Protein-energy malnourishment is commonly encountered in patients with end-stage liver disease who undergo liver transplantation. Malnutrition may further increase morbidity, mortality and costs in the post-transplantation setting. The importance of carefully assessing the nutritional status during the work-up of patients who are candidates for liver replacement is widely recognized. The metabolic abnormalities induced by liver failure render the conventional assessment of nutritional status to be challenging. Preoperative loss of skeletal muscle mass, namely, sarcopenia, has a significant detrimental impact on post-transplant outcomes. It is essential to provide sufficient nutritional support during all phases of liver transplantation. Oral nutrition is preferred, but tube enteral nutrition may be required to provide the needed energy intake. Herein, the latest currently employed perioperative nutritional interventions in liver transplant recipients are thoroughly illustrated including synbiotics, micronutrients, branched-chain amino acid supplementation, immunonutrition formulas, fluid and electrolyte balance, the offering of nocturnal meals, dietary counselling, exercise and rehabilitation.

Introduction: Laparoscopic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is a technically challenging procedure, and there are limitations in conventional laparoscopy. A surgical robotic system may help to overcome some of the limitations. The aim of our study was to compare long-term oncological outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. One-hundred-three robotic and 84 laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excisions were performed by a single surgeon between January 2011 and January 2020. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications, pathology results, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: The patients’ characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (180 minutes versus 140 minutes, p=0.033). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the robotic group was complete in 96 (93.20%), near complete in four (3.88%) and incomplete in three (2.91%) patients. In the laparoscopic group, grading was complete in 37 (44.04%), near complete in 40 (47.61%) and incomplete in seven (8.33%) patients (p=0.03). The median length of follow up was 48 (9–102) months in the robotic, and 75.6 (11–113) months in the laparoscopic group. Overall, five-year survival was 87% in the robotic and 85.3% in the laparoscopic groups. Local recurrence rates were 3.8% and 7.14%, respectively, in the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: Sphincter-saving robotic total mesorectal excision is a safe and feasible tool, which provides good mesorectal integrity and better local control in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract