Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose of ReviewThis review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies.Recent FindingsData from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications.SummaryMinimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

Background Recent advancements in the understanding of lower rectum anatomy, rectal cancer biology, and surgical techniques have emphasized the importance of radical surgery for low rectal cancer that balances oncological safety and anal function preservation. After total mesorectal excision (TME) and coloanal anastomosis, participants face high risks of anastomotic leakage and infection, often requiring a protective ileostomy. However, ileostomies themselves lead to significant complications, such as dehydration and chronic renal failure, and many participants cannot have their stomas reversed as planned. The Turnbull-Cutait procedure, involving delayed transanal pull-through rectal resection, has emerged as a safer alternative, reducing leakage complications and avoiding the need for a protective stoma. Recent studies support its use in challenging rectal cases, showing comparable or better outcomes than standard techniques. Despite these promising results, limited data exists on its application to intersphincteric resection (ISR) or intersphincteric dissection (ISD), which itself has higher complication rates. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluate this Turnbull-Cutait anastomosis procedure (delayed transanal pull-through) in ISR, comparing its complications, oncological outcomes, and functional results to those of traditional methods (direct anastomosis). This study is a prospective, multicenter, 1:1, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial with 110 participants, divided into two groups: the staged Turnbull-Cutait pull-through anastomosis group ( n  = 55) and the direct anastomosis group ( n  = 55). The control group will undergo ISR with traditional anastomosis plus protective ileostomy, while the experimental group will receive the transanal pull-through and delayed anastomosis without ileostomy. The primary outcome is the 30-day overall postoperative complication rate, including anastomotic leakage, infection, and other complications. Secondary outcomes include long-term complications, total surgery time, anorectal function (measured by LARS and Wexner scores), urinary and sexual function, quality of life (EORTC QLQ–CR29 and FIQL), and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Discussion Currently, there is a lack of systematic studies exploring the use of delayed pull-through anastomosis in intersphincteric resection (ISR) procedures. Existing research on this technique in low rectal cancer is limited to small, single-center, retrospective studies with low levels of evidence. Therefore, a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial is needed to determine whether delayed pull-through anastomosis can serve as a viable alternative to ISR-coloanal anastomosis, offering comparable or lower rates of postoperative complications, as well as similar oncological outcomes and defecatory function. This study aims to provide higher-quality evidence through a larger, well-designed trial, which could significantly inform clinical practice in this under-explored area. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06662643. Registered on October 29, 2024.

Purpose The objective of the current pilot trial was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to the current standard of care in terms of a conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) for rectal cancer. Methods This randomized controlled pilot trial included patients undergoing LAR/TME, randomly assigning them to ghost ileostomy or conventional loop ileostomy intraoperatively. Follow-up spanned 6 months, evaluating the following endpoints: comprehensive complication index (CCI), postoperative morbidity, transformation of ghost ileostomy, presence of ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 & CR29). Exploratory statistical analysis based on the intention-to-treat principle was conducted. Results Recruiting 30 patients from May 2018 to September 2022, the trial was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. The mean CCI was comparable between groups at any point of time (at 6 months: 30.7 vs. 29.7, p = 0.889). There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar in ghost ileostomy and loop ileostomy groups (p > 0.99). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a conventional loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. Neither postoperative function, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences. Conclusion Ghost ileostomy appears as a viable and safe option for selectively deciding ileostomy creation in LAR/TME for rectal cancer. However, challenges in patient selection, excluding those at high risk for anastomotic leakage, limit widespread application and call for optimization in future research. Trial-registration German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/ ): DRKS00013997; date of registration: April 9th 2018.

Introduction Robotic-assisted complete mesorectal excision (RATME) is increasingly being used by colorectal surgeons. Most surgeons consider RATME a safe method, and believe it can facilitate total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, and may potentially have advantages over intersphincteric resection (ISR) and anus preservation. Therefore, this trial was designed to investigate whether RATME has technical advantages and can increase the ISR rate compared with laparoscopic-assisted TME (LATME) in patients with middle and low rectal cancer. Methods and analysis This is a multicenter, superiority, randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATME and LATME in middle and low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint is the ISR rate. The secondary endpoints are coloanal anastomosis (CAA) rate, conversion to open surgery, conversion to transanal TME (TaTME), abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate, postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days, pathological outcomes, long-term survival outcomes, functional outcomes, and quality of life. In addition, certain measurements will be conducted to ensure quality and safety, including centralized photography review and semiannual assessment. Discussion This trial will clarify if RATME improves ISR and promotes anus preservation in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer. Furthermore, this trial will provide evidence on the optimal treatment strategies for RATME and LATME in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer regarding improved operational safety. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06105203. Registered on October 27, 2023.

