Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008;34:498-504. [PMID: 18468803 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.011]

Short-term outcomes after elective colon cancer surgery: an observational study from the Norwegian registry for gastrointestinal and HPB surgery, NoRGast

BACKGROUND

To describe the real burden of major complications after elective surgery for colon cancer in Norway, and to assess which predictors that are significantly associated with the short-term outcome.

METHODS

An observational, multi-centre analysis of prospectively registered colon resections registered into the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery, NoRGast, between January 2014 and December 2016. A propensity score-adjusted subgroup analysis for surgical access groups was attempted, with laparoscopic resections grouped as intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Out of 1812 resections, 14.0% of patients experienced a major complication within 30 days following surgery. The over-all reoperation rate was 8.7%, and rate of reoperation for anastomotic leak was 3.8%. Twenty patients (1.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Higher age was not a significant predictor of major complications, including 30-day mortality. After correction for all co-variables, open access surgery was associated with higher rates of major complications (OR 1.67 (CI 1.22-2.29), p = 0.002), higher 30-day mortality (OR 4.39 (CI 1.19-16.13) p = 0.026) and longer length-of-stay (HR 0.58 (CI 0.52-0.65) p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate a low complication burden and high rate of uneventful patient journeys after elective surgery for colon cancer in Norway. Age was not associated with higher morbidity or mortality rates. Open access surgery was associated with an inferior short-term outcome.

Clinical Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery for T4 Colon Cancer Compared with Open Surgery: A Single Center's Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer remains controversial according to many colorectal cancer guidelines. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent T4 colon cancer resection by laparoscopy versus open surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent T4 colon cancer resection either by laparoscopy or by open surgery between January 2012 and January 2017 were included and used to perform a retrospective cohort analysis. Demographics, patient characteristics, short-term outcomes, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between two groups. Multivariate analyses were used to define prognostic factors of overall survival.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Intraoperative blood loss (127.3 versus 226.1 mL, P = .001) and hospital stay (11.6 versus 14.8 days, P = .001) were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group. Operative time, bowel movement, time to soft diet, and lymph nodes harvested did not significantly differ between the two groups. R0 resection achieved 100% in both the groups. Similarly, the overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate in stage II and stage III disease showed no significant differences. Multivariate analyses showed that intraoperative blood loss was a significantly independent factor related to a poor prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that laparoscopy for T4 colon cancer can be safely performed with superior short-term outcomes, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter time of hospital stay compared with open surgery, and with similar long-term oncological outcomes. Therefore, laparoscopic procedure could be a viable option in selected patients.

Effects of laparoscopic surgery on survival, quality of care and utilization in patients with colon cancer: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective treatment for colon cancer. However, its effects on short- and long-term health outcomes and medical utilization are not fully elucidated. This study aimed to compare short- and long-term utilization and health outcomes of colon cancer patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

This study was conducted by linking data from Taiwan Cancer Registry, National Health Insurance claims and Death Registry. Patients aged 18 and older with colon cancer between 2009 and 2012 were included in the study. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias between laparoscopic and open surgery groups. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear mixed logistic regression were used to test hypotheses.

RESULTS

Among the 11,269 colon cancer patients who underwent colectomy, 3236 (28.72%) received laparoscopy and 8033 (71.28%) underwent open surgery. Patients who received laparoscopic surgery had better overall survival (HR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97). These patients also had lower 30 day mortality (0.44% vs. 0.91%), lower 1 year mortality (2.83% vs. 4.68%), lower overall occurrence of complications (6.16% vs. 8.77%), shorter mean length of stay (12.53 vs. 14.93 days) and lower cost for index hospitalization (US$4325.34 vs. US$4453.90). No significant differences were observed in medical utilization over a period of 365 days after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that, in both the short- and long-term post-operation periods, laparoscopic surgery reduced the likelihood of postoperative complications, 30 day, and 1 year mortality while being no more expensive than open surgery for colon cancer.

Comparison Between Laparoscopic and Open Resection Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The optimal approach of resection for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to clarify the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery compared with open resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a literature search for studies on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library up to March 1, 2018. Review Manager software was applied for data analysis. We used weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous parameters and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables. Confidence interval (CI) was set at 95% and a P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis: 466 patients in laparoscopic group and 491 in open group. The pooled result revealed that laparoscopic resection had a favorable blood loss (WMD = -116.88 mL; 95% CI: -189.78 to -43.99; P = .002), analogous lymph nodes harvest (WMD = -0.30; 95% CI: -1.29 to 0.70; P = .56), less postoperative complications (OR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.88; P = .006), shorter time to pass first flatus (WMD = -0.76 day; 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.51; P < .00001), and stay in hospital (WMD = -2.71 days; 95% CI: -4.54 to -0.88; P = .004), despite similar operating time (WMD = 11.17 minutes; 95% CI: -14.37 to 36.70; P = .39).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection might be a technically safe and feasible approach for mid-low rectal cancer patients after nCRT compared with open resection.

Short- and Long-Term Oncological Outcome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

While several trials have compared laparoscopic to open surgery for colon cancer showing similar oncological results, oncological quality of laparoscopic versus open rectal resection is not well investigated.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. Qualitative and quantitative meta-analyses of short-term (rate of complete resections, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin positivity) and long-term (recurrence, disease-free and overall survival) oncologic results were conducted.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were identified including 3528 patients. Patients in the open resection group had significantly more complete resections (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51-0.97; p = 0.03) and a higher number of resected lymph nodes (mean difference - 0.92; 95% CI - 1.08 to 0.75; p < 0.001). No differences were detected in the frequency of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62-1.10; p = 0.18). Furthermore, no significant differences of long-term oncologic outcome parameters after 5 years including locoregional recurrence (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.44-2.05; p = 0.89), disease-free survival (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.84-1.58; p = 0.36), and overall survival (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.76-1.41; p = 0.82) were found. Most trials exhibited a relevant risk of bias and several studies provided no information on the surgical expertise of the participating surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Differences in oncologic outcome between laparoscopic and open rectal surgery for rectal cancer were detected for the complete resection rate and the number of resected lymph nodes in favor of the open approach. No statistically significant differences were found in oncologic long-term outcome parameters.

PRE- AND POSTOPERATIVE IMAGING METHODS IN COLORECTAL CANCER

INTRODUCTION

Among the screening tests for colorectal cancer, colonoscopy is currently considered the most sensitive and specific technique. However, computed tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and transrectal ultrasonography have gained significant ground in the clinical practice of pre-treatment, screening and, more recently, post-treatment and surgical evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the high accuracy of CT and MRI for pre and postoperative colorectal cancer staging.

METHODS

Search and analysis of articles in Pubmed, Scielo, Capes Periodicals and American College of Radiology with headings "colorectal cancer" and "colonography". Weew selected 30 articles that contained radiological descriptions, management or statistical data related to this type of neoplasia. The criteria for radiological diagnosis were the American College of Radiology.

RESULTS

The great majority of patients with this subgroup of neoplasia is submitted to surgical procedures with the objective of cure or relief, except those with clinical contraindication. CTC colonography is not the most commonly used technique for screening; however, it is widely used for treatment planning, assessment of the abdomen for local complications or presence of metastasis, and post-surgical evaluation. MRI colonography is an alternative diagnostic method to CT, recommended by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Although there are still no major studies on the use of MRI for screening, the high resolution examination has now shown good results for the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM classification.

CONCLUSION

MRI and CT represent the best means for colorectal neoplasm staging. The use of these methods as screening tools becomes beneficial to decrease complications and discomfort related to colonoscopy.

Laparoscopic right-sided colon resection for colon cancer-has the control group so far been chosen correctly?

Background

The treatment strategies for colorectal cancer located in the right side of the colon have changed dramatically during the last decade. Due to the introduction of complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central ligation of the vessels and systematic lymph node dissection, the long-term survival of affected patients has increased significantly. It has also been proposed that right-sided colon resection can be performed laparoscopically with the same extent of resection and equal long-term results.

