Search

Robot assisted surgery (RAS) is increasingly used, and besides conventional minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) surgeons are challenged to learn an increased array of skills. This study aimed to assess the influence of both learning curves on each other. A prospective randomized crossover study was performed. Participants without cMIS or RAS experience (Groups 1 and 2), and cMIS experienced, (Group 3) were recruited. Three suturing tasks (intracorporal suturing, tilted plane and anastomosis needle transfer) were performed on the EoSim cMIS simulator or RobotiX RAS simulator up to twenty repetitions. Subsequently, Groups 1 and 2 performed the tasks on the other modality. Outcomes were simulator parameters, validated composite and pass/fail scores. In total forty-three participants were recruited. Overall RAS suturing was better in Group 1 (cMIS followed by RAS tasks) and 3 (RAS tasks) versus Group 2 (RAS followed by cMIS tasks) for time (163 s and 157 s versus 193 s p = 0.004, p = 0.001) and composite scores (92/100 and 91/100 versus 89/100 p = 0.008, p = 0.020). The cMIS suturing was better for Group 2 versus 1 (time 287 s versus 349 s p = 0.005, composite score 96/100 versus 94/100 p = 0.002). Significant differences from the RAS suturing pass/fail were reached earlier by Group 3, followed by Groups 1 and 2 (repetition six, nine and twelve). In cMIS suturing Group 2 reached significant differences from the pass/fail earlier than Group 1 (repetition four versus six). Transferability of skills was shown for cMIS and RAS, indicating that suturing experience on cMIS or RAS is beneficial in learning either approach., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Video-based assessment by experts may structurally measure surgical performance using procedure-specific competency assessment tools (CATs). A CAT for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE-CAT) was developed and validated previously. However, surgeon's time is scarce and video assessment is time-consuming and labor intensive. This study investigated non-procedure-specific assessment of MIE video clips by MIE experts and crowdsourcing, collective surgical performance evaluation by anonymous and untrained laypeople, to assist procedure-specific expert review., Methods: Two surgical performance scoring frameworks were used to assess eight MIE videos. First, global performance was assessed with the non-procedure-specific Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) of 64 procedural phase-based video clips < 10 min. Each clip was assessed by two MIE experts and > 30 crowd workers. Second, the same experts assessed procedure-specific performance with the MIE-CAT of the corresponding full-length video. Reliability and convergent validity of GOALS for MIE were investigated using hypothesis testing with correlations (experience, blood loss, operative time, and MIE-CAT)., Results: Less than 75% of hypothesized correlations between GOALS scores and experience of the surgical team (r < 0.3), blood loss (r = - 0.82 to 0.02), operative time (r = - 0.42 to 0.07), and the MIE-CAT scores (r = - 0.04 to 0.76) were met for both crowd workers and experts. Interestingly, experts' GOALS and MIE-CAT scores correlated strongly (r = 0.40 to 0.79), while crowd workers' GOALS and experts' MIE-CAT scores correlations were weak (r = - 0.04 to 0.49). Expert and crowd worker GOALS scores correlated poorly (ICC ≤ 0.42)., Conclusion: GOALS assessments by crowd workers lacked convergent validity and showed poor reliability. It is likely that MIE is technically too difficult to assess for laypeople. Convergent validity of GOALS assessments by experts could also not be established. GOALS might not be comprehensive enough to assess detailed MIE performance. However, expert's GOALS and MIE-CAT scores strongly correlated indicating video clip (instead of full-length video) assessments could be useful to shorten assessment time., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data., Objective: To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers., Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022., Exposures: The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers., Main Outcomes and Measures: The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C., Results: From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated., Conclusion and Relevance: In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

Background: Guidelines do not provide clear recommendations with regard to the use of low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the influence of low versus standard IAP during laparoscopic surgery on the key-outcomes in perioperative medicine as defined by the StEP-COMPAC consensus group., Materials and Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing low IAP (<10 mmHg) with standard IAP (10 mmHg or higher) during laparoscopic surgery without time, language, or blinding restrictions. According to the PRISMA guidelines, two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. Risk ratio (RR), and mean difference (MD), with 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects models with RevMan5. Main outcomes were based on StEP-COMPAC recommendations, and included postoperative complications, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores, and