Immunological effects of hybrid minimally invasive versus conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy - A single center cohort study

BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery is a field of rapid development. Evidence from randomized controlled trials in visceral surgery however still falls short of attesting unequivocal superiority to laparoscopic procedures over conventional open approaches with regard to postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to explore the perioperative immune status of patients undergoing hybrid minimally invasive or conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy in a prospective cohort study.Material and methodsSubtyping, quantification and functional analysis of circulating immune cells and determination of cytokine-levels in blood samples from patients receiving either hybrid minimally invasive (laPD) or conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (oPD) was performed. Samples were taken from 29 patients (laPD: n = 14, oPD: n = 15) prior, during and up to six weeks after surgery. Cells were analyzed by flow cytometry, cytokines/chemokines were measured by proximity extension and enzyme-linked immunoassays.ResultsOpen surgery induced higher levels of circulating inflammatory CD14⁺⁺CD16⁺ intermediate monocytes. In contrast, hybrid minimally invasive resection was accompanied by increased numbers of circulating regulatory CD4⁺CD25⁺CD127^low T-cells and by a reduced response of peripheral blood CD3⁺CD4⁺ T-cell populations to superantigen stimulation. Yet, rates of postoperative morbidity and infectious complications were similar.ConclusionsIn summary, the results of this exploratory study may suggest a more balanced postoperative inflammatory response and a better-preserved immune regulation after hybrid minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared to open surgery. Whether these results may translate to or be harnessed for improved patient outcome needs to be determined by future studies including larger cohorts and fully laparoscopic or robotic procedures.     

Assessment for the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic liver resection by interleukin-6 and thrombospondin-1

BACKGROUNDLaparoscopic surgery has been introduced as a minimally invasive technique for the treatment of various field. However, there are few reports that have scientifically investigated the minimally invasive nature of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).AIMTo investigate whether LLR is scientifically less invasive than open liver resection.METHODSDuring December 2011 to April 2015, blood samples were obtained from 30 patients who treated with laparoscopic (n = 10, 33%) or open (n = 20, 67%) partial liver resection for liver tumor. The levels of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and plasma thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) were measured using ELISA kit at four time points including preoperative, immediate after operation, postoperative day 1 (POD1) and POD3. Then, we investigated the impact of the operative approaches during partial hepatectomy on the clinical time course including IL-6 and TSP-1.RESULTSSerum level of IL-6 on POD1 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly lower than those in open hepatectomy (8.7 vs 30.3 pg/mL, respectively) (P = 0.003). Plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly higher than those in open hepatectomy (1704.0 vs 548.3 ng/mL, respectively) (P = 0.009), and have already recovered to preoperative level in laparoscopic approach. In patients with higher IL-6 Levels on POD1, plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 was significantly lower than those in patients with lower IL-6 Levels on POD1. Multivariate analysis showed that open approach was the only independent factor related to higher level of IL-6 on POD1 [odds ratio (OR), 7.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-63.3; P = 0.02]. Furthermore, the higher level of serum IL-6 on POD1 was significantly associated with lower level of plasm TSP-1 on POD3 (OR, 5.32; 95%CI: 1.08-32.2; P = 0.04) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONIn partial hepatectomy, laparoscopic approach might be minimally invasive surgery with less IL-6 production compared to open approach.     

Systematic review on percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy versus surgery in symptomatic simple hepatic cysts

BackgroundSimple hepatic cysts (SHC) may cause pain and bloating and thus impair quality of life. Whereas current guidelines recommend laparoscopic cyst deroofing, percutaneous aspiration and sclerotherapy (PAS) may be used as a less invasive alternative. This review aimed to assess the efficacy of PAS and surgical management in patients with symptomatic SHC.MethodsA systematic search in PubMed and Embase was performed according to PRISMA-guidelines. Studies reporting symptoms were included. Methodological quality was assessed by the MINORS-tool. Primary outcomes were symptom relief, symptomatic recurrence and quality of life, for which a meta-analysis of proportions was performed.ResultsIn total, 736 patients from 34 studies were included of whom 265 (36%) underwent PAS, 348 (47%) laparoscopic cyst deroofing, and 123 (17%) open surgical management. During weighted mean follow-up of 26.1, 38.2 and 21.3 months, symptoms persisted in 3.5%, 2.1%, 4.2%, for PAS, laparoscopic and open surgical management, respectively. Major complication rates were 0.8%, 1.7%, and 2.4% and cyst recurrence rates were 0.0%, 5.6%, and 7.7%, respectively.ConclusionOutcomes of PAS for symptomatic SHC appear to be excellent. Studies including a step-up approach which reserves laparoscopic cyst deroofing for symptomatic recurrence after one or two PAS procedures are needed.     

