PurposeLaparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients.MethodsAll consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined.ResultsA total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033).ConclusionsIn this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.

Low energy focused x-ray beams could be used to irradiate tumors inside soft tissue within 5 cm of the surface.

Background: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery offers several advantages over open surgery, including quicker recovery, shorter hospital stay and improved cosmesis. However, laparoscopic rectal surgery is technically difficult and is associated with a long learning curve. The last decade has seen the emergence of robotic rectal cancer surgery. In contrast to laparoscopy, robotic surgery offers stable 3D views with advanced dexterity and ergonomics in narrow spaces such as the pelvis. Whether this translates into a shorter learning curve is still debated. The aim of this literature search is to ascertain the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery. Methods: This review analyses the literature investigating the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery. Using the Medline database a literature search of articles investigating the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery was performed. All relevant articles were included. Results: Twelve original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The current literature suggests that the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery varies between 15 and 44 cases and is probably shorter to that of laparoscopic rectal surgery. Conclusions: There are only a few studies assessing the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery and they possess several differences in methodology and outcome reporting. Nevertheless, current evidence suggests that robotic rectal surgery might be easier to learn than laparoscopy. Further well designed studies applying CUSSUM analysis are required to validate this motion.

In medical literature, studies are divided into two categories; experimental and observational settings. Experimental studies, entitled randomized controlled trials could test the relationship between exposure and outcome experimentally via control group and random allocation. Observational settings include either analytical or descriptive studies. Descriptive studies consist of case reports and case series that are helpful in present the experience of a case or a series of cases with similar diagnoses in detail which results in hypothesis generation. Cross-sectional studies, as analytical designs, are not capable to survey the temporality of exposure and outcome as simultaneously exposure and outcome status are measured. In case-control studies, subjects follow back from outcome to exposure. The rare diseases are recommended to study using case-control setting to save expenses and time. Both exposure measurement and patient selection is before disease detection in cohort studies. Therefore, they are inefficient for rare diseases or diseases with long latency. Cohort studies are time consuming with high cost and loss to follow-up. This paper elaborately reviews the features, advantages, and disadvantages of different types of observational and experimental studies.