Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?

BACKGROUND: Although currently limited, the requirement for colorectal trainees to attain skills in robotic surgery is likely to increase due to further utilization of robotic platforms globally. The aim of the study is to describe the training programme utilized and assess outcomes of fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A structured robotic training programme was generated across a tertiary hospital setting. Review of four prospectively maintained fellow operative logbooks was performed to assess caseload and skill acquisition. Operative and patient-related outcomes were compared with consultant trainer performed cases. Data were analysed using R with a P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: The structured robotic training scheme is a two-tiered system over a 12-month period. The trainer-directed pathway comprised of a robotic console safety course followed by cart-side assisting, a wet lab animal course, dual-console accreditation training course and onsite proctoring, prior to becoming an independent console surgeon. Over 2 years, 265 robotic (n = 143 primary/component surgeon) cases were undertaken with fellows A, B, C and D involved in 63, 77, 75 and 50 robotic colorectal cases, respectively. Individual learning curves revealed independent procedure competency at cases 11, 14, 15 and 12, respectively, for robotic anterior resection. There was no significant difference observed in operative time (P = 0.39), blood loss (P = 0.41), lymph node harvest (P = 0.35), conversion rates (2% versus 4%), anastomotic leaks (1% versus 3%) and R0 resection rates (100% versus 98% colonic, 96% versus 96% rectal, P = 0.48) between surgical fellows and consultant trainers. Clavien-Dindo(III-IV) complications were similar (10% versus 6%,P = 0.25) with no mortalities encountered. CONCLUSION: It is feasible and safe to train fellows in robotic colorectal surgery without compromise of operative- and patient-related outcomes.

Association of Surgical Skill Assessment With Clinical Outcomes in Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Complex surgical interventions are inherently prone to variation yet they are not objectively measured. The reasons for outcome differences following cancer surgery are unclear. Objective: To quantify surgical skill within advanced laparoscopic procedures and its association with histopathological and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This analysis of data and video from the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of Rectum (ALaCaRT) and 2-dimensional/3-dimensional (2D3D) multicenter randomized laparoscopic total mesorectal excision trials, which were conducted at 28 centers in Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, was performed from 2018 to 2019 and included 176 patients with clinical T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma 15 cm or less from the anal verge. Case videos underwent blinded objective analysis using a bespoke performance assessment tool developed with a 62-international expert Delphi exercise and workshop, interview, and pilot phases. Interventions: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision undertaken with curative intent by 34 credentialed surgeons. Main Outcomes and Measures: Histopathological (plane of mesorectal dissection, ALaCaRT composite end point success [mesorectal fascial plane, circumferential margin, ≥1 mm; distal margin, ≥1 mm]) and 30-day morbidity. End points were analyzed using surgeon quartiles defined by tool scores. Results: The laparoscopic total mesorectal excision performance tool was produced and shown to be reliable and valid for the specialist level (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.832-0.926; P < .001). A substantial variation in tool scores was recorded (range, 25-48). Scores were associated with the number of intraoperative errors, plane of mesorectal dissection, and short-term patient morbidity, including the number and severity of complications. Upper quartile-scoring surgeons obtained excellent results compared with the lower quartile (mesorectal fascial plane: 93% vs 59%; number needed to treat [NNT], 2.9, P = .002; ALaCaRT end point success, 83% vs 58%; NNT, 4; P = .03; 30-day morbidity, 23% vs 50%; NNT, 3.7; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Intraoperative surgical skill can be objectively and reliably measured in complex cancer interventions. Substantial variation in technical performance among credentialed surgeons is seen and significantly associated with clinical and pathological outcomes.

Esophageal replacement by gastric transposition: A single surgeon's experience from a tertiary pediatric surgical center.

