Visualization and quantification of anastomotic perfusion in colorectal surgery using near-infrared fluorescence.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most troublesome complications in colorectal surgery. Recently, near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging has been used intraoperatively to detect sentinel lymph nodes and visualize the blood supply at the region of interest (ROI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of visualization and quantification of bowel perfusion around the anastomosis using NIRF system in predicting AL. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on patients who had laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer at our institution. Perfusion of the anastomosis was evaluated with NIRF imaging after intravenous injection of indocyanine green (ICG). The time course of fluorescence intensity was recorded by an imaging analyzer We measured the time from ICG injection to the beginning of fluorescence (T0), maximum intensity (Imax), time to reach Imax (Tmax), time to reach Imax 50% ([Formula: see text]) and slope (S) after the anastomosis. RESULTS: Tumor locations were as follows; cecum: 2, ascending colon: 2, transverse colon: 7, descending colon: 1, sigmoid colon: 2, rectosigmoid colon: 3 and rectum: 6 (one case with synchronous cancer). All operations were performed laparoscopically. Four patients were diagnosed with or suspected to have AL (2 patients with grade B anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection, 1 patient with minor leakage in transverse colon resection and 1 patient needing re-anastomosis intraoperatively in transverse colon resection). T0 was significantly longer in the AL group than in patients without AL (64.3 ± 27.6 and 18.2 ± 6.6 s, p = 2.2 × 10-3). CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion of the anastomosis could be successfully visualized and quantified using NIRF imaging with ICG. T0 might be a useful parameter for prediction of AL.

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.