Influence of robotics in surgical complication rate in elderly population with rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer surgery is a technically complex procedure. Moreover, short-term outcomes show high rate of complications especially in elderly and laparoscopic surgery has not demonstrated to be able to reduce this complication rate. Robotics has several advantages in pelvic surgical procedures, which could have an impact in complication rates in elderly patients. AIMS: The aim of our study is to demonstrate whether robotic surgery has any influence on the reduction of complications in the aged population undergoing rectal cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of 151 patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer. We divided our population into three groups: under 65-year-old, between 65- and 80-year-old and above 80-year-old. We recorded complications in each group intra and post procedure. RESULTS: The present study included 151 patients (94 males). Of them, 77 patients were under 66 year old, 63 patients were between 66 and 79 year old and 11 patients were 80 year old and above. The analysis showed conversion rates of 10.38%, 13.69%, 27.27%, and the complication rate of 23.4%, 23.8%, and 27.3% in each group. Univariate analysis showed no differences between the three groups. Nevertheless, there were statistical differences from BMI, ASA and neoadjuvant therapy. In multivariant analysis only neoadjuvant therapy was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic approach does not decrease complications in elderly population and conversion is similar in these age groups. So we should not rule out robotic surgery in elderly patients, although we must select each case with a multidisciplinary approach.

Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery offers multiple advantages for surgeons, and it seems to yield the same clinical outcomes as regards the short-time follow-up of patients compared to conventional laparoscopy. This surgical approach emerges as a technique aiming at overcoming the limitations posed by rectal cancer and other surgical fields of difficult access, in order to obtain better outcomes and a shorter learning curve. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of robot-assisted rectal surgery was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in October 2015 in PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for articles published in the last 10 years and pertaining the learning curve of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. It consisted of the following key words: "rectal cancer/learning curve/robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery". RESULTS: A total of 34 references were identified, but only 9 full texts specifically addressed the analysis of the learning curve in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery, 7 were case series and 2 were non-randomised case-comparison series. Eight papers used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, and only one author divided the series into two groups to compare both. The mean number of cases for phase I of the learning curve was calculated to be 29.7 patients; phase II corresponds to a mean number 37.4 patients. The mean number of cases required for the surgeon to be classed as an expert in robotic surgery was calculated to be 39 patients. CONCLUSION: Robotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.

Validation of a new scoring system: Rapid assessment faecal incontinence score.

AIM: To implement a quick and simple test - rapid assessment faecal incontinence score (RAFIS) and show its reliability and validity. METHODS: From March 2008 through March 2010, we evaluated a total of 261 consecutive patients, including 53 patients with faecal incontinence. Demographic and comorbidity information was collected. In a single visit, patients were administered the RAFIS. The results obtained with the new score were compared with those of both Wexner score and faecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQL) questionnaire. The patient without influence of the surgeon completed the test. The role of surgeon was explaining the meaning of each section and how he had to fill. Reliability of the RAFIS score was measured using intra-observer agreement and Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) coefficient. Multivariate analysis of the main components within the different scores was performed in order to determine whether all the scores measured the same factor and to conclude whether the information could be encompassed in a single factor. A sample size of 50 patients with faecal incontinence was estimated to be enough to detect a correlation of 0.55 or better at 5% level of significance with 80% power. RESULTS: We analysed the results obtained by 53 consecutive patients with faecal incontinence (median age 61.55 ± 12.49 years) in the three scoring systems. A total of 208 healthy volunteers (median age 58.41 ± 18.41 years) without faecal incontinence were included in the study as negative controls. Pearson's correlation coefficient between "state" and "leaks" was excellent (r = 0.92, P < 0.005). Internal consistency in the comparison of "state" and "leaks" yielded also excellent correlation (Cronbach's α = 0.93). Results in each score were compared using regression analysis and a correlation value of r = 0.98 was obtained with Wexner score. As regards FIQL questionnaire, the values of "r" for the different subscales of the questionnaire were: "lifestyle" r = -0.87, "coping/behaviour" r = -0.91, "depression" r = -0.36 and "embarrassment" r = -0.90, (P < 0.01). A multivariate analysis showed that all the scoring systems measured the same factor. A single factor may explain 80.84% of the variability of FI, so all the scoring systems measure the same factor. Patient's continence improves when RAFIS and Jorge-Wexner scores show low values and when the values obtained in the FIQL questionnaire are high. CONCLUSION: RAFIS is a valid and reliable tool to assess Faecal Incontinence.