Development and validation of an objective scoring tool to evaluate surgical dissection: Dissection Assessment for Robotic Technique (DART).

Purpose: Evaluation of surgical competency has important implications for training new surgeons, accreditation, and improving patient outcomes. A method to specifically evaluate dissection performance does not yet exist. This project aimed to design a tool to assess surgical dissection quality. Methods: Delphi method was used to validate structure and content of the dissection evaluation. A multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary panel of 14 expert surgeons systematically evaluated each element of the dissection tool. Ten blinded reviewers evaluated 46 de-identified videos of pelvic lymph node and seminal vesicle dissections during the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Inter-rater variability was calculated using prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa. The area under the curve from receiver operating characteristic curve was used to assess discrimination power for overall DART scores as well as domains in discriminating trainees (≤100 robotic cases) from experts (>100). Results: Four rounds of Delphi method achieved language and content validity in 27/28 elements. Use of 3- or 5-point scale remained contested; thus, both scales were evaluated during validation. The 3-point scale showed improved kappa for each domain. Experts demonstrated significantly greater total scores on both scales (3-point, p< 0.001; 5-point, p< 0.001). The ability to distinguish experience was equivalent for total score on both scales (3-point AUC= 0.92, CI 0.82-1.00, 5-point AUC= 0.92, CI 0.83-1.00). Conclusions: We present the development and validation of Dissection Assessment for Robotic Technique (DART), an objective and reproducible 3-point surgical assessment to evaluate tissue dissection. DART can effectively differentiate levels of surgeon experience and can be used in multiple surgical steps.

Minimally invasive right colectomy anastomosis study (MIRCAST): protocol for an observational cohort study of surgical complications using four surgical techniques for anastomosis in patients with a right colon tumor.

BACKGROUND: Right colectomy is the standard surgical treatment for tumors in the right colon and surgical complications are reduced with minimally-invasive laparoscopy compared with open surgery, with potential further benefits achieved with robotic assistance. The anastomotic technique used can also have an impact on patient outcomes. However, there are no large, prospective studies that have compared all techniques. METHODS/DESIGN: MIRCAST is the Minimally-Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis Study that will compare laparoscopy with robot-assisted surgery, using either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis, in a large prospective, observational, multicenter, parallel, four-cohort study in patients with a benign or malignant, non-metastatic tumor of the right colon. Over 2 years of follow-up, the study will prospectively evaluate peri- and postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, hospital stay, and mid-term results including survival, local recurrence, metastases rate, and conversion rate. The primary composite endpoint will be the efficacy of the surgical method regarding surgical wound infections and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications at 30 days post-surgery). Secondary endpoints include long-term oncologic results, conversion rate, operative time, length of stay, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This will be the first large, international study to prospectively evaluate the use of minimally-invasive laparoscopy or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomy and to control for the impact of the anastomotic technique. The research will contribute to current knowledge regarding the medical care of patients with malignant or benign tumors of the right colon, and enable physicians to determine which technique may be the most appropriate for their patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03650517 ) on August 28th 2018 (study protocol version CI18/02 revision A, 21 February 2018).

Age aspects of demography, pathology and survival assessment in colorectal cancer.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess how age is related to differences in stage, tumour differentiation and treatment in colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study in a consecutive series of colorectal cancer patients (n = 2220) where age was related to demography, stage, tumour characteristics, treatment and outcome (OS/CSS) both as a continuous variable and grouped by high/low 10th percentiles, as young/old groups, with a third median reference group. RESULTS: Young patients had more advanced cancer stages (p = 0.012), higher N-status (p = 0.011) and more frequent T4/G4 tumours. Old patients had higher postoperative mortality and were less likely to receive chemotherapy. The proportion of cancer-related deaths was stage-dependent and decreased with age. CONCLUSION: Cancer stage, tumour characteristics, treatment and outcome can vary with age in colorectal cancer. The increasing proportion of non-cancer deaths at a higher age can affect the use of overall survival as an outcome parameter, which may be of importance in evaluating clinical and translational research.

Perianal local block for stapled anopexy.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to demonstrate the usefulness of a method of regional anesthesia for circular stapler anopexy for prolapsing hemorrhoids. METHODS: Thirty-three patients consented to stapled anopexy under perianal local anesthesia. Eighteen patients with stapled anopexy under general anesthesia were controls. The perianal block was applied with 40 ml of ropivacaine, 4.75 mg/ml, injected immediately peripheral to the external sphincter. A submucosal block with 15 ml of ropivacaine, 2 mg/ml, was added after applying the pursestring suture. Postoperative pain was rated by the patient for 14 days by using a ten-point visual analogue scale. Patients also submitted a preoperative and postoperative (3-6 months) symptom questionnaire to rate anal symptoms. RESULTS: No operation was converted to general anesthesia. Operation time was similar in both groups. All patients in the local anesthesia group were pain free at discharge. The sums of pain scores during 14 days for daily average pain and peak pain were similar in both groups (average pain 23 (local anesthesia) vs. 35 (general anesthesia); peak pain 39 (local anesthesia) vs. 50 (general anesthesia); P>0.05). The preoperative symptom scores were 7.8 (local anesthesia) vs. 8.9 (general anesthesia) points, and the follow-up scores were 2.2 (local anesthesia) and 2.7 (general anesthesia), a significant improvement (P=0.001) in both groups but not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A perianal local block is easy to apply and has a high degree of acceptance among patients. The operation time, postoperative pain, and success rates of the operation equaled those of stapled anopexy performed under general anesthesia. The advantages are quicker turnover between cases and simpler management of pain-free postoperative patients in day surgery.