Impact of Prolonged Neoadjuvant Treatment-surgery Interval on Histopathologic and Operative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Total Mesorectal Excision for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study primarily aimed to assess the impact of prolonged neoadjuvant treatment-surgery interval (PNSI) on histopathologic and postoperative outcomes. Impacts of the mode of neoadjuvant treatment (NT) and surgery on the outcomes were also evaluated in the same patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2011 and December 2017, patients who underwent NT and total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer were included. PNSI was defined as >4 and >8 weeks after short-course and long-course NT modalities, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 44 (27%) patients received short-course NT (standard interval: n=28; PNSI: n=16) and 122 (73%) patients received long-course NT (standard interval: n=39; PNSI: n=83). Postoperative morbidity was similar between the standard interval and PNSI in patients undergoing short-course [n=3 (11%) vs. n=3 (19%), P=0.455] and long-course [n=6 (15%) vs. n=16 (19%), P=0.602] NT. PNSI was associated with increased complete pathologic response in patients receiving short-course NT [0 vs. n=5 (31%), P=0.002]. Compared with short-course NT, long-course NT was superior in terms of tumor response based on the Mandard [Mandard 1 to 2: n=6 (21%) vs. 6 (38%), P=0.012] and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) [CAP 0 to 1: n=13 (46%) vs. n=8 (50%), P=0.009] scores. Postoperative morbidity was similar after open, laparoscopic, and robotic total mesorectal excision [n=1 (14.2%) vs. n=21 (21%) vs. n=6 (12.5%), P=0.455] irrespective of the interval time to surgery and the type of NT. CONCLUSIONS: PNSI can be considered in patients undergoing short-course NT due to its potential oncological benefits. The mode of surgery performed at tertiary centers has no impact on postoperative morbidity after both NT modalities.

Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal vs robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: Assessment of short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (L-TEP) and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: Patients were classified into two groups: L-TEP and R-TAPP. The groups were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Out of 86 patients, 43 patients were matched in each group based on the study criteria. Demographics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer for the R-TAPP compared to L-TEP (129.1 ± 47.2 min vs 92.5 ± 28.3 min; P < .001). VAS scores at 24 hours after surgery were significantly higher in the L-TEP compared to R-TAPP (36.8 ± 20.1 vs 20.3 ± 18.7; P < .001). Total hospital costs were 4778$ for R-TAPP and 3852$ for L-TEP. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates similar long-term postoperative outcomes and recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a case-matched fashion.

Short-term Results After Totally Robotic Restorative Total Proctocolectomy With Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis.

In this study, we aimed to present our initial experience on totally robotic total restorative proctocolectomy in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. Patients undergoing a totally robotic restorative total proctocolectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis for UC between January 2015 and November 2017 were included. The da Vinci Xi was used for the operations. Patient demographics, perioperative and short-term operative outcomes were evaluated. Ten patients were included. The median operative time was 380 minutes(range, 300 to 480 min). The median blood loss was 65 mL (range, 5 to 400 mL). No conversion to open surgery was needed. The median time to flatus was 1 day (range, 1 to 2) and length of stay was 6 (4 to 12) days. Short-term complications (≤30 d) were superficial wound infection (n=3), anal bleeding (n=1), pouchitis (n=1). No mortality was observed during the study period. Our study, which is the largest series so far, reveals that totally robotic restorative proctocolectomy is a safe and feasible option for the surgical treatment of UC.

Does Robot Overcome Obesity-related Limitations of Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery for Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Adoption of laparoscopic surgery for cancers requiring partial or total proctectomy has been slow due to difficulty of achieving oncologically adequate resection. Obesity is a factor complicating use and outcomes of laparoscopic technique for rectal surgery. Impact of obesity on the outcomes of robotic rectal surgery for cancer is not well defined. This study is designed to assess whether if the robotic technique has potential to overcome the limitations of obesity and to improve outcomes of minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing robotic sphincter-saving radical resection with da Vinci Xi System between December 2014 and December 2016 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups as obese and nonobese. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes and short-term results were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The study included 101 patients (30 were obese). Sex (female: 35 vs. 37%, P=0.89), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2 vs. 2, P=0.41), number of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (39% vs. 23%, P=0.12) and history of prior abdominal surgery (28% vs. 23%, P=0.62) were comparable between the groups. Operative time was longer in the obese group (311 vs. 332 min. P=0.01). Overall complication rates (27% vs. 23%, P=0.72), length of hospital stay (6 vs. 7, P=0.10) and pathologic outcomes were similar between the groups. Conversion to laparoscopy was not required in any operation. Two nonobese patients required conversion to open surgery. CONCLUSION: Robotic rectal surgery for cancer in obese patients is equally safe and effective as in nonobese patients. The new robotic platform can facilitate to overcome obesity-related limitations of rectal surgery.