Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Evidence regarding the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is scarce and of low quality. Case-mix is mostly not taken into account, and learning curves are based on operative time, while preferably clinical outcomes and literature-based limits should be used. Therefore, this study aims to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision. Methods A retrospective study was performed in four Dutch centers. The primary aim was to assess the safety of the individual and institutional learning curves using a RA-CUSUM analysis based on intraoperative complications, major postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome (positive circumferential margin or incomplete TME specimen). The learning curve for efficiency was assessed using a LC-CUSUM analysis for operative time. Outcomes of patients before and after the learning curve were compared. Results In this study, seven participating surgeons performed robot-assisted total mesorectal excisions in 531 patients. Learning curves for intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined literature-based limits. The LC-CUSUM for operative time showed lengths of the learning curve ranging from 12 to 35 cases. Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes did not differ between patients operated during and after the learning curve. Conclusion The learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined limits and is therefore suggested to be safe. Using operative time as a surrogate for efficiency, the learning curve is estimated to be between 12 and 35 procedures.

Background Achieving the critical view of safety (CVS) before transection of the cystic artery and duct is important to reduce biliary duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To gain more insight into complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, we investigated whether the criteria for CVS were met during surgery by analyzing videos of operations performed at our institution. Methods All consecutive patients who underwent a completed laparoscopic cholecystectomy between 2009 and 2011 were included. The videos of the operations of patients with complications were independently reviewed and rated by two investigators with a third consulted in the event of a disagreement. The reviewers answered consecutive questions about whether the CVS criteria were met. Patients who underwent an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and had no complications were used as a control group for comparison. Results Of the 1108 consecutive patients who had undergone a laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the study period, 8.8 % developed complications (average age 51 years) and 1.7 % had bile duct injuries [six patients (0.6 %) had a major bile duct injury, type B, D, or E injury]. In the 65 surgical videos available for analysis, CVS was reached in 80 % of cases according to the operative notes. However, the reviewers found that CVS was reached in only 10.8 % of the cases. Only in 18.7 % of the cases the operative notes and video agreed about CVS being reached. CVS was not reached in any of the patients who had biliary injuries. In the control group, CVS was reached significantly more often in 72 %. Conclusions In our institutional series of laparoscopic cholecystectomies with postoperative complications, CVS was reached in only a few cases. Evaluating surgical videos of laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases are important and we recommend its use to improve surgical technique and decrease the number of biliary injuries.

BackgroundLaparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision are the minimally invasive techniques used most for rectal cancer surgery. Because data regarding oncologic results are lacking, this study aimed to compare these three techniques while taking the learning curve into account.MethodsThis retrospective population-based study cohort included all patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent a low anterior resection at 11 dedicated centers that had completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) during a 3-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes were 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Cox-regression.ResultsThe 617 patients enrolled in the study included 252 who underwent a laparoscopic resection, 205 who underwent a robot-assisted resection, and 160 who underwent a transanal low anterior resection. The oncologic outcomes were equal between the three techniques. The 3-year OS rate was 90% for laparoscopic resection, 90.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 87.6% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year DFS rate was 77.8% for laparoscopic resection, 75.8% for robot-assisted resection, and 78.8% for transanal low anterior resection. The 3-year local recurrence rate was in 6.1% for laparoscopic resection, 6.4% for robot-assisted resection, and 5.7% for transanal procedures. Cox-regression did not show a significant difference between the techniques while taking confounders into account.ConclusionThe oncologic results during the 3-year follow-up were good and comparable between laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal technique at experienced centers. These techniques can be performed safely in experienced hands.

AimAn increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.MethodsPatients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.ResultsBetween 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13–16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20–24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3–5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6–8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38–46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26–31%)].ConclusionRectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

BackgroundThe standard surgical treatment for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME), which may negatively affect patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL). However, it is unclear how different TME techniques may impact patients’ functional outcomes and QoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated functional outcomes of urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning as well as QoL after open, laparoscopic (L-TME), robot-assisted (R-TME), and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis, based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement, were conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021240851). A literature review was performed (sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases; end-of-search date: September 1, 2023), and a quality assessment was performed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to pool the data for the meta-analyses.ResultsNineteen studies were included, reporting on 2495 patients (88 open, 1171 L-TME, 995 R-TME, and 241 TaTME). Quantitative analyses comparing L-TME vs. R-TME showed no significant differences regarding urinary and sexual functioning, except for urinary function at three months post-surgery, which favoured R-TME (SMD [CI] –0 .15 [− 0.24 to − 0.06], p = 0.02; n = 401). Qualitative analyses identified most studies did not find significant differences in urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and QoL between different techniques.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis highlight a significant gap in the literature concerning the evaluation of functional outcomes and QoL after TME for rectal cancer treatment. This study emphasizes the need for high-quality, randomized-controlled, and prospective cohort studies evaluating these outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests no significant differences in patients' urinary, sexual, and fecal functioning and their QoL across various TME techniques.

