Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series.

BACKGROUND: Around 20% of rectal tumors are locally advanced with invasion into adjacent structures at presentation. These may require surgical resections beyond boundaries of total mesorectal excision (bTME) for radicality. Robotic bTME is under investigation. This study reports perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic bTME for locally advanced rectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected robotic bTME resections (July 2015-November 2020). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated. RESULTS: One-hundred-sixty-eight patients (eight centres) were included. Median age and BMI were 60.0 (50.0-68.7) years and 24.0 (24.4-27.7) kg/m2. Female sex was prevalent (n = 95, 56.8%). Fifty patients (29.6%) were ASA III-IV. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was given to 125 (74.4%) patients. Median operative time was 314.0 (260.0-450.0) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 150.0 (27.5-500.0) ml. Conversion to laparotomy was seen in 4.8%. Postoperative complications occurred in 77 (45.8%) patients; 27.3% and 3.9% were Clavien-Dindo III and IV, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (n = 2). R0 rate was 92.9%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 72 (42.9%) patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 (10.0-65.7) months. Distant and local recurrences were seen in 35 (20.8%) and 15 patients (8.9%), respectively. Overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 91.7, 82.1, and 76.8%. Disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 84.0, 74.5, and 69.2%. CONCLUSION: Robotic bTME is technically safe with relatively low conversion rate, good OS, and acceptable DFS in the hands of experienced surgeons in high volume centres. In selected cases robotic approach allows for high R0 rates during bTME.

Protocol for a multicentre randomised feasibility trial evaluating early Surgery Alone In LOw Rectal cancer (SAILOR).

INTRODUCTION: There are 11 500 rectal cancers diagnosed annually in the UK. Although surgery remains the primary treatment, there is evidence that preoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves local recurrence rates. High-quality surgery in rectal cancer is equally important in minimising local recurrence. Advances in MRI-guided prediction of resection margin status and improvements in abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER) technique supports a reassessment of the contribution of preoperative RT. A more selective approach to RT may be appropriate given the associated toxicity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will explore the feasibility of a definitive trial evaluating the omission of RT in resectable low rectal cancer requiring APER. It will test the feasibility of randomising patients to (1) standard care (neoadjuvant long course RT±chemotherapy and APER, or (2) APER surgery alone for cT2/T3ab N0/1 low rectal cancer with clear predicted resection margins on MRI. RT schedule will be 45 Gy over 5 weeks as current standard, with restaging and surgery after 8-12 weeks. Recruitment will be for 24 months with a minimum 12-month follow-up. OBJECTIVES: Objectives include testing the ability to recruit, consent and retain patients, to quantify the number of patients eligible for a definitive trial and to test feasibility of outcomes measures. These include locoregional recurrence rates, distance to circumferential resection margin, toxicity and surgical complications including perineal wound healing, quality of life and economic analysis. The quality of MRI staging, RT delivery and surgical specimen quality will be closely monitored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by the Regional Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (HRA) or equivalent. Written informed consent will be obtained. Serious adverse events will be reported to Swansea Trials Unit (STU), the ethics committee and trial sites. Trial results will be submitted for peer review publication and to trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN02406823.

Follow up of children undergoing antegrade continent enema: experience of over two hundred cases.

PURPOSE: Antegrade continent enema (ACE) procedures have been used as a treatment of constipation and soiling. Little is known about the long-term results of these procedures, particularly as patients progress into adulthood. This study presents the long-term outcomes of ACE in children, with follow up into adulthood, over a fifteen-year period. METHODS: A prospective database of all consecutive procedures performed from 1998 to 2013 by a single surgeon in a regional centre was analysed. Operative details and follow up by both paediatric and adult clinicians and stoma nurses were included. RESULTS: During the study period 203 ACE procedures were performed in children with a median age of 9years 7months (3-17). Indications included chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) resistant to medical treatment in 62% of cases, anorectal malformation in 18%, spinal cord abnormalities in 9% and Hirschprung's in 7%. After an average follow-up of 5.5years (0.5-15) 132 patients were still using their ACE. 113 (93%) regularly had a good result from the procedure, 8 a variable result and 1 poor. Soiling was prevented in 79 patients (75%), partially improved in 15 and persistent in 15. Over the study period 53 patients (26%) no longer used their ACE due to resolution of symptoms. In 32 of these patients the ACE was reversed at a median interval of 5years from formation (1-12). In 17 cases (8%) the procedure failed with significant symptoms persisting. Four of these patients were reversed and a further 11 went on to have other procedures including 5 restorative pouches and 4 stomas. Of the patients that no longer required their ACE the majority (81%) had a pre-operative diagnosis of CIC. Only 7% of ACE procedures performed for CIC failed compared to 26% for spinal cord abnormalities. CONCLUSION: Many patients continue to use their ACE to good effect in long-term follow up. In this study over a quarter had resolution of their symptoms permitting reversal. This was more likely if they suffered idiopathic constipation.

