Postoperative outcomes of surgical delay in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a multicenter cohort study.

Postponement of surgical inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care may lead to disease progression. This study aims to determine the influence of delayed surgical IBD procedures on clinical outcomes. This multicenter retrospective cohort study included IBD patients who underwent a surgical procedure during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from March 16, 2020, to December 31, 2020, and were compared to a pre-COVID-19 cohort. The primary endpoint was determining the number of (major) postoperative complications. Secondary endpoints were the time interval between surgical indication and performance of the surgical procedure and the risk factors of postoperative complications using multivariate analysis. Eighty-one IBD patients who underwent a surgical procedure were included. The median time interval between surgical indication and performance of the surgical procedure did not differ between the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 cohorts (34 vs. 33.5 days, p = 0.867). Multivariate analysis revealed a longer time interval between surgical indication and surgical procedure significantly correlated with the risk of developing postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.03, p = 0.034]. Moreover, previous surgery was identified as an independent predictor (OR 4.25, p = 0.018) for an increased risk of developing major postoperative complications. There was no significant surgical delay for patients with IBD in the COVID-19 pandemic cohort compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. However, a longer time interval between surgical indication and surgical procedure significantly correlated with the risk of developing postoperative complications. In the event of future scarcity in healthcare, efforts should be made to continue surgical procedures in IBD patients.

Robot-assisted fluorescent sentinel lymph node identification in early-stage colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cT1-2 colon cancer (CC) have a 10-20% risk of lymph node metastases. Sentinel lymph node identification (SLNi) could improve staging and reduce morbidity in future organ-preserving CC surgery. This pilot study aimed to assess safety and feasibility of robot-assisted fluorescence-guided SLNi using submucosally injected indocyanine green (ICG) in patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC were included in this prospective feasibility study. Intraoperative submucosal, peritumoral injection of ICG was performed during a colonoscopy. Subsequently, the near-infrared fluorescence 'Firefly' mode of the da Vinci Xi robotic surgical system was used for SLNi. SLNs were marked with a suture, after which a segmental colectomy was performed. The SLN was postoperatively ultrastaged using serial slicing and immunohistochemistry, in addition to the standard pathological examination of the specimen. Colonoscopy time, detection time (time from ICG injection to first SLNi), and total SLNi time were measured (time from the start of colonoscopy to start of segmental resection). Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes were registered. RESULTS: In all patients, at least one SLN was identified (mean 2.3 SLNs, SLN diameter range 1-13 mm). No tracer-related adverse events were noted. Median colonoscopy time was 12 min, detection time was 6 min, and total SLNi time was 30.5 min. Two patients had lymph node metastases present in the SLN, and there were no patients with false negative SLNs. No patient was upstaged due to ultrastaging of the SLN after an initial negative standard pathological examination. Half of the patients unexpectedly had pT3 tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted fluorescence-guided SLNi using submucosally injected ICG in ten patients with cT1-2N0M0 CC was safe and feasible. SLNi was performed in an acceptable timespan and SLNs down to 1 mm were detected. All lymph node metastases would have been detected if SLN biopsy had been performed.

Nationwide practice in CT-based preoperative staging of colon cancer and concordance with definitive pathology.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of exploring patient-tailored treatment options for colon cancer, preoperative staging is increasingly important. This study aimed to evaluate completeness and reliability of CT-based preoperative locoregional colon cancer staging in Dutch hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective oncological resection of colon cancer without neoadjuvant treatment in 77 Dutch hospitals were evaluated between 2011 and 2021. Completeness of T-stage was calculated for individual hospitals and stratified based on a 60% cut-off. Concordance between routine CT-based preoperative locoregional staging (cTN) and definitive pathological staging (pTN) was examined. RESULTS: A total of 59,558 patients were included with an average completeness of 43.4% and 53.4% for T and N-stage, respectively. Completeness of T-stage improved from 4.9% in 2011-2014 to 74.4% in 2019-2021. Median completeness for individual hospitals was 53.9% (IQR 27.3-80.5%) and were not significantly different between low and high-volume hospitals. Sensitivity and specificity for T3-4 tumours were relatively low: 75.1% and 76.0%, respectively. cT1-2 tumours were frequently understaged based on a low negative predictive value of 56.8%. Distinction of cT4 and cN2 disease had a high specificity (>95%), but a very low sensitivity (<50%). Positive predictive values of <60% indicated that cT4 and cN1-2 were often overstaged. Completeness and time period did not influence reliability of staging. CONCLUSION: Completeness of locoregional staging of colon cancer improved during recent years and varied between hospitals independently from case volume. Discriminating cT1-2 from cT3-4 tumours resulted in substantial understaging and overstaging, additionally cT4 and cN1-2 were overstaged in >40% of cases.

