Search

Aim: A prolonged interval (>4 weeks) between short‐course radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions) (SCRT‐delay) and total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer has been associated with a decreased postoperative complication rate and offers the possibility of organ preservation in the case of a complete tumour response. This prospective cohort study systematically evaluated patient‐reported bowel dysfunction and physician‐reported radiation‐induced toxicity for 8 weeks following SCRT‐delay. Method: Patients who were referred for SCRT‐delay for intermediate risk, oligometastatic or locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Repeated measurements were done for patient‐reported bowel dysfunction (measured by the low anterior resection syndrome [LARS] questionnaire and categorized as no, minor or major LARS) and physician‐reported radiation‐induced toxicity (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) before start of treatment (baseline), at completion of SCRT and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 weeks thereafter. Results: Fifty‐one patients were included; 31 (61%) were men and the median age was 67 years (range 44–91). Patient‐reported bowel dysfunction and physician‐reported radiation‐induced toxicity peaked at weeks 1–2 after completion of SCRT and gradually declined thereafter. Major LARS was reported by 44 patients (92%) at some time during SCRT‐delay. Grade 3 radiation‐induced toxicity was reported in 17 patients (33%) and concerned predominantly diarrhoea. No Grade 4–5 radiation‐induced toxicity occurred. Conclusion: During SCRT‐delay, almost every patient experiences temporary mild–moderate radiation‐induced toxicity and major LARS, but life‐threatening toxicity is rare. SCRT‐delay is a safe alternative to SCRT‐direct surgery that should be proposed when counselling rectal cancer patients on neoadjuvant strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The purpose of this study was to determine construct and face validities of an interactive Web-based module for pneumoperitoneum and insufflator. Methods. Participants were recruited from surgical departments in 2 academic hospitals and 1 large nonacademic teaching hospital. They were stratified into 3 groups based on their laparoscopic experience (A, no experience; B, experience as assistant; and C, experience as primary surgeon). Within each group the participants were randomized into a training subgroup and a control subgroup. All participants performed a theoretical and a practical test. The training participants first completed the module before they performed the tests. The control participants immediately performed the tests. Results were compared between the training and control participants. All training participants filled out a questionnaire on their opinion about the module. Results. In total, 40 participants were enrolled in the study: group A consisted of 20 participants and groups B and C both consisted of 10 participants. The trained participants answered significantly more theoretical questions correctly (8.3 vs 6.6; P < .001), correctly identified more alarm causes (91% vs 86%; P = .014) and made significantly less errors in the practical test (1.5 vs 3.6; P = .001). All 20 trained participants rated the module fairly good and indicated the module to be of additive value to surgical training programs. Conclusions. Training with the interactive web-based module on installation of a pneumoperitoneum and use of an insufflator has a positive effect on both theoretical and practical competence. Construct and face validities were established for this module. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: The DoubleCheck study aimed to introduce pre- and perioperative interventions minimizing exposure to modifiable risk factors and determine its effect on CAL., Summary Background Data: Colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL) is a severe complication. In order to predict and prevent its occurrence, the LekCheck study identified intraoperative modifiable risk factors for CAL: anemia, hyperglycemia, hypothermia, incorrect timing of antibiotic prophylaxis, administration of vasopressors and epidural analgesia., Methods: This international open-labelled interventional study was performed between September 2021 and December 2023. An enhanced care bundle consisting of anemia correction, glucose measurement, attaining normothermia, antibiotics administration within 60 to 15 minutes preoperatively, refraining from vasopressors and epidural analgesia was introduced. Primary outcome was the occurrence of intraoperative risk factors just prior to the anastomosis creation. Secondary outcomes were CAL and mortality. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis were performed to establish the relationship between the enhanced care bundle, exposure to the six factors and CAL., Results: The historical LekCheck group consisted of 1572 patients versus 902 in the DoubleCheck. The LekCheck group had a mean of 1.84 risk factors versus 1.63 in DoubleCheck ( P <0.001). In the DoubleCheck significantly less patients had ≥3 risk factors ( P <0.001). CAL was significantly lower in the DoubleCheck group (8.6% vs. 6.2%, P =0.039). The reduction of CAL was associated with the enhanced care bundle in multivariate regression analysis (OR 1.521, 95% CI 1.01-2.29, P =0.045). The mortality rate did not differ significantly (1.3%, vs. 0.8%, P =0.237)., Conclusions: The DoubleCheck study showed that optimization of modifiable risk factors reduced CAL in colorectal surgery., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: FD received an educational grant from Medtronic. All other authors declare no competing interests. Medtronic had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR)., Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate., Results: Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001., Conclusion: NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Rogier M.P.H. Crolla and Esther C.J. Consten received fees from Intuitive Surgical. Colin Sietses received surgical lecturing fees from Medtronic. For the remaining authors none were