Background Colorectal cancer remains a significant global health burden, with low rectal tumors posing unique surgical challenges due to their proximity to the anal verge. Traditional abdominoperineal resection (APR) compromises quality of life with permanent colostomy, while sphincter-preserving techniques like laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (L-ISR) face technical limitations. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of a novel technique — ISR combined with rectal eversion and total extra-abdominal resection (ISRER) — aimed at reducing anastomotic complications, and enhancing anal preservation in anatomically challenging patients. Methods This was a prospective randomized controlled, unmasked, parallel group trial in Henan Provincial People’s Hospital. Intraoperative peritoneal lavage cytology and bacterial culture were performed to assess tumor cell shedding and contamination. Outcomes included distal margin positivity, anal preservation rate, postoperative complications, hospital costs,30-day readmission rates and postoperative stay. Results All 74 patients with low rectal cancer (3–5 cm from the anal verge) between March 2024 and March 2025. Patients were randomly stratified into ISRER ( n  = 35) and laparoscopic ISR (L-ISR) ( n  = 39) groups. No tumor cells or bacterial contamination were detected in peritoneal lavage cytology or cultures. Both groups achieved 100% R0 resection (distal margin negativity). The ISRER group demonstrated a significantly higher anal preservation rate (94.3 vs. 71.8%, P  = 0.011) with comparable postoperative complications (2.9 vs. 2.6%, P  = 0.735), 30-day readmission rates (2.9 vs. 2.6%, P  = 0.938), and hospitalization costs (62,540 vs. 64,937 CNY, P  = 0.915). Median postoperative stay was marginally longer in the ISRER group (10 vs. 9 days, P  = 0.135), while gastrointestinal recovery and inflammatory markers showed no intergroup differences. Conclusion ISRER is a safe and technically feasible sphincter-preserving approach for low rectal cancer, offering superior anal retention without compromising oncological safety or increasing complications.

The ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC) assesses risk to support goal-concordant care. While it accurately predicts US outcomes, its performance internationally is unknown. This study evaluates SRC accuracy in predicting mortality following low anterior resection (LAR) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in NSQIP patients and accuracy retention when applied to native Japanese patients (National Clinical Database, NCD). NSQIP (41,260 LAR; 15,114 PD) and NCD cases (61,220 LAR; 27,901 PD) from 2015 to 2017 were processed through the SRC mortality model. Country-specific calibration and discrimination were assessed with and without an intercept correction applied to the Japanese data. The SRC exhibited acceptable calibration for LAR and PD when applied to NSQIP data but miscalibration for NCD data. A simple correction to the model intercept, motivated by lower mortality rates in the Japanese data, successfully remediated the miscalibration. The SRC may inaccurately predict surgical risk when applied to the native Japanese population. An intercept correction method is suggested when miscalibration is encountered; it is simple to implement and may permit effective international use of the SRC. •ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC) is a widely-used risk-assessment tool.•Intercept correction can permit effective international use of the ACS NSQIP SRC.•Intercept correction facilitates the benchmarking of surgical quality worldwide.

