Technical assessment in minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision: Is the complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool valid and reliable?

AIM: The complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool (CMECAT) is a novel tool designed to assess technical skills in minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision (CME) surgery. The aim of this study was to assess construct validity and reliability of CMECAT in a clinical context. METHOD: Colorectal surgeons were asked to submit video recorded laparoscopic CME resections for independent assessment of their technical abilities. The videos were grouped by surgeons' training level, and four established CME experts were recruited as CMECAT assessors. Extended reliability analysis (G-theory) was applied to describe assessor agreement. RESULTS: A total of 19 videos and 72 assessments were included in the analysis. Overall, technical skills assessed by CMECAT improved with increased training level: the experts scored significantly better than the untrained surgeons (3.3 vs. 2.5 points; p < 0.01). On right-sided resections, significantly higher scores were reported with increased training level for all categories and sections, while for left-sided resections, the variance across groups was smaller and significantly higher scores were only reported for oncological safety describing items. Overall, assessor agreement was high (G-coefficient: 0.81). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that CMECAT can be applied to video recorded CME cases for technical skill assessment. Further, it can reliably assess technical performance in right sided CME surgery, where construct validity has now been established. More videos are required to evaluate its validity on left colonic CME. In the future, we hope CMECAT can improve feedback during CME training, serve as a tool in certification processes and contribute to distinguishing CME from conventional surgery in future research.

Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST).

BACKGROUND: The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours. METHODS: This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy-absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy. RESULTS: Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures. CONCLUSION: No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.

Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality.

For T4 rectal tumours and local recurrences (LR) of rectal cancer, a radical resection beyond TME, sometimes by multi-visceral resection, is important to obtain safe margins and improve survival. The use of the laparoscopic approach (LA) for these cases is still controversial and associated with a high rate of conversion. However, robotic surgery might offer some advantages that can overcome some of the limitations of LA. Therefore, we aimed to analyse the postoperative outcomes and medium-term oncological results of robotic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer (pathological T4) and LR. A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who had undergone robotic rectal resection in a single institution over an 11-year period, and had a T4 tumour confirmed in the pathological report. Primary endpoint was to analyse postoperative complications (30-day) and the rate of conversion. Secondary endpoints include pathological assessment of the quality of the specimen, local recurrence and survival [2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)]. A total of 41 patients were analysed, including a total of 24 patients (60%) that required a multivisceral resection. The median distance from the tumour to the anorectal junction was 7 (4-12) cm. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 2 cases (5%). The overall morbidity rate was 78% (n = 32), with 37% of major complications, most of them urinary (n = 7). Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13 (7-27) days. The 30-day mortality rate was 7% (n = 3). An R0 resection was achieved in 85.4% of the cases (n = 35) due to 6 cases of the positive circumferential resection margin. 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for the T4 tumours were 72% and 85%, respectively. There were 8 cases of local recurrence (22.2%); 6 of them met the selection criteria for salvage surgery. Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer and multi-visceral resections is safe and feasible, with a low rate of conversion and an acceptable rate of postoperative morbidity in this subgroup of patients. Oncological results have shown to be comparable with the laparoscopic series published, preserving a good quality of the resected specimen. However, comparative studies and a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm the oncologic findings and to support the general adoption of the robotic system for these complex interventions.

Development of a procedure-specific tool for skill assessment in left- and right-sided laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision.