declared., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique., Objective: This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique., Design: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis., Settings: The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals., Patients: Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017., Interventions: We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin., Results: A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group., Limitations: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication., Conclusions: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS., Antecedentes: No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica., Objetivo: Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica., Diseo: Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión., Ajustes: El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados., Pacientes: Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017., Intervenciones: Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica., Principales Medidas De Resultado: El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo., Resultados: Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo., Limitaciones: Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación., Conclusiones: La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman)., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate an interactive Web-based training module for electrosurgery and use of an electrosurgical device., Materials and Methods: The training module consists of a theoretical part, a device tutorial, and an assessment. For evaluation, participants were recruited at the surgical departments from a university hospital and a non-university teaching hospital and were divided into a training group and a control group. All participants performed the same theoretical and practical tests. The training participants first completed the module before they performed the tests. The control participants immediately performed the tests. Results were compared between the training and control participants. To evaluate face validity, the training participants filled out a questionnaire on their opinion about the module., Results: In total, 39 participants were enrolled in the study: 20 in the training group and 19 in the control group. The training group answered significantly more theoretical questions correctly (15.7 versus 9.7; P<.001) and made significantly fewer errors in the practical test (2.2 versus 5.6; P=.007). The participants in the training group rated the usefulness and characteristics of the module with high marks. All of them indicated the module to be of additive value to surgical training programs., Conclusions: Training with an interactive Web-based module has a positive effect on both theoretical and practical competence regarding electrosurgery and use of an electrosurgical device. This module was rated positively by the participants and was indicated to be a useful addition to surgical training programs.

Design: Descriptive study., Method: Between June and August 2011 all Dutch hospitals were contacted for a survey by telephone. The questionnaire consisted of 19 questions, partly concerned with the use of checklists, partly with training in the use of laparoscopic equipment., Results: In total 89 of 91 Dutch hospitals responded to the questionnaire: 8 academic hospitals, 44 peripheral teaching hospitals and 37 general hospitals. Fifty hospitals (56.2%) used a checklist for laparoscopic operating equipment. The other 39 hospitals (43.8%) did not use a specific checklist for equipment, but performed a standard procedure to check the equipment. The level of detail differed among the different checklists: in 9 of the 50 checklists the different devices were not identified separately and in half of the checklists there were no checks on the connection of the equipment. Training with operating equipment took place in 87 hospitals (97.8%). In 33 hospitals this happened only when new equipment was introduced, but in the other hospitals training took place more frequently. This training was mandatory in 58 hospitals (66.7%)., Conclusion: The use of detailed checklists for the use of laparoscopic operating equipment was not found to be standard in all Dutch hospitals. However, all hospitals do have a general procedure for pre-use checking of equipment, but the results are not everywhere formally documented. Training with operating equipment was not mandatory in one third of the surveyed hospitals.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the best treatment of incisional hernia, taking into account recurrence, complications, discomfort, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction., Background: Long-term results of incisional hernia repair are lacking. Retrospective studies and the midterm results of this study indicate that mesh repair is superior to suture repair. However, many surgeons are still performing suture repair., Methods: Between 1992 and 1998, a multicenter trial was performed, in which 181 eligible patients with a primary or first-time recurrent midline incisional hernia were randomly assigned to suture or mesh repair. In 2003, follow-up was updated., Results: Median follow-up was 75 months for suture repair and 81 months for mesh repair patients. The 10-year cumulative rate of recurrence was 63% for suture repair and 32% for mesh repair (P < 0.001). Abdominal aneurysm (P = 0.01) and wound infection (P = 0.02) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrence. In patients with small incisional hernias, the recurrence rates were 67% after suture repair and 17% after mesh repair (P = 0.003). One hundred twenty-six patients completed long-term follow-up (median follow-up 98 months). In the mesh repair group, 17% suffered a complication, compared with 8% in the suture repair group (P = 0.17). Abdominal pain was more frequent in suture repair patients (P = 0.01), but there was no difference in scar pain, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction., Conclusions: Mesh repair results in a lower recurrence rate and less abdominal pain and does not result in more complications than suture repair. Suture repair of incisional hernia should be abandoned.