Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision (CME) is a safe and feasible option for right colonic cancers: short and midterm results from a single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colon cancers has traditionally been an open procedure. Surgical adoption of minimal access CME remains limited due to the technical challenges, training gaps and lack of level-1 data for proven benefits. Currently there is limited published data regarding the clinical results with the use of robotic CME surgery. Aim To report our experience, results and techniques, highlighting a clinical and oncological results and midterm oncological outcomes for robotic CME. AIM: To report our experience, results and techniques, highlighting a clinical and oncological results and midterm oncological outcomes for robotic CME. METHODS: All patients undergoing standardised robotic CME technique with SMV first approach between January 2015 and September 2019 were included in this retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Patient demographics, operative data and clinical and oncological outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-seven robotic CME resections for right colonic cancers were performed over a 4-year period. Median operative time was 180 (128-454) min and perioperative blood loss was 10 (10-50) ml. There were 25 patients who had previous abdominal surgery. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (3-18) days. There was no conversion to open surgery in this series. Median lymph node count was 30 (10-60). Three (4%) patients had R1 resection. There was one (1%) local recurrence in stage III disease and 4(5%) distal recurrence in stage II and stage III. There was no 30- or 90-day mortality. Three-year disease-free survival was 100%, 91.7% and 92% for stages I, II and III, respectively. Overall survival was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic CME is feasible, effective and safe. Good oncological results and improved survival are seen in this cohort of patients with a standardised approach to robotic CME.

Robotic vs. TaTME Rectal Surgery (ROTA STUDY) Matched Cohort Trial for Mid to Low Rectal Cancer Surgery Evaluation Trial in the Hands of an Experienced Surgeon.

Background: Recent novel surgical techniques for resection of low rectal cancer have been introduced and these approaches have the potential to overcome anatomical limitations like obesity, narrow male pelvis and bulky and low tumours. Two of these procedures are robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).Both approaches have distinct advantages and limitations. There has been no head to head trial comparing RLAR and TaTME for patients with mid to low rectal cancer undergoing surgery by experienced surgeons. Previous studies looking at the oncological outcomes of either TaTME or robotic TME included many centres where the surgeons were on a learning curve and hence the true oncological outcomes and clinical benefits can not be measured accurately. Method: The inclusion criteria include experienced surgeons defined as minimum of 60 prior procedures with RLAR or TaTME. Successful oncological and clinical outcomes are defined as circumferential resection margin (CRM) ≥1 mm with limited postoperative morbidity (absence of Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications within 30 days after surgery). Local and distal recurrence rates with DFS over 3 years will be measured as primary outcome.Data will be collected prospectively and entered in a dedicated database. Discussion: The primary objective of this study is to conduct a multicentre prospective trial to investigate clinical outcomes, in particular disease free survival (DFS) in patients undergoing RLAR and TaTME. The additional goal is to investigate other efficacy measures, complications rates, health economic aspects and patient reported health related quality of life.This paper describes an important trial conducted in expert centres to establish the needed knowledge for a detailed comparison of outcomes for TaTME versus RLAR.This trial is the first comparative study, comparing TaTME and RLAR, seeking to establish foothold for tailor-made surgical treatment of low rectal cancer patients. Trial registration: The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov September 2019. Clinicaltrials.gov id: NCT04200027.

Management of acute appendicitis in an acute surgical unit: a cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: The acute surgical unit (ASU) model of acute general surgery care offers efficient patient assessment, improved clinical outcomes and has been demonstrated to be cost-efficient. Despite this, the management of acute appendicitis in our ASU was found to be highly cost-negative. This study sought to identify the drivers of increased cost. METHODS: A retrospective cost analysis of all patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis in 2016 was undertaken to investigate the drivers of increased cost. The patient-level costing approach was used to assign cost to patients. RESULTS: The ASU management of uncomplicated appendicitis was found to have made a net loss of $625 000 in 2016. This study identified that the three largest cost drivers in appendicitis care were hospital overheads, bed day length of admission cost and operating theatre costs. Radiology, pathology and pharmacy costs did not affect total cost significantly. CONCLUSION: Two key targets for improvement were identified. First, reduced theatre turnaround times will allow more efficient theatre utilization. Second, improved after-hours and weekend theatre availability will reduce preoperative waiting time-related cost.

Does an acute care surgical model improve the management and outcome of acute cholecystitis?

The aim of this study was to compare the management and outcome of acute cholecystitis in an acute care surgery (ACS) model to that of the traditional home-call attending surgeon. The ACS model is one in which a consultant led team manage all emergency surgical presentations. The consultant is involved with every decision made including theatre allocation. Records of all patients who underwent an emergency cholecystectomy in the 2 years before and after introduction of an ACS model were reviewed. A total of 202 patients were recruited into this study. The groups were matched for sex, age and insurance status. There was a decrease in the median time to theatre (1 versus 2 days) and total length of stay (4 versus 6 days) in the ACS group. There was no significant difference in the conversion rate between the groups. However, there was a decreased complication rate in the ACS group (8.7 versus 17.2%). There were no differences in the histological findings. Consultant presence in theatre was higher in the ACS group (73.9 versus 56.3%), and they were more often assisting (30.4 versus 4.6%). Results suggest that an ACS model is beneficial to patient care with shorter hospital stay and a decreased complication rate. This may reflects a greater input to patient assessment and management by the on-site consultant. In addition, the ACS model provides greater consultant supervision to the trainee.