Methods

A retrospective evaluation of a prospectively expanded database on right-sided colorectal cancer or adenoma treated at the University Hospital of Wuerzburg between 2009 and 2016 was performed. All patients underwent CME. This data was analyzed alone and in comparison to the published data describing laparoscopic right-sided colon resection for colon cancer.

Results

The database contains 279 patients, who underwent right-sided colon resection due to colorectal cancer or colorectal adenoma (255 open; 24 laparoscopic). Operation data (time, length of stay, time on ICU) was equal or superior to laparoscopy, which is comparable to the published results. Surprisingly, the surrogate parameter for correct CME (the number of removed lymph nodes) was significantly higher in the open group. In a subgroup analysis only including patients who were feasible for laparoscopic resection and had been operated with an open procedure by an experienced surgeon, operation time was significantly shorter and the number of removed lymph nodes is significantly higher in the open group.

Conclusion

So far, several studies demonstrate that laparoscopic right-sided colon resection is comparable to open resection. Our data suggests that a consequent CME during an open operation leads to significantly more removed lymph nodes than in laparoscopically resected patients and in several so far published data of open control groups from Europe. Further prospective randomized trials comparing the long-term outcome are urgently needed before laparoscopy for right-sided colon resection can be recommended ubiquitously.

Robotic left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy for splenic flexure and descending colon cancer, compared with a laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Its relatively low incidence and its surgical complexity mean that a standardized technique for left colectomy has not yet been established for splenic flexure and descending colon cancer (SF-DCC).

METHODS

Seventy-three patients (robot-assisted left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy [R-LCCM], n = 20; laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy [L-LCCM], n = 53) with SF-DCC were enrolled at the Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea).

RESULTS

R-LCCM conveniently enables dexterous dissection for the multi-directional approaches during left mesocolic mobilization. A conversion to open surgery was required in two patients of the L-LCCM group, but not in the R-LCCM group. A positive circumferential resection margin was exclusively identified in two patients in the L-LCCM group. Mean lymph node harvest was 21 with no difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although R-LCCM provided few remarkable advantages over L-LCCM, it could be considered as an efficient approach in patients with SF-DCC.

Association between institutional procedural preference and in-hospital outcomes in laparoscopic surgeries; Insights from a retrospective cohort analysis of a nationwide surgical database in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of laparoscopic surgeries (LS) and the association between its performance and hospitals' preference for LS over open surgeries.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

LS is increasingly used in many abdominal surgeries, albeit both with and without solid guideline recommendations. To date, the hospitals' preference (LS vs. open surgeries) and its association with in-hospital outcomes has not been evaluated.

METHODS

We enrolled patients undergoing 8 types of gastrointestinal surgeries in 2011-2013 in the Japanese National Clinical Database. We assessed the use of LS and the occurrences of surgery-related morbidity and mortality during the study period. Further, for 4 typical LS procedures, we assessed the hospitals' preference for LS by modeling the propensity to perform LS (over open surgeries) from patient-level factors, and estimating each institution's observed/expected (O/E) ratio for LS use. Institutions with O/E>2 were defined as LS-dominant. Using hierarchical logistic regression models, we assessed the association between LS preference and in-hospital outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1,377,118 patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures in 2,336 participating hospitals, use of LS increased in all 8 procedures (35.1% to 44.7% for distal gastrectomy (DG), and 27.5% to 43.2% for right hemi colectomy (RHC)). Those operated at LS-dominant hospitals were at an increased risk of operative death (OR 1.83 [95%CI, 1.37-2.45] for DG, 1.79 [95%CI, 1.43-2.25] for RHC) compared to standard O/E level hospitals (0.5≤O/E<2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

LS use widely increased during 2011-2013 in Japan. Facilities with higher than expected LS use had higher mortality compared to other hospitals, suggesting a need for careful patient selection and dissemination of the procedure.