length of hospital stay., Results: Eighty-five studies in a wide range of laparoscopic procedures (7349 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The available evidence indicates that the use of low IAP (<10 mmHg) leads to a lower incidence of mild (Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2) postoperative complications (RR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.86), lower pain scores (MD=-0.68, 95% CI: -0.82 to 0.54) and PONV incidence (RR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.51-0.88), and a reduced length of hospital stay (MD=-0.29, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.11). Low IAP did not increase the risk of intraoperative complications (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.77-1.73)., Conclusions: Given the established safety and the reduced incidence of mild postoperative complications, lower pain scores, reduced incidence of PONV, and shorter length of stay, the available evidence supports a moderate to strong recommendation (1a level of evidence) in favor of low IAP during laparoscopic surgery., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the learning curve of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) after an implementation program., Background: Although LG is increasingly being performed worldwide, little is known about the learning curve., Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent elective LG for gastric adenocarcinoma with curative intent in each of the 5 highest-volume centers in the Netherlands were enrolled. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece model with a break point were used to determine the learning curve length. Analyses were corrected for casemix and were performed for LG and for the subgroups distal gastrectomy (LDG) and total gastrectomy (LTG). The learning curve effect was assessed for (1) anastomotic leakage; and (2) the occurrence of postoperative complications, conversions to open surgery, and short-term oncological parameters., Results: In total 540 patients were included for analysis, 108 patients from each center; 268 patients underwent LDG and 272 underwent LTG. First, for LG, no learning effect regarding anastomotic leakage could be identified: the rate of anastomotic leakage initially increased, then reached a plateau after 36 cases at 10% anastomotic leakage. Second, the level of overall complications reached a plateau after 20 cases, at 38% overall complications, and at 5% conversions. For both LDG and LTG, each considered separately, fluctuations in secondary outcomes and anastomotic leakage followed fluctuations in casemix., Conclusion: On the basis of our study of the first 108 procedures of LG in 5 high-volume centers with well-trained surgeons, no learning curve effect could be identified regarding anastomotic leakage. A learning curve effect was found with respect to overall complications and conversion rate., Competing Interests: M.I.v.B.H. is consultant for Mylan, Johnson & Johnson, Alesi Surgical, BBraun and Medtronic, and received unrestricted research grants from Olympus and Stryker (all fees paid to institution). J.H.M.B.S. has served as faculty in an online training course for inguinal hernia repair from Medtronic. M.D.P.L. has a consulting and advisory role at Galvani and Medtronic, and received research funding from the Dutch Cancer Foundation. G.A.P.N. has received research funding from Medtronic. J.P.H.R. and R.v.H. have a consulting and advisory role at Intuitive Surgical. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Robotic surgery may improve surgical performance during minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy but comparative studies are lacking. This study assessed the impact of robotic surgery versus 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy on surgical performance and operative time using a standardized biotissue model for pancreatico- and hepatico-jejunostomy using pooled data from two randomized controlled crossover trials (RCTs)., Methods: Pooled analysis of data from two RCTs with 60 participants (36 surgeons, 24 residents) from 11 countries (December 2017-July 2019) was conducted. Each included participant completed two pancreatico- and two hepatico-jejunostomies in biotissue using 3D-robotic surgery, 3D-laparoscopy, or 2D-laparoscopy. Primary outcomes were the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS: 12-60) rating, scored by observers blinded for 3D/2D and the operative time required to complete both anastomoses. Sensitivity analysis excluded participants with excess experience compared to others., Results: A total of 220 anastomoses were completed (robotic 80, 3D-laparoscopy 70, 2D-laparoscopy 70). Participants in the robotic group had less surgical experience [median 1 (0-2) versus 6 years (4-12), p < 0.001], as compared to the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery resulted in higher OSATS ratings (50, 43, 39 points, p = .021 and p < .001) and shorter operative time (56.5, 65.0, 81.5 min, p = .055 and p < .001), as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy, respectively, which remained in the sensitivity analysis., Conclusion: In a pooled analysis of two RCTs in a biotissue model, robotic surgery resulted in better surgical performance scores and shorter operative time for biotissue pancreatic and biliary anastomoses, as compared to 3D- and 2D-laparoscopy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: To describe the pooled learning curves of Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) in hospitals stratified by predefined hospital- and surgeon-related factors., Background: Ivor Lewis (TMIE is known to have a long learning curve which is associated with considerable learning associated morbidity. It is unknown whether hospital and surgeon characteristics are associated with more efficient learning., Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive Ivor Lewis TMIE patients in 14 European hospitals was performed. Outcome parameters used as proxy for efficient learning were learning curve length, learning associated morbidity, and the plateau level regarding anastomotic leakage and textbook outcome. Pooled incidences were plotted for the factor-based subgroups using generalized additive models and 2-phase models. Casemix predicted outcomes were plotted and compared with observed outcomes. The investigated factors included annual volume, TMIE experience, clinic visits, courses and fellowships followed, and proctor supervision., Results: This study included 2121 patients. The length of the learning curve was shorter for centers with an annual volume >50 compared to centers with an annual volume <50. Analysis with an annual volume cut-off of 30 cases showed similar but less pronounced results. No outcomes suggesting more efficient learning were found for longer experience as consultant, visiting an expert clinic, completing a minimally invasive esophagectomy fellowship or implementation under proctor supervision., Conclusions: More efficient learning was observed in centers with higher annual volume. Visiting an expert clinic, completing a fellowship, or implementation under a proctor's supervision were not associated with more efficient learning., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: In recent years, minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) esophagectomy with high intrathoracic anastomosis has emerged as surgical standard of care for esophageal cancer in expert centers. Alongside this process, many divergent technical aspects of this procedure have been devised in different centers. This study aims at achieving international consensus on the surgical steps of IL reconstruction using Delphi methodology., Methods: The expert panel consisted of specialized esophageal surgeons from 8 European countries. During a two-round Delphi process, a detailed analysis and consensus on key steps of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction (IL esophagectomy) was performed., Results: Response rates in Delphi rounds 1 and 2 were 100% (22 of 22 experts) and 83.3% (20 of 24 experts), respectively. Three essential technical areas of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction were identified: first, vascularization of the gastric conduit, second, gastric mobilization, tube formation and pull-up, and third, anastomotic technique. In addition, 3 main techniques for minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis are currently practiced: (i) end-to-side circular stapled, (ii) end-to-side double stapling, and (iii) side-to-side linear stapled technique. The step-by-step procedural analysis unveiled common approaches but also different expert practice., Conclusion: This precise technical description may serve as a clinical guideline for intrathoracic reconstruction after esophagectomy. In addition, the results may aid to harmonize the technical evolution of this complex surgical procedure and thereby facilitate surgical training., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: We tested the added value of 3D-vision on procedure time and surgical performance during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue. Robotic surgery has the advantage of articulating instruments and 3D-vision. Consensus is lacking on the added value of 3D-vision during laparoscopic surgery. Given the improved dexterity with robotic surgery, the added value of 3D-vision may be even less with robotic surgery., Methods: In this experimental randomized controlled cross-over trial, 20 surgeons and surgical residents from 5 countries performed robotic pancreaticojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy anastomoses in a biotissue organ model using the da Vinci® system and were randomized to start with either 3D- or 2D-vision. Primary endpoint was the time required to complete both anastomoses. Secondary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS; range 12-60) rating; scored by two observers blinded to 3D/2D., Results: Robotic 3D-vision reduced the combined operative time from 78.1 to 57.3 min (24.6% reduction, p < 0.001; 20.8 min reduction, 95% confidence intervals 12.8-28.8 min). This reduction was consistent for both anastomoses and between surgeons and residents, p < 0.001. Robotic 3D-vision improved OSATS performance by 6.1 points (20.8% improvement, p = 0.003) compared to 2D (39.4 to 45.1 points, ± 5.5)., Conclusion: 3D-vision has a considerable added value during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy anastomoses in biotissue in both time reduction and improved surgical performance as compared to 2D-vision.