Risk factors of postoperative intensive care unit admission during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Background: During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, intensive care unit (ICU) capacity was scarce. Since surgical patients also require ICU admission, determining which factors lead to an increased risk of postoperative ICU admission is essential. This study aims to determine which factors led to an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This multicentre retrospective cohort study investigated all patients who underwent surgery between 9 March 2020 and 30 June 2020. The primary endpoint was the number of surgical patients requiring postoperative ICU admission. The secondary endpoint was to determine factors leading to an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission, calculated by multivariate analysis with odds ratios (OR's) and 95% confidence (CI) intervals. Results: One hundred eighty-five (4.6%) of the 4051 included patients required unplanned postoperative ICU admission. COVID-19 positive patients were at an increased risk of being admitted to the ICU compared to COVID-19 negative (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.06-9.33; p = 0.040) and untested patients (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.70; p = 0.001). Other predictors were male gender (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.02-1.82; p = 0.046), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.08; p = 0.001), surgical urgency and surgical discipline. Conclusion: A confirmed COVID-19 infection, male gender, elevated BMI, surgical urgency, and surgical discipline were independent factors for an increased risk of unplanned postoperative ICU admission. In the event of similar pandemics, postponing surgery in patients with an increased risk of postoperative ICU admission may be considered.

Prospective multicentre observational cohort to assess quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness following minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer in 'dedicated centres' in the Netherlands (VANTAGE trial): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be performed using open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal technique. Large prospective (randomised controlled) trials comparing these techniques are lacking, do not take into account the learning curve and have short-term or long-term oncological results as their primary endpoint, without addressing quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Comparative data with regard to these outcomes are necessary to identify the optimal minimally invasive technique and provide guidelines for clinical application. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will be a prospective observational multicentre cohort trial, aiming to compare laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision in adult patients with rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons in dedicated centres. Data collection will be performed in collaboration with the prospective Dutch ColoRectal Audit and the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Cohort. Quality of life at 1 year postoperatively will be the primary outcome. Functional outcomes, cost-effectiveness, short-term outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes will be the secondary outcomes. In total, 1200 patients will be enrolled over a period of 2 years in 26 dedicated centres in the Netherlands. The study is registered at https://www.trialregister.nl/9734 (NL9734). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data will be collected through collaborating parties, who already obtained approval by their medical ethical committee. Participants will be included in the trial after having signed informed consent. Results of this study will be disseminated to participating centres, patient organisations, (inter)national society meetings and peer-reviewed journals.

The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: 45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods. CONCLUSION: Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique. DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin. RESULTS: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS. ANTECEDENTES: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica. DISEO: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión. AJUSTES: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017. INTERVENCIONES: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo. LIMITACIONES: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación. CONCLUSIONES: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Evaluation of the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

BACKGROUND: The current standard treatment for external rectal prolapse and symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse is surgical correction with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy using either laparoscopy or robotic assistance. This study examines the number of procedures needed to complete the learning curve for robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and reach adequate performance. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all primary RVMR from 2011 to 2019 performed in a tertiary pelvic floor clinic by two colorectal surgeons (A and B) was performed. Both surgeons had previous experience with laparoscopic rectopexy, but no robotic experience. Skin-to-skin operating times (OT) were assessed using LC-CUSUM analyses. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed using CUSUM analyses. RESULTS: A total of 182 (surgeon A) and 91 (surgeon B) RVMRs were performed in total. There were no relevant differences in patient characteristics between the two surgeons. Median OT was 75 min (range 46-155; surgeon A) and 90 min (range 63-139; surgeon B). The learning curve regarding OT was completed after 36 procedures for surgeon A and 55 procedures for surgeon B. Both before and after completion of the learning curve, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates remained below a predefined acceptable level of performance. CONCLUSIONS: 36 to 55 procedures are required to complete the learning curve for RVMR. The implementation of robotic surgery does not inflict any additional risks on patients at the beginning of a surgeon's learning curve.