The value of contrast-enhanced laparoscopic ultrasound during robotic-assisted surgery for primary colorectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the potential clinical value of contrast enhanced laparoscopic ultrasonography (CE-LUS) as a screening modality for liver metastases during robotic assisted surgery for primary colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

A prospective, descriptive (feasibility) study including 50 consecutive patients scheduled for robotic assisted surgery for primary CRC. CE-LUS was performed by 2 experienced specialists. Only patients without metastatic disease were included. Follow-up was obtained with contrast-enhanced CT imaging at 3 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included; 45 patients were available for final analysis. The patients were equally distributed between stage I, II, and III according to the TNM classification system. No liver metastasis was detected during LUS and CE-LUS. CE-LUS was easy to perform and there was no complication. Follow-up revealed no liver metastasis in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

CE-LUS did not increase the detection rate of occult liver metastasis during robotic assisted primary CRC surgery. The use of CE-LUS as a screening modality for detection of liver metastasis cannot be recommended based on this study, but larger controlled studies on high-risk patients seem relevant.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Approach for Right-Sided Colectomy: A Study in 12,006 Patients from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate whether laparoscopic right colectomy is superior to open surgery. The purpose of this study was to address this issue and arrive at a consensus using data from a national database.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective open or laparoscopic right colectomy for colorectal cancer during the period 2009-2013 were identified from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Complications that occurred within 30 days after surgery and 30-day mortality rates were calculated and compared between open and laparoscopic resection.

RESULTS

In total, 12,006 patients underwent elective open or laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colorectal cancer. Of these, 6,683 (55.7%) underwent open resection and 5,323 (44.3%) underwent laparoscopic resection. Complications occurred within 30 days after surgery in the laparoscopic group in 26.1% of patients and in 32.1% of patients in the open group (p < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was also significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (2.2 vs. 3.6% p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this non-randomized, descriptive study conducted in the Netherlands, open right colectomy seems to have a higher risk for complications and mortality as compared to laparoscopic right colectomy, even after correction for confounding factors.

Evaluation of pet owner preferences for operative sterilization techniques in female dogs within the veterinary community

OBJECTIVE

To describe pet owner preferences within the veterinary community when choosing operative techniques for canine spay.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective survey.

SAMPLE POPULATION

1234 respondents from 5 veterinary university teaching hospitals in North America.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to faculty, students, and staff that currently are or previously were dog owners. Responses were analyzed to determine what spay technique respondents would choose for their own dogs. Surgical options offered included open celiotomy, 2-port (TP) laparoscopy, single-port (SP) laparoscopy, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES).

RESULTS

TP laparoscopic ovariectomy (OVE) was the most popular choice, followed by SP laparoscopic OVE; NOTES was the least popular technique when all surgical options were available. If only minimally invasive surgeries were offered, 0.3% of respondents would refuse surgery. Nearly half (48%) of respondents were willing to spend between $100 and $200 more for a minimally invasive OVE than for an open celiotomy.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive OVE is an acceptable operative approach to those in the veterinary community. Additional study is required to correlate these findings with the general veterinary client population.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery, mini-laparotomy and conventional laparotomy in patients with Stage I-III colorectal cancer

Background:

Three operative techniques have been used for colorectal cancer (CRC) resection: Conventional laparotomy (CL) and the mini-invasive techniques (MITs)– laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) and mini-laparotomy (ML). The aim of the study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the three surgical approaches for Stage I–III CRC resection.

Patients and Methods:

This study enrolled 688 patients with Stage I–III CRC undergoing curative resection. The primary endpoints were perioperative quality and outcomes. The secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR).

Results:

Patients undergoing LAS had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (P = 0.002) and earlier resumption of normal diet (P = 0.025). Although post-operative complication rates were remarkably higher in patients undergoing CL than in those undergoing MITs (P = 0.002), no difference was observed in the post-operative mortality rate (P = 0.099) or 60-day re-intervention rate (P = 0.062). The quality of operation as assessed by the number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R0 resection did not differ among the groups (all P > 0.05). During a median follow-up of 5.42 years, no significant difference was observed among the treatment groups in the rates of 3-year late morbidity, 3-year LR, 5-year LR, 5-year OS or 5-year DFS (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Patients undergoing CL had higher post-operative morbidities. Moreover, the study findings confirm the favourable short-term and comparable long-term outcomes of LAS and ML for curative CRC resection. Therefore, both MITs may be feasible and safe alternatives to CL for Stage I-III CRC resection.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Colectomy in Younger and Older Patients: An Analysis of Nationwide Readmission Database

BACKGROUND

Prior studies report safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic colectomy in older patients. The study aimed to examine the impact of laparoscopic colectomy on 30-day readmissions, discharge destination, hospital length of stay, and cost in younger (19-65 years) and older adults (>65 years).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the nationwide readmission database from 2013 to study adults undergoing elective colectomy. The outcomes were 30-day readmissions, discharge destination for the index hospitalization (routine, skilled nursing facility [SNF]/intermediate care facility [ICF], home healthcare), length of stay, and cost. Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the association of laparoscopic colectomy on outcome; logistic regression for 30-day readmission, multinomial logistic regression for discharge destination, and linear regression for length of stay and cost. An interaction between age and colectomy approach was included, and all models controlled gender, income, insurance status, All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG), Elixhauser comorbidities, hospital bed size, ownership, and teaching status.

RESULTS

Of 79,581 colectomies, 40.2% were laparoscopic. Laparoscopic colectomy was more frequent in younger patients (41.9% versus 38.5%, p < .0001). Regardless of age, patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were 20% less likely to be readmitted within 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.75-0.85). For postdischarge destination, laparoscopic colectomy offered higher benefits to younger patients (SNF/ICF: OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.36-0.49; home health: OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.30-0.35) than older patients (SNF/ICF: OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.47-0.54; home health: OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.55-0.62). Regardless of age, laparoscopic colectomy resulted in 1.46 days (p < .0001) shorter hospital stays compared to open colectomy. Laparoscopic colectomy had significantly lower cost compared to open approach, particularly in younger ($1,466) versus older ($632) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colectomy is superior to an open approach, with fewer 30-day readmissions, fewer discharges to SNF/ICF or home health, shorter hospital stays, and less overall cost; younger patients benefit more than older patients.

Selection Bias in Colorectal Surgery in a Non-Tertiary Hospital: Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy is used increasingly to treat malignant and benign colorectal surgical diseases. However, this practice is still not offered to all patients. Many barriers halt the widespread use of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Both surgeon's and patient's factors contribute to limit a wider use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 408 consecutive colorectal resections in a 4-year period, to find out if a selection bias exists in using laparotomy or laparoscopy for colorectal surgical diseases, and which factors are associated with a poor use of laparoscopy or to a preferred laparotomy.

RESULTS

In our practice, advanced disease, American Society of Anesthesiologist class III and IV, and emergency status are all patient-related factors associated with laparotomy. Surgeon's age more than 52 years and lack of laparoscopic training are surgeon-related factors that negatively affect the chance of being operated on with the laparoscopic technique.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive laparoscopic colorectal training and a supporting environment, especially during the night shift, are needed to facilitate the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery avoiding a bias in selecting surgical candidates to one technique or another.

A comparison of laparoscopic and open D3 lymphadenectomy for transverse colon cancer

PURPOSE

The type of surgery or surgical approach for transverse colon cancer treatment largely depends on the tumor location or surgeon's preference. However, extensive lymphadenectomy appears to improve the long-term outcomes of locally advanced colon cancers. This study was designed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes after surgery via the laparoscopic or open approach with radical D3 lymph node dissection in patients with stage II and III transverse colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients were treated for stage II and III transverse colon cancer between May 2006 and December 2014. This retrospective study evaluated data collected prospectively at a tertiary teaching hospital. Radical D3 lymphadenectomy included the principal middle colic artery nodes.

