Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy. Objective: To compare robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial comparing robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection conducted at 29 sites across 10 countries, including 40 surgeons. Recruitment of patients was from January 7, 2011, to September 30, 2014, follow-up was conducted at 30 days and 6 months, and final follow-up was on June 16, 2015. Interventions: Patients were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper rectum) or low (total rectum) anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection (rectum and perineum). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary end points included intraoperative and postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathological outcomes, quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), bladder and sexual dysfunction (International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index), and oncological outcomes. Results: Among 471 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [11.0] years; 320 [67.9%] men), 466 (98.9%) completed the study. The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1%: 19 of 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, -1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.31 to 1.21]; P = .16). The overall CRM+ rate was 5.7%; CRM+ occurred in 14 (6.3%) of 224 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group and 12 (5.1%) of 235 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, -3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.76]; P = .56). Of the other 8 reported prespecified secondary end points, including intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN80500123.

Prospective Validation of a Low Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging Staging System and Development of a Local Recurrence Risk Stratification Model: The MERCURY II Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging classification that preoperatively assessed the relationship between tumor and the low rectal cancer surgical resection plane (mrLRP). BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancer oncological outcomes remain a global challenge, evidenced by high pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) rates and unacceptable variations in permanent colostomies. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2012, a prospective, observational, multicenter study (MERCURY II) recruited 279 patients with adenocarcinoma 6 cm or less from the anal verge. MRI assessed the following: mrLRP "safe or unsafe," venous invasion (mrEMVI), depth of spread, node status, tumor height, and tumor quadrant. MRI-based treatment recommendations were compared against final management and pCRM outcomes. RESULTS: Overall pCRM involvement was 9.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.9-12.3], significantly lower than previously reported rates of 30%. Patients with no adverse MRI features and a "safe" mrLRP underwent sphincter-preserving surgery without preoperative radiotherapy, resulting in a 1.6% pCRM rate. The pCRM rate increased 5-fold for an "unsafe" compared with "safe" preoperative mrLRP [odds ratio (OR) = 5.5; 95% CI, 2.3-13.3)]. Posttreatment MRI reassessment indicated a "safe" ymrLRP in 33 of 113 (29.2%), none of whom had ypCRM involvement. In contrast, persistent "unsafe" ymrLRP posttherapy resulted in 17.5% ypCRM involvement. Further independent MRI assessed risk factors were EMVI (OR = 3.8; 95% CI, 1.5-9.6), tumors less than 4.0 cm from the anal verge (OR = 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-8.8), and anterior tumors (OR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-6.8). CONCLUSIONS: The study validated MRI low rectal plane assessment, reducing pCRM involvement and avoiding overtreatment through selective preoperative therapy and rationalized use of permanent colostomy. It also highlights the importance of posttreatment restaging.

Sarcopenia is independently associated with poor preoperative physical fitness in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative risk assessment for major colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery remains challenging. Body composition (BC) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) can be used to evaluate risk. The relationship between BC and CPET in patients undergoing curative CRC surgery is unclear. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing CPET prior to CRC surgery between 2010 and 2020 were identified between two different UK hospitals. Body composition phenotypes such as sarcopenia, myosteatosis, and visceral obesity were defined using widely accepted thresholds using preoperative single axial slice CT image at L3 vertebrae. Relationships between clinicopathological, BC, and CPET variables were investigated using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen patients with stage I-III CRC were included. The prevalence of sarcopenia, myosteatosis, and visceral obesity was 62%, 33%, and 64%, respectively. The median oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold (VO2 at AT) was 12.2 mL/kg/min (IQR 10.6-14.2), and oxygen uptake at peak exercise (VO2 peak) was 18.8 mL/kg/min (IQR 15.4-23). On univariate linear regression analysis, male sex (P < 0.001) was positively associated with VO2 at AT. While ASA grade (P < 0.001) and BMI (P = 0.007) were negatively associated with VO2 at AT, on multivariate linear regression analysis, these variables remained significant (P < 0.05). On univariate linear regression analysis, male sex (P < 0.001) was positively associated with VO2 peak, whereas age (P < 0.001), ASA grade (P < 0.001), BMI (P = 0.003), sarcopenia (P = 0.015), and myosteatosis (P < 0.001) were negatively associated with VO2 peak. On multivariate linear regression analysis age (P < 0.001), ASA grade (P < 0.001), BMI (P < 0.001), and sarcopenia (P = 0.006) were independently and negatively associated with VO2 peak. CONCLUSIONS: The novel finding that sarcopenia is independently associated with reduced VO2 peak performance in CPET supports the supposition that reduced muscle mass relates to poor physical function in CRC patients. Further work should be undertaken to assess whether sarcopenia diagnosed on CT can act as suitable surrogate for CPET to further enhance personalized risk stratification.

The emergency surgical team - the way forward in emergency care?

INTRODUCTION: With reduced working hours and shift patterns, surgical training and continuity of patient care is being put at risk. We have devised a system for managing the emergency surgical patients in an effort to counteract these perceived problems. This study describes the emergency surgical team and audits its activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The emergency surgery team concept is described in detail. Over a 2-week period, general surgical referral data, patient management and operative activity were audited. RESULTS: A total of 229 patients were referred to the emergency surgical team with 159 treated conservatively, 45 underwent operative intervention and 25 were discharged without admission. Of the emergency surgical team referrals, 58% had gallstone pathology, appendicitis or constipation/non-specific abdominal pain. Average daily number of patients under the care of the emergency surgical team was 26 (range, 10-40). CONCLUSIONS: The consultant-led emergency surgical team look after many of the acutely sick surgical patients. Our system not only provides good teaching opportunities but ensures optimal continuity of patient care in a busy district general hospital. Such an approach to emergency surgical care has been successfully developed to optimise training opportunities and improve patient care in a setting of reduced working hours and shift systems in our hospital.