Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

With the rapid evolution of robotics, computer-aided surgery is receiving increasing interest. This paper details the authors' experience with 3D-rendered images projected inside the surgical console. The use of this intra-operative mixed reality technology is considered very useful by the surgeon. It has been shown that the usefulness of this technique is a step toward computer-aided surgery that will progress very quickly over the next few years.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision and pelvic exenteration are mutilating operations that leave wide perineal wounds. Such large wounds are prone to infection and perineal herniation, and their closure is a major concern to most surgeons. Different approaches to the perineal repair exist, varying from primary or mesh closure to myocutaneous flaps. Each technique has its own associated advantages and potential complications and the ideal approach is still debated. In the present study, we reviewed the current literature and our own local data regarding the use of biological mesh for perineal wound closure. Current evidence suggests that the use of biological mesh carries an acceptable risk of wound complications compared to primary closure and is similar to flap reconstruction. In addition, the rate of perineal hernia is lower in early follow-up, while long-term hernia occurrence appears to be similar between the different techniques. Finally, it is an easy and quick reconstruction method. Although more expensive than primary closure, the cost associated with the use of a biological mesh is at least equal, if not less, than flap reconstruction.

IntroductionBowel viability can be difficult to evaluate during emergency surgery. Near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence angiography allows an intraoperative assessment of organ perfusion during elective surgery and might help to evaluate intestinal perfusion during emergency procedures. The aim of this study was to assess if NIR modified operative strategy during emergency surgery.Materials and methodsFrom July 2014 to December 2015, we prospectively evaluated all consecutive patients, who had NIR assessment during emergency surgery. Primary endpoint was the modification of operative strategy after the assessment with NIR. Secondary endpoints were general post-operative outcomes, including reoperation rate.ResultsFifty-six patients were included in the study. Mean age was 64 ± 17 years. An exploratory laparoscopy was performed in 39% (n = 22) and an open surgery in 61% of cases (n = 34). Conversion rate to open surgery was 41% (n = 9). 32 patients had a bowel resection. In 32% of the cases (n = 18), the result of the NIR test led to a modification of the operative strategy. Among them, 33% (n = 6) had a larger resection or a resection, which was initially not planned. The other 12 patients (67%) had finally no resection, which was initially thought to be performed. Importantly, none of those patients needed a reoperation for ischemia. Mean time for performing NIR test was 167 s (± 121). Overall reoperation rate was 16.1% (n = 9). Two patients had an anastomotic leak. Eight patients (14.3%) died within the first 30 post-operative days; however, none of them presented a bowel ischemia or an anastomotic leak.ConclusionNIR is an easy and short procedure, which can be performed during emergency surgery to assess bowel perfusion. It may help the surgeon to preserve intestinal length or to define the exact limits of resection. Overall, we report a modification of operative strategy in up to one-third of evaluated patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-018-6226-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short‐term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02–2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10–7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non‐transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed‐effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77–1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79–5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55–4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52–3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. Conclusion This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.