Removal of Hazardous Surgical Smoke Using a Built-in-Filter Trocar: A Study in Laparoscopic Rectal Resection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical smoke containing potentially carcinogenic and harmful materials is an inevitable consequence of surgical energy devices, and constitutes a substantial occupational hazard in the operating room. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a built-in-filter trocar in eliminating hazardous surgical smoke during laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery. METHODS: Ten patients who underwent rectal cancer resection were enrolled. Five patients underwent surgery utilizing a nonfiltered trocar, and the remaining 5 utilized a built-in-filter trocar. Gas samples were aspirated from the peritoneal cavity over 30 minutes of electrocauterization and collected in a Tedlar bag. Concentrations of surgical smoke were measured using ultraperformance liquid chromatography and gas chromatography. RESULTS: Eleven hazardous chemical compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, styrene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propionaldehyde, butyraldehyde, isovaleraldehyde, and valeraldehyde) were identified in the surgical smoke. With the built-in-filter trocar, removal rates of 69% for benzene (P=0.028), 72% for toluene (P=0.009), 67% for butyraldehyde (P=0.047), 46% for ethylbenzene (P=0.092), 44% for xylene (P=0.086), 35% for styrene (P=0.106), 39% for formaldehyde (P=0.346), and 33% for propionaldehyde (P=0.316) were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the presence of harmful materials in surgical smoke. Evacuation of surgical smoke through a disposable built-in-filter trocar is a simple and effective way in reducing volatile organic compounds concentrations.

Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous multicenter randomized trials demonstrated that omitting mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) did not increase anastomotic leakage rates or other infectious complications. However, the most serious concern regarding the omission of MBP is ongoing fecal peritonitis after anastomotic leakage occurs. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical manifestations and severity of anastomotic leakage between patients who underwent MBP and those who did not. METHODS: This study was a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. From January 2006 to September 2013, 1369 patients who underwent elective rectal cancer resection with primary anastomosis were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: Anastomotic leakage rates were not significantly different between patients who did not undergo MBP (77/831, 9.27%) and those who did (42/538, 7.81%). However, a significantly lower rate of clinical leakage requiring surgical exploration was observed in the leakage without MBP group (30/77, 39.0%) compared with the leakage with MBP group (30/42, 71.4%) (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage as assessed by the length of hospital stay, time to resuming a normal diet, length of antibiotic use, ileus rate, transfusion rate, ICU admission rate, and mortality rate between the leakage without MBP and leakage with MBP groups. CONCLUSION: MBP was not found to affect the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage in elective rectal cancer surgery.

Virtual reality training improves da Vinci performance: a prospective trial.

INTRODUCTION: The DV-Trainer™ (a virtual reality [VR] simulator) (Mimic Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA) is one of several different robotic surgical training methods. We designed a prospective study to determine whether VR training could improve da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) performance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Surgeons (n=12) were enrolled using a randomized protocol. Groups 1 (VR training) and 2 (control) participated in VR and da Vinci exercises. Participants' time and moving distance were combined to determine a composite score: VR index=1000/(time×moving distance). The da Vinci exercises included needle control and suturing. Procedure time and error were measured. A composite index (DV index) was computed and used to measure da Vinci competency. After the initial trial with both the VR and da Vinci exercises, only Group 1 was trained with the VR simulator following our institutional curriculum for 3 weeks. All members of both groups then participated in the second trial of the VR and da Vinci exercises and were scored in the same way as in the initial trial. RESULTS: In the initial trial, there was no difference in the VR index (Group 1 versus Group 2, 8.9 ± 3.3 versus 9.4 ± 3.7; P=.832) and the DV index (Group 1 versus Group 2, 3.85 ± 0.73 versus 3.66 ± 0.65; P=.584) scores between the two groups. At the second time point, Group 1 showed increased VR index scores in comparison with Group 2 (19.3 ± 4.5 versus 9.7 ± 4.1, respectively; P=.001) and improved da Vinci performance skills as measured by the DV index (5.80 ± 1.13 versus 4.05 ± 1.03, respectively; P=.028) and by suturing time (7.1 ± 1.54 minutes versus 10.55 ± 1.93 minutes, respectively; P=.018). CONCLUSIONS: We found that VR simulator training can improve da Vinci performance. VR practice can result in an early plateau in the learning curve for robotic practice under controlled circumstances.

Laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer: long-term oncologic outcomes in 58 patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the advantages of laparoscopic colectomy have been demonstrated, there are few data available on laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess operative outcomes, long-term survival, and disease recurrence after laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Prospective data were collected from 58 patients with transverse colon cancer among 1141 colorectal cancer cases undergoing laparoscopic resection between February 2001 and July 2009. Cancers located in both flexures were excluded. RESULTS: The surgical procedures included 39 extended right hemicolectomies, 11 extended left hemicolectomies, 5 transverse colectomies, and 3 total abdominal colectomies. The mean operating time was 216 minutes, and the mean operative blood loss was 111 mL. The average harvested lymph nodes were 35.8. The proximal and distal resection margins were 20.27 cm and 15.23 cm, respectively. Eight patients developed minor complications postoperatively, but these cases were controlled conservatively without interventions. One patient was converted to an open procedure because of severe adhesions. There were no surgery-related deaths. The mean follow-up period was 40.5 months. There were no local recurrences during the follow-up period. Systemic recurrence developed in four patients: two in the liver and two with peritoneal seeding. The overall and disease-free survival rates at 5 years were 84.6% and 89.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previously published multicenter studies such as the COST, COLOR, and CLASICC trials, the long-term outcomes of this study demonstrate that transverse colon cancer can safely be resected using the laparoscopic technique in experienced hands.

Anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic protectomy can be managed by a minimally invasive approach.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to identify the clinical features of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer and to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic management for this problem. METHODS: Prospectively collected data were obtained from 307 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic proctectomy and primary anastomosis. Age, sex, tumor location, tumor stage, body mass index, comorbidities, ileostomy, conversion, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, previous abdominal operation, and hospital stay were analyzed for patients with or without anastomotic leakage. Management and outcome of anastomotic leakage also were analyzed. RESULTS: Anastomotic leakage occurred in 29 patients (9.4 percent). Diverting ileostomy was initially fashioned in 65 patients (21.2 percent). Leakage was related to young age, male sex, lower tumor location, and longer operation time. Ten patients (34.5 percent) were successfully managed with conservative treatment. Seventeen patients (58.6 percent) were managed via a laparoscopic approach. Open surgery was performed in two patients who showed diffuse fecal soiling or had previous conversion, respectively. There was no mortality. CONCLUSIONS: When leakage occurs, laparotomy or colostomy is not needed routinely. For surgical intervention, the abdominal cavity should be explored first by laparoscopic visualization because the majority of patients can be successfully managed with laparoscopy and ileostomy.

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: a comparison of surgical and oncologic outcomes between extraperitoneal and intraperitoneal disease locations.

PURPOSE: The extraperitoneal rectum is anatomically and biologically different from the intraperitoneal rectum, therefore, the surgical outcomes may be different. This study was designed to assess operative outcomes of laparoscopic resection of extraperitoneal (< or = 7 cm from the anal verge) vs. intraperitoneal rectal cancer. METHODS: Prospective data were collected from 312 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic resection. Patients were divided into two groups: extraperitoneal (EP, n = 138) vs. intraperitoneal (IP, n = 174). Mean follow-up was 33 months. RESULTS: Patients with pT3/pT4 accounted for 69.6 percent of EP and 74.1 percent of IP. Circumferential margin was positive in 8.7 percent of EP and 0.6 percent of IP (P = 0.0004). Anastomotic leakage developed in 9.7 percent of EP vs. 4.6 percent of IP (P = 0.1081, overall 6.4 percent). Local recurrence rate at three years was 7.6 percent in EP and 0.7 percent in IP (P = 0.0011, overall 4 percent). By multivariate analysis, extraperitoneal location was a risk factor for local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer, regardless of EP or IP, provided acceptable operative outcomes. There was an increasing tendency for positive circumferential margin, leakage, and local recurrence in EP vs. IP. A multicenter, prospective study is ongoing to identify the high-risk group for local recurrence who may really benefit from neoadjuvant therapy in the era of laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a prospective analysis of thirty-month follow-up outcomes in 312 patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to prospectively evaluate operative safety and mid-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection performed by a single surgeon. METHODS: Three hundreds twelve patients (male, 181) were enrolled in this analysis. 257 patients (82.4%) had tumors located below 12 cm from the anal verge. Distribution of TNM stages was 0:I:II:III:IV = 4.2%:17.9%:32.4%:37.2%:8.3%. 225 patients (71.1%) had T3/T4 lesions. Pre- and post-operative radiation was given in 6 and 20 patients, respectively. RESULTS: Sphincter-preserving operation was performed in 85.9%. Mean operating time was 212 minutes. Conversion rate was 2.6%. Overall morbidity rate was 21.1%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 6.4%. Operative mortality rate was 0.3%. Mean number of harvested nodes was 23. Mean distal tumor-free margin was 2.8 cm. The circumferential resection margin was positive in 13 patients (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 30 months in the stage I-III patients, the local recurrence rate was 2.9%. Systemic recurrence occurred in 11.7%. No port-site recurrence was observed. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer provided safe operative parameters and adequate mid-term oncologic outcomes. When considering a high volume of advanced and low-lying cancers but rather narrow indication to radiotherapy, the 2.9% local recurrence rate seems promising data. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to draw conclusion.