Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Laparoscopic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is a technically challenging procedure, and there are limitations in conventional laparoscopy. A surgical robotic system may help to overcome some of the limitations. This study aimed to compare the short-term operative as well as oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection. Methods This study was based on a prospectively collected database of patients with mid- to distal rectal cancer (up to 12 cm from the anal verge) undergoing either laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection from January 2008 to June 2015. Data on patient demographics, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Patient survival and recurrence were also compared. Results During the study period, 171 and 220 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection, respectively. The median age was 65 years (range 23–96). The median tumor distance was 8 and 7 cm from the anal verge in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively ( p  = 0.06). Significantly more male patients and more patients with comorbidities and preoperative radiation underwent robotic surgery. The median operating time for robotic resection was significantly longer, 260 versus 225 min ( p  < 0.001). Conversion rates of laparoscopic and robotic resection were 3.5 and 0.8 %, respectively ( p  = 0.308). The median hospital stay was 6 days in both groups ( p  = 0.29). There was no difference in the overall complication rate, but the incidence of urinary retention was significantly less in the robotic group (4.1 vs. 10.5 %, p  = 0.024). With a median follow-up of 31 months, there was no difference in local recurrence, overall survival and disease-specific survival between the two groups. Conclusions In the treatment of mid- to low rectal cancer, robotic resection can achieve operative results and oncologic outcomes comparable to laparoscopic resection. The postoperative urinary retention rate is lower following robotic surgery.

ObjectiveThe objectives were to determine factors associated with conversion to open surgery in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, including laparo-thoracoscopic and robotic) and the impact of conversion to open surgery on patient outcomes.MethodsWe included patients from the National Cancer Database with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer who underwent MIE from 2010 to 2015. Patient-, tumor-, and facility-related characteristics as well as short-term and oncologic outcomes were compared between patients who were converted to open surgery and those who underwent successful MIE without conversion to open surgery. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze risk factors for conversion to open surgery from attempted MIE.Results7306 patients underwent attempted MIE. Of these patients, 82 of 1487 (5.2%) robotic-assisted esophagectomies were converted to open, compared to 691 of 5737 (12.0%) laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomies (p < 0.001). Conversion rates decreased significantly over the study period (ptrend = 0.010). Patient age, tumor size, and nodal involvement were independently associated with conversion. Facility minimally invasive cumulative volume and robotic approach were associated with decreased conversion rates. Patients whose MIEs were converted had increased 90-day mortality [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.10, 2.02], prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.17, 1.66), and higher rates of unplanned readmission (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.27, 2.20). No significant differences were found in surgical margins or number of lymph nodes harvested.ConclusionPatients undergoing attempted MIE requiring conversion to open surgery had significantly worse short-term outcomes including postoperative mortality. Patient factors and hospital experience contribute to conversion rates. These findings should inform surgeons and patients considering esophagectomy for cancer.

Background Laparoscopic surgery offers patients with rectal cancer short-term benefits and similar survival rates as open surgery. However, selecting patients who are suitable candidates for laparoscopic surgery is essential to prevent intra-operative conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Clinical and pathological variables were studied among patients who had converted laparoscopic surgeries within the COLOR II trial to improve patient selection for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Methods Between January 20, 2004, and May 4, 2010, 1044 patients with rectal cancer enrolled in the COLOR II trial and were randomized to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Of 693 patients who had laparoscopic surgery, 114 (16 %) were converted to open surgery. Predictive factors were studied using multivariate analyses, and morbidity and mortality rates were determined. Results Factors correlating with conversion were as follows: age above 65 years (OR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.2–3.0: p  = 0.003), BMI greater than 25 (OR 2.7; 95 % CI 1.7–4.3: p  < 0.001), and tumor location more than 5 cm from the anal verge (OR 0.5; CI 0.3–0.9). Gender was not significantly related to conversion ( p  = 0.14). In the converted group, blood loss was greater ( p  < 0.001) and operating time was longer ( p  = 0.028) compared with the non-converted laparoscopies. Hospital stay did not differ ( p  = 0.06). Converted procedures were followed by more postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic or open surgery ( p  = 0.041 and p  = 0.042, respectively). Mortality was similar in the laparoscopic and converted groups. Conclusions Age above 65 years, BMI greater than 25, and tumor location between 5 and 15 cm from the anal verge were risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic to open surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

