ORCID Profile
0000-0002-7834-1767
Current Organisations
University of New South Wales South Western Sydney Clinical School
,
Nepean Hospital
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-10-2022
DOI: 10.1007/S11701-022-01462-1
Abstract: Laparoscopic rectal surgery within the confines of a narrow pelvis may be associated with a high rate of open conversion. In the obese and morbidly obese patient, the complexity of laparoscopic surgery increases substantially. Robotic technology is known to reduce the risk of conversion, but it is unclear if it can overcome the technical challenges associated with obesity. The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify obese patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal resection from 2015 to 2016. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . Morbid obesity was defined as a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m 2 . The primary outcome was unplanned conversions to open. Other outcomes measures assessed included anastomotic leak, operative time, surgical site infections, length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM SPSS, USA). 1490 patients had robotic-assisted and 4967 patients had laparoscopic rectal resections between 2015 and 2016. Of those patients, 561 obese patients had robotic-assisted rectal resections and 1824 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery. In the obese cohort, the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 14% compared to 24% in the laparoscopic group ( P 0.0001). Median operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (248 min vs. 215 min, P 0.0001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak or systemic sepsis between the laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery groups. In morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m 2 ), the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 19% compared to 26% in the laparoscopic group ( P 0.027). There was no difference in anastomotic leak, systemic sepsis or surgical site infection rates between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with fewer unplanned conversions to open (OR 0.28, P 0.0001). Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with a decreased risk of conversion to open in obese and morbidly obese patients when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time and despite improvement in the rate of conversion to open, there was no difference in complications or length of stay. Our findings are limited by the retrospective non-randomised nature of the study, demographic differences between the two groups, and the likely difference in surgeon experience between the two groups. Large randomised controlled studies are needed to further explore the role of robotic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-12-2022
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.18200
Abstract: Rectal intussusception is often observed in patients with faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation. The aim of this study is to assess if pelvic floor training improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation in patients with rectal intussusception. Case notes of all patients referred to Bankstown Hospital Pelvic Floor Clinic between 2013 and 2018 for the management of faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation and rectal intussusception were retrospectively reviewed using a prospectively maintained database. St Mark's faecal incontinence and Cleveland clinic constipation scores were obtained from patients before and after they underwent pelvic floor training. One hundred and thirty‐one patients underwent pelvic floor training at Bankstown Hospital Pelvic Floor Clinic between 2013 and 2018. Sixty‐one patients had rectal intussusception (22 low‐grade and 39 high‐grade). Median St Marks score improved following pelvic floor training from 8 to 1 ( P 0.001). Median Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 8 to 5 ( P 0.001). In patients with low grade rectal intussusception, pelvic floor training improved median St Mark's score from 3 to 0 ( P = 0.003), whereas Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 9 to 7 ( P 0.001). In patients with high‐grade rectal intussusception, pelvic floor training improved median St Mark's score from 9 to 2 ( P 0.001), whereas median Cleveland Clinic constipation score improved from 8 to 4 ( P 0.001). Pelvic floor training without biofeedback therapy improves faecal incontinence and obstructed defaecation. Improvement in symptoms is unrelated to rectal intussusception observed on proctography or at examination under anaesthesia in these patients.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.1007/S10151-019-02014-W
Abstract: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is a treatment with promising results in external rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. Because of the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery and the technical advantage it provides, we examined the potential role and place of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy. MEDLINE, PubMed, and other databases were searched, by two independent reviewers, to identify studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned conversion to open. The secondary outcomes were morbidity, length of hospital stay and recurrence rate. Five studies (4% male, n = 259) met the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported on conversion rate and showed no significant difference between the conversion rate of robotic and laparoscopic groups [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.09-3.77)]. Robotic surgery was also similar to laparoscopic surgery for both morbidity [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34-1.48)] and recurrence rate [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-1.75)]. Operative time was longer in the robotic group with a MWD of 22.88 minutes (CI 5.73-40.04, p < 0.0007). There was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay with robotic surgery [mean difference - 0.36 days (95% CI - 0.66 to - 0.07)]. This systematic review shows that robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy requires longer operative time with no significant added benefit over laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. The conversion rate was low in both groups and the trends to benefit did not reach statistical significance. More studies are required to clarify whether the potential technical advantage of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy translates to an improvement in clinical outcome.
Location: Australia
No related grants have been discovered for Sinan Albayati.