BACKGROUND: Many pediatric surgeons have limited experience of esophageal replacement. This study reports outcomes of esophageal replacement by gastric transposition performed by a single UK-based pediatric surgeon. METHODS: Consecutive patients were identified who underwent esophageal replacement by gastric transposition over a 28 year period. Clinical and demographic data were collected. Weight-for-age Z-scores were calculated for esophageal atresia patients. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were identified. Indication in the majority was long-gap esophageal atresia (n = 17; 10 with tracheoesophageal fistula). At surgery, median age was 8.5 months (range 2-55); median weight was 7.4 kg (range 4.0-17.4 kg). A right-sided thoracotomy or transhiatal approach was used. Median postoperative length of stay was 17.5 days (range 7-130); median intensive care stay was three days (range 1-63). There were no deaths. Anastomotic leak rate at 30 days was 10.5% (n = 2). One patient required early stricture dilatation. Median weight-for-age Z-score increased from -2.17 at one year of age to -1.86, -1.70 and -1.93 at 5, 10 and 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal replacement by gastric transposition offers a potentially life-changing treatment; however, it is associated with significant morbidity. The majority of patients eventually achieve full oral feeding and maintenance of weight gain trajectory. A right-sided approach to the esophagus is feasible. TYPE OF STUDY: Treatment Study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Methods of quality assurance in multicenter trials in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of bias in multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and review the use of quality assurance mechanisms to reduce performance bias. BACKGROUND: RCTs represent the criterion standard comparison for health care interventions. For trials investigating interventional techniques, performance bias can arise through variation in delivery of the intervention. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was undertaken using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify all large RCTs investigating laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Risk of performance bias was evaluated through assessment of publications and protocols to identify methods used for quality assurance of surgical technique. In addition, the Cochrane Collaboration's "risk of bias" tool was used to evaluate other potential sources of bias. RESULTS: The literature search identified 48 publications, reporting upon 8 individual RCTs. All studies used mechanisms for quality assurance of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods employed included credentialing of surgeons or units through assessment of experience and expertise, standardization of surgical technique, and monitoring. None report the use of structure objective assessment tools for accrediting expertise. All 8 were assessed as low risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. A framework is proposed for use as a model for quality assurance in future surgical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of risk of performance bias is important when appraising trials investigating an interventional technique. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery RCTs have all employed quality assurance mechanisms to reduce risk of performance bias. Further research is indicated to investigate adopting objective assessment tools for quality assurance within multicenter RCTs.

Timing of surgery after long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy is commonly used to improve the local control and resectability of locally advanced rectal cancer, with surgery performed after an interval of a number of weeks. OBJECTIVE: We report an evidence-based systematic review of published data supporting the optimal time to perform surgical resection after long-course neoadjuvant therapy. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was undertaken of the MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 1995 to 2012. STUDY SELECTION: English language articles were included that compared outcomes following rectal cancer surgery performed at different times after a long course of neoadjuvant radiation-based therapy. INTERVENTIONS: : Patients received a long course of neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgical resection after an interval period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The rates of tumor response, R0 resection, sphincter preservation, surgical complications, and disease recurrence were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified: 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 prospective nonrandomized interventional study, and 13 observational studies. Studies compared time intervals that varied between <5 days and >12 weeks, with a large degree of variation in what the standard interval length was considered to be. Four of the 7 studies that reported rates of pathological complete response identified significantly higher rates with an extended interval between chemoradiotherapy and surgery; 3 of 8 studies demonstrated increased primary tumor downstaging with a longer interval. No significant differences have been consistently demonstrated in rates of surgical complications, sphincter preservation, or long-term recurrence and survival. LIMITATIONS: Neoadjuvant regimes, indications for neoadjuvant therapy, and time intervals after chemoradiotherapy were heterogeneous between studies; consequently, meta-analysis could not be performed. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support decisions regarding when to resect rectal cancer following chemoradiotherapy. There may be benefits in prolonging the interval between chemoradiotherapy and surgery beyond the 6 to 8 weeks that is commonly practiced. However, outcomes need to be studied further in robust randomized studies.