Search

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) comprises a collection of symptoms affecting patients after restorative surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to analyse the incidence of LARS in patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery with and without subsequent ileostomy and to determine whether the interval to ileostomy closure is a factor associated with its occurrence., Method: All patients undergoing curative anterior resection for rectal cancer from 2008 to 2012 in our institution were included in the study. They were divided into two groups according to whether or not a defunctioning ileostomy had been performed. Patients were assessed for LARS at a median interval of 23.60 ± 16.73 (12-48) months from anterior resection in those who did not have an ileostomy and at an interval of 11.31 ± 14.24 (12-60) months from closure of the ileostomy in those who did. They underwent a structured telephone interview based on a validated LARS score questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analysis was carried out to assess possible associations between LARS and the variables studied., Results: There were 150 patients (93 men) of whom 54.7% had no evidence of LARS, 17.3% had minor symptoms and 28% major symptoms of LARS. Univariate analysis showed that male gender, the presence of a temporary ileostomy and neoadjuvant therapy were predisposing factors for LARS. The interval from construction of the ileostomy to its closure did not appear to be a factor associated with LARS. In multivariate analysis, male gender and preoperative neoadjuvant therapy were significant predisposing factors for LARS., Conclusion: Male gender and preoperative neoadjuvant therapy are risk factors for LARS. The presence of ileostomy or time to ileostomy closure is not associated with the development of this syndrome., (Colorectal Disease © 2016 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

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.

Background: Robotic surgical management of rectal cancer has a series of advantages which might facilitate the surgical approach to the pelvic cavity and reduce conversion rates. The aim of the present study is to identify independent factors for conversion during robotic rectal cancer surgery., Methods: A total of 67 patients underwent preoperative CT scan in order to obtain a three-dimensional image of the pelvis, the tumour and prostate. We measured maximum and minimum ilio-iliac, sacral promontory-pubis, coccyx-pubis diameters and maximum lateral axis. Further variables under consideration were age, BMI and use of neoadjuvant therapy. We recorded short-term follow-up outcomes of the resected tumour., Results: The present study included 67 patients (39 males) with an average age of 65.11 ± 10.30 years and a BMI of 27.70 ± 3.97 kg/m(2). Operative procedures included nine abdominoperineal resections and 58 low anterior resections. There were 15 (22.38 %) conversions. Mean operating time was 192.2 ± 42.73 min. Minimum ilio-iliac, maximum ilio-iliac, promontory-pubic and coccyx-pubis diameter as well as maximum lateral axis were 100.38 ± 7.65, 107.10 ± 10.01, 109.97 ± 9.20, 105.61 ± 9.27 and 129.01 ± 9.94 mm, respectively. Mean tumour volume was 37.06 ± 44.08 cc; mean prostate volume was 42.07 ± 17.49 cc. The univariate analysis of the variables showed a correlation between conversion and BMI and minimum ilio-iliac and coccyx-pubis diameters (p = 0.004, 0.047, 0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent predictive factor for conversion was the BMI (p = 0.004).No correlation was found between conversion and sex, age, tumour volume or the rest of pelvic diameters., Conclusion: BMI is an independent factor for conversion in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Unlabelled: INTRODUCTION AND INDICATIONS: Robotic surgery has numerous advantages in rectal cancer surgery. Studies have reported the advantages associated with single-port approaches, such as eliminating the need for additional incisions, as well as the difficulties inherent in this technique. The authors present a hybrid technique that they performed using a robotic total mesorectal excision with the aid of a single port-device. Materials and methods. The authors performed the technique on 2 patients using a single-port device through an umbilical incision and 3 accessory ports for the robotic arms. There was no need to place ports for the assistant's equipment or for an assistant incision., Results and Complications: The operation time was 177.5 minutes, and there were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Both patients were discharged 7 days after the operation., Conclusions: This technical variation is an additional step forward for oncological surgery with minimal damage to the abdominal wall.

Introduction: One of the main uses of robotic assisted abdominal surgery is the mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer. The aim of the present study is to analyse the learning curve for robotic assisted laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer., Patients and Methods: We included in our study 43 consecutive rectal cancer resections (16 females and 27 males) performed from January 2008 through December 2010. Mean age of patients was 66 ± 9.0 years. Surgical procedures included both abdomino-perineal and anterior resections. We analysed the following parameters: demographic data of the patients included in the study, intra- and postoperative data, time taking to set up the robot for operations (set-up or docking time), operative time, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion rates and pathological specimen features. The learning curve was analysed using cumulative sum (CUSUM) methodology., Results: The procedures understudied included seven abdomino-perineal resections and 36 anterior resections. In our series of patients, mean robotic set-up time was 62.9 ± 24.6 min, and the mean operative time was 197.4 ± 44.3 min. Once we applied CUSUM methodology, we obtained two graphs for CUSUM values (operating time and success), both of them showing three well-differentiated phases: phase 1 (the initial 9-11 cases), phase 2 (the middle 12 cases) and phase 3 (the remaining 20-22 cases). Phase 1 represents initial learning; phase 2 plateau represents increased competence in the use of the robotic system, and finally, phase 3 represents the period of highest skill or mastery with a reduction in docking time (p = 0.000), but a slight increase in operative time (p = 0.007)., Conclusion: The CUSUM curve shows three phases in the learning and use of robotic assisted rectal cancer surgery which correspond to the phases of initial learning of the technique, consolidation and higher expertise or mastery. The data obtained suggest that the estimated learning curve for robotic assisted rectal cancer surgery is achieved after 21-23 cases.