RESULTS

The study included 144 patients among whom 118 (81.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. Significantly more patients in the laparoscopic group underwent extended right hemicolectomy compared with the open group (90.7 vs. 65.4%, p = 0.005). The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (151.3 vs. 131.2 min, p = 0.021), and the open group had a greater estimated blood loss volume (160.8 vs. 289.3 ml, p = 0.011). Although the groups differed in terms of tumor size (5.8 vs 7.9 cm, p = 0.007), other pathologic outcomes did not differ. The groups did not differ regarding postoperative parameters or disease-free, overall, and cancer-specific survivals.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in surgical methods and related factors, no long-term differences in outcomes were observed between laparoscopic and open approaches to radical D3 lymphadenectomy in patients with stage II and III transverse colon cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Diverticular disease is a common condition in Western industrialised countries. Most individuals remain asymptomatic throughout life; however, 25% experience acute diverticulitis. The standard treatment for acute diverticulitis is open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery - a minimal-access procedure - offers an alternative approach to open surgery, as it is characterised by reduced operative stress that may translate into shorter hospitalisation and more rapid recovery, as well as improved quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgical resection compared with open surgical resection for individuals with acute sigmoid diverticulitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2017); Ovid Embase (1974 to 23 February 2017); clinicaltrials.gov (February 2017); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (February 2017). We reviewed the bibliographies of identified trials to search for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing elective or emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection versus open surgical resection for acute sigmoid diverticulitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the domains of risk of bias from each included trial, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for outcomes such as hospital stay, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for quality of life and global rating scales, if researchers used different scales.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials with 392 participants met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in three European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, and Germany). The median age of participants ranged from 62 to 66 years; 53% to 64% were female. Inclusion criteria differed among studies. One trial included participants with Hinchey I characteristics as well as those who underwent Hartmann's procedure; the second trial included only participants with "a proven stage II/III disease according to the classification of Stock and Hansen"; the third trial considered for inclusion patients with "diverticular disease of sigmoid colon documented by colonoscopy and 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, one at least being documented with CT scan, 1 episode of complicated diverticulitis, with a pericolic abscess (Hinchey stage I) or pelvic abscess (Hinchey stage II) requiring percutaneous drainage."We determined that two studies were at low risk of selection bias; two that reported considerable dropouts were at high risk of attrition bias; none reported blinding of outcome assessors (unclear detection bias); and all were exposed to performance bias owing to the nature of the intervention.Available low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgical resection may lead to little or no difference in mean hospital stay compared with open surgical resection (3 studies, 360 participants; MD -0.62 (days), 95% CI -2.49 to 1.25; I² = 0%).Low-quality evidence suggests that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group (3 studies, 360 participants; MD 49.28 (minutes), 95% CI 40.64 to 57.93; I² = 0%).We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative pain between day 1 and day 3 more effectively than open surgery. Low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgery may improve postoperative pain at the fourth postoperative day more effectively than open surgery (2 studies, 250 participants; MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.25).Researchers reported quality of life differently across trials, hindering the possibility of meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence from one trial using the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire six weeks after surgery suggests that laparoscopic intervention may improve quality of life, whereas evidence from two other trials using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, respectively, suggests that laparoscopic surgery may make little or no difference in improving quality of life compared with open surgery.We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves the following outcomes: 30-day postoperative mortality, early overall morbidity, major and minor complications, surgical complications, postoperative times to liquid and solid diets, and reoperations due to anastomotic leak.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from the present comprehensive review indicate that evidence to support or refute the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgical resection for treatment of patients with acute diverticular disease is insufficient. Well-designed trials with adequate sample size are needed to investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery towards important patient-oriented (e.g. postoperative pain) and health system-oriented outcomes (e.g. mean hospital stay).

