Ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery

Background The efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for pain control in other surgeries remains an interesting topic of discussion. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy and quality of recovery of ultrasound-guided bilateral ESPB in laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Material and methods In this study 50 patients were included and randomly divided into the intervention group (E group, n = 25) and the control group (C group, n = 25). Patients in the E group received general anesthesia with preoperative bilateral ultrasound-guided ESPB, whereas patients in the C group received general anesthesia with saline injection in the erector spinae plane preoperatively. Data on intraoperative and postoperative anesthetic effects and the effect on enhanced recovery after surgery were recorded and analyzed. Results Rocuronium consumption in the intervention group was 82.80 ± 21.70 mg, which was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Visual analog scale scores at 2, 6, and 24 h after surgery in the intervention group were lower than those in the control group (Fbetween = 34.034, P = 0.000). The time to ambulation, consumption of ketorolac tromethamine, time to oral intake and hospital stay after operation in the intervention group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The block area at the different baselines was significant (Fbetween = 3.211, P = 0.009). The association between baseline and time was significant (Fbaseline * time = 3.268, P = 0.001). Conclusion This study confirmed that ultrasound-guided ESPB technology is safe and beneficial for patients with colon cancer undergoing laparoscopic colon surgery.

How can surgical skills in laparoscopic colon surgery be objectively assessed?—a scoping review

Background In laparoscopic colorectal surgery, higher technical skills have been associated with improved patient outcome. With the growing interest in laparoscopic techniques, pressure on surgeons and certifying bodies is mounting to ensure that operative procedures are performed safely and efficiently. The aim of the present review was to comprehensively identify tools for skill assessment in laparoscopic colon surgery and to assess their validity as reported in the literature. Methods A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE in May 2021 to identify studies examining technical skills assessment tools in laparoscopic colon surgery. Available information on validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences) was evaluated for all included tools. Results Fourteen assessment tools were identified, of which most were procedure-specific and video-based. Most tools reported moderate validity evidence. Commonly not reported were rater training, assessment correlation with variables other than training level, and validity reproducibility and reliability in external educational settings. Conclusion The results of this review show that several tools are available for evaluation of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery, but few authors present substantial validity for tool development and use. As we move towards the implementation of new techniques in laparoscopic colon surgery, it is imperative to establish validity before surgical skill assessment tools can be applied to new procedures and settings. Therefore, future studies ought to examine different aspects of tool validity, especially correlation with other variables, such as patient morbidity and pathological reports, which impact patient survival.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS). Methods Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2, and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE. Results Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD = − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE. Conclusion RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Purely ropivacaine-based TEA vs single TAP block in pain management after elective laparoscopic colon surgery within an upgraded institutional ERAS program

Background The aim of this study was to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) with transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in post-operative pain management after laparoscopic colon surgery. Methods One hundred thirty-six patients undergoing laparoscopic colon resection randomly received either TEA or TAP with ropivacaine only. The primary endpoint was opioid requirement up to 48 h postoperatively. Intensity of pain, time to onset of bowel function, time to mobilization, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and patients’ satisfaction with pain management were also assessed. Results We observed a significant decrease in opioid consumption on the day of surgery with TEA compared with TAP block (30 mg vs 14 mg, p < 0.001). On the first two postoperative days (POD), the balance shifted to opioid consumption being smaller in the TAP group: on POD 1 (15.2 mg vs 10.6 mg; p = 0.086) and on POD 2 (9.2 mg vs 4.6 mg; p = 0.021). There were no differences in postoperative nausea/vomiting or time to first postoperative bowel movement between the groups. No direct blockade-related complications were observed and the length of stay was similar between TEA and TAP groups. Conclusion TEA is more efficient for acute postoperative pain than TAP block on day of surgery, but not on the first two PODs. No differences in pain management-related complications were detected.