Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to November 10th, 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD=-0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

P-OGC05 The introduction of an Upper Gastrointestinal (UGI) specific menu can reduce the need for routine jejunostomy (JEJ) placement following UGI Cancer resection

Background Despite the fact that early oral feeding (EOF) after the surgical resection of oesophageal and gastric tumours is safe, and is associated with favourable early in-hospital outcomes, sooner return to physiological GI function and hospital discharge, there can still be some reluctance in establishing EOF. Concerns remain around risk of anastomotic leak, pneumonia, Naso-gastric tube (NGT) reinsertion, re-operation, readmissions and mortality. However, when utilising EOF, a reduction in length of stay, earlier removal of NGT and earlier initiation of soft diet can be observed. JEJ placement is beneficial however complications can arise and the optimal nutritional pathway remains debatable. Methods Patient satisfaction surveys were conducted amongst UGI Cancer patients following Cancer resection and analysed pre and post UGI menu development and staff training. Expert UGI Patient volunteers assisted in the UGI menu development through food tastings producing a new menu in collaboration with the catering department. The new menu was launched and an UGI snack box provided to the UGI Enhanced Recovery Unit (ERAS). Oral intake of Diet and Oral Nutritional Support was analysed for calorie and protein content post menu change, ward staff training and specialist UGI dietetic counselling. This was then compared with calculated minimum estimated nutritional requirements. Results Of the ten patients audited pre discharge: Remaining 1 patient achieved 51% of protein requirements, below the aim of 60%. No patient audited required supplementary Enteral feeding via JEJ or Naso-jejunal tube Patient satisfaction surveys were completed prior to catering staff training and menu revision, after the new menu was implemented. The results show a significant improvement in patient satisfaction following UGI menu implementation. Conclusions Specialist UGI RD support, UGI specific menu and Oral Nutritional Support can reduce the need for routine JEJ placement in favour of on an individual patient basis. Collaborative working between UGI Dietitians, Ward staff, Catering staff and Expert patients is required for UGI specific menu development to be effectual. This audit is limited to small numbers due to adapted operational procedures during the pandemic. This audit will be repeated on a larger scale to yield more meaningful data. Future audit will capture data on how many UGI patients went on to require enteral nutritional support with three months of discharge.