Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2020

09.10.2019

Teaching robotic rectal cancer surgery at your workplace: does the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room have a detrimental effect on outcomes?

verfasst von: Alain Valverde, Kevin Zuber, Nicolas Goasguen, Olivier Oberlin, Auriana Tetart, Julien Cahais, Jean-François Fléjou, Renato M. Lupinacci

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 9/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Surgery demonstration (SD) is considered to be a mainstay of surgical education, but controversy exists concerning the patient’s safety. Indeed, the presence of visiting surgeons is a source of distraction and may have an impact on surgeon’s performance. This study’s objective was to evaluate possible differences in outcomes between robotic sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) performed during routine surgical practice versus in the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room (OR) with direct access to the surgeon.

Methods

Retrospective case-matched studies were conducted from a prospectively collected database. 114 patients (38 with the presence of visiting surgeons) who underwent RRCS between January 2013 and September 2018 were included. Patients were matched in a 1:2 basis after propensity score analysis using five criteria: gender, body mass index, preoperative chemoradiation, type of mesorectum excision, and synchronous liver metastasis.

Results

There was no difference between the two groups with regard to mean operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion, and hospital stay. Also, overall (44% vs. 40%; P = 0.6), major morbidity (26% vs. 19%; P = 0.5), and unplanned reoperation (17% vs. 15%; P = 1.0) rates were not statistically different. No difference was noted with regard to the quality of mesorectum excision, or positive rate of circumferential and distal longitudinal resection margins. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (17 vs. 14.5; P = 0.04) was lower in the SD group and the number of patients with < 12 harvested lymph nodes (31% vs. 16%; P = 0.09) was greater after SD although it did not reach statistical significance. No differences were observed in disease-free or overall survival.

Conclusions

The presence of visiting surgeons in the OR seems not to interfere in the quality of rectal resection and does not compromise patient’s short-term outcome and survival. However, mild differences in the extent of lymphadenectomy were observed and the surgeons performing SD may be aware of this.
Fußnoten
1
The Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint Simon is an institutional no-profit tertiary center from Paris, France.
 
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Artibani W, Ficarra V, Challacombe BJ, Abbou C-C, Bedke J, Boscolo-Berto R, Brausi M, de la Rosette JJMCH, Deger S, Denis L, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Heesakkers JPFA, Jacqmin D, Knoll T, Martínez-Piñeiro L, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Piechaud P-T, Rane A, Rassweiler J, Stenzl A, Van Moorselaar J, Van Velthoven RF, van Poppel H, Wirth M, Abrahamsson P-A, Parsons KF (2014) EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur Urol 66:87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.028 CrossRefPubMed Artibani W, Ficarra V, Challacombe BJ, Abbou C-C, Bedke J, Boscolo-Berto R, Brausi M, de la Rosette JJMCH, Deger S, Denis L, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Heesakkers JPFA, Jacqmin D, Knoll T, Martínez-Piñeiro L, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Piechaud P-T, Rane A, Rassweiler J, Stenzl A, Van Moorselaar J, Van Velthoven RF, van Poppel H, Wirth M, Abrahamsson P-A, Parsons KF (2014) EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur Urol 66:87–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​eururo.​2014.​01.​028 CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JHJM, Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20:1729–1734. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.07.010 CrossRefPubMed Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JHJM, Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20:1729–1734. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1200/​jco.​2002.​07.​010 CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Valverde A, Goasguen N, Oberlin O, Svrcek M, Fléjou J-F, Sezeur A, Mosnier H, Houdart R, Lupinacci RM (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 31:4085–4091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5455-7 CrossRefPubMed Valverde A, Goasguen N, Oberlin O, Svrcek M, Fléjou J-F, Sezeur A, Mosnier H, Houdart R, Lupinacci RM (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc 31:4085–4091. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00464-017-5455-7 CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Jeong S-Y, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang S-B, Lim S-B, Choi HS, Kim D-W, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Jung KH, Kim T-Y, Kang GH, Chie EK, Kim SY, Sohn DK, Kim D-H, Kim J-S, Lee HS, Kim JH, Oh JH (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70205-0 CrossRefPubMed Jeong S-Y, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang S-B, Lim S-B, Choi HS, Kim D-W, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Jung KH, Kim T-Y, Kang GH, Chie EK, Kim SY, Sohn DK, Kim D-H, Kim J-S, Lee HS, Kim JH, Oh JH (2014) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 15:767–774. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1470-2045(14)70205-0 CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MHGM, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1414882 CrossRefPubMed Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MHGM, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1056/​nejmoa1414882 CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the rolarr randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7219 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the rolarr randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1001/​jama.​2017.​7219 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Ayliffe GA (1991) Role of the environment of the operating suite in surgical wound infection. Rev Infect Dis 13(Suppl 10):S800–S804CrossRefPubMed Ayliffe GA (1991) Role of the environment of the operating suite in surgical wound infection. Rev Infect Dis 13(Suppl 10):S800–S804CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Mege D, Hain E, Lakkis Z, Maggiori L, Prost à la Denise J, Panis Y (2018) Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients. Colorectal Dis 20:O143–O151. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14238 CrossRefPubMed Mege D, Hain E, Lakkis Z, Maggiori L, Prost à la Denise J, Panis Y (2018) Is trans-anal total mesorectal excision really safe and better than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with a perineal approach first in patients with low rectal cancer? A learning curve with case-matched study in 68 patients. Colorectal Dis 20:O143–O151. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​codi.​14238 CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Rouanet P, Bertrand MM, Jarlier M, Mourregot A, Traore D, Taoum C, de Forges H, Colombo P-E (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for sphincter-saving surgery: results of a single-center series of 400 consecutive patients and perspectives. Ann Surg Oncol 25:3572–3579. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6738-5 CrossRefPubMed Rouanet P, Bertrand MM, Jarlier M, Mourregot A, Traore D, Taoum C, de Forges H, Colombo P-E (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for sphincter-saving surgery: results of a single-center series of 400 consecutive patients and perspectives. Ann Surg Oncol 25:3572–3579. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1245/​s10434-018-6738-5 CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Colombo P-E, Bertrand MM, Alline M, Boulay E, Mourregot A, Carrère S, Quénet F, Jarlier M, Rouanet P (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for sphincter-saving surgery: is there any difference in the transanal TME rectal approach?: a single-center series of 120 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1594–1600. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-5048-4 CrossRefPubMed Colombo P-E, Bertrand MM, Alline M, Boulay E, Mourregot A, Carrère S, Quénet F, Jarlier M, Rouanet P (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for sphincter-saving surgery: is there any difference in the transanal TME rectal approach?: a single-center series of 120 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1594–1600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1245/​s10434-015-5048-4 CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Teaching robotic rectal cancer surgery at your workplace: does the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room have a detrimental effect on outcomes?
verfasst von
Alain Valverde
Kevin Zuber
Nicolas Goasguen
Olivier Oberlin
Auriana Tetart
Julien Cahais
Jean-François Fléjou
Renato M. Lupinacci
Publikationsdatum
09.10.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07164-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.