right- and left-sided medial to lateral laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: To provide a standardised 'medial to lateral' approach to laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Both right- and left- sided laparoscopic colorectal procedures were simplified into three well-defined steps and a join. An instructional video and procedural guide provides the important pearls and pitfalls in performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. RESULTS: During a 10-year period (2006-2016) at a single institution, 20 senior colorectal trainee surgeons and 20 general surgery registrars were trained in the 'three steps and a join' technique. Five hundred and sixty-eight laparoscopic anterior resections using this technique were performed. There were 5 (0.9%) leaks. Five hundred and forty-three laparoscopic right-sided resections were performed. There were 3 (0.6%) anastomotic leaks requiring reoperation and loop ileostomy. CONCLUSIONS: This step-by-step instructional video and procedural guide provides a simple and standardised approach which may be incorporated into a training pathway for laparoscopic right- and left-sided colorectal surgery.

The risk of internal hernia or volvulus after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: To determine the incidence of internal hernias after laparoscopic colorectal surgery and evaluate the risk factors and strategies in the management of this serious complication. METHOD: Two databases (MEDLINE from 1946 and Embase from 1949) were searched to mid-September 2015. The search terms included volvulus or internal hernia and laparoscopic colorectal surgery or colorectal surgery or anterior resection or laparoscopic colectomy. We found 49 and 124 articles on MEDLINE and Embase, respectively, an additional 15 articles were found on reviewing the references. After removal of duplicates, 176 abstracts were reviewed, with 33 full texts reviewed and 15 eligible for qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: The incidence of internal hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is low (0.65%). Thirty-one patients were identified. Five cases were from two prospective studies (5/648, 0.8%), 20 cases were from seven retrospective studies (20/3165, 0.6%) and six patients were from case reports. Of the 31 identified cases, 21 were associated with left-sided resection, four with right sided resection, two with transverse colectomy, one with a subtotal colectomy and in three cases the operation was not specified. The majority of cases (64.3%) were associated with a restorative left sided resection. Nearly all cases occurred within 4 months of surgery. All patients required re-operation and reduction of the internal hernia and 35.7% of cases required a bowel resection. In 52.2% of cases, the mesenteric defect was closed at the second operation and 52.6% of cases were successfully managed laparoscopically. There were three deaths (0.08%). CONCLUSION: Mesenteric hernias are a rare but important complication of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The evidence does not support routine closure for all cases, but selective closure of the mesenteric defect during left-sided restorative procedures in high-risk patients at the initial surgery may be considered.

Management approach and surgical strategies for retrorectal tumours: a systematic review.

AIM: The management strategy for retrorectal tumours is complex. Due to their rarity, few surgeons have expertise in management. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed database. English language publications in the years 2011-2015 that assessed preoperative management, surgical strategies and chemoradiotherapy for presacral tumours were included. Two hundred and fifty-one abstracts were screened of which 88 met the inclusion criteria. After review of the full text, this resulted in a final list of 42 studies eligible for review. RESULTS: In all, 932 patients (63.2% female, 36.8% male; P < 0.01) with a retrorectal tumour were identified. Most were benign (65.9% vs. 33.7%, P < 0.01). Imaging distinguished benign from malignant lesions in 88.1% of cases; preoperative biopsy was superior to imaging in providing an accurate definitive diagnosis (91.3% vs. 61.4%, P < 0.05) with negligible seeding risk. Biopsy should be performed in solid tumours. It is useful in guiding neoadjuvant therapy for gastrointestinal stromal tumours, sarcomas and desmoid type fibromatosis and may alter the management strategy in cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and metastases. Biopsies for cystic lesions are not recommended. The gold standard in imaging is MRI. The posterior Kraske procedure is the most common surgical approach. Overall, the reported recurrence rate was 19.7%. CONCLUSION: This review evaluated the management strategies for retrorectal tumours. A preoperative biopsy should be performed for solid tumours. MRI is the most useful imaging modality. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment. There is limited information on robotic surgery, single-port surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery, chemoradiotherapy and reconstruction.