Background Anastomotic leakage (AL) is still a common and feared complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. The multifactorial pathophysiology of AL and lack of standardised treatment options requires a multi-modal approach to improve long-term anastomotic integrity. The objective of the IMARI-trial is to determine whether the one-year anastomotic integrity rate in patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer can be improved using a multi-interventional program. Methods IMARI is a multicentre prospective clinical effectiveness trial, whereby current local practice (control cohort) will be evaluated, and subsequently compared to results after implementation of the multi-interventional program (intervention cohort). Patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer will be included. The multi-interventional program includes three preventive interventions (mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, tailored full splenic flexure mobilization and intraoperative fluorescence angiography using indocyanine green) combined with a standardised pathway for early detection and active management of AL. The primary outcome is anastomotic integrity, confirmed by CT-scan at one year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include incidence of AL, protocol compliance and association with AL, temporary and permanent stoma rate, reintervention rate, quality of life and functional outcome. Microbiome analysis will be conducted to investigate the role of the rectal microbiome in AL. In a Dutch nationwide study, the AL rate was 20%, with anastomotic integrity of 90% after one year. Based on an expected reduction of AL due to the preventive approaches of 50%, and increase of anastomotic integrity by a standardised pathway for early detection and active management of AL, we hypothesised that the anastomotic integrity rate will increase from 90 to 97% at one year. An improvement of 7% in anastomotic integrity at one year was considered clinically relevant. A total number of 488 patients (244 per cohort) are needed to detect this difference, with 80% statistical power. Discussion The IMARI-trial is designed to evaluate whether a multi-interventional program can improve long-term anastomotic integrity after rectal cancer surgery. The uniqueness of IMARI lies in the multi-modal design that addresses the multifactorial pathophysiology for prevention, and a standardised pathway for early detection and active treatment of AL. Trial registration Trialregister.nl ( NL8261 ), January 2020.

Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (≥20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [<60 years vs ≥60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1·28, 95% CI 0·54–3·03, p=0·58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0·43). Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Background Colorectal surgery is frequently complicated by surgical site infections (SSIs). The most important consequences of SSIs are prolonged hospitalization, an increased risk of surgical reintervention and an increase in mortality. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis is the standard of care to reduce the risk of SSIs. In the last few decades, preoperative orally administered antibiotics have been suggested as additional prophylaxis to further reduce the risk of infection, but are currently not part of routine practice in most hospitals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis (Pre-OP) in addition to intravenously administered perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality after elective colorectal surgery. Methods/design The PreCaution trial is designed as a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that will be carried out in The Netherlands. Adult patients who are scheduled for elective colorectal surgery are eligible to participate. In total, 966 patients will be randomized to receive the study medication. This will either be Pre-OP, a solution that consists of tobramycin and colistin sulphate, or a placebo solution. The study medication will be administered four times daily during the 3 days prior to surgery. Perioperative intravenously administered antibiotic prophylaxis will be administered to all patients in accordance with national infection control guidelines. The primary endpoint of the study is the cumulative incidence of deep SSIs and/or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints include both infectious and non-infectious complications of colorectal surgery, and will be evaluated 30 days and/or 6 months after surgery. Discussion To date, conclusive evidence on the added value of preoperative orally administered antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is lacking. The PreCaution trial should determine the effects of orally administered antibiotics in preventing infectious complications in elective colorectal surgery. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, ID: NTR6113 . Registered on 11 October 2016; EudraCT 2015-005736-17.

SummaryBackgroundSystemic relapses remain a major problem in locally advanced rectal cancer. Using short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy and delayed surgery, the Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control. MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 54 centres in the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–1, had a biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, which was classified as high risk on pelvic MRI (with at least one of the following criteria: clinical tumour [cT] stage cT4a or cT4b, extramural vascular invasion, clinical nodal [cN] stage cN2, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral lymph nodes), were mentally and physically fit for chemotherapy, and could be assessed for staging within 5 weeks before randomisation. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a management system with a randomly varying block design (each block size randomly chosen to contain two to four allocations), stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, cT stage, and cN stage, to either the experimental or standard of care group. All investigators remained masked for the primary endpoint until a prespecified number of events was reached. Patients allocated to the experimental treatment group received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy over a maximum of 8 days) followed by six cycles of CAPOX chemotherapy (capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 orally twice daily on days 1–14, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 15–21) or nine cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin [folinic acid] 200 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 2, followed by bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m 2 intravenously and fluorouracil 600 mg/m 2 intravenously for 22 h on days 1 and 2, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 3–14) followed by total mesorectal excision. Choice of CAPOX or FOLFOX4 was per physician discretion or hospital policy. Patients allocated to the standard of care group received 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy up to 50·4 Gy or 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy up to 50·0 Gy (per physician discretion or hospital policy), with concomitant twice-daily oral capecitabine 825 mg/m 2 followed by total mesorectal excision and, if stipulated by hospital policy, adjuvant chemotherapy with eight cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of FOLFOX4. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-related treatment failure, defined as the first occurrence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, new primary colorectal tumour, or treatment-related death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the EudraCT, 2010-023957-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01558921, and is now complete. FindingsBetween June 21, 2011, and June 2, 2016, 920 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment, of whom 912 were eligible (462 in the experimental group; 450 in the standard of care group). Median follow-up was 4·6 years (IQR 3·5–5·5). At 3 years after randomisation, the cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 23·7% (95% CI 19·8–27·6) in the experimental group versus 30·4% (26·1–34·6) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·60–0·95; p=0·019). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event during preoperative therapy in both groups was diarrhoea (81 [18%] of 460 patients in the experimental group and 41 [9%] of 441 in the standard of care group) and neurological toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy in the standard of care group (16 [9%] of 187 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 177 (38%) of 460 participants in the experimental group and, in the standard of care group, in 87 (34%) of 254 patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and in 64 (34%) of 187 with adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four participants in the experimental group (one cardiac arrest, one pulmonary embolism, two infectious complications) and in four participants in the standard of care group (one pulmonary embolism, one neutropenic sepsis, one aspiration, one suicide due to severe depression). InterpretationThe observed decreased probability of disease-related treatment failure in the experimental group is probably indicative of the increased efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting. Therefore, the experimental treatment can be considered as a new standard of care in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer. FundingDutch Cancer Foundation, Swedish Cancer Society, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.