Ninety-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain: lessons learned from 9 years' experience in a tertiary referral centre.

AIM: With increasing follow-up of patients treated with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) more redo surgery can be expected for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 90-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo interventions. METHOD: All robot-assisted redo interventions after primary transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed and compared with the results for patients after primary robot-assisted VMR during the same period. The redo interventions were divided into groups based on the indication for surgery (recurrent prolapse, mesh erosion, pelvic pain). Intraoperative complications and 90-day postoperative morbidity were evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty nine patients were treated with primary VMR, with 73 for recurrent rectal prolapse, 12 for mesh erosion and 14 for pelvic pain. Complications of recurrent prolapse surgeries were comparable to those of primary VMR (p > 0.05). More intraoperative complications, minor and major complications were seen in redo surgery for erosion compared with primary VMR (23% vs. 3%, p = 0.01; 31% vs. 11%, p = 0.055; and 38% vs. 1%, p < 0.01 respectively). The frequency of intraoperative complications after redo surgery for pelvic pain was 7% with minor and major morbidity rates of 14% and 7% (p > 0.05). Half of the patients with pelvic pain experienced relief of their symptoms. CONCLUSION: Redo surgery for management of recurrent rectal prolapse is safe. Redo surgery for mesh erosion is associated with high morbidity rates. Redo surgery for pelvic pain can have major complications and is only effective in half of the cases.

Factors affecting 30-day postoperative complications after emergency surgery during the COVID-19 outbreak: A multicentre cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has influenced (surgical) care worldwide. Measures were taken to prioritize surgical care in order to maintain capacity for COVID-19 healthcare. However, the influence of these measures on emergency surgery is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study is to describe the trends in emergency surgery and determine the factors influencing the risk of postoperative complications during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective cohort study investigated all emergency patients operated on from March 9th to June 30th, 2020. The primary endpoint was identifying the number of emergency surgical procedures performed. Secondary endpoints were determining the number of postoperative complications and factors determining the risk of postoperative complications, which were calculated by multivariate analysis with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence (CI) intervals. RESULTS: In total, 1399 patients who underwent an emergency surgical procedure were included. An increase in the number of emergency vascular and trauma surgical procedures occurred during the study period. In contrast, the number of emergency general and oncological surgical procedures performed remained stable. An increased age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; p = 0.024), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.64; p = 0.005), and surgical discipline were independent predictors for an increased risk of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: The performance of emergency vascular and trauma surgical procedures increased. The performance of emergency general and oncological surgical procedures remained stable. In addition, increased age, ASA, and surgical discipline were independent predictors for an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Breast Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put a strain on regular healthcare worldwide. In the Netherlands, the national screening programs, including for breast cancer, were halted temporarily. This posed a challenge to breast cancer care, because ∼40% of cases are detected through national screening. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the surgical care of patients with breast cancer in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present multicenter retrospective cohort study investigated the effects of COVID-19 on patients with breast cancer who had undergone surgery from March 9 to May 17, 2020. The primary endpoints were the number of surgical procedures performed during the study period, tumor characteristics, surgery type, and route of referral. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications during the study period. RESULTS: A total of 217 consecutive patients with breast cancer requiring surgery were included. We found an overall decrease in the number of patients with breast cancer who were undergoing surgery. The most significant decline was seen in surgery for T1-T2 and N0 tumors. A decline in the number of referrals from both the national screening program and general practitioners was observed. The incidence of postoperative complications remained stable during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary halt of the national screening program for breast cancer resulted in fewer surgical procedures during the study period and a pronounced decrease in surgery of the lower tumor stages.