Minimally invasive resection for colorectal cancer: perioperative and medium-term results in an unselected patient group at a single institution

Background The use of laparoscopy for colorectal cancer resection is still controversial. Methods We prospectively analyzed the outcome of minimally invasive resection for colorectal cancer, performed at our institution from 1998, when laparoscopic surgery became the treatment of choice for colorectal cancer, until 2004. All patients undergoing elective resection were assessed in terms of perioperative results (duration of surgery, number of lymph nodes removed, length of specimen, rate of conversion, complications) and survival. Patients were assessed yearly with follow-up visits and telephone interviews. Results In the study period, 302 patients (mean age 66.1 years; range, 32–93 years) underwent 114 left hemicolectomies, 108 low anterior resections, 61 right hemicolectomies, 12 Miles procedures, 4 subtotal colectomies, and 3 transverse colon resections. Surgery took an average of 226 minutes (SD=71 min). The number of lymph nodes removed was 14±8. The conversion rate was 10%; most of the conversions were due to locally advanced cancer (15 cases) and bowel distension (7 cases). Fifteen anastomotic leaks were observed (5%). Twenty patients needed reoperation and two died: one of septic shock due to an anastomotic leak; the other of electrolyte imbalance and dehydration after peritonitis due to a bowel loop injury. Follow-up was available for 91% of patients. Cancer-related survival curves showed a 90% survival for stage II, 85% for stage III, and 10% for stage IV disease, 30 months after surgery. Conclusions Minimally invasive laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer enables an oncologically adequate resection with complication and survival rates that are no worse than are to be expected after traditional open surgery. Locally advanced tumor and bowel distension are the most frequent reasons for conversion to open surgery. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Minimally invasive colectomy: Are the potential benefits realized?

Laparoscopic surgical techniques have recently been applied to various types of colon resection. Early reports have focused on the technical feasibility of these procedures, and it has not yet been clearly shown that such procedures benefit the patient. We reviewed our experience with 28 attempted minimally invasive colectomies (MICs) performed over a nine-month period. Laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted resections were successfully completed in 24 of these patients. We compared the results of surgery in these 24 patients with a group of 33 patients undergoing similar procedures at the same institution by the same surgeon in the nine months preceding the laparoscopic experience. The two groups of patients were similar with respect to age, weight, and the types of procedures performed. However, the postoperative length of stay for patients undergoing MIC (4.8 days) was significantly shorter than for those undergoing open colectomies (8.2 days). Patients undergoing MIC also regained bowel function significantly earlier than those undergoing open colectomy. The operative times for the minimally invasive procedures were significantly longer than for those undergoing open colectomy. No surgically related deaths were encountered, and morbidity was 13 percent. None of the four patients converted from laparoscopic to open colectomy suffered complications as a result of the attempted laparoscopic procedure. We conclude that MIC can be safely performed and does appear to reduce the duration of postoperative ileus and decrease the length of postoperative hospitalization.     

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundRobotic surgery offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy through laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approaches.MethodA systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for distal pancreatectomy. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using random effects models.ResultTwenty non-randomised studies including 3112 patients (793 robotic and 2319 laparoscopic) were considered appropriate for inclusion. LDP had significantly shorter operating time than RDP (mean: 28, p < 0.001) but no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 52 mL, p = 0.07). RDP was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than LDP (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), but no difference in spleen preservation rate and R0 resection. There were no significant differences in overall and major complications, overall and high-grade pancreatic fistula. However, RDP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (mean: 1, p < 0.001).ConclusionRobotic distal pancreatectomy appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques are needed.     

