Hor, Hoe Yan

Abstract Background Robotic left pancreatectomy (RLP) is increasingly adopted worldwide. Current guidelines suggest a learning curve of 21 cases, yet its impact on major morbidity and oncological quality remains uncertain. Methods A retrospective multicentre international study was undertaken across 10 centres in the UK, Spain, Germany, the USA, and Australia (2014–2025). Consecutive patients undergoing RLP were categorised into competency (first 21 cases per centre) or proficiency phase (>21). The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ IIIa), and secondary outcome was the R1-margin rate. Mixed-effects logistic regression and risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) analyses were performed. Results 521 patients underwent RLP, including 200 (38.4%) in the competency phase and 321 (61.6%) in the proficiency phase. Median age was 63 years (IQR 54–73), and 56.4% were female. Rates of major morbidity were similar between phases (14.5% versus 14.0%, P = 0.981), as were R1 margin rates (21.6% versus 19.7%, P = 0.092). Independent predictors of major morbidity included male sex (OR 1.76, P = 0.037), preoperative pancreatitis (OR 2.23, P = 0.031), and multivisceral resection (OR 2.29, P = 0.034). Among patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 110), prolonged operative time (OR 1.39 per hour, P = 0.004) and nodal positivity (OR 2.62, P = 0.047) predicted R1 resection, while learning phase was not associated with margin status. RA-CUSUM demonstrated no excess morbidity over time in any centre. Conclusions In this first multicentre international analysis, the learning phase of RLP did not increase the risk of major morbidity or compromise oncological quality. These findings support the safe global adoption of RLP with appropriate training and case selection.

Abstract Aim Rectal prolapse is a full‐thickness intussusception of the rectum beyond the anal canal. It is often mistaken for other anorectal pathologies, leading to inaccurate referrals to colorectal surgeons and inappropriate management. However, the frequency of misdiagnosis is not well characterized. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of rectal prolapse referrals to three tertiary medical centres. Methods This is a retrospective study of patients referred for rectal prolapse to colorectal surgeons at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix from 2020 to 2024. The primary outcome is the accuracy of rectal prolapse diagnosis. The secondary outcomes are factors that correlate with diagnostic accuracy. Results Rectal prolapse was inaccurately diagnosed in 38.7% (186/480) of patients. Among misdiagnosed patients, the correct diagnosis was haemorrhoids (68.0%, n = 134), pelvic floor dysfunction (24.3%, n = 48) and rectocele (18.7%, n = 37). A diagnosis of rectal cancer was found in 3 patients (1.5%). The most common presenting symptoms were protrusion (66.3%, n = 345) and bleeding (33.6%, n = 175). Among the referring physicians, only 50.5% ( n = 227) performed an anorectal examination. Overall, there was significant variability in diagnostic accuracy across different specialties, with the highest accuracy from colorectal practices (84.0%) and the lowest from urologists (50.0%). Internal medicine physicians had a lower diagnostic accuracy with anorectal examination than without, though it did not reach statistical significance (44.0% vs. 59.5%, p = 0.2). Conclusion Over one‐third of rectal prolapse referrals were incorrectly diagnosed. This study highlights the opportunity for further training of referring providers on anorectal pathologies to improve diagnostic accuracy which could reduce treatment delays and optimize clinical outcomes.

Background: Upfront resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is defined by the NCCN as disease with ≤180° portomesenteric vein (PMV) abutment. However, the clinical significance of PMV abutment in this cohort remains unexplored, and we sought to investigate its impact. Methods: This multi-institutional study included patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for upfront resectable PDAC from 2002 to 2023. Patients with PDAC with ≤180° PMV abutment were compared with those without. Overall survival (OS) was compared and stratified based on whether patients underwent upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Results: Among 1,446 patients included, 521 (36.0%) had PMV abutment. Median OS for patients with PMV abutment was 28.8 months compared with 31.2 months for those without ( P =.17). In a stratified analysis of patients who underwent upfront surgery, patients with PMV abutment had worse OS (19.2 vs 27.6 months; P <.05) and lower R0 resection rates (63.1% vs 87.2%; P <.05) compared with those without. However, in patients who underwent NAT, this difference in R0 resection rate was not observed (91.4% vs 94.0%, respectively; P =.27). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in median OS with NAT (42.5 vs 51.6 months, respectively; P =.48). Conclusions: In this largest cohort to date of patients with upfront resectable PDAC, PMV abutment was associated with worse OS compared with no PMV abutment when an upfront resection strategy was used. The use of NAT in patients with PMV abutment mitigated this survival difference with increased R0 resection rates. These findings suggest that patients with upfront resectable PDAC with PMV abutment benefit from a NAT approach for optimal survival outcomes, and that the current criteria guidelines need to be redefined.