AIM: To (1) develop an assessment tool for laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) and (2) report evidence of its content validity. METHOD: Assessment statements were revealed through (1) semi-structured expert interviews and (2) consensus by the Delphi method, both involving an expert panel of five LCME surgeons. All experts were interviewed and then asked to rate LCME describing statements from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were returned anonymously to the panel until consensus was reached. Statements were directly included as content in the assessment tool if ≥60% of the experts responded "agree" or "strongly agree" (ratings 4 and 5), with the remaining responses being "neither agree nor disagree" (rating 3). Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for expert agreement evaluation. All included statements were subsequently reformulated as tool items and approved by the experts. RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were performed to reach consensus. Disagreement was reported for statements describing instrument handling around pancreas; visualisation of landmarks before inferior mesenteric artery ligation; lymphadenectomy around the inferior mesenteric artery, and division of the terminal ileum and transverse colon. ICC in the last Delphi-round was 0.84. The final tool content included 73 statements, converted to 48 right- and 40 left-sided items for LCME assessment. CONCLUSION: A procedure-specific, video-based tool, named complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool (CMECAT), has been developed for LCME skill assessment. In the future, we hope it can facilitate assessment of LCME surgeons, resulting in improved patient outcome after colon cancer surgery.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. METHOD: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). CONCLUSION: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Intraoperative robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection performance assessment using procedure-specific binary metrics and a global rating scale.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the use of binary metric-based (proficiency-based progression; PBP) performance assessments and global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS) of a robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection (RA-LAR) procedure. METHOD: A prospective study of video analysis of RA-LAR procedures was carried out using the PBP metrics with binary parameters previously developed, and GEARS. Recordings were collected from five novice surgeons (≤30 RA-LAR previously performed) and seven experienced surgeons (>30 RA-LAR previously performed). Two consultant colorectal surgeons were trained to be assessors in the use of PBP binary parameters to evaluate the procedure phases, surgical steps, errors, and critical errors in male and female patients and GEARS scores. Novice and experienced surgeons were categorized and assessed using PBP metrics and GEARS; mean scores obtained were compared for statistical purpose. Also, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of these assessment tools was evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty unedited recordings of RA-LAR procedures were blindly assessed. Overall, using PBP metric-based assessment, a subgroup of experienced surgeons made more errors (20 versus 16, P = 0.158) and critical errors (9.2 versus 7.8, P = 0.417) than the novice group, although not significantly. However, during the critical phase of RA-LAR, experienced surgeons made significantly fewer errors than the novice group (95% CI of the difference, Lower = 0.104 - Upper = 5.155, df = 11.9, t = 2.23, p = 0.042), and a similar pattern was observed for critical errors. The PBP metric and GEARS assessment tools distinguished between the objectively assessed performance of experienced and novice colorectal surgeons performing RA-LAR (total error scores with PBP metrics, P = 0.019-0.008; GEARS scores, P = 0.029-0.025). GEARS demonstrated poor IRR (mean IRR 0.49) and weaker discrimination between groups (15-41 per cent difference). PBP binary metrics demonstrated good IRR (mean 0.94) and robust discrimination particularly for total error scores (58-64 per cent). CONCLUSIONS: PBP binary metrics seem to be useful for metric-based training for surgeons learning RA-LAR procedures.

Implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients obtains optimal results after colorectal resections.

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs reduce postoperative complications and length of stay after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, but are still under evaluation after robotic colorectal surgery. To evaluate potential benefits in terms of length of stay and complications of an Enhanced recovery after surgery program in colorectal surgery. A subanalysis was performed to assess what combination of surgical approach and perioperative care had better outcomes. Prospective observational cohort study. 300 consecutive colorectal surgery patients: 150 were prospectively included in the enhanced recovery after Surgery program group and 150 retrospectively in the traditional care group, and subdivided according to the type of surgery, in Hospital Marques de Valdecilla, between 2013 and 2016. Postoperative complications decreased significantly (p = 0.002) from 46 to 28% (traditional care vs program group). The length of stay was decreased by 2 days (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated similar effect sizes after adjusting for age, gender, Charlson score, and type of surgery. Type of surgery was an independent predictive factor for postoperative complications and length of stay. Compared to open surgery, postoperative complications decreased by 50% (p < 0.001) after robotic surgery and by 40% (p = 0.01) after laparoscopic surgery, while the median length of stay decreased by three days (p < 0.001) after minimally invasive surgery. Enhanced recovery after surgery program and minimally invasive surgery were associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay after colorectal surgery compared to open surgery and traditional care. An enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients might be beneficial.

Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for the curative radical resection of rectal cancers. Minimally invasive TME has been gaining ground favored by the continuous technological advancements. New procedures, such as transanal TME (TaTME), have been introduced to overcome some technical limitations, especially in low rectal tumors, obese patients, and/or narrow pelvis. The earliest TaTME reports showed promising results when compared with the conventional laparoscopic TME. However, recent publications raised concerns regarding the high rates of anastomotic leaks or local recurrences observed in national series. Robotic TaTME (R-TaTME) has been proposed as a novel technique incorporating the potential benefits of a perineal dissection together with precise control of the distal margins, and also offers all those advantages provided by the robotic technology in terms of improved precision and dexterity. Encouraging short-term results have been reported for R-TaTME, but further studies are needed to assess the real role of the new technique in the long-term oncological or functional outcomes. The present review aims to provide a general overview of R-TaTME by analyzing the body of the available literature, with a special focus on the potential benefits, harms, and future perspectives for this novel approach.

