This study confirmed the presence of harmful materials in surgical smoke. Evacuation of surgical smoke through a disposable built-in-filter trocar is a simple and effective way in reducing volatile organic compounds concentrations.

Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was once considered as a Western disease. However, recent epidemiological data showed an emerging trend of IBD cases in the Eastern Asia countries. Clinico-epidemiological data of IBD in Malaysia is scarce. This study aimed to address this issue. Methods Retrospective analysis of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), diagnosed from January 1980 till June 2018 was conducted at our centre. Results A total of 413 IBD patients (281 UC, 132 CD) were identified. Mean crude incidence of IBD has increased steadily over the first three decades: 0.36 (1980–1989), 0.48 (1990–1999) and 0.63 per 100,000 person-years (2000–2009). In the 2010 to 2018 period, the mean crude incidence has doubled to 1.46 per 100,000 person-years. There was a significant rise in the incidence of CD, as depicted by reducing UC:CD ratio: 5:1 (1980–1989), 5:1 (1990–1999), 1.9:1 (2000–2009) and 1.7:1 (2010–2018). The prevalence rate of IBD, UC and CD, respectively were 23.0, 15.67 and 7.36 per 100,000 persons. Of all IBD patients, 61.5% ( n = 254) were males. When stratified according to ethnic group, the highest prevalence of IBD was among the Indians: 73.4 per 100,000 persons, followed by Malays: 24.8 per 100,000 persons and Chinese: 14.6 per 100,000 persons. The mean age of diagnosis was 41.2 years for UC and 27.4 years for CD. Majority were non-smokers (UC: 76.9%, CD: 70.5%). The diseases were classified as follows: UC; proctitis (9.2%), left-sided colitis (50.2%) and extensive colitis (40.6%), CD; isolated ileal (22.7%), colonic (28.8%), ileocolonic (47.7%) and upper gastrointestinal (0.8%). 12.9% of CD patients had concurrent perianal disease. Extra intestinal manifestations were observed more in CD (53.8%) as compared to UC (12%). Dysplasia and malignancy, on the other hand, occurred more in UC (4.3%, n = 12) than in CD (0.8%, n = 1). Over one quarter (27.3%) of CD patients and 3.6% of UC patients received biologic therapy. Conclusion The incidence of IBD is rising in Malaysia, especially in the last one decade. This might be associated with the urbanization and changing diets. Public and clinicians’ awareness of this emerging disease in Malaysia is important for the timely detection and management.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at the earlier stages could effectively decrease CRC-related mortality and incidence; however, accurate screening strategies are still lacking. Considerable interest has been generated in the detection of less invasive tests requiring a small sample volume with the potential to detect several cancer biomarkers simultaneously. Due to this, the ELISA-based method was undertaken in this study. Methods: Concentrations of neural cell adhesion molecule L1 (L1CAM), carbonic anhydrase IX (CA9), mesothelin (MSLN), midkine (MDK), hepsin (HPN), kallikrein 6 (KLK6), transglutaminase 2 (TGM2) aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 family, member A1 (ALDH1A1), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), and cluster of differentiation 44 (CD44) from blood serum of 36 primary CRC and 24 metastatic CRC (mCRC) were calculated via MAGPIX® System (Luminex Corporation, USA). Results: Significantly increased concentration (p < 0.05) of three serum biomarkers (L1CAM, CA9, and HPN) were shown in mCRC when compared with primary CRC. HPN and KLK6 showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in concentration among different stages of CRC. In contrast, levels of HPN and ALDH1A1 were significantly elevated (p < 0.05) in chemotherapy-treated CRC patients as compared with nontreated ones. Conclusion: Serum biomarkers could act as a potential early CRC diagnostics test, but further additional testings are needed.

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.

Robotic surgery has the upper hand when compared to the laparoscopic approach in terms of superior visualisation, flexibility in movement, steadiness and accessibility to confined anatomical spaces.Nevertheless, limitations still exist with regards to cost, reduced tactile sensation, time-consuming setup and a significant learning curve to achieve. Although studies have shown better or at least comparable outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approach, the limitations mentioned result in poor penetrance among centres and surgeons. Advancements in robotic surgery technology and attaining the acquired skillset will translate into better clinical outcomes for patients.