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (USGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with conventional surgery (high ligation and stripping (HL/S)), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates. OBJECTIVE : To review available randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) data comparing USGFS, RFA, EVLT to HL/S for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. METHODS : Search methods: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialized Register (July 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3). In addition the authors performed a search of EMBASE (July 2010). Manufacturers of EVLT, RFA and sclerosant equipment were contacted for trial data. Selection criteria: All RCTs of EVLT, RFA, USGFS and HL/S were considered for inclusion. Primary outcomes were recurrent varicosities, recanalization, neovascularization, technical procedure failure or need for re-intervention, patient quality of life (QoL) scores and associated complications. Secondary outcomes were type of anaesthetic, procedure duration, hospital stay and cost. Data collection and analysis: CN, RE, VB, PC, HB and GS independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials which met the inclusion criteria. CN and RE extracted data. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. CN contacted trial authors to clarify details. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen reports from five studies with a combined total of 450 patients were included. Rates of recanalization were higher following EVLT compared with HL/S, both early (within four months) (5/149 versus 0/100; odds ratio (OR) 3.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 32.64) and late recanalization (after four months) ...

Endovenous ablation (radiofrequency and laser) and foam sclerotherapy versus conventional surgery for great saphenous vein varices.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques to treat great saphenous varicose veins include ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (USGFS), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endovenous laser therapy (EVLT). Compared with conventional surgery (high ligation and stripping (HL/S)), proposed benefits include fewer complications, quicker return to work, improved quality of life (QoL) scores, reduced need for general anaesthesia and equivalent recurrence rates. OBJECTIVES: To review available randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) data comparing USGFS, RFA, EVLT to HL/S for the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialised Register (July 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3). In addition the authors performed a search of EMBASE (July 2010). Manufacturers of EVLT, RFA and sclerosant equipment were contacted for trial data. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of EVLT, RFA, USGFS and HL/S were considered for inclusion. Primary outcomes were recurrent varicosities, recanalisation, neovascularisation, technical procedure failure or need for re-intervention, patient quality of life (QoL) scores and associated complications. Secondary outcomes were type of anaesthetic, procedure duration, hospital stay and cost. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: CN, RE, VB, PC, HB and GS independently reviewed, assessed and selected trials which met the inclusion criteria. CN and RE extracted data. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. CN contacted trial authors to clarify details. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen reports from five studies with a combined total of 450 patients were included. Rates of recanalisation were higher following EVLT compared with HL/S, both early (within four months) (5/149 versus 0/100; odds ratio (OR) 3.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 32.64) and late recanalisation (after four months) (9/118 versus 1/80; OR 2.97 95% CI 0.52 to 16.98), although these results were not statistically significant. Technical failure rates favoured EVLT over HL/S (1/149 versus 6/100; OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.75). Recurrence following RFA showed no difference when compared with surgery. Recanalisation within four months was observed more frequently following RFA compared with HL/S although not statistically significant (4/105 versus 0/88; OR 7.86, 95% CI 0.41 to 151.28); after four months no difference was observed. Neovascularisation was observed more frequently following HL/S compared with RFA, but again this was not statistically significant (3/42 versus 8/51; OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.63). Technical failure was observed less frequently following RFA compared with HL/S although this was not statistically significant (2/106 versus 7/96; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.01 to 34.25). No randomised clinical trials comparing HL/S versus USGFS met our study inclusion criteria. QoL scores and operative complications were not amenable to meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available clinical trial evidence suggests RFA and EVLT are at least as effective as surgery in the treatment of great saphenous varicose veins. There are insufficient data to comment on USGFS. Further randomised trials are needed. We should aim to report and analyse results in a congruent manner to facilitate future meta-analysis.

Nutritional strategies in severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review of the evidence.

Nutrition in severe acute pancreatitis is a critical aspect in the management of this condition. This review aims to systematically review the evidence available to inform the use of nutritional support in severe acute pancreatitis. High quality (level 1) evidence supports naso-jejunal enteral nutrition (NJ-EN) over parenteral nutrition (PN) reducing infectious morbidity and showing a trend towards reduced organ failure although there is no detectable difference in mortality. Trial data may underestimate benefit as patients are often recruited with predicted rather than proven severe disease. NJ-EN is safe when started immediately (level 3 evidence). NJ-EN is often impractical and naso-gastric (NG) feeding seems to be equivalent in terms of safety and outcomes whilst being more practical (level 2 evidence). Regarding feed supplementation, probiotic feed supplementation is not beneficial (level 1 evidence) the and may cause harm with excess mortality (level 2 evidence). No evidence exists to confirm benefit of the addition of prokinetics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) although their use is proven in other critically ill patients. Level 2 evidence does not currently support the use of combination immuno-nutrition though further work on individual agents may provide differing results. Level 2 evidence does not support intravenous supplementation of anti-oxidants and has demonstrated that these too may cause harm.

Acute lower respiratory tract infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether drugs used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) contribute to the increased risk of respiratory infection or influence its outcome. METHODS: We identified all episodes of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in our RA population over a 12 month period. A detailed drug history was recorded in each case, together with the clinical outcome. Premorbid illnesses and admission data were collected and analyzed to assess the influence of oral steroids and disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) on outcome. RESULTS: The overall annual incidence of LRTI in patients with RA was 2.3% with a mortality rate of 22.5%. Demographic factors predicting LRTI included older age and male sex. Oral steroids and not taking DMARD were also associated with an increased risk of hospital admission with LRTI. Being male and having RA for over 10 years trended to the prediction of death as a result of infection. Taking DMARD was not associated with any adverse outcome. CONCLUSION: Respiratory infection is common in patients with RA and carries a high mortality. Oral steroids predispose to infection, while DMARD do not. Increasing age and male sex also predispose to respiratory tract infection.