BackgroundVery limited informations are currently available about the best approach to perform retroperitoneoscopic surgery. This multicentric international study aimed to compare the outcome of lateral versus prone approach for retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in children.MethodsThe records of 164 patients underwent RPN in 7 international centers of pediatric surgery over the last 5 years were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty-one patients (42 girls and 19 boys, average age 3.8 years) were operated using lateral approach (G1), whereas 103 patients (66 girls and 37 boys, average age 3.0 years) underwent prone RPN (G2). The two groups were compared in regard to operative time, postoperative outcome, postoperative complications, and re-operations.ResultsThe average operative time was significantly shorter in G2 (99 min) compared to G1 (160 min) (p = 0.001). Only 2 lateral RPN required conversion to open surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups as for intraoperative complications (G1:2/61, 3.3%; G2:6/103, 5.8%; p = 0.48), postoperative complications (G1:9/61, 14.7%; G2:17/103, 16.5%; p = 0.80), and re-operations (G1:2/61, 3.3%; G2:4/103, 3.8%; p = 0.85). Regarding postoperative complications, the incidence of symptomatic residual distal ureteric stumps (RDUS) was significantly higher in G2 (7/103, 6.8%) compared to G1 (1/61, 1.6%) (p = 0.001). Most re-operations (4/6, 66.6%) were performed to remove a RDUS .ConclusionsBoth lateral and prone approach are feasible and reasonably safe to perform RPN in children but the superiority of one approach over another is not still confirmed. Although prone technique resulted faster compared to lateral approach, the choice of the technique remains dependent on the surgeon’s personal preference and experience. Our results would suggest that the lateral approach should be preferred to the prone technique when a longer ureterectomy is required, for example in cases of vesico-ureteral reflux into the affected kidney moiety, in order to avoid to leave a long ureteric stump that could become symptomatic and require a re-intervention.

Perioperative short-term outcomes could be improved after totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (TR-RYGBP) compared with conventional laparoscopic gastric bypass. This is a nonrandomized controlled prospective study (N = 200) to evaluate perioperative short-term outcomes. The primary endpoint was to investigate risk factors for 30-day surgical complications. Mean total operative time was shorter in patients who underwent TR-RYGBP (130 vs 147 minutes; P < .0001). However, postoperative surgical complications rate (13% vs 1%; P = .001), and mean overall hospital stay (9.3 vs 6.7 days; P < .0001) were higher after TR-RYGBP. By multivariate analysis, robotic surgery (hazard ratio [HR] = 15.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 280; P = .01), and conversion to laparotomy (HR = 18.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 250.8; P = .014) were independent risk factors for 30-day surgical complications. Although robotic gastric bypass reduces mean operative time, TR-RYGBP is associated with an increased postoperative surgical complications rate and longer hospitalization.

BackgroundLaparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) has gained acceptance as one of the best treatments for early gastric cancer. However, the application of LAG with D2 lymph node dissection in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains controversial.MethodsWe launched a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for locally AGC to evaluate technical safety and oncologic feasibility. The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were based on the modified intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsBetween January 2010 and June 2012, a total of 328 patients with preoperative clinical stage T2–3N0–3M0 gastric cancer were enrolled in the trial. Six patients with unresected AGC were excluded, and the remaining 322 patients were randomized to the laparoscopic group (162 patients) or the open group (160 patients) for radical surgery. All patients underwent D2 lymph node dissection including 18 (5.59%) proximal gastrectomies, 196 (60.87%) distal gastrectomies, and 108 (33.54%) total gastrectomies. Six patients (3.70%) in the LAG group were converted to open procedures. The overall complication rate was 11.72% in the LAG group and 14.38% in the open group (P = 0.512). No mortality occurred in either group.ConclusionsThe short-term results of the current study suggest that LAG with D2 lymph node dissection is a safe and feasible procedure in treating patients with locally AGC in experienced centers.

BackgroundIntraoperative conversion to open surgery is an adverse event during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), associated with poor postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting conversion in patients undergoing MIDP.MethodsA total of 352 patients who underwent MIPD were included in this retrospective analysis and randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts. Potential risk factors related to open conversion were identified through a literature review, and data on these factors in our cohort was collected accordingly. In the training cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of confounding factors to identify independent risk factors for model building. The constructed model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristics curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves.ResultsFollowing an extensive literature review, a total of ten preoperative risk factors were identified, including sex, BMI, albumin, smoker, size of lesion, tumor close to major vessels, type of pancreatic resection, surgical approach, MIDP experience, and suspicion of malignancy. Multivariate analysis revealed that sex, tumor close to major vessels, suspicion of malignancy, type of pancreatic resection (subtotal pancreatectomy or left pancreatectomy), and MIDP experience persisted as significant predictors for conversion to open surgery during MIDP. The constructed model offered superior discrimination ability compared to the existing model (area under the curve, training cohort: 0.921 vs. 0.757, P < 0.001; validation cohort: 0.834 vs. 0.716, P = 0.018). The DCA and the calibration curves revealed the clinical usefulness of the nomogram and a good consistency between the predicted and observed values.ConclusionThe evidence-based prediction model developed in this study outperformed the previous model in predicting conversions of MIDP. This model could contribute to decision-making processes surrounding the selection of surgical approaches and facilitate patient counseling on the conversion risk of MIDP.

Introduction The utilization of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery is increasing. However, conversion to open surgery remains relatively high. Objective We evaluated (1) conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery; (2) the outcomes of converted cases compared with successful laparoscopic and open colorectal operations; (3) predictive risk factors of conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery. Methods Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we examined the clinical data of patients who underwent colon and rectal resection from 2009 to 2010. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive for conversion of laparoscopic to open operation. Results A total of 207,311 patients underwent intended laparoscopic colorectal resection during this period. The conversion rate was 16.6 %. Considering resection type and pathology, the highest conversion rates were observed in proctectomy (31.4 %) and Crohn’s disease (20.2 %). Using multivariate regression analysis, Crohn’s disease (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.80), prior abdominal surgery (AOR, 2.45), proctectomy (AOR, 2.42), malignant pathology (AOR, 1.90), emergent surgery (AOR, 1.82), obesity (AOR, 1.63), and ulcerative colitis (AOR, 1.60) significantly impacted the risk of conversion. Compared with patients who were successfully completed laparoscopically, converted patients had a significantly higher complication rate (laparoscopic: 23 %; vs. converted: 35.2 % vs. open: 35.3 %), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (laparoscopic: 0.5 %; vs. converted: 0.6 %; vs. open: 1.7 %) and a longer mean hospital stay (laparoscopic: 5.4 days; vs. converted: 8.1 days; vs. open: 8.4 days); however, converted patients had better outcomes compared with the open group. Conclusions The conversion rate in colorectal surgery was 16.6 %. Converted patients had significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to successfully completed laparoscopic cases, although lower than open cases. Crohn’s disease, prior abdominal surgery, and proctectomy are the strongest predictors for conversion of laparoscopic to open in colorectal operations.

Ventral mesh rectopexy is an approach in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse and rectocele. Our aim was to assess whether robotic surgery confers any significant advantages over laparoscopy, and the associated complication rate. Two reviewers performed a literature search using MEDLINE and PubMed databases for studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Five prospective, non-randomised studies were identified and included. A total of 244 patients (101 robotic and 143 laparoscopic) were included in the analysis. Operative time was shorter with laparoscopic surgery, mean weighted difference 27.94 [confidence interval (CI) 19.30–36.57; p  < 0.00001]. The conversion rate was not significantly different between groups. There was a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and early post-operative complications in the robotic group; however, these did not reach statistical significance. Recurrence rates were similar between groups (odds ratio 0.91, CI 0.32–2.63; p  = 0.87). Functional results were comparable between groups. Early studies show that robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe option compared to the laparoscopic approach, with overall comparable results. There appeared to be a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and post-operative complications. These perceived benefits may offset the longer operative times and outlay costs. Larger randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate clinical value and cost-effectiveness.

Background The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the security and efficacy of 3D vs 2D laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment. Methods Forty-six patients who suffered from rectal cancer and went on laparoscopic radical resection of rectal carcinoma in Peking University Shougang Hospital from Feb. 2015 to Mar. 2016 were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups. The 23 patients operated with the 3D system were compared with 23 patients operated with the 2D system by perioperative data. Results There were no significant differences in age, sex, pathological type, tumor differentiation, TNM staging, and surgical procedures ( P  > 0.05). The average operating time of 3D laparoscopic surgery group (172.2 ± 27.5 min) was shorter than that of 2D group (192.6 ± 22.3) ( P  < 0.05); the rate of transfer to laparotomy is lower in 2D group (72.7%) than in 3D group (86.4%), but they have no significant difference; and the intraoperative blood loss (247.0 ± 173.6 ml vs 282.6 ± 195.6 ml), postoperative passage of flatus (2.8 ± 0.8 days vs 3.1 ± 1.0 days), and indwelling catheter time (5.6 ± 1.9 days vs 6.3 ± 2.0 days) in 3D group and 2D group ( P  > 0.05) were not significantly different. There were no differences in other complications between the two groups. No significantly different recrudescence and death rates were found between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). Conclusion The 3D laparoscopy shortens the operation time of rectum cancer. 3D laparoscopic surgery is more efficient in treatment of rectal cancer than 2D laparoscopy and is worth of being generalized.