The RobotiX robot-assisted virtual reality simulator aims to aid in the training of novice surgeons outside of the operating room. This study aimed to determine the validity evidence on multiple levels of the RobotiX simulator for basic skills. Participants were divided in either the novice, laparoscopic or robotic experienced group based on their minimally invasive surgical experience. Two basic tasks were performed: wristed manipulation (Task 1) and vessel energy dissection (Task 2). The performance scores and a questionnaire regarding the realism, didactic value, and usability were gathered (content). Composite scores (0-100), pass/fail values, and alternative benchmark scores were calculated. Twenty-seven novices, 21 laparoscopic, and 13 robotic experienced participants were recruited. Content validity evidence was scored positively overall. Statistically significant differences between novices and robotic experienced participants (construct) was found for movements left (Task 1 p = 0.009), movements right (Task 1 p = 0.009, Task 2 p = 0.021), path length left (Task 1 p = 0.020), and time (Task 1 p = 0.040, Task 2 p < 0.001). Composite scores were statistically significantly different between robotic experienced and novice participants for Task 1 (85.5 versus 77.1, p = 0.044) and Task 2 (80.6 versus 64.9, p = 0.001). The pass/fail score with false-positive/false-negative percentage resulted in a value of 75/100, 46/9.1% (Task 1) and 71/100, 39/7.0% (Task 2). Calculated benchmark scores resulted in a minority of novices passing multiple parameters. Validity evidence on multiple levels was assessed for two basic robot-assisted surgical simulation tasks. The calculated benchmark scores can be used for future surgical simulation training.

Background: The availability of validated laparoscopic simulators has not resulted in sustainable high-volume training. We investigated whether the validated laparoscopic serious game Underground would increase voluntary training by residents. We hypothesized that by removing intrinsic barriers and extrinsic barriers, residents would spend more time on voluntary training with Underground compared to voluntary training with traditional simulators., Methods: After 1 year, we compared amount of voluntary time spent on playing Underground to time spent on all other laparoscopic training modalities and to time spent on performing laparoscopic procedures in the OR for all surgical residents. These data were compared to resident' time spent on laparoscopic activities over the prior year before the introduction of Underground., Results: From March 2016 until March 2017, 63 residents spent on average 20 min on voluntary serious gaming, 17 min on voluntary simulator training, 2 h and 44 min on mandatory laparoscopic training courses, and 14 h and 49 min on laparoscopic procedures in the OR. Voluntary activities represented 3% of laparoscopic training activities which was similar in the prior year wherein fifty residents spent on average 33 min on voluntary simulator training, 3 h and 28 min on mandatory laparoscopic training courses, and 11 h and 19 min on laparoscopic procedures., Conclusion: Serious gaming has not increased total voluntary training volume. Underground did not mitigate intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to voluntary training. Mandatory, scheduled training courses remain needed. Serious gaming is flexible and affordable and could be an important part of such training courses.

