Search

IntroductionVarious methods have been described to create a functional neovagina with feminizing (male-to-female) gender affirming surgery. Intestinal vaginoplasty using ileal or colon segments confers natural mucus production and greater canal depth with primary vaginoplasty. In this work we describe an alternative approach to primary and salvage vaginoplasty using right colon. We focus on relative advantages compared to use of other bowel segments, and we review patient outcomes.MethodsTransgender women who had previously undergone primary vaginoplasty underwent laparoscopic right colon vaginoplasty at our center between 12/2017 and 7/2019. Demographic, medical, outcome, and satisfaction data was collected and retrospectively reviewed.ResultsTwenty-two consecutive transgender women patients underwent laparoscopic right colon vaginoplasty. Mean age was 39.3 years. There were two intraoperative complications:1 injury of the ileocolic pedicle, and 1 minor bladder injury. Four of 22 patients (18.2%) had short-term complications ( 30 days): 1 developed Crohn's (not involving the neovagina); 1 developed late small bowel obstruction (SBO) (managed conservatively); 5 developed neovagina prolapse; 4 developed stenosis (2 at the vaginal introitus, and 2 had extrinsic obstruction at the recto-vaginal junction (all underwent successful laparoscopic surgical correction); and 3 were diagnosed with diversion neovaginitis (all treated conservatively). All complications were successfully treated with conservative and/or surgical intervention. All (100%) patients reported satisfaction with neovagina function and appearance.ConclusionThis is the only outcomes series of transgender women patients who have undergone right colon vaginoplasty, to date. Our study finding suggests that laparoscopic right colon for primary or salvage vaginoplasty has several important advantages over use of Sigmoid colon or Ileum, and is a reliable technique whose complications can be managed successfully, with favorable, satisfactory long-term outcomes.

Aim: The aim of this work was to determine racial disparities in access to minimally invasive proctectomy using a national database. Method: A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program evaluated for surgical approach (robotic, laparoscopic or open), demographics and comorbidity, and then compared by race. Results: A total of 3511 patients (325 Asian, 2925 White, 261 African American/Black) with cancer who underwent a proctectomy between 2016 and 2020 were included. Both Asians and Whites had significantly higher rates of laparoscopic proctectomy relative to African Americans (38.5%, 33.8% and 28.7%, respectively; p = 0.0001). Asians had the highest rate of robotic proctectomy (38.2%, p = 0.0001). Conversely, Black patients had significantly higher rates of open proctectomy followed by Whites and then Asians (42.1%, 35.4% and 23.4%, respectively; p = 0.0001). In multivariable logistic regression with backward elimination, African Americans were 0.7 times as likely to undergo laparoscopic proctectomy and 1.4 times more likely to undergo open proctectomy than Whites (p = 0.043). Compared with Whites, Asians were 1.8, 1.7 and 1.9 times more likely to undergo minimally invasive, laparoscopic proctectomy and robotic proctectomy, respectively (p = 0.0001, p = 0.001, p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Asians had the highest rate of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, while Blacks had the highest rate of open proctectomy. African Americans were least likely to undergo laparoscopic proctectomy compared with all races. Race is an independent risk factor for access to minimally invasive proctectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the impact of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) on pathology metrics in Male Overweight patients with Low rectal cancer (MOL). This was a multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of data. Two groups were defined: MOL (Male, Overweight, Low rectal cancer) and non-MOL. Overweight was defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. Low rectal cancer was defined as cancer within 6 cm from the anal verge. The primary endpoints of this study were histopathological metrics, namely circumferential resection margin (CRM) (mm), CRM involvement rate (%), and the quality of TME. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved if < 1 mm. 836 (106 MOL and 730 non-MOL) patients that underwent robotic TME by six surgeons over 3 years were compared. No significant differences in demographics and perioperative variables were found, except for operating time, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. CRM involvement rate did not significantly differ (7.5% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.395). Mean CRM was statistically significantly narrower in MOL patients (6.6 vs. 7.7 mm, p = 0.04). Quality of TME did not differ. Distance of tumor from the anal verge was the only independent predictor of CRM involvement. Robotic TME may provide optimal pathology metrics in overweight males with low rectal cancer. Although CRM was a few millimeters narrower in MOL, the values were within the range of uninvolved margins