The role of older age and obesity in minimally invasive and open pancreatic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of older age (≥70 years) and obesity (BMI ≥30) on surgical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR). Subsequently, open pancreatic resections or MIPR were compared for elderly and/or obese patients.MethodsA systematic review was conducted as part of the 2019 Miami International Evidence-Based Guidelines on MIPR (IG-MIPR). Study quality assessment was according to The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of MIPR or open pancreatic resections in elderly patients.ResultsAfter screening 682 studies, 13 observational studies with 4629 patients were included. Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) had less blood loss (117 mL, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (3.5 days p < 0.001) than elderly patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C, major complication and reoperation rate were not significantly different in elderly patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD). One study compared robot PD with OPD in obese patients, indicating that patients with robotic surgery had less blood loss (mean 250 ml vs 500 ml, p = 0.001), shorter operative time (mean 381 min vs 428 min, p = 0.003), and lower rate of POPF B/C (13% vs 28%, p = 0.039).ConclusionThe current available limited evidence does not suggest that MIPR is contraindicated in elderly or obese patients. Additionally, outcomes in MIPR are equal or more beneficial compared to the open approach when applied in these patient groups.     

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center

BackgroundDebate exists regarding outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. We reviewed and analyzed major hepatectomies (resection of ≥3 Couinaud liver segments) performed in a minimally invasive fashion at a single institution.MethodsFrom 2011 to 2016, 473 major hepatectomy procedures were performed, of which 173 (37%) were performed in a minimally invasive fashion (57 robot-assisted and 116 laparoscopic). Patient demographics, operating statistics and outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.ResultsPatients undergoing robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy were older (58.1 vs 53.2 years, respectively; p = 0.030), admitted to ICU postoperatively less frequently (43.9% vs 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.043), and readmitted less often within 90 days (7.0% vs 28.5%, respectively; p = 0.001). No significant differences were identified in relation to complications, blood loss, operative times, and length of stay.ConclusionRobot-assisted is an effective alternative to laparoscopic major hepatectomy for resection of malignant and benign liver lesions. Robotic-assisted offers technical advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery including improved optic visualization, operative dexterity, and ease of dissection and suturing. This experience suggested that the robotic platform was associated with improved outcomes including reduced postoperative ICU admission and 90-day readmission.     

Laparoscopic hepatic lobectomy for symptomatic polycystic liver disease

BackgroundLaparoscopic fenestration has largely replaced open fenestration of liver cysts. However, most hepatectomies for polycystic liver disease (PCLD) are performed open. Outcomes data on laparoscopic hepatectomy for PCLD are lacking.MethodsPatients who underwent surgery for PCLD at a single institution between 2010 and 2019 were reviewed and grouped by operative approach. Pre- and post-operative volumes were calculated for patients who underwent resection. Primary outcomes were: volume reduction, re-admission and postoperative complications.ResultsTwenty-six patients were treated for PCLD: 13 laparoscopic fenestration, nine laparoscopic hepatectomy, three open hepatectomy and one liver transplantation. Median length of stay for patients after laparoscopic resection was 3 days (IQR 2–3). The only complication was post-operative atrial fibrillation in one patient. There were no readmissions. Overall volume reduction was 51% (range 22–69) for all resections, 32% (range 22–46) after open resection and 56% (range 39–69) after laparoscopic resection.ConclusionVolume reduction achieved through laparoscopic approach exceeded open volume reduction at this institution and is comparable to volume reduction in previously published open resection series. Adequate volume reduction can be accomplished by laparoscopic means with acceptable postoperative morbidity.     

Quality of life after laparoscopic vs open sphincter-preserving resection for rectal cancer

AIM: To compare quality of life (QoL) outcomes in Chinese patients after curative laparoscopic vs open surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: Eligible Chinese patients with rectal cancer undergoing curative laparoscopic or open sphincterpreserving resection between July 2006 and July 2008 were enrolled in this prospective study. The QoL outcomes were assessed longitudinally using the validated Chinese versions of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQCR38 questionnaires before surgery and at 4, 8, and 12 mo after surgery. The QoL scores at the different time points were compared between the laparoscopic and open groups. A higher score on a functional scale indicated better functioning, whereas a higher score on a symptom scale indicated a higher degree of symptoms.RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (49 laparoscopic and 25 open) were enrolled. The two groups of patients were comparable in terms of sociodemographic data, types of surgery, tumor staging, and baseline mean QoL scores. There was no significant decrease from baseline in global QoL for the laparoscopic group at different time points, whereas the global QoL was worse compared to baseline beginning at 4 mo but returned to baseline by 12 mo for the open group (P = 0.019, Friedman test). Compared to the open group, the laparoscopic group had significantly better physical (89.9±1.4 vs 79.2±3.7, P = 0.016), role (85.0±3.4 vs 63.3±6.9, P = 0.005), and cognitive (73.5±3.4 vs 50.7±6.2, P = 0.002) functioning at 8 mo, fewer micturition problems at 4-8 mo (4 mo: 32.3±4.7 vs 54.7±7.1, P = 0.011; 8 mo: 22.8±4.0 vs 40.7±6.9, P = 0.020), and fewer male sexual problems from 8 mo onward (20.0±8.5 vs 76.7±14.5, P = 0.013). At 12 mo after surgery, no significant differences were observed in any functional or symptom scale between the two groups, with the exception of male sexual problems, which remained worse in the open group (29.2±11.3 vs 80.0±9.7, P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sphincter-preserving resection for rec     