Background: Robot assisted surgery has expanded considerably in the past years. Compared to conventional open or laparoscopic surgery, virtual reality (VR) training is an essential component in learning robot assisted surgery. However, for tasks to be implemented in a curriculum, the levels of validity should be studied for proficiency-based training. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess the validity evidence of advanced suturing tasks on a robot assisted VR simulator., Method: Participants were voluntary recruited and divided in the robotic experienced, laparoscopic experienced or novice group, based on self-reported surgical experience. Subsequently, a questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale was completed to assess the content validity. Three component tasks of complex suturing were performed on the RobotiX simulator (Task1: tilted plane needle transfer, Task: 2 intracorporal suturing, Task 3: anastomosis needle transfer). Accordingly, the outcome of the parameters was used to assess construct validity between robotic experienced and novice participants. Composite scores (0-100) were calculated from the construct parameters and corresponding pass/fail scores with false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) percentages., Results: Fifteen robotic experienced, 26 laparoscopic experienced and 29 novices were recruited. Overall content validity outcomes were scored positively on the realism (mean 3.7), didactic value (mean 4.0) and usability (mean 4.2). Robotic experienced participants significantly outperformed novices and laparoscopic experienced participants on multiple parameters on all three tasks of complex suturing. Parameters showing construct validity mainly consisted of movement parameters, needle precision and task completion time. Calculated composite pass/fail scores between robotic experienced and novice participants resulted for Task 1 in 73/100 (FP 21%, FN 5%), Task 2 in 85/100 (FP 28%, FN 4%) and Task 3 in 64/100 (FP 49%, FN 22%)., Conclusion: This study assessed the validity evidence on multiple levels of the three studied tasks. The participants score the RobotiX good on the content validity level. The composite pass/fail scores of Tasks 1 and 2 allow for proficiency-based training and could be implemented in a robot assisted surgery training curriculum.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Compared to conventional laparoscopy, robot assisted surgery is expected to have most potential in difficult areas and demanding technical skills like minimally invasive suturing. This study was performed to identify the differences in the learning curves of laparoscopic versus robot assisted suturing., Method: Novice participants performed three suturing tasks on the EoSim laparoscopic augmented reality simulator or the RobotiX robot assisted virtual reality simulator. Each participant performed an intracorporeal suturing task, a tilted plane needle transfer task and an anastomosis needle transfer task. To complete the learning curve, all tasks were repeated up to twenty repetitions or until a time plateau was reached. Clinically relevant and comparable parameters regarding time, movements and safety were recorded. Intracorporeal suturing time and cumulative sum analysis was used to compare the learning curves and phases., Results: Seventeen participants completed the learning curve laparoscopically and 30 robot assisted. Median first knot suturing time was 611 s (s) for laparoscopic versus 251 s for robot assisted (p < 0.001), and this was 324 s versus 165 (sixth knot, p < 0.001) and 257 s and 149 s (eleventh knot, p < 0.001) respectively on base of the found learning phases. The percentage of 'adequate surgical knots' was higher in the laparoscopic than in the robot assisted group. First knot: 71% versus 60%, sixth knot: 100% versus 83%, and eleventh knot: 100% versus 73%. When assessing the 'instrument out of view' parameter, the robot assisted group scored a median of 0% after repetition four. In the laparoscopic group, the instrument out of view increased from 3.1 to 3.9% (left) and from 3.0 to 4.1% (right) between the first and eleventh knot (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: The learning curve of minimally invasive suturing shows a shorter task time curve using robotic assistance compared to the laparoscopic curve. However, laparoscopic outcomes show good end results with rapid outcome improvement.

Introduction: Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) is increasingly used in treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma. However, it is currently unknown if McKeown TMIE or Ivor Lewis TMIE should be preferred for patients in whom both procedures are oncologically feasible., Methods: The study was performed in 4 high-volume Dutch esophageal cancer centers between November 2009 and April 2017. Prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with esophageal cancer localized in the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction undergoing McKeown TMIE or Ivor Lewis TMIE were included. Patients were propensity score matched for age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor type, tumor location, clinical stage, neoadjuvant treatment, and the hospital of surgery. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation. Secondary outcome parameters were operation characteristics, pathology results, complications, reinterventions, reoperations, length of stay, and mortality., Results: Of all 787 included patients, 420 remained after matching. The incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation was 23.3% after McKeown TMIE versus 12.4% after Ivor Lewis TMIE (P = 0.003). Ivor Lewis TMIE was significantly associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary complications (46.7% vs 31.9%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (9.5% vs 0.5%), reoperations (18.6% vs 11.0%), 90-day mortality (7.1% vs 2.9%), shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (2 days vs 1 day) and shorter median hospital length of stay (12 vs 11 days) (all P < 0.05). R0 resection rate was similar between the groups. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 21 after McKeown TMIE and 25 after Ivor Lewis TMIE (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Ivor Lewis TMIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage, 90-day mortality and other postoperative morbidity compared to McKeown TMIE in patients in whom both procedures are oncologically feasible.