10-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic or Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Only few studies have compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) for rectal cancer with follow-up longer than 5 years. The aim of this study was to compare 10-year oncologic outcomes after LTME and OTME for nonmetastatic rectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of rectal cancer patients undergoing LTME or OTME. Statistical analyses were performed on an ''intention-to-treat'' basis and by actual treatment. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared by using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

Between April 1994 and August 2005, a total of 153 LTME patients and 154 OTME patients were included. Similarly, 10-year OS and DFS after LTME and OTME were observed: 76.8 versus 70.6 % (P = 0.138) and 69.1 versus 67.6 % (P = 0.508), respectively. Conversion to OTME did not adversely affect OS and DFS. Stage-by-stage comparison showed no significant differences between LTME and OTME. No significant differences were observed in local recurrence rates after LTME and OTME (6.5 vs. 7.8 %, P = 0.837). Median time until local recurrence was 24.5 (range, 12-56) months after LTME and 22 (6-64) months after OTME (P = 0.777). Poor tumor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and a lymph node ratio of 0.25 or more were the independent predictors of poorer OS and DFS.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study with long follow-up did not show significant differences between the two groups in OS and DFS.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic ultrasonography before laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative ultrasonography during open surgery for colorectal cancer may be useful for the detection of unrecognized liver metastases. Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) for the detection of unrecognized liver metastasis has not been studied in a randomized trial. This RCT tested the hypothesis that LUS would change the TNM stage and treatment strategy.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal cancer and no known metastases were randomized (1 : 1) to laparoscopic examination (control or laparoscopy plus LUS) in three Danish centres. Neither participants nor staff were blinded to the group assignment.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were randomized, 150 in each group. After randomization, 43 patients were excluded, leaving 128 in the control group and 129 in the LUS group. Intraoperative T and N categories were not altered by LUS, but laparoscopy alone identified previously undetected M1 disease in one patient (0·8 per cent) in the control group and three (2·3 per cent) in the LUS group. In the latter group, LUS suggested that an additional six patients (4·7 per cent) had M1 disease with liver (4) or para-aortal lymph node (2) metastases. The change in treatment strategy was greater in the LUS than in the control group (7·8 (95 per cent c.i. 3·8 to 13·8) and 0·8 (0 to 4·2) per cent respectively; P = 0·010), but the suspected M1 disease was benign in half of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Routine LUS during resection of colorectal cancer is not recommended. Registration number: NCT02079389 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Patient, Hospital, and Geographic Disparities in Laparoscopic Surgery Use Among Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Patients With Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the primary treatment for colon cancer, but use of laparoscopic approaches varies widely despite demonstrated short- and long-term benefits.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with laparoscopic colon cancer resection and to quantify variation based on patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics.

DESIGN

Bayesian cross-classified, multilevel logistic models calculated adjusted ORs and CIs for patient, surgeon, hospital, and geographic characteristics and unexplained variability (predicted vs. observed values) using adjusted median odds ratios for hospitals and counties.

SETTINGS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare claims database (2008-2011) supplemented with county-level American Community Survey (2008-2012) demographic data was used.

PATIENTS

A total of 10,618 patients ≥66 years old who underwent colon cancer resection were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Nonurgent/nonemergent resections for colon cancer patients ≥66 years old were classified as laparoscopic or open procedures.

RESULTS

Patients resided in 579 counties and used 950 hospitals; 47% of patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollment, age ≥85 years, and higher tumor stage and grade were negatively associated with laparoscopic surgery receipt; proximal tumors and increasing hospital size and surgeon caseload were positively associated. Significant unexplained variability at the hospital (adjusted median OR = 3.31; p < 0.001) and county levels (adjusted median OR = 1.28; p < 0.05) remained after adjustment.

LIMITATIONS

This was an observational study lacking generalizability to younger patients without Medicare or those with Health Maintenance Organization coverage and data set did not reflect national hospital studies or hospital volume. In addition, we were unable to account for specific types of comorbidities, such as obesity, and had broad categories for surgeon caseload.

CONCLUSIONS

Determining sources of hospital-level variation among poor insured patients may help increase laparoscopic resection to maximize health outcomes and reduce cost. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A363.

Differences in Effectiveness and Use of Robotic Surgery in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colectomy

BACKGROUND

We compared patient outcomes of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic colectomy without robotic assistance for colon cancer or nonmalignant polyps, comparing all patients, obese versus nonobese patients, and male versus female patients.

METHODS

We used the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to examine a composite outcome score comprised of mortality, readmission, reoperation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