Impact of laparoscopy on oncological outcomes after colectomy for stage III colon cancer: A post-hoc multivariate analysis from PETACC8 European randomized clinical trial

BackgroundIn colon cancer (CC), surgery remains the mainstay of treatment with curative intent. Despite several clinical trials comparing open and laparoscopic approaches, data on long-term outcomes for stage III CC are lacking.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis of the European PETACC8 randomized phase 3 trial included patients from 340 sites between December 2005 and November 2009, with long follow-up (median 7.56 years). Patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX or FOLFOX+cetuximab after colonic resection. The surgical approach was left to the referring surgeon's discretion.ResultsAmong 2555 patients included, 1796 (70.29%) were operated on by open surgery and 759 (29.71%) by laparoscopy. The 5-year OS rate was better after laparoscopic resection (85.4%, 95%CI 82.5–87.7) than after open surgery (80.2%, 95%CI 78.2–82.0; p = 0.002). The 5-year DFS rate was also better after laparoscopy (p = 0.016). However, in multivariate analysis using a propensity matching, the surgical approach was not found to be an independent prognostic factor for OS or DFS. OS (p = 0.0243) and DFS (p = 0.035) were increased after laparoscopic surgery in KRAS/BRAF WT sub-groupConclusionWe showed that laparoscopic resection has comparable long-term outcomes to open surgery in patients with stage III CC. For those with RAS and BRAF WT CC, laparoscopic colectomy may favorably impact survival.     

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of benign liver tumours in the Netherlands: a nationwide analysis

BackgroundData on surgical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) of benign liver tumour (BLT) are scarce. This study aimed to provide a nationwide overview of postoperative outcomes after LLR and OLR of BLT.MethodsThis was a nationwide retrospective study including all patients who underwent liver resection for hepatocellular adenoma, haemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the Netherlands from 2014 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to compare 30-day overall and major morbidity and 30-day mortality after OLR and LLR.ResultsIn total, 415 patients underwent BLT resection of whom 230 (55.4%) underwent LLR. PSM for OLR and LLR resulted in 250 matched patients. Median (IQR) length of stay was shorter after LLR than OLR (4 versus 6 days, 5.0–8.0, p < 0.001). Postoperative 30-day overall morbidity was lower after LLR than OLR (12.0% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.043). LLR was associated with reduced 30-day overall morbidity in multivariable analysis (aOR:0.46, CI:0.22–0.95, p = 0.043). Both 30-day major morbidity and 30-day mortality were not different.ConclusionsLLR for BLT is associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity and is preferred if technically feasible.     

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in the posterosuperior segments: a sub-group analysis from the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial

BackgroundLaparoscopic liver resection in the posterosuperior segments is technically challenging. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal liver metastases located in the posterosuperior segments.MethodsThis was a subgroup analysis of the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial, where 280 patients were randomly assigned to open or laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resections of colorectal metastases. Patients with tumors in the posterosuperior segments were identified, and perioperative outcomes and health related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared.ResultsWe identified a total of 136 patients, 62 in the laparoscopic and 74 in the open group. The postoperative complication rate was 26% in the laparoscopic and 31% in the open group. The blood loss was less in the open group (500 vs. 250 ml, P = 0.006), but the perioperative transfusion rate was similar. The operative time was similar, while postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (2 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). HRQoL was significantly better after laparoscopy at 1 month.ConclusionIn patients undergoing laparoscopic or open liver resection of colorectal liver metastases in the posterosuperior segments, laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stay and comparable perioperative outcomes.     