Background: Laparoscopic fenestration is one of the treatment options for symptomatic hepatic cysts, either solitary or in context of polycystic liver disease (PLD), but indications, efficacy and surgical techniques are under debate., Methods: A systematic literature search (1950-2017) of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was performed (CRD42017071305). Studies assessing symptomatic relief or symptomatic recurrence after laparoscopic fenestration in patients with symptomatic, non-parasitic, hepatic cysts were included. Complications were scored according to Clavien-Dindo. Methodological quality was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model for meta-analysis., Results: Out of 5277 citations, 62 studies with a total of 1314 patients were included. Median NOS-score was 6 out of 9. Median follow-up duration was 30 months. Symptomatic relief after laparoscopic fenestration was 90.2% (95% CI 84.3-94.9). Symptomatic recurrence was 9.6% (95% CI 6.9-12.8) and reintervention rate was 7.1% (95% CI 5.0-9.4). Post-operative complications occurred in 10.8% (95% CI 8.1-13.9) and major complications in 3.3% (95% CI 2.1-4.7) of patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1.0% (95% CI 0.5-1.6). In a subgroup analysis of PLD patients (n = 146), symptomatic recurrence and reintervention rates were significantly higher with respective rates of 33.7% (95% CI 18.7-50.4) and 26.4% (95% CI 12.6-43.0). Complications were more frequent in PLD patients, with a rate of 29.3% (95% CI 16.0-44.5)., Conclusions: Laparoscopic fenestration is an effective procedure for treatment of symptomatic hepatic cysts with a low symptomatic recurrence rate. The symptomatic recurrence rate and risk of complications are significantly higher in PLD patients.

Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis TMIE) is a technically challenging procedure and is associated with a learning curve. Refinement of surgical technique is an important part of this learning curve. However, detailed descriptions of these refinements according to the idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework are lacking and this study was undertaken to fill this knowledge gap. From 2010 until 2016, all consecutive patients (n = 164) were included from the first patient undergoing Ivor Lewis TMIE. Surgical reports were analyzed and surgeons were interviewed to determine surgical refinements. These data were used to describe the transition of the surgical technique from IDEAL stage IIB to stage III. The main findings were that four refinements were made to the surgical procedure in IDEAL stage IIB: (1) At case 9, the use of the 25 mm OrVil was abandoned, exchanged for a 28 mm EEA stapler and a large omental wrap around the anastomosis was introduced; (2) at case 27, the omental wrap was reduced in volume; (3) at case 60, the omental wrap was refined to cover the full 360° of the anastomosis and (4) at case 77, the fixation of the anvil with the Endostitch was replaced by fixation with two Endoloops®. During the transition from IDEAL stage IIB to stage III, the incidence of anastomotic leakage decreased from 26.0% to 4.6% (P < 0.001) and the incidence of textbook outcome increased from 31.2% to 47.1% (P = 0.039). In conclusion, this study describes the surgical refinements that were made during the progression of Ivor Lewis TMIE from IDEAL stage IIB to IDEAL stage III. During IDEAL stage IIB, postoperative outcome improved as surgical proficiency was gained and the technique was refined., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate 3-year survival following a randomized controlled trial comparing minimally invasive with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer., Background: Research on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has shown faster postoperative recovery and a marked decrease in pulmonary complications. Debate is ongoing as to whether the procedure is equivalent to open resection regarding oncologic outcomes. The study is a follow-up study of the TIME-trial (traditional invasive vs minimally invasive esophagectomy, a multicenter, randomized trial)., Methods: Between June 2009 and March 2011, patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I), were randomized between open and MI esophagectomy with curative intent. Primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, lymph node yield, short-term morbidity, mortality, complications, radicality, local recurrence, and metastasis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. Both trial protocol and short-term results have been published previously., Results: One hundred fifteen patients were included from 5 European hospitals and randomly assigned to open (n = 56) or MI esophagectomy (n = 59). Combined overall 3-year survival was 40.4% (SD 7.7%) in the open group versus 50.5% (SD 8%) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.207). The hazard ratio (HR) is 0.883 (0.540 to 1.441) for MIE compared with open surgery. Disease-free 3-year survival was 35.9% (SD 6.8%) in the open versus 40.2% (SD 6.9%) in the MI group [HR 0.691 (0.389 to 1.239)., Conclusions: The study presented here depicted no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival for open and MI esophagectomy. These results, together with short-term results, further support the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Introduction: Esophagectomy for cancer can be performed in a two-stage procedure with an intrathoracic anastomosis: the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A growing incidence of distal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas and increasing use of minimally invasive techniques have prompted interest in this procedure. The aim of this study was to assess short-term results of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL)., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed from June 2007 until September 2014, including patients that underwent MIE-IL for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in six different hospitals in the Netherlands and Spain. Data were collected with regard to operative techniques, pathology and postoperative complications., Results: In total, 282 patients underwent MIE-IL, of which 90.2 % received neoadjuvant therapy. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 43 patients (15.2 %), of whom 13 patients (4.6 %) had empyema, necessitating thoracotomy for decortication. With an aggressive treatment of complications, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 2.1 %. An R0-resection was obtained in 92.5 % of the patients. After neoadjuvant therapy, 20.1 % of patients had a complete response., Conclusions: Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas is an upcoming approach for reducing morbidity caused by laparotomy and thoracotomy. Anastomotic leakage rate is still high possibly due to technical diversity of anastomotic techniques, and a high percentage of patients treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. An aggressive approach to complications leads to a low mortality of 2.1 %. Further improvement and standardization in the anastomotic technique are needed in order to perform a safe intrathoracic anastomosis., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Disclosures Jennifer Straatman, Nicole van der Wielen, Grard A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, Camiel Rosman, Josep Roig, Joris J. G. Scheepers, Miguel A. Cuesta, Misha D. P. Luyer, Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, Frans van Workum, Suzanne S. Gisbertz and Donald L. van der Peet have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Background: Immediate start of oral intake is beneficial following colorectal surgery. However, following esophagectomy the safety and feasibility of immediate oral intake is unclear, thus these patients are still kept nil by mouth. This study therefore aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of oral nutrition immediately after esophagectomy., Methods: A multicenter, prospective trial was conducted in 3 referral centers between August 2013 and May 2014, including 50 patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy. Oral nutrition was started postoperatively immediately (clear liquids on postoperative day [POD] 0, liquid nutrition on POD 1 to 6, solid food from POD 7). Nonoral enteral nutrition was started when <50% of caloric need was met on postoperative day POD 5 or when oral intake was impossible. A comparison was made with a retrospective cohort (n = 50) with a per-protocol delayed start of oral intake until POD 4 to 7., Results: The median caloric intake at POD 5 was 58% of required. In 38% of the patients nonoral nutrition was started, mainly due to complications (36%). The pneumonia rate was 28% following immediate oral intake and 40% following delayed oral intake (p = 0.202). The aspiration pneumonia rate was 4% in both groups. The anastomotic leakage rate was 14% after immediate oral intake versus 24% following delayed oral intake (p = 0.202). The 90-day mortality rate was 2% in both groups. Hospital stay and intensive care unit stay were significantly shorter following immediate oral intake., Conclusions: Immediate start of oral nutrition following esophagectomy seems to be feasible and does not increase complications compared to a retrospective cohort and literature. However, if complications arise an alternative nutritional route is required. This explorative study shows that a randomized controlled trial is needed., (Copyright © 2016 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, conventional colorectal resection and its aftercare have increasingly become replaced by laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways, respectively., Objective: To ascertain whether combining laparoscopy and ERAS have additional value within colorectal surgery., Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed with two primary research questions; does laparoscopy offer an advantage when all patients receive ERAS perioperative care and does ERAS offer advantages in a laparoscopically operated patient population. All randomised and controlled clinical trials were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases., Results: Primary search resulted in 319 hits. After inclusion criteria were applied, three RCTs and six CCTs were included in the meta-analysis. For laparoscopically operated patients with/without ERAS, no differences in morbidity were found and postoperative hospital stay favoured ERAS (MD -2.34 [-3.77, -0.91], Z = 3.20, p = 0.001). When comparing laparoscopy and open surgery within ERAS, major morbidity was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group (OR 0.42 [0.26, 0.66], Z = 3.73, p = 0.006). Other outcome parameters showed no differences. Quality of included studies was considered moderate to poor overall with small sample sizes., Conclusion: When laparoscopy and ERAS are combined, major morbidity and hospital stay are reduced. The reduction in morbidity seems to be due to laparoscopy rather than ERAS, so laparoscopy by itself offers independent advantages beyond ERAS care. Quality of included studies was moderate to poor, so conclusions should be regarded with some reservations.

