Recent systematic reviews highlighted increasing use of cadaveric models in the surgical training, but reports on the characteristics of the models and their impact on training are lacking, as well as standardized recommendations on how to ensure the quality of surgical studies. The aim of our survey was to provide an easy guideline that would improve the quality of the studies involving cadavers for surgical training and research. After accurate literature review regarding surgical training on cadaveric models, a draft of the CACTUS guidelines involving 10 different items was drawn. Afterwards, the items were improved by questionnaire uploaded and spread to the experts in the field via Google form. The guideline was then reviewed following participants feedback, ergo, items that scored between 7 and 9 on nine-score Likert scale by 70% of respondents, and between 1 and 3 by fewer than 15% of respondents, were included in the proposed guideline, while items that scored between 1 and 3 by 70% of respondents, and between 7 and 9 by 15% or more of respondents were not. The process proceeded with Delphi rounds until the agreement for all items was unanimous. In total, 42 participants agreed to participate and 30 (71.4%) of them completed the Delphi survey. Unanimous agreement was almost always immediate concerning approval and ethical use of cadaver and providing brief outcome statement in terms of satisfaction in the use of the cadaver model through a short questionnaire. Other items were subjected to the minor adjustments. 'CACTUS' is a consensus-based guideline in the area of surgical training, simulation and anatomical studies and we believe that it will provide a useful guide to those writing manuscripts involving human cadavers.

Several studies have demonstrated that training with a laparoscopic simulator improves laparoscopic technical skills. We describe how to build a homemade, low-cost laparoscopic training simulator (LABOT) and its validation as a training instrument. First, sixty surgeons filled out a survey characterized by 12 closed-answer questions about realism, ergonomics, and usefulness for surgical training (global scores ranged from 1—very insufficient to 5—very good). The results of the questionnaires showed a mean (±SD) rating score of 4.18 ± 0.65 for all users. Then, 15 students (group S) and 15 residents (group R) completed 3 different tasks (T1, T2, T3), which were repeated twice to evaluate the execution time and the number of users’ procedural errors. For T1, the R group had a lower mean execution time and a lower rate of procedural errors than the S group; for T2, the R and S groups had a similar mean execution time, but the R group had a lower rate of errors; and for T3, the R and S groups had a similar mean execution time and rate of errors. On a second attempt, all the participants tended to improve their results in doing these surgical tasks; nevertheless, after subgroup analysis of the T1 results, the S group had a better improvement of both parameters. Our laparoscopic simulator is simple to build, low-cost, easy to use, and seems to be a suitable resource for improving laparoscopic skills. In the future, further studies should evaluate the potential of this laparoscopic box on long-term surgical training with more complex tasks and simulation attempts.

When planning an operation, surgeons usually rely on traditional 2D imaging. Moreover, colon neoplastic lesions are not always easy to locate macroscopically, even during surgery. A 3D virtual model may allow surgeons to localize lesions with more precision and to better visualize the anatomy. In this study, we primary analyzed and discussed the clinical impact of using such 3D models in colorectal surgery. This is a monocentric prospective observational pilot study that includes 14 consecutive patients who presented colorectal lesions with indication for surgical therapy. A staging computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and a colonoscopy were performed on each patient. The information gained from them was provided to obtain a 3D rendering. The 2D images were shown to the surgeon performing the operation, while the 3D reconstructions were shown to a second surgeon. Both of them had to locate the lesion and describe which procedure they would have performed; we then compared their answers with one another and with the intraoperative and histopathological findings. The lesion localizations based on the 3D models were accurate in 100% of cases, in contrast to conventional 2D CT scans, which could not detect the lesion in two patients (in these cases, lesion localization was based on colonoscopy). The 3D model reconstruction allowed an excellent concordance correlation between the estimated and the actual location of the lesion, allowing the surgeon to correctly plan the procedure with excellent results. Larger clinical studies are certainly required.

Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard to treat locally advanced rectal cancer. This monocentric retrospective study evaluates the results of laparotomic, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in “COMRE GROUP” (REctalCOMmittee). Methods: 327 selected stage I-II-III patients (pts) underwent TME between November 2005 and April 2020 for low or middle rectal cancer; 91 pts underwent open, 200 laparoscopic and 36 robotic TME. Of these, we analyzed the anthropomorphic, intraoperative, anatomopathological parameters and outcome during the follow up. Results: The length of hospital stay was significantly different between robotic TME and the other two groups (8.47 ± 3.54 days robotic vs. 11.93 ± 5.71 laparotomic, p < 0.001; 8.47 ± 3.54 robotic vs. 11.10 ± 7.99 laparoscopic, p < 0.05). The mean number of harvested nodes was higher in the laparotomic group compared to the other two groups (19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 8 laparoscopic, p < 0.001; 19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 7 robotic, p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 52 months (range: 1–169). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the open TME group compared with the laparoscopic one (Chi2 = 13.36, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the experience of the “COMRE” group, laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is a better choice than laparotomy in a multidisciplinary context. Robotic TME has a significant difference in terms of hospital stay compared to the other two groups.

(2020). Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES): Landscape of Current Experimental Applications in Gynecological Surgery. Journal of Investigative Surgery. Ahead of Print.