making the difference statistically significant, but not clinically. Being MOL was not a risk factor for involvement of circumferential resection margin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the mesorectal fat area (MFA) has an impact on the histopathology metrics of the specimen in male patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (rTME) for cancer in the distal third of the rectum. Prospectively collected data of patients undergoing rTME for resectable rectal cancer by five surgeons during 3 years were extracted from the REgistry of Robotic SURgery for RECTal cancer (RESURRECT). MFA was measured at preoperative MRI. Distal rectal cancer was defined as within 6 cm from the anal verge. Specimen metrics included circumferential resection margin (CRM) measured by pathologists as involved if < 1 mm, distal resection margin (DRM) and TME quality. Of 890 patients who underwent rTME for rectal cancer, a subgroup analysis compared 116/581 (33.4%) with MFA > 20 cm2 to 231/581 (66.6%) with MFA ≤ 20 cm2. The mean CRM in patients with MFA > 20 cm2 was neither statistically nor clinically significantly different from patients with MFA ≤ 20 m2 (6.8 ± 5.6 mm vs. 6.0 ± 7.5 mm; p = 0.544). The quality of TME did not significantly differ: complete TME 84.3% vs. 80.3%; nearly complete TME 12.9% vs. 10.1%; incomplete TME 6.8% vs. 5.6%. The DRM was not significantly different: 1.9 ± 1.9 cm vs. 1.9 ± 2.5 cm; p = 0.847. In addition, the intraoperative complication rate was not significantly different: 4.3% (n = 5) vs. 2.2% (n = 5) (p = 0.314). This prospective multicenter study did not find any evidence to support that larger MFA would result in poorer histopathology metrics of the specimen when performing rTME in male patients with distal rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the visceral fat area (VFA) has an impact on the histopathology specimen metrics of male patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal resection (rTME) for distal rectal cancer. Methods: Prospectively collected data of patients undergoing rTME for resectable rectal cancer by five surgeons during a period of three years were extracted from the REgistry of Robotic SURgery for RECTal cancer (RESURRECT). VFA was measured in all patients at preoperative computed tomography. Distal rectal cancer was defined as <6cm from the anal verge. The histopathology metrics included circumferential resection margin (CRM) (in mm) and its involvement rate (if <1mm), distal resection margin (DRM), and quality of TME (complete, nearly-complete, incomplete). Results: Of 839 patients who underwent rTME, 500 with distal rectal cancer were included. One hundred and six (21.2%) males with VFA>100cm2 were compared to 394 (78.8%) males or females with VFA≤100cm2. The mean CRM of males with VFA>100cm2 was not significantly different from its counterpart (6.6 ± 4.8 mm versus 7.1 ± 9.5mm; p=0.752). CRM involvement rates were 7.6% in both groups (p=1.000). The DRM was not significantly different: 1.8±1.9cm versus 1.8±2.6cm; p=0.996. The quality of TME did not significantly differ: complete TME 87.3% vs. 83.7%; nearly complete TME 8.9% vs. 12.8%; incomplete TME 3.8% vs. 3.6%. Complications and clinical outcomes did not significantly differ. Conclusion: This study did not find evidence to support that increased VFA would result in suboptimal histopathology specimen metrics when performing rTME in males with distal rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The educational environment is a crucial metric of medical education that affects the course participants' motivation, achievement, happiness and success. The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational environment of a cadaver course in robotic colorectal surgery by comparing the perceptions of the participating residents to those of the participating surgeons., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study carried out in 2017. Participants from the U.S. and Europe attended a course using eight fresh frozen cadaver torsos with no prior abdominal surgery. After course completion, participants anonymously completed 50-item Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM) questionnaires to evaluate five components of the educational environment: perception of learning, perception of teachers, academic self-perception, perception of atmosphere, and social self-perception. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Mean scores were compared using an independent samples t-test., Results: Twenty of 24 participants completed the DREEM questionnaire, consisting of 9 residents and 11 surgeons (12 from the U.S., 8 from Europe). The internal consistency of the questionnaire was excellent (alpha=0.97). The mean total score was excellent for both residents and surgeons, and the difference between the groups was not significant (154.1±25.8 vs. 168.1±18.9, p=0.197). Perception of learning was significantly better among surgeons ("teaching highly thought of") than among residents ("a more positive perception") (40.5±3.6 vs. 35.7±5.6, p=0.04)., Conclusions: This study suggests that the residents' perception of learning may have been negatively influenced by the participation of surgeons in the same cadaver station.