Comparison of Laparoscopic <Emphasis Type="Italic">vs.</Emphasis> Open Access Surgery in Patients with Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Analysis

Purpose Laparoscopic surgery of colon cancer has been accepted to be oncologically adequate compared with open resection. However, the situation in rectal cancer remains unclear, because anatomy and complex surgical procedures might specifically influence the long-term outcome. This study was designed to analyze perioperative and long-term outcome of patients with rectal cancer after laparoscopic vs. open access surgery. Methods A total of 389 patients (1998–2005) were prospectively analyzed; 114 patients had laparoscopic beginning, and 25 patients had conversion and were separately analyzed. Eighty-nine patients remained in the laparoscopic group and 275 had open access surgery. Results Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, tumor localization, stage, and complications. Differences were found in harvested lymph nodes (laparoscopic 13.5/open access 16.9; P = 0.001) and hospitalization (15.1/18.7 days; P = 0.037). Local recurrence rate and metachronous metastasis were comparable. In patients with deep anterior resection with total mesenteric excision, favorable long-term survival in the laparoscopic group was found (P = 0.035, log-rank). Conclusions Minimally invasive surgery is equivalent in the treatment of rectal cancer and shows advantages of shorter hospitalization and faster recovery. Especially in patients with low rectal cancer, minimally invasive surgery with exact preparation of the total mesenteric excision seems to be favorable compared with open access surgery.     

A systematic review of minimally invasive surgery for retrorectal tumors

Retrorectal tumors are rare tumors that require resection for symptoms, malignancy and potential malignant transformation. Traditional approaches have included laparotomy, perineal excision or a combination. Multiple minimally invasive techniques are available which have the potential to minimize morbidity and enhance recovery. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the feasibility and surgical outcomes of retrorectal tumors approached using minimally invasive surgical techniques. Publications in which adult patients (≥?18 years) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) for resection of a primary retrorectal tumor were included. Data were collected on approach, preoperative investigation, size and sacral level of the tumor, operating time, length of stay, perioperative complications, margins and recurrence. Thirty-five articles which included a total of 82 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were female (n?=?65; 79.2%), with a mean age of 41.7 years (range 18–89 years). Seventy-three patients (89.0%) underwent laparoscopic or combined laparoscopic–perineal resection, and 9 (10.8%) had a robotic approach. The conversion rate was 5.5%. The overall 30-day morbidity rate was 15.7%, including 1 intraoperative rectal injury (1.2%). Ninety-five percent (n?=?78) of the retrorectal tumors were benign. Median length of stay was 4 days for both laparoscopic and robotic groups, with ranges of 1–8 and 2–10 days, respectively. No tumor recurrence was noted during follow-up [median 28 months (range 5–71 months)]. A minimally invasive approach for the resection of retrorectal tumors is feasible in selected patients. Careful patient selection is necessary to avoid incomplete resection and higher morbidity than traditional approaches.     

Laparoskopische Operationen bei Rektumkarzinomen

Purpose

A number of minimally invasive techniques have now been described for rectal cancer resection. However, current outcome data for these approaches from high-volume single institutions remain limited. Our aim was to review outcomes in patients currently undergoing minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer at our institution.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed to assess short-term benefits and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer between 2004 and 2007.

Results

A total of 100 consecutive patients (61 men, median age 62) with a median follow-up of 1.8?years were identified. Of these, 67 underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and 33 laparoscopic-assisted (LA) procedures. In all, 72 patients underwent anterior resection, 27 abdominal perineal resection, and one total proctocolectomy. Tumor stages were stage 1 (21%), stage 2 (17%), stage 3 (56%), and stage 4 (6%). A median of 16 lymph nodes were removed, while both a median distal margin of 3.4?cm and a 99% negative circumferential margin were achieved. The 3-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 86.2 and 94.5%, respectively. Three cases required conversion. Median time to both food intake and first bowel movement was 3?days, while the median length of stay was 5?days. Length of stay, time to soft diet, incision length, and pain scores were less using an LA approach compared to HALS (P<0.01). Overall morbidity was 26% with no mortality.

Conclusions

Both minimally invasive techniques used achieved excellent oncologic results in patients with rectal cancer. The LA approach had slightly better short-term outcomes.     

