Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching. Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045). These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the association between surgeons certified via the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) of the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery (JSES) and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR).Methods: Japanese National Clinical Database data on the patients undergoing LDG and LLAR between 2014‐2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The proportion of cases performed by ESSQS‐certified surgeons was calculated for each procedure, and clinicopathological factors with or without participation of ESSQS‐certified surgeons as an operator were assessed. Then, effects of operations performed by ESSQS‐certified surgeons on short‐term patient outcomes were analyzed using generalized estimating equations logistic regression analysis.Results: There were 110 610 and 65 717 patients who underwent LDG and LLAR, respectively. The operations performed by ESSQS‐certified surgeons in each procedure totaled 28 467 (35.3%) and 12 866 (31.2%), respectively. A multivariable logistic regression model showed that odds ratios of mortality for LDG and LLAR performed by ESSQS‐certified surgeons were 0.774 (95% CI, 0.566‐1.060, P = 0.108) and 0.977 (0.591‐1.301, P = 0.514), respectively. Odds ratios for secondary endpoints of anastomotic leakage in LDG and LLAR performed by ESSQS‐certified surgeons were 0.835 (95% CI, 0.723‐0.964, P = 0.014) and 0.929 (0.860‐1.003, P = 0.059), respectively, whereas that of ileus/bowel obstruction for LLAR performed by ESSQS‐certified surgeons was 1.265 (1.132‐1.415, P < 0.001). There were no significant associations between the two operations performed by ESSQS‐certified surgeons and other factors such as mortality and overall complications.Conclusions: ESSQS certification did not affect postoperative mortality following LDG and LLAR, but annual experience of laparoscopic surgery was associated with it. ESSQS certification may contribute to favorable outcomes regarding anastomotic leakage following LDG and LLAR.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the effect of the coronavirus disease pandemic on the number of surgeries for gastroenterological cancer cases in Japan.Methods: The data recorded in the National Clinical Database of Japan between 2018 and 2020 were utilized for this study. Five specific surgeries for primary cancers and surgery for acute diffuse peritonitis were considered the primary endpoints. We divided the study period into the prepandemic and postpandemic (after April 2020) periods and examined the number of surgeries in relation to clinical factors.Results: Overall, 228 860 surgeries were analyzed. Among the five primary cancer surgeries, the number of distal gastrectomies for gastric cancer decreased the most (to 81.0% of the monthly number in the prepandemic period), followed by that of low anterior resections for rectal cancer (91.4%). In contrast, the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies for pancreatic cancer increased by 7.1%, while that of surgeries for peritonitis remained stable. This trend was observed nationwide. We also noted a marked reduction in the number of distal gastrectomy (to 72.5%), low anterior resection (84.0%), and esophagectomy (88.8%) procedures for T1 tumors. The noncurative resection rate and mortalities were low despite the increased proportion of T4 tumors and older patients.Conclusion: A marked reduction in surgeries for gastric and rectal cancers with early T factors may reflect prioritization of surgeries and reduction in cancer screenings. Although the quality of the surgery was maintained in terms of reduced mortalities and morbidities, the long‐term effects of this pandemic should be monitored.

Background: The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III-j model is widely used to predict mortality in Japanese intensive care units (ICUs). Although the model’s discrimination is excellent, its calibration is poor. APACHE III-j overestimates the risk of death, making its evaluation of healthcare quality inaccurate. This study aimed to improve the calibration of the model and develop a Japan Risk of Death (JROD) model for benchmarking purposes. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using a national clinical registry of ICU patients in Japan. Adult patients admitted to an ICU between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, were included. The APACHE III-j model was recalibrated with the following models: Model 1, predicting mortality with an offset variable for the linear predictor of the APACHE III-j model using a generalized linear model; model 2, predicting mortality with the linear predictor of the APACHE III-j model using a generalized linear model; and model 3, predicting mortality with the linear predictor of the APACHE III-j model using a hierarchical generalized additive model. Model performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the Brier score, and the modified Hosmer–Lemeshow test. To confirm model applicability to evaluating quality of care, funnel plots of the standardized mortality ratio and exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) charts for mortality were drawn. Results: In total, 33,557 patients from 44 ICUs were included in the study population. ICU mortality was 3.8%, and hospital mortality was 8.1%. The AUROC, Brier score, and modified Hosmer–Lemeshow p value of the original model and models 1, 2, and 3 were 0.915, 0.062, and < .001; 0.915, 0.047, and < .001; 0.915, 0.047, and .002; and 0.917, 0.047, and .84, respectively. Except for model 3, the funnel plots showed overdispersion. The validity of the EWMA charts for the recalibrated models was determined by visual inspection. Conclusions: Model 3 showed good performance and can be adopted as the JROD model for monitoring quality of care in an ICU, although further investigation of the clinical validity of outlier detection is required. This update method may also be useful in other settings.

Background: Elective laparoscopic surgery is now widely accepted in the treatment of abdominal diseases because of its minimal invasiveness and rapid postoperative recovery. It is also used in the emergency setting for the diagnosis and treatment of acute diffuse peritonitis regardless of the causative disease. However, the value of laparoscopy in acute diffuse peritonitis remains unclear. In this study we aimed to show trends in the use of laparoscopy over time and compare the real‐world performance of laparoscopic surgery with that of open surgery for acute diffuse peritonitis due to gastrointestinal perforation.Methods: We extracted data from the National Clinical Database, a nationwide surgery registration system in Japan, for patients with a diagnosis of acute diffuse peritonitis due to gastroduodenal or colorectal perforation between 2016 and 2019. Trends in the use of laparoscopy over time were identified. Patient characteristics, laboratory findings, surgical findings, and postoperative complications were compared between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery.Results: Patients in poor condition and those with abnormal laboratory findings tended to undergo open surgery. Anesthesia time and operating time were longer for laparoscopic surgery in patients with gastroduodenal perforation but shorter in those with colorectal perforation. Fewer complications occurred in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. The number of institutions where laparoscopic surgery was performed and the proportion of the use of laparoscopy at each institution increased over time.Conclusion: The use of laparoscopy is becoming common in surgery for acute diffuse peritonitis due to gastrointestinal perforation. This approach may be a useful option for acute diffuse peritonitis.