Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and oncological results between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by multiple surgeon implementation: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly common for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. However, the use and implementation of robotic surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery, focusing on pathological results and disease-free survival (DFS), in our cohort with initial robotic experience by multiple surgeon implementation. This retrospective study enrolled 571 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, who were treated with chemoradiotherapy and surgery between January 2015 and December 2021. Surgical outcomes after RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) were compared using a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. After matching, 200 patients (100 in each group) were included. The median operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group than in the LS group (p < 0.001). The conversion and morbidity rates were similar between the groups. A significantly higher rate of complete mesorectal excision (92% vs. 72%; p = 0.001) and number of lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.009) was observed in the RAS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.849 and p = 0.582, respectively). Two patients in the LS group developed local recurrence and 27 patients (15.4%) developed metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor stage III was the only factor associated with disease-free survival (HR, 9.34; (95% CI 1.13-77.1), p = 0.038). RAS and LS showed similar outcomes in terms of perioperative, anatomopathological, and disease-free survival, after multiple surgeon implementations.

Oncological strategies for locally advanced rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases, interval strategy versus rectum first strategy: a comparison of short-term outcomes

Background: The goal of treatment for patients with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) from rectal cancer is to achieve a complete resection of both tumor locations. For patients with symptomatic locally advanced rectal cancer with resectable SLM at diagnosis, our usual strategy has been the rectum first approach (RF). However, since 2014, we advocate for the interval approach (IS) that involves the administration of chemo-radiotherapy followed by the resection of the SLM in the interval of time between rectal cancer radiation and rectal surgery. Methods: From 2010 to 2016, 16 patients were treated according to this new strategy and 19 were treated according RF strategy. Data were collected prospectively and analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective. Complete resection rate, duration of the treatment and morbi-mortality were the main outcomes. Results: The complete resection rate in the IS was higher (100%, n = 16) compared to the RF (74%, n = 14, p = 0.049) and the duration of the strategy was shorter (6 vs. 9 months, respectively, p = 0.006). The incidence of severe complications after liver surgery was 14% (n = 2) in the RF and 0% in the IS (p = 1.000), and after rectal surgery was 24% (n = 4) and 12% (n = 2), respectively (p = 1.000). Conclusion: The IS is a feasible and safe strategy that procures higher level of complete resection rate in a shorter period of time compared to RF strategy

No disponible

Treatment strategies for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: surgical and oncological outcomes with propensity-score analysis

Background. The optimal sequence of surgery for rectal cancer (RC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) is controversial. Objectives. The primary objective was to explore differences between the rectum first (RF) and the liver first strategy (LF) to achieve the complete resection (CR) of both tumors. Methods. Patients diagnosed of RC with resectable or potentially resectable SLM were included. Data collected prospectively were analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective, adjusting for between-sample differences (propensity score). The complete resection rate (CRR) was the main outcome variable. Results. During a 5-year period, 23 patients underwent the LF strategy and 24 patients the RF strategy. Median overall survival (OS) was 32 months in the LF group and 41 months in the RF group (p = 0.499), and was 51 and 17 months, respectively, for patients achieving or not achieving CR of both tumors (p < 0.001). CRR’s were 65% in liver first group and 63% in rectum first group, (p = 0.846). No between-strategy differences in morbidity or duration of treatment were observed. Conclusions. This study supports the notion that the achievement of CR of RC and SLM should be the goal of oncological treatment. Both RF and LF strategies are feasible and safe, but no between-strategy differences have been found in the CRR (AU)

No disponible

Oncological strategies for locally advanced rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases, interval strategy versus rectum first strategy: a comparison of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The goal of treatment for patients with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) from rectal cancer is to achieve a complete resection of both tumor locations. For patients with symptomatic locally advanced rectal cancer with resectable SLM at diagnosis, our usual strategy has been the rectum first approach (RF). However, since 2014, we advocate for the interval approach (IS) that involves the administration of chemo-radiotherapy followed by the resection of the SLM in the interval of time between rectal cancer radiation and rectal surgery. METHODS: From 2010 to 2016, 16 patients were treated according to this new strategy and 19 were treated according RF strategy. Data were collected prospectively and analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective. Complete resection rate, duration of the treatment and morbi-mortality were the main outcomes. RESULTS: The complete resection rate in the IS was higher (100%, n = 16) compared to the RF (74%, n = 14, p = 0.049) and the duration of the strategy was shorter (6 vs. 9 months, respectively, p = 0.006). The incidence of severe complications after liver surgery was 14% (n = 2) in the RF and 0% in the IS (p = 1.000), and after rectal surgery was 24% (n = 4) and 12% (n = 2), respectively (p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: The IS is a feasible and safe strategy that procures higher level of complete resection rate in a shorter period of time compared to RF strategy.

Treatment strategies for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: surgical and oncological outcomes with propensity-score analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of surgery for rectal cancer (RC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to explore differences between the rectum first (RF) and the liver first strategy (LF) to achieve the complete resection (CR) of both tumors. METHODS: Patients diagnosed of RC with resectable or potentially resectable SLM were included. Data collected prospectively were analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective, adjusting for between-sample differences (propensity score). The complete resection rate (CRR) was the main outcome variable. RESULTS: During a 5-year period, 23 patients underwent the LF strategy and 24 patients the RF strategy. Median overall survival (OS) was 32 months in the LF group and 41 months in the RF group (p = 0.499), and was 51 and 17 months, respectively, for patients achieving or not achieving CR of both tumors (p < 0.001). CRR's were 65% in liver first group and 63% in rectum first group, (p = 0.846). No between-strategy differences in morbidity or duration of treatment were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the notion that the achievement of CR of RC and SLM should be the goal of oncological treatment. Both RF and LF strategies are feasible and safe, but no between-strategy differences have been found in the CRR.

Randomized clinical trial of pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy on the rate and severity of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage of pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) remains the single most important source of morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). The primary aim of this randomized clinical trial comparing PG with PJ after PD was to test the hypothesis that invaginated PG would result in a lower rate and severity of pancreatic fistula. METHODS: Patients undergoing PD were randomized to receive either a duct-to-duct PJ or a double-layer invaginated PG. The primary endpoint was the rate of pancreatic fistula, using the definition of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula. Secondary endpoints were the evaluation of severe abdominal complications (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above), endocrine and exocrine function. RESULTS: Of 123 patients randomized, 58 underwent PJ and 65 had PG. The incidence of pancreatic fistula was significantly higher following PJ than for PG (20 of 58 versus 10 of 65 respectively; P = 0.014), as was the severity of pancreatic fistula (grade A: 2 versus 5 per cent; grade B-C: 33 versus 11 per cent; P = 0.006). The hospital readmission rate for complications was significantly lower after PG (6 versus 24 per cent; P = 0.005), weight loss was lower (P = 0.025) and exocrine function better (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: The rate and severity of pancreatic fistula was significantly lower with this PG technique compared with that following PJ. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58328599 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Síndrome de Cushing suprarrenal / No disponible

No disponible