SUMMARY Background

Aim Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is used increasingly often as an organ‐preserving treatment for early rectal cancer. If final pathology reveals unfavourable histological prognostic features, completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) is recommended. This study is the first to investigate the results of cTME after TAMIS. Method Data were retrieved from the prospective database of the Elisabeth‐TweeSteden Hospital. Completion TME patients were case matched with a control group of patients undergoing primary TME (pTME). Primary and secondary outcomes were surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes, respectively. Results From 2011 to 2017, 20 patients underwent cTME and were compared with 40 patients undergoing pTME. There were no significant differences in operating time (238 min vs 226 min, P = 0.53), blood loss (137 ml vs . 158 ml, P = 0.88) or complications (45% vs 55%, P = 0.07) between both groups. There was no 90‐day mortality in the cTME group. The mesorectal fascia was incomplete in three patients (15%) in the cTME group compared with no breaches in the pTME group ( P = 0.083). There were no local recurrences in either group. In three patients (15%), distant metastases were detected after cTME compared with one patient (2.5%) in the pTME group ( P = 0.069). After cTME patients had a 1‐ and 5‐year disease‐free survival of 85% compared with 97.5% for the pTME group ( P = 0.062). Conclusion Completion TME surgery after TAMIS is not associated with increased peri‐ or postoperative morbidity or mortality compared with pTME surgery. After cTME surgery patients have a similar disease‐free and overall survival when compared with patients undergoing pTME.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to major changes in health care and education options for all health care employees. The aim of this study is to achieve insight into coronavirus diseasecare participation of surgical residents in the Netherlands, the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on the experienced quality of surgical training, and the influence on Burn-out and Work Engagement compared with the non-coronavirus disease 2019 period in January 2020. Methods: In this study, we have conducted 2 digital surveys immediately before and 2 months after the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We surveyed a validated Dutch questionnaire 'Utrecht Burn-out Scale,' derived from the Maslach Burn-out Inventory, and also collected the 'Utrecht Work Engagement Scale' measuring work engagement. Additionally, we describe the coronavirus disease-care participation of surgical residents, the impact on how they experienced the quality of their surgical training, and the influence on 'Burn-out and Work Engagement' compared with the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period for surgical residents in the Netherlands. Results: In January 2020, a total of 317 residents completed the online survey, and in April 2020, a total of 313 residents completed the online survey. Of the responders, 48.6%, in April, participated in coronavirus disease-care in both the coronavirus disease ward as well as the coronavirus disease intensive care unit. Residents experienced that the coronavirus disease 2019 influenced their surgical training in 85.2% of responders. In only 5% of the residents did the pandemic not affect the exposure to surgical training in the operating theater. More burn-out symptoms were noted amongst coronavirus disease ward deployed residents versus no coronavirus disease ward deployment, (16.0% vs 7.6%, P ¼ .06). The Work-Engagement questionnaire showed a significantly lower work engagement score of 4.2 for residents who were deployed in a coronavirus disease-care intensive care unit versus a score of 4.6 for residents scheduled in a coronavirus disease ward (P ¼ .02). Conclusion:This study shows a significant impact of the first months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the Dutch surgical trainee program, with a major redistribution of residents with a decrease of surgical exposure and education. We emphasize the need for adequate guidance of all surgical residents and potentially lengthening the surgical training program.

Background Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single‐port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME. Methods A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta‐analysis were pooled using a random‐effects model. Results A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta‐analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment. Conclusion No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.

No abstract