Purpose: To compare early postoperative outcomes after transversus abdominis release (TAR) for ventral hernia repair with open (oTAR) and robotic (rTAR) approach. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until October 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative short-term outcomes was performed including complications rate, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSO requiring intervention (SSOPI), systemic complications, readmission, and reoperation rates as measure outcomes. Results: Six retrospective studies were included in the analysis with a total of 831 patients who underwent rTAR (n = 237) and oTAR (n = 594). Robotic TAR was associated with lower risk of complications rate (9.3 vs 20.7%, OR 0.358, 95% CI 0.218–0.589, p < 0.001), lower risk of developing SSO (5.3 vs 11.5%, OR 0.669, 95% CI 0.307–1.458, p = 0.02), lower risk of developing systemic complications (6.3 vs 26.5%, OR 0.208, 95% CI 0.100–0.433, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD − 4.409, 95% CI − 6.000 to − 2.818, p < 0.001) but longer operative time (SMD 53.115, 95% CI 30.236–75.993, p < 0.01) compared with oTAR. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of SSI, SSOPI, readmission, and reoperation rates. Conclusion: Robotic TAR improves recovery by adding the benefits of minimally invasive procedures when compared to open surgery. Although postoperative complications appear to decrease with a robotic approach, further studies are needed to support the real long-term and cost-effective advantages.

Intraoperative use of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging in rectal cancer surgery: The state of the art

Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. National Institute for Health and Care Research.