-
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2024Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) was introduced in 2012 for the excision of benign rectal polyps and low grade rectal cancer. Ergonomic...
INTRODUCTION
Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (R-TAMIS) was introduced in 2012 for the excision of benign rectal polyps and low grade rectal cancer. Ergonomic improvements over traditional laparoscopic TAMIS (L-TAMIS) include increased dexterity within a small operative field, with possibility of better surgical precision. We aim to collate the existing data surrounding the use of R-TAMIS to treat rectal neoplasms from cohort studies and larger case series, providing a foundation for future, large-scale, comparative studies.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched as part of our review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or large case series (≥ 5 patients) investigating the use of R-TAMIS to resect rectal neoplasia (benign or malignant) were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. Quality assessment of included studies was performed via the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk of bias tool. Outcomes extracted included basic participant characteristics, operative details and histopathological/oncological outcomes.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies on 317 participants were included in our analysis. The quality of studies was generally satisfactory. Overall complication rate from R-TAMIS was 9.7%. Clear margins (R0) were reported in 96.2% of patients. Local recurrence (benign or malignant) occurred in 2.2% of patients during the specified follow-up periods.
CONCLUSION
Our review highlights the current evidence for R-TAMIS in the local excision of rectal lesions. While R-TAMIS appears to have complication, margin negativity and recurrence rates superior to those of published L-TAMIS series, comparative studies are needed.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anal Canal; Margins of Excision; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38724801
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-024-04645-4 -
International Journal of Radiation... Dec 2019The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care...
The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.
Topics: Alpha Particles; Antineoplastic Agents; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Patient Selection; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Proctoscopy; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Societies, Medical; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; United States; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 31445109
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.08.020 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Dec 2019Over the past several decades, technical advances in breast reconstruction have resulted in the development of flaps that are aimed at progressively decreasing abdominal...
Over the past several decades, technical advances in breast reconstruction have resulted in the development of flaps that are aimed at progressively decreasing abdominal wall morbidity. There is, however, ongoing controversy related to the superiority of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps over muscle-sparing TRAM (MS-TRAM) flaps. Hence, the question remains unanswered as to which approach should be considered the standard of care, and more importantly, whether the rate of DIEP flap utilization should be considered a quality metric in breast reconstruction. In this review article, we examine the literature pertaining to abdominal free tissue transfer in breast reconstruction from both donor site and flap characteristics as well as the resultant complications and morbidity. The impact on the donor site remains a prevailing principle for autologous breast reconstruction; thus, must be adequately respected when classifying what is left behind following flap harvest. The most commonly used nomenclature is too simplistic. This, in turn, leads to inadequate incorporation of critical variables, such as degree of muscular preservation, fascial involvement, mesh implantation, and segmental nerve anatomy. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support DIEP flap harvest as a quality indicator in breast reconstruction, as DIEP flap outcomes are not clearly superior when compared with MS-TRAM flaps.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Breast Neoplasms; Epigastric Arteries; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Organ Sparing Treatments; Perforator Flap; Quality Indicators, Health Care; Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery; Transplant Donor Site; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome; Wound Closure Techniques
PubMed: 31570216
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.08.005