The PLET (Portable Laparoscopic Endo-Trainer) study: a randomized controlled trial of home- versus hospital-based surgical training.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of training with a personal, portable laparoscopic endo-trainer (PLET) on residents' laparoscopic skills. METHODS: The study took place at a tertiary-care academic university hospital in Switzerland. All participants were randomized to either a home- or hospital-based PLET training group, and surgical skill performance was assessed using five laparoscopic exercises. 24 surgical residents, 13 females and 11 males, were enrolled at any training stage. Nine residents completed the assessments. Endpoints consisted of subjective and objective assessment ratings as well as exercise time and qualitative data up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in exercise time and secondary outcomes included performance scores as well as qualitative data. RESULTS: The hospital-based training group performed exercises number 1, 3 and 4 faster at 12 weeks than at baseline (p = .003, < 0.001 and 0.024). Surgical skill performance was not statistically significantly different in any of the endpoints between the hospital- and home-based training groups at 12 weeks. Both the subjective and objective assessment ratings significantly improved in the hospital-based training group between baseline and 12 weeks (p = .006 and 0.003, respectively). There was no statistically significant improvement in exercise time as well as subjective and objective assessment ratings over time in the home-based training group. The qualitative data suggested that participants who were randomized to the hospital-based training group wished to have the PLET at home and vice versa. Several participants across groups lacked motivation because of their workload or time constraints, though most believed the COVID-19 pandemic had no influence on their motivation or the time they had for training. CONCLUSION: The PLET enhances laparoscopic surgical skills over time in a hospital-based training setting. In order to understand and optimize motivational factors, further research is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06301230).

Educational challenges and opportunities for the future generation of surgeons: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Surgery offers exciting opportunities but comes with demanding challenges that require attention from both surgical program administrators and aspiring surgeons. The hashtag #NoTrainingTodayNoSurgeonsTomorrow on 𝕏 (previously Twitter) underscores the importance of ongoing training. Our scoping review identifies educational challenges and opportunities for the next generation of surgeons, analyzing existing studies and filling gaps in the literature. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE/PubMed was searched in February 2022, using the MeSH terms "surgeons/education," for articles in English or German on general, abdominal, thoracic, vascular, and hand surgery and traumatology targeting medical students, surgical residents, future surgeons, and fellows. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1448 results. After a step-by-step evaluation process, 32 publications remained for complete review. Three main topics emerged: surgical innovations and training (n = 7), surgical culture and environment (n = 19), and mentoring (n = 6). The articles focusing on surgical innovations and training mainly described the incorporation of structured surgical training methods and program initiatives. Articles on surgical culture examined residents' burnout, well-being, and gender issues. Challenges faced by women, including implicit bias and sexual harassment, were highlighted. Regarding mentoring, mentees' needs, training challenges, and the qualities expected of both mentors and mentees were addressed. CONCLUSION: At a time of COVID-19-driven surgical innovations, the educational and working environment of the new generation of surgeons is changing. Robotic technology and other innovations require future surgeons to acquire additional technological and digital expertise. With regard to the cultural aspects of training, surgery needs to adapt curricula to meet the demands of the new generation of surgeons, but even more it has to transform its culture.

Differential diagnoses of right lower quadrant pain in late pregnancy.

We present two patients with right lower quadrant pain during the 36th week of pregnancy. In both cases, the challenges in diagnosing acute appendicitis in late pregnancy is underlined by misleading imaging results, revealing fluid in the lower abdomen, suggesting an appendicitis. Surgery was performed. Pre- and intraoperative gynecological examinations showed no signs of fetal distress. In patient 1, surgery revealed a torsion and necrosis of the right ovary and a 7-cm cyst of the fallopian tube. Open ovariectomy and appendectomy were performed. In patient 2, we saw a perforated appendicitis and cloudy ascites. Histology after appendectomy showed spots of endometriosis and serositis infiltrating into the appendix with signs of perforation at the tip. Patient 1 recovered after a short period of bowel paralysis. Patient 2 needed Caesarean section due to severe deceleration in the cardiotocograph and irregular uterine contractions. The newborn was kept in the neonatal ICU for 10 days.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer: a single-centre cohort study.

Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) of locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with challenging surgical treatment and increased postoperative morbidity. Robotic technology overcomes laparoscopy limitations by enlarged 3D view, improved anatomical transection accuracy, and physiologic tremor reduction. Patients with UICC stage II-III rectal cancer, consecutively referred to our institution between March 2015 and June 2020 (n = 102) were treated with robotic (Rob-G, n = 38) or laparoscopic (Lap-G, n = 64) low anterior resection (LAR) for total meso-rectal excision (TME) following highly standardized and successful nCRT treatment. Feasibility, conversion rates, stoma creation, morbidity and clinical/pathological outcome were comparatively analysed. Sex, age, BMI, ASA scores, cTN stages and tumour distance from dentate line were comparable in the two groups. Robotic resection was always feasible without conversion to open surgery, which was necessary in 11/64 (17%) Lap-G operations (p = 0.006). Primary or secondary stomata were created in 17/38 (45%) Rob-G and 52/64 (81%) Lap-G patients (p < 0.001). Major morbidity occurred in 7/38 (18.4%) Rob-G and 6/64 (9.3%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.225). Although median operation time was longer in Rob-G compared with Lap-G (376; IQR: 330-417 min vs. 300; IQR: 270-358 min; p < 0.001), the difference was not significant in patients (Rob-G, n = 6; Lap-G, n = 10) with ≥30 BMI (p = 0.106). Number of resected lymph nodes, ypTN staging and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were comparable. Resection was complete in 87% of Rob-G and 89% of Lap-G patients (p = 0.750). Robotic LAR is not inferior to laparoscopic LAR following nCRT. Larger, randomized studies are needed to confirm lower conversion in robotic, compared to laparoscopic resection.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies: intra- and postoperative outcomes of 683 patients.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more and more popularity over the last years. It seems to be advantageous to laparoscopic surgery in selected situations, especially in confined regions like a narrow male pelvis in rectal surgery. Whether robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies can serve as safe training operations for less frequent, low anterior resections for rectal cancer is still under debate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) compared to laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in left-sided colectomies. METHODS: Between June 2015 and December 2019, 683 patients undergoing minimally invasive left-sided colectomies in two Swiss, high-volume colorectal centers were included. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients undergoing RAL and 504 patients undergoing LSC were analyzed. Baseline characteristics showed similar results. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0.6% of RAL and 2.0% of LSC patients (p = 0.193). Differences in postoperative complications graded Dindo ≥ 3 were not statistically significant (RAL 3.9% vs. LSC 6.3%, p = 0.227). Occurrence of anastomotic leakages showed no statistically significant difference [RAL n = 2 (1.1%), LSC n = 8 (1.6%), p = 0.653]. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conversions to open surgery were significantly higher in the LSC group (6.2% vs.1.7%, p = 0.018), while stoma formation was similar in both groups [RAL n = 1 (0.6%), LSC n = 5 (1.0%), p = 0.594]. Operative time was longer in the RAL group (300 vs. 210.0 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies are safe and feasible compared to laparoscopic resections. Intra- and postoperative complications are similar in both groups. Most notably, the rate of anastomotic leakages is similar. Compared to laparoscopic resections, the analyzed robotic-assisted resections have longer operative times but less conversion rates. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies as training procedures for low anterior resections.

Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic repair of complete upside-down stomach hiatal hernia (the RATHER-study): a prospective comparative single center study.

BACKGROUND: Complete upside-down stomach (cUDS) hernias are a subgroup of large hiatal hernias characterized by high risk of life-threatening complications and technically challenging surgical repair including complex mediastinal dissection. In a prospective, comparative clinical study, we evaluated intra- and postoperative outcomes, quality of life and symptomatic recurrence rates in patients with cUDS undergoing robot-assisted, as compared to standard laparoscopic repair (the RATHER-study). METHODS: All patients with cUDS herniation requiring elective surgery in our institution between July 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Patients undergoing primary open surgery or additional associated procedures were not considered. Primary endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. During the 8-53 months follow-up period, patients were contacted by telephone to assess symptoms associated to recurrence, whereas quality of life was evaluated utilizing the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were included. 36 operations were performed with robot-assisted (Rob-G), and 19 with standard laparoscopic (Lap-G) technique. Patients characteristics were similar in both groups. Median operation time was 232 min. (IQR: 145-420) in robot-assisted vs. 163 min. (IQR:112-280) in laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 5/36 (12.5%) cases in the Rob-G group and in 5/19 (26%) cases in the Lap-G group (p = 0.28). No conversion was necessary in either group. Minor postoperative complications occurred in 13/36 (36%) Rob-G patients and 4/19 (21%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.36). Mortality or major complications did not occur in either group. Two asymptomatic recurrences were observed in the Rob-G group only. No patient required revision surgery. Finally, all patients expressed satisfaction for treatment outcome, as indicated by similar GERD-HRQL scores. CONCLUSION: While robot-assisted surgery provides additional precision, enhanced visualization, and greater feasibility in cUDS hiatal hernia repair, its clinical outcome is at least equal to that obtained by standard laparoscopic surgery.