Background: The present developments in colon surgery are characterized by two innovations: the introduction of the laparoscopic operation technique and fast recovery programs such as the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recovery program. The Tapas-study was conceived to determine which of the three treatment programs: open conventional surgery, open 'ERAS' surgery or laparoscopic 'ERAS' surgery for patients with colon carcinomas is most cost minimizing?, Method/design: The Tapas-study is a three-arm multicenter prospective cohort study. All patients with colon carcinoma, eligible for surgical treatment within the study period in four general teaching hospitals and one university hospital will be included. This design produces three cohorts: Conventional open surgery is the control exposure (cohort 1). Open surgery with ERAS recovery (cohort 2) and laparoscopic surgery with ERAS recovery (cohort 3) are the alternative exposures. Three separate time periods are used in order to prevent attrition bias. Primary outcome parameters are the two main cost factors: direct medical costs (real cost price calculation) and the indirect non medical costs (friction method). Secondary outcome parameters are mortality, complications, surgical-oncological resection margins, hospital stay, readmission rates, time back to work/recovery, health status and quality of life. Based on an estimated difference in direct medical costs (highest cost factor) of 38% between open and laparoscopic surgery (alfa = 0.01, beta = 0.05), a group size of 3 x 40 = 120 patients is calculated., Discussion: The Tapas-study is three-arm multicenter cohort study that will provide a cost evaluation of three treatment programs for patients with colon carcinoma, which may serve as a guideline for choice of treatment and investment strategies in hospitals., Trial Registration: ISRCTN44649165.

Pain is a prominent issue in inguinal hernia repair research as its persisting appearance is a severe complication. The interest is also urged by the combination of a high number of repairs with an estimated risk for chronic postoperative pain of 11%. Almost every healthcare provider could encounter this complication. Pain is a complex study subject, mostly defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Various explanatory factors for pain following hernia repair have been reported. Most investigators, however, discuss only a few aspects. In the present review, these factors are collected to provide a more holistic synopsis of pain following hernia repair. It may be a resource for understanding this and other postsurgical pain.

Background: The open preperitoneal approach in inguinal hernia repair might have the benefit of a mesh in the preferred space without the disadvantages of an endoscopic procedure., Methods: A total of 172 patients with primary inguinal hernia were randomized to undergo the open preperitoneal Kugel or the standard open anterior Lichtenstein procedure in a teaching hospital. The main outcome measures were operating variables, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and consumed analgesics during the first 2 weeks postoperatively and at 3 months, neurological examination, and complications., Results: In the Lichtenstein group the operation took longer (54 min versus 41 min; p < .001). There were no clinically important differences in VAS pain score or number of analgesics during the first 2 weeks postoperatively. In the Kugel group the mean VAS pain score at 3 months was less (0.3 versus 0.9; p = .002), as was the proportion of patients reporting pain (21 versus 40%; p = .007). Pain was merely described as neuropathic, especially in the Lichtenstein group. With the anterior repair significantly more nerves were encountered, numbness reported, and cutaneous sensory changes found with neurological examination (all p < .001)., Conclusions: For those surgeons preferring an open approach, the Kugel procedure is a feasible alternative for the standard Lichtenstein procedure and is associated with less chronic pain at three months. Most likely the neuropathic pain and numbness with the Lichtenstein technique are results of more nerves at risk with the anterior approach.