Long-term Anatomical and Functional Results of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Management of Multicompartment Prolapse: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data on robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for the treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse are scarce. With the rising prevalence of prolapse and increasing surgical repair, it is essential to evaluate long-term results. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate long-term functional and anatomic outcomes after sacrocolporectopexy. DESIGN: This is a prospective, observational cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a teaching hospital with tertiary referral function for patients with gynecological/rectal prolapse. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy from 2011 to 2012 were included. INTERVENTION: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the anatomic cure rate after 1 and 4 years, defined as simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 1 vaginal apical prolapse and no external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse present. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for determination of recurrence-free intervals. Secondary outcomes were functional pelvic floor symptoms (symptoms of bulge, obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, urogenital distress inventory) and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. After 12 and 48 months, the recurrence-free intervals based on Kaplan-Meier estimates were 100% and 90%. In total, there were 10 recurrences: 2 apical and 8 internal rectal prolapses. Symptoms of bulge (94%-12%; p < 0.0005), fecal incontinence (62%-32%; p < 0.0005), obstructed defecation (59%-24%; p = 0.008), and median Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores (124-5; p = 0.022) improved significantly at final follow-up. Median urogenital distress inventory scores showed improvement after 1 year (30-13; p = 0.021). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational, single-center study with selective postoperative imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety percent of patients were recurrence free 48 months after robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy. Symptoms of vaginal bulge, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence improved significantly. However, a subgroup of patients showed persistent bowel complaints that underlie the complexity of multicompartment prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265. RESULTADOS ANATÓMICOS Y FUNCIONALES A LARGO PLAZO DE LA CIRUGÍA DE PISO PÉLVICO ASISTIDA POR ROBOT EN EL TRATAMIENTO DEL PROLAPSO MULTICOMPARTIMENTAL: UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO: Los datos a largo plazo sobre la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos son escasos. Con el aumento de la prevalencia del prolapso y el aumento de la reparación quirúrgica, es esencial evaluar los resultados a largo plazo.Evaluar los resultados funcionales y anatómicos a largo plazo después de la sacrocolporectopexia.Estudio prospectivo observacional de cohorte.Hospital de enseñanza con función de referencia terciaria para pacientes con prolapso ginecológico/rectal.Todos los pacientes sometidos a sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot en 2011-2012.Sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot.El resultado primario fue la tasa de curación anatómica a uno y cuatro años, definida como etapa 1 de prolapso apical vaginal en la cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos simplificado, y sin prolapso rectal externo o prolapso rectal interno presentes. Se utilizaron curvas de Kaplan Meier para determinar los intervalos libres de recurrencia. Los resultados secundarios fueron síntomas funcionales del piso pélvico (síntomas de abultamiento, obstrucción defecatoria, incontinencia fecal, inventario de molestias urogenitales) y calidad de vida (cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico).Se incluyeron 53 pacientes. Después de 12 y 48 meses, el intervalo libre de recurrencia basado en las estimaciones con método Kaplan Meier fue del 100% y 90%, respectivamente. En total hubo diez recurrencias: dos apicales y ocho prolapsos rectales internos. Los síntomas de abultamiento (94% a 12%; p <0.0005), incontinencia fecal (62% a 32%; p <0.0005), obstrucción defecatoria (59% a 24%; p = 0.008) y puntajes promedio del cuestionario de impacto del piso pélvico (124 a 5; p = 0.022) mejoraron significativamente en el seguimiento final. Las puntuaciones medias del inventario de molestias urogenitales mostraron una mejoría después de un año (30 a 13; p = 0.021).Estudio observacional de centro único con imagenología postoperatoria selectiva.Noventa por ciento de los pacientes estaban libres de recurrencia 48 meses después de la sacrocolporectopexia asistida por robot. Los síntomas de abultamiento vaginal, la calidad de vida, el estreñimiento y la incontinencia fecal mejoraron significativamente. Sin embargo, un subgrupo de pacientes mostró molestias intestinales persistentes que subrayan a la complejidad del prolapso multicompartimental. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265.

Prevention of severe infectious complications after colorectal surgery using oral non-absorbable antimicrobial prophylaxis: results of a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications after colorectal surgery. Oral non-absorbable antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) can be administered preoperatively to reduce the risk of SSIs. Its efficacy without simultaneous mechanical cleaning is unknown. METHODS: The Precaution trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were randomized to receive either a three-day course of preoperative OAP with tobramycin and colistin or placebo. The primary composite endpoint was the incidence of deep SSI or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included both infectious and non-infectious complications at 30 days and six months after surgery. RESULTS: The study was prematurely ended due to the loss of clinical equipoise. At that time, 39 patients had been randomized to active OAP and 39 to placebo, which reflected 8.1% of the initially pursued sample size. Nine (11.5%) patients developed the primary outcome, of whom four had been randomized to OAP (4/39; 10.3%) and five to placebo (5/39; 12.8%). This corresponds to a risk ratio in the intention-to-treat analysis of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-2.78). In the per-protocol analysis, the relative risk was 0.64 (95% CI 0.12-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Observational data emerging during the study provided new evidence for the effectiveness of OAP that changed both the clinical and medical ethical landscape for infection prevention in colorectal surgery. We therefore consider it unethical to continue randomizing patients to placebo. We recommend the implementation of OAP in clinical practice and continuing monitoring of infection rates and antibiotic susceptibilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PreCaution trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register under NL5932 (previously: NTR6113) as well as in the EudraCT register under 2015-005736-17.

Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic floor surgery has been subject to debate internationally. Although mesh erosion appears to be less associated with an abdominal approach, the long-term outcome has not been studied intensively. This study was set up to determine the long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal pelvic reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. All consecutive female patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolporectopexy in 2011 and 2012 were included. Primary outcome was mesh erosion. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation (6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years) with a clinical examination and questionnaire regarding pelvic floor symptoms was performed. Mesh-related complications were assessed using a transparent vaginal speculum, proctoscopy, and digital vaginal and rectal examination. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for mesh erosion. A review of the literature on mesh exposure after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was performed (≥12 months' follow-up). RESULTS: Ninety-six of the 130 patients included (73.8%) were clinically examined. Median follow-up time was 48.1 months (range 36.0-62.1). Three mesh erosions were diagnosed (3.1%; Kaplan-Meier 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0-11.0): one bladder erosion for which mesh resection and an omental patch interposition were performed, and two asymptomatic vaginal erosions (at 42.7 and 42.3 months) treated with estrogen cream in one. Additionally, 22 patients responded solely by questionnaire and/or telephone; none reported mesh-related complaints. The literature, mostly based on retrospective studies, described a median mesh erosion rate of 1.9% (range 0-13.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term rate of mesh erosion following an abdominally placed synthetic graft is low.

Metastasis of colorectal carcinoma in the testis: first sign of peritoneal disease.

Metastases of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) in the testis are very rare and indicate an advanced stage of disease. In this case report, we present a patient with adenocarcinoma in the sigmoid colon with metastasis in the right testis. Testicular metastasis of CRC is mostly diagnosed late because of their low incidence rate. Patients with CRC and testicular metastasis have a poor prognosis. In this case, the patient turned out to have peritoneal metastasis and one should be aware that testicular metastasis could be the first sign of widespread disease.

First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device.

BACKGROUND: Robotic camera holders for endoscopic surgery have been available for 20 years but market penetration is low. The current camera holders are controlled by voice, joystick, eyeball tracking, or head movements, and this type of steering has proven to be successful but excessive disturbance of surgical workflow has blocked widespread introduction. The Autolap™ system (MST, Israel) uses a radically different steering concept based on image analysis. This may improve acceptance by smooth, interactive, and fast steering. These two studies were conducted to prove safe and efficient performance of the core technology. METHODS: A total of 66 various laparoscopic procedures were performed with the AutoLap™ by nine experienced surgeons, in two multi-center studies; 41 cholecystectomies, 13 fundoplications including hiatal hernia repair, 4 endometriosis surgeries, 2 inguinal hernia repairs, and 6 (bilateral) salpingo-oophorectomies. The use of the AutoLap™ system was evaluated in terms of safety, image stability, setup and procedural time, accuracy of imaged-based movements, and user satisfaction. RESULTS: Surgical procedures were completed with the AutoLap™ system in 64 cases (97%). The mean overall setup time of the AutoLap™ system was 4 min (04:08 ± 0.10). Procedure times were not prolonged due to the use of the system when compared to literature average. The reported user satisfaction was 3.85 and 3.96 on a scale of 1 to 5 in two studies. More than 90% of the image-based movements were accurate. No system-related adverse events were recorded while using the system. CONCLUSION: Safe and efficient use of the core technology of the AutoLap™ system was demonstrated with high image stability and good surgeon satisfaction. The results support further clinical studies that will focus on usability, improved ergonomics and additional image-based features.