Postoperative bladder and sexual function in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection of rectal cancer

There have been conflicting opinions regarding the superiority of open and laparoscopic surgery in preserving bladder and sexual function after rectal cancer surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to pool the available data comparing the impact of surgical approaches on postoperative sexual and urinary function. A search of Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane and Embase was undertaken and studies from January 2000 to February 2013 were identified. We included, in our meta-analysis, both prospective and retrospective studies that compared laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for rectal cancer. A total of 876 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery (lap n = 468, open n = 408) were examined. In men, postoperative ejaculatory function and erectile dysfunction evaluated from two studies comprising of 74 patients showed no difference between groups. The rate of overall sexual dysfunction evaluated from five studies comprising of 289 patients revealed a rate of 34 % in both the open and lap groups. Postoperative urinary function evaluated from five studies comprising of 312 patients showed no difference between groups. In women, postoperative sexual and urinary function were evaluated from five studies comprising of 321 patients. Three studies (n = 219) reported no difference in sexual function between groups. Postoperative urinary function evaluated from four studies comprising of 212 patients was found to be comparable. The available data are limited, but suggest that neither form of surgical approach be it laparoscopy or open surgery demonstrate superiority in preservation of sexual and bladder function. Further research into the technical aspects of surgery and evaluating newer minimally invasive technologies such as the robot may prove to be useful in improving functional outcomes of rectal cancer patients.     

Prehabilitation prior to surgery for pancreatic cancer: A systematic review

IntroductionPrehabilitation aims to improve fitness and outcomes of patients undergoing major surgery. This systematic review aimed to appraise current available evidence regarding the role of prehabilitation in patients undergoing oncological pancreatic resection.MethodsA systematic literature search of PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE databases identified articles describing prehabilitation programmes before pancreatic resection for malignancy. Data collected included timing of prehabilitation, programme type, duration, adherence and post-operative outcome reporting.ResultsSix studies, including 193 patients were included in the final analysis. Three studies included patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection and 3 studies included patients undergoing upfront resection. Time from diagnosis to surgery ranged between 2 and 22 weeks across all studies. Two studies reported a professionally supervised exercise programme, and four described unsupervised programmes. Exercise programmes varied from 5 days to 6 months in duration. Adherence to exercise programmes was better with supervised programmes (99% reaching weekly activity goal vs 85%) and patients not undergoing neoadjuvant therapy (90% reaching weekly activity goal vs 82%). All studies reported improvement in muscle mass or markers of muscle function following prehabilitation. Two studies reported the impact of Prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes and Prehabilitation was associated with lower delayed gastric emptying and a shorter hospital stay with no impact on other postoperative outcomes.ConclusionEarly evidence demonstrates that Prehabilitation programmes may improve postoperative outcomes following pancreatic surgery. However current Prehabilitaton programmes for patients undergoing pancreatic resection report diverse exercise regimens with no consensus regarding timing or length of Prehabilitation, warranting a need for standardisation of Prehabilitation programmes in pancreatic surgery.     

Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery

BackgroundLaparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is gaining popularity. Recent data and views on the implementation of laparoscopic and robotic MILS throughout Europe are lacking.MethodsAn anonymous survey consisting of 46 questions was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.ResultsThe survey was completed by 120 surgeons from 103 centers in 24 countries. Median annual center volume of liver resection was 100 [IQR 50–140]. The median annual volume of MILS per center was 30 [IQR 16–40]. For minor resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 80 (67%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 35 (29%) surgeons. For major resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 74 (62%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 33 (28%) surgeons. The majority of the surgeons stated that minimum annual volume of MILS per center should be around 21–30 procedures/year. Of the surgeons performing robotic surgery, 28 (70%) felt they missed specific equipment, such as a robotic-CUSA. Seventy (66%) surgeons provided a formal MILS training to residents and fellows. In 5 years’ time, 106 (88%) surgeons felt that MILS would have superior value as compared to open liver surgery.ConclusionIn the participating European liver centers, MILS comprised about one third of all liver resections and is expected to increase further. Laparoscopic MILS is still twice as common as robotic MILS. Development of specific instruments for robotic liver parenchymal transection might further increase its adoption.     

Cost‐effectiveness of minimally invasive pancreatic resection

While clinical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) compared to open surgery are well examined, only few studies focus on its associated cost. The aim of this study is to evaluate cost analyses comparing MIPR to open pancreatic resection (OPR). A systematic review of the literature using PubMed of all published studies between 2000 and 2017 was performed. Studies reporting on cost of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) compared to open surgery were identified. Fourteen studies were included, eight that reported a cost comparison between LDP and open surgery and six that compared costs between LPD and open surgery. For both, LDP and LPD, operative costs were higher due to higher costs for surgical equipment. Reports suggest that lower postoperative costs for LDP and LPD could balance out the operative costs resulting in overall decreased costs for the laparoscopic compared to the open approach. Recent results show a positive trend towards cost savings for MIPR. To assess the overall benefit of MIPR compared to OPR comprehensive cost analyses and long‐term quality outcomes need to be investigated.