Novel technique of robotic extralevator abdominoperineal resection with gracilis flap closure

Does plastic surgery need a rewiring? A survey and systematic review on robotic-assisted surgery

Background

This is a paucity of data regarding plastic surgeons' opinions on robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). We developed a questionnaire aimed to survey plastic surgeons regarding training in robotics, concerns about widespread implementation, and new research directions.

Methods

A survey was created using Google Forms and sent to practicing plastic surgeons and trainees. Responses regarding desired conference proceedings about robotics, robotic residency training, and perceived barriers to implementation were elicited. Survey responses were utilized to direct a systematic review on RAS in plastic surgery.

Results

The survey received 184 responses (20.4%; 184/900). The majority (92.8%) of respondents were/are plastic surgery residents, with the most common fellowships being microsurgery (39.2%). Overall, 89.7% of respondents support some integration of robotics in the future of plastic surgery, particularly in pelvic/perineum reconstruction (56.4%), abdominal reconstruction (46.5%), microsurgery (43.6%), and supermicrosurgery (44.2%). Many respondents (66.1%) report never using a robot in their careers. Respondents expressed notable barriers to widespread robotic implementation, with cost (73.0%) serving as the greatest obstacle. A total of 10 studies (pelvic/perineum = 3; abdominal = 3; microsurgery = 4) were included after full-text review.

Conclusions

Evidence from our survey and review supports the growing interest and utility of RAS within the plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) and mirrors the established trend in other surgical subspecialties. Cost analyses will prove critical to implementing RAS within PRS. With validated benefits, plastic surgery programs can begin creating dedicated curricula for RAS.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision for advanced low rectal cancer: Where to go

Since its introduction, extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) in the prone position has gained significant attention and recognition as an important surgical procedure for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer. Most studies suggest that because of adequate resection and precise anatomy, ELAPE could decrease the rate of positive circumferential resection margins, intraoperative perforation, and may further decrease local recurrence rate and improve survival. Some studies show that extensive resection of pelvic floor tissue may increase the incidence of wound complications and urogenital dysfunction. Laparoscopic/robotic ELAPE and trans-perineal minimally invasive approach allow patients to be operated in the lithotomy position, which has advantages of excellent operative view, precise dissection and reduced postoperative complications. Pelvic floor reconstruction with biological mesh could significantly reduce wound complications and the duration of hospitalization. The proposal of individualized ELAPE could further reduce the occurrence of postoperative urogenital dysfunction and chronic perianal pain. The ELAPE procedure emphasizes precise anatomy and conforms to the principle of radical resection of tumors, which is a milestone operation for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.