Search

Background: Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer., Methods: From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed., Results: Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41-4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57-5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34-17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362)., Conclusion: Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Aims . Minimally invasive liver resection is a complex and challenging operation. Although authors have reported robotic liver resection shows improved safety and efficacy compared with open liver resection, robotic major liver resections for malignant liver lesions treatment remain inadequately evaluated. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection in a nonuniversity hospital. Patients and Methods. From December 2015 to March 2020, 46 patients underwent totally robotic-assisted liver resections out of 446 robotic procedures. Also, we retrospectively reviewed the last 27 open right hepatectomies (ORHs) and compared then with the first 25 anatomic robotic-assisted right hepatectomies (RRHs). Results . Mean operative time, mean blood lost, rate of complications, and mean hospital stay were associated with the complexity of the procedure. The comparison between ORH and RRH showed that intraoperative complications were less frequently observed during ORH whereas RRH showed a trend in favor of less blood loss. ORH had a trend toward smaller surgical margins and higher rate of R1 resections. Recurrence occurred in 31 (59%) patients and was more frequently observed after ORH. However, the mean follow-up was significantly shorter after RRH. Conclusion . Our study demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection (including major hepatectomies) in a nonuniversity setting. Higher costs remain an important drawback for robotic surgery.

Background: Minimally invasive sphincter-saving rectal resection represents a challenging procedure. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has several advantages over conventional surgery in performing precise dissection and was proved to be safe and effective in previous studies. However, comparison between laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection has drawn contradictory results. The aim of the present study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resections for short-term and pathological outcomes., Methods: Between January 2013 and May 2016, we performed a total of 258 robotic surgeries, including 146 colorectal resections (56%). For this study, we included the first 65 sphincter-saving robotic resections and compared them to the last 65 consecutive laparoscopic resections. The laparoscopic group was constituted by the last 65 consecutively operated patients who matched the inclusion criteria., Results: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the groups. Conversion rate was greater in the laparoscopic group (17 vs. 5%, p=0.044). Reoperation rate, overall and severe morbidity, and median hospital stay were similar in both the groups. Quality of mesorectal excision specimen was considered complete or near complete in 97 and 96% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively. There was no difference in the rates of negative circumferential radial margin, distal margin, and surgical success measured by composite criteria., Conclusion: The main finding of this study was that robotic proctectomy for sphincter-saving procedures offers similar quality of TME with a statistically significant lower rate of conversion when compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Perineal hernia (PH) is formed by the protrusion of intra-abdominal viscera through a defect in the pelvic floor. This is a rare complication after conventional abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exanteration, proctectomy, and other pelvic procedures. The purpose of the present paper is to report 4 cases of PH after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer and to review literature data about the incidence, predisposing factors, and treatment of this challenging problem. When added to other 3 cases previously reported in the Brazilian series of laparoscopic surgery, this group of 7 cases comprises a PH incidence of 3.5% after rectal resection procedures. Surgical treatment is indicated only in symptomatic patients with no signs of cancer recurrence. Proposed methods of surgical repair include abdominal, perineal, or combined approaches to the hernia in association with the use of autologous tissues or prosthetic meshes. Preventive measures are represented by closure of the pelvic peritoneum whenever possible, primary perineal suture and wound care to avoid infection.

A correction to the article "Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Resection for Sphincter-Saving Surgery: Pathological and Short-Term Outcomes in a Single-Center Analysis of 130 Consecutive Patients" by Alain Valverde and colleagues, published online on June 23, 2017 is presented.