Robotic surgery (RS) is a novel treatment for rectal cancer resection (RCR); however, this technology is not widely accessible. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utilization of RS in RCR compared with open and laparoscopic techniques and to assess the quality of resection. RCR from 2010 to 2012 were identified using the National Cancer Database and placed into categories: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. A total of 23,857 patients who received open, laparoscopic, and robotic RCR were included (n = 14,735 (61.8%); 7,185 (30.1%); 1,937 (8.1%), respectively). Patients over 70 had a lower likelihood of robotic RCR. Patients with insurance were 2 times more likely to have robotic RCR. Patients at an academic/research program were more likely to undergo RS compared with a community cancer program (OR 3.6, 95% CI [2.79, 4.78]; P < 0.0001). Length of stay (LOS) was longer in open (7.9 ± 7.1) versus laparoscopic (6.6 ± 6.3) or robotic (6.8 ± 6.4) RCR (P < 0.0001). Although there was an increased likelihood of positive surgical margins with open RCR (OR 1.3, 95% CI [1.09, 1.66]; P < 0.0001), there was no difference in robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Younger insured patients at academic/research affiliated hospitals have a higher likelihood of receiving robotic RCR. Compared with open RCR, robotic RCR have a lower likelihood of positive surgical margins and shorter LOS.

The prevalence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia has been increasing, especially in high-risk patients, including men who have sex with men, human immunodeficiency virus positive patients, and those who are immunosuppressed. Several studies with long-term follow-up have suggested that rate of progression from high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to invasive anal cancer is ? 5%. This number is considerably higher for those at high risk. Anal cytology has been used to attempt to screen high-risk patients for disease; however, it has been shown to have very little correlation to actual histology. Patients with lesions should undergo history and physical exam including digital rectal exam and standard anoscopy. High-resolution anoscopy can be considered as well, although it is of questionable time and cost?effectiveness. Nonoperative treatments include expectant surveillance and topical imiquimod or 5-fluorouracil. Operative therapies include wide local excision and targeted ablation with electrocautery, infrared coagulation, or cryotherapy. Recurrence rates remain high regardless of treatment delivered and surveillance is paramount, although optimal surveillance regimens have yet to be established.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract