Surgeons’ perceptions of transanal endoscopic microsurgery using minilaparoscopic instruments in a simulator: the thinner the better

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are good options for the treatment of rectal adenomas and early rectal carcinomas, but whether long-term outcomes of these procedures are comparable is not known. The aim of this study was to address this question.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study evaluating 98 consecutive procedures between June 2008 and December 2017 was performed in a tertiary cancer center. Consecutive patients who had undergone either endoscopic submucosal resection or transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal adenomas and early rectal carcinomas were evaluated, and long-term recurrence and complication rates were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar regarding sex, age, preoperative surgical risk, and en bloc resection rate (95.7% in the endoscopic and 100% in the surgical group, P = 0.81). Mean follow-up period was 37.6 months. Lesions resected endoscopically were significantly larger (68.5 mm) than those resected by transanal resection (44.5 mm), P = 0.003. Curative resections occurred in 97.2% of endoscopic resections and 85.2% of the surgical ones (P = 0.04). Comparing resections that fulfilled histologic curative criteria, there were no recurrences in the endoscopic group (out of 69 cases) and two recurrences in the transanal group (8.3% of 24 cases), P = 0.06. Late complications occurred in 12.7% of endoscopic procedures and 25.9% of surgical procedures (P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, endoscopic submucosal resection seems to have advantages over transanal endoscopic microsurgery, with similar en bloc resection rate and lower rate of late complications and recurrences. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to support our findings.

Experimental evaluation of the fineness of needle forceps: advantages other than minimal access

PURPOSE

Needle forceps are used to limit damage to the abdominal wall in endoscopic surgery; however, few experimental studies have evaluated the fineness and performance of needle forceps. We conducted this study to identify the advantages of needle forceps over conventional 5 mm forceps, focusing on fine grasping and needle control.

METHODS

Twenty physicians executed tasks using 5 mm forceps and 2.1 mm small diameter forceps in a laparoscopic experimental setting. First, we timed the execution and recorded the number of drops in a task of grasping and moving grains of rice and red beans. Next, we measured the execution time, looseness of the knot, and the deviation from the stitching point in a suture and ligation task using suture needles with a diameter of 17 or 26 mm.

RESULTS

The needle forceps required a significantly shorter execution time to move the rice grains (37.7 s vs. 45.8 s; p = 0.01) and a significantly higher completion rate (90% vs 20%; p < 0.01). The deviation of the stitching point using the 17 mm needle with needle forceps was significantly smaller than with the 5 mm forceps (0.5 mm vs. 1.0 mm; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Needle forceps are better for procedures requiring fine grasping and enable more accurate small diameter needle control than 5 mm forceps.

Minilaparoscopy For Inguinal Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Inguinal hernia repair is among the most common procedures performed worldwide and the laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) approach is a recognized and effective surgical technique. Although technically advantageous because of the option of no mesh fixation and no need for creation of a peritoneal flap resulting, in less postoperative pain and faster recovery, TEP has not achieved the popularity it deserves, mainly because of its complexity and steep learning curve. Minilaparoscopy was first described in the 1990s and has recently gained significantly from better instrumentation that may increase TEP's effectiveness and acceptance. We performed a prospective study, to analyze the outcomes of minilaparoscopy in pain and operative time when compared to the conventional laparoscopic technique in hernia repair.

METHODS

Fifty-eight laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs were performed: 36 by traditional laparoscopic technique and 22 by minilaparoscopic instruments (mini). A study protocol was applied prospectively for data collection. Variables analyzed were early postoperative pain (at hour 6 after procedure), pain at discharge, use of on-demand analgesics, and operative time.

RESULTS

The mini group presented reduced early postoperative pain and operative time. The present study also suggests less postoperative pain at discharge with mini procedures, although this difference was not statistically significant. No difference between the groups regarding on-demand use of analgesics was found.

CONCLUSIONS

This study corroborates findings in previously published papers that have shown the feasibility of minilaparoscopy in laparoscopic TEP hernia repair and its benefits regarding postoperative pain, operative time, and aesthetic outcomes.

Low-Friction Minilaparoscopy Outperforms Regular 5-mm and 3-mm Instruments for Precise Tasks

Background and Objectives:

Therapeutic laparoscopy was incorporated into surgical practice more than 25 y ago. Several modifications have since been developed to further minimize surgical trauma and improve results. Minilaparoscopy, performed with 2- to 3-mm instruments was introduced in the mid 1990s but failed to attain mainstream use, mostly because of the limitations of the early devices. Buoyed by a renewed interest, new generations of mini instruments are being developed with improved functionality and durability. This study is an objective evaluation of a new set of mini instruments with a novel low-friction design.

Method:

Twenty-two medical students and 22 surgical residents served as study participants. Three designs of laparoscopic instruments were evaluated: conventional 5 mm, traditional 3 mm, and low-friction 3 mm. The instruments were evaluated with a standard surgical simulator, emulating 4 exercises of various complexities, testing grasping, precise 2-handed movements, and suturing. The metric measured was time to task completion, with 5 replicates for every combination of instrument–exercise–participant.

Results:

For all 4 tasks, the instrument design that performed the best was the same in both the medical student and surgical resident groups. For the gross-grasping task, the 5-mm conventional instruments performed best, followed by the low-friction mini instruments. For the 3 more complex and precise tasks, the low-friction mini instruments outperformed both of the other instrument designs.

Conclusion:

In standard surgical simulator exercises, low-friction minilaparoscopic instruments outperformed both conventional 3- and 5-mm laparoscopic instruments for precise tasks.