A probabilistic model for the prediction of intra-abdominal infection after colorectal surgery.

AIM: Predicting intra-abdominal infections (IAI) after colorectal surgery by means of clinical signs is challenging. A naïve logistic regression modeling approach has some limitations, for which reason we study two potential alternatives: the use of Bayesian networks, and that of logistic regression model. METHODS: Data from patients that had undergone colorectal procedures between 2010 and 2017 were used. The dataset was split into two subsets: (i) that for training the models and (ii) that for testing them. The predictive ability of the models proposed was tested (i) by comparing the ROC curves from days 1 and 3 with all the subjects in the test set and (ii) by studying the evolution of the abovementioned predictive ability from day 1 to day 5. RESULTS: In day 3, the predictive ability of the logistic regression model achieved an AUC of 0.812, 95% CI = (0.746, 0.877), whereas that of the Bayesian network was 0.768, 95% CI = (0.695, 0.840), with a p-value for their comparison of 0.097. The ability of the Bayesian network model to predict IAI does present significant difference in predictive ability from days 3 to 5: AUC(Day 3) = 0.761, 95% CI = (0.680, 0.841) and AUC(Day 5) = 0.837, 95% CI = (0.769, 0.904), with a p-value for their comparison of 0.006. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas at postoperative day 3, a logistic regression model with imputed data should be used to predict IAI; at day 5, when the predictive ability is almost identical, the Bayesian network model should be used.

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the surgical management of colorectal cancer: lessons learned from a multicenter study in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: the aim of the study was to analyze the management of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients diagnosed with CRC or undergoing elective surgery during the period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a multicenter ambispective analysis was performed in nine centers in Spain during a four-month period. Data were collected from every patient, including changes in treatments, referrals or delays in surgeries, changes in surgical approaches, postoperative outcomes and perioperative SARS-CoV-2 status. The hospital's response to the outbreak and available resources were categorized, and outcomes were divided into periods based on the timeline of the pandemic. RESULTS: a total of 301 patients were included by the study centers and 259 (86 %) underwent surgery. Five hospitals went into phase III during the peak of incidence period, one remained in phase II and three in phase I. More than 60 % of patients suffered some form of change: 48 % referrals, 39 % delays, 4 % of rectal cancer patients had a prolonged interval to surgery and 5 % underwent neoadjuvant treatment. At the time of study closure, 3 % did not undergo surgery. More than 85 % of the patients were tested preoperatively for SARS-CoV-2. A total of nine patients (3 %) developed postoperative pneumonia; three of them had confirmed SARS-CoV-2. The observed surgical complications and mortality rates were similar as expected in a usual situation. CONCLUSIONS: the present multicenter study shows different patterns of response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and collateral effects in managing CRC patients. Knowing these patterns could be useful for planning future changes in surgical departments in preparation for new outbreaks.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection. Description of the surgical technique and analysis of early outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential benefits, the adoption of the minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is still in the initial phase. We investigated the safety and feasibility of the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with venous resection/reconstruction (RPD SMV/PV). METHODS: Since March 2013 to October 2019, a total of 73 RPD and 10 RPD SMV/PV were performed. The two groups were case-matched according to the preoperative characteristics. RESULTS: Mean operative times and estimated blood loss were less in the RPD group in comparison to that in the RPD with SMV-PV group (525 vs 642 min, p = 0.003 and 290 vs 620 ml, p = 0.002, respectively). The mean length of hospital stay was similar in the RPD group in comparison to that in the RPD with SMV-PV group (10 days vs 13 days, p = 0.313). The two groups had similar overall postoperative morbidity rate (57.5% vs 60%, p = 0.686), although the severe complication rate was lower in the RPD group (11% vs 40%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: RPD with SMV-PV is associated with increased operative time, estimated blood loss, higher major complication rate compared with RPD.

Resección robótica asistida del segmento VII del hígado: vídeo de demostración técnica / Robot-assisted resection of liver segment vii: A technique demonstration video

No disponible