BackgroundDividing a surgical procedure into a sequence of identifiable and meaningful steps facilitates intraoperative video data acquisition and storage. These efforts are especially valuable for technically challenging procedures that require intraoperative video analysis, such as transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME); however, manual video indexing is time-consuming. Thus, in this study, we constructed an annotated video dataset for TaTME with surgical step information and evaluated the performance of a deep learning model in recognizing the surgical steps in TaTME.MethodsThis was a single-institutional retrospective feasibility study. All TaTME intraoperative videos were divided into frames. Each frame was manually annotated as one of the following major steps: (1) purse-string closure; (2) full thickness transection of the rectal wall; (3) down-to-up dissection; (4) dissection after rendezvous; and (5) purse-string suture for stapled anastomosis. Steps 3 and 4 were each further classified into four sub-steps, specifically, for dissection of the anterior, posterior, right, and left planes. A convolutional neural network-based deep learning model, Xception, was utilized for the surgical step classification task.ResultsOur dataset containing 50 TaTME videos was randomly divided into two subsets for training and testing with 40 and 10 videos, respectively. The overall accuracy obtained for all classification steps was 93.2%. By contrast, when sub-step classification was included in the performance analysis, a mean accuracy (± standard deviation) of 78% (± 5%), with a maximum accuracy of 85%, was obtained.ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study based on automatic surgical step classification for TaTME. Our deep learning model self-learned and recognized the classification steps in TaTME videos with high accuracy after training. Thus, our model can be applied to a system for intraoperative guidance or for postoperative video indexing and analysis in TaTME procedures.

BackgroundRobotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon’s experience.MethodsFrom April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency–gain curve (p–g curve) by the surgeon with each platform.ResultsIn both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p–g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1–19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20–40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon’s experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.

BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in rectal cancer resection, there remains limited knowledge of its clinical advantage over laparoscopic (Lap) and open (OS) surgery. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of RAS with Lap and OS for rectal cancer.MethodsWe identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years who had elective rectal cancer resection requiring temporary or permanent stoma formation from 1/2013 to 12/2020 from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database. We completed multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for hospital clustering to compare ileostomy formation between surgical approaches. Next, we built inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses to compare outcomes for ileostomy and permanent colostomy separately. Outcomes included postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, reoperation, and 30-day readmission.ResultsA total of 12,787 patients (OS: 5599 [43.8%]; Lap: 2872 [22.5%]; RAS: 4316 [33.7%]) underwent elective rectal cancer resection. Compared to OS, patients who had Lap (OR 1.29, p < 0.001) or RAS (OR 1.53, p < 0.001) were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than permanent colostomy. In those with ileostomy, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.71, p < 0.001) and less bleeding (OR 0.50, p < 0.001) compared to Lap. In addition, RAS was associated with lower anastomotic leak (OR 0.25, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.51, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, p = 0.022) when compared to OS. In those patients who had permanent colostomy formation, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.72, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.78, p = 0.021), lower 30-day reoperation (OR 0.49, p < 0.001), and higher discharge to home (OR 1.26, p = 0.013) than Lap, as well as OS.ConclusionRectal cancer patients treated with RAS were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than a permanent colostomy and more enhanced recovery compared to Lap and OS.

Background Patients undergoing perineal defect reconstruction with the internal pudendal artery perforator (IPAP) flap traditionally face 5 days of postoperative bed rest (BR) to minimize surgical risks. However, prolonged BR can exacerbate postoperative physiologic changes such as increased fatigue, reduced body mass, and declining lung function, while also leading to complications such as pneumonia, delirium, deep vein thrombosis, and pressure injuries. This study assessed the effectiveness, feasibility, and safety of an adapted early mobilization (EM) program for these patients. Methods This prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study involved 51 patients assigned to adapted EM ( n  = 25) or BR ( n  = 26). Whereas EM included core exercises, orthostasis training, gait training, muscle strengthening, and aerobic exercises after surgery, BR followed standard bed rest protocols. The primary outcome was independent ambulation for 3 m on postoperative day 5. The secondary outcomes included 6-min walk test (6MWT) distances on days 5 and 30, hospital length of stay, healing time, postoperative complications, fatigue prevalence, and quality of life. Results On day 5, EM improved ambulation significantly compared with BR (68.0% vs 38.5%; P  = 0.035) and achieved greater 6MWT distances on days 5 (108.78 vs 47.73 m; P  = 0.041) and 30 (243.8 vs 166.29 m; P  = 0.018). The EM patients were discharged earlier (66.7% by day 10 vs 33.3% of the BR patients; P  = 0.043), with comparable healing times ( P  = 0.06) and postoperative complication rates (68% vs 80.8%; P  = 0.296). Fatigue prevalence and quality of life did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusion Early mobilization after IPAP flap reconstruction is safe and feasible, promoting early ambulation and recovery and facilitating earlier discharge without increasing complications.