Robot-Assisted Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: A 5-Year Experience at a Tertiary Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is being increasingly performed internationally to treat rectal prolapse syndromes. Robotic assistance appears advantageous for this procedure, but literature regarding robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is limited. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in the largest consecutive series of patients to date. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: All of the patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse syndromes between 2010 and 2015 were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative (mesh and nonmesh) morbidity and functional outcome were analyzed. The actuarial recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (mean ± SD follow-up = 23.5 ± 21.8 mo; range, 0.2 - 65.1 mo). There were no conversions and only 5 intraoperative complications (1.9%). Mortality (0.4%) and major (1.9%) and minor (<30 d) early morbidity (7.0%) were acceptably low. Only 1 (1.3%) mesh-related complication (asymptomatic vaginal mesh erosion) was observed. A significant improvement in obstructed defecation (78.6%) and fecal incontinence (63.7%) were achieved for patients (both p < 0.0005). At final follow-up, a new onset of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation was induced or worsened in 3.9% and 0.4%. The actuarial 5-year external rectal prolapse and internal rectal prolapse recurrence rates were 12.9% and 10.4%. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. No validated scores were used to assess function. The study was monocentric, and there was no control group. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is a safe and effective technique to treat rectal prolapse syndromes, providing an acceptable recurrence rate and good symptomatic relief with minimal morbidity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A427.

Robot-Assisted Sacrocolporectopexy for Multicompartment Prolapse of the Pelvic Floor: A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating Functional and Sexual Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor disorders are a major public health issue. For female genital prolapse, sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a relatively new and promising technique correcting rectal prolapse. There is no literature combining the 2 robotically assisted techniques. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety, quality of life, and functional and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for multicompartment prolapse of the pelvic floor. DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. PATIENTS: All sexually active patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy at our institution between 2012 and 2014 were included. INTERVENTION: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was the study intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative (12 months) questionnaires using the Urinary Distress Inventory, Pescatori Incontinence Scale, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire were completed. In addition Wexner and Vaizey incontinence scores and the Wexner constipation score were recorded postoperatively. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy (median follow-up, 12.5 months). The simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification improved significantly (p < 0.0005) for all 4 of the anatomic landmarks. Both median fecal (preoperative and postoperative Pescatori 4 vs 3, p = 0.002) and urinary incontinence scores (Urinary Distress Inventory, 27.8 vs 22.2; p < 0.0005) improved significantly at 12 months. Postoperatively median Wexner (3) and Vaizey incontinence (6) and Wexner Constipation (7) scores were noted. A positive effect on sexual function (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire score 31.8 vs 35.9; p = 0.002) and quality of life for each compartment (p < 0.0005) was observed. One patient (2%) developed mesh erosion. No multicompartment recurrences were detected. LIMITATIONS: This was a observational study with a limited follow-up, no control group, and no preoperatively validated constipation score. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy is a safe and effective technique for multicompartment prolapse in terms of functional outcome, quality of life, and sexual function.

Current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external and internal rectal prolapse.

External and internal rectal prolapse with their affiliated rectocele and enterocele, are associated with debilitating symptoms such as obstructed defecation, pelvic pain and faecal incontinence. Since perineal procedures are associated with a higher recurrence rate, an abdominal approach is commonly preferred. Despite the description of greater than three hundred different procedures, thus far no clear superiority of one surgical technique has been demonstrated. Ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is a relatively new and promising technique to correct rectal prolapse. In contrast to the abdominal procedures of past decades, VMR avoids posterolateral rectal mobilisation and thereby minimizes the risk of postoperative constipation. Because of a perceived acceptable recurrence rate, good functional results and low mesh-related morbidity in the short to medium term, VMR has been popularized in the past decade. Laparoscopic or robotic-assisted VMR is now being progressively performed internationally and several articles and guidelines propose the procedure as the treatment of choice for rectal prolapse. In this article, an outline of the current status of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse is presented.

Acute resection versus bridge to surgery with diverting colostomy for patients with acute malignant left sided colonic obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes following the two surgical treatment options; primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery. METHODS: This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to minimize risk of bias. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant literature. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: Eight comparative studies were included, reporting on 2424 patients; 1973 patients were treated with primary resection and 451 patients with colostomy construction followed by elective resection. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between both treatment groups regarding 30-day mortality and morbidity (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.3-1.96 and OR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.51-1.13, respectively). However, patients treated with a colostomy followed by elective resection had significantly more primary anastomoses constructed and were less likely to be left with a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.17, 95%CI 0.11-0.26 and OR = 0.22, 95%CI 0.11-0.46, respectively). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an overview of all available literature on primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery in patients with acute LSCO. Keeping the limitations of this study in mind, we conclude that a diverting colostomy as bridge to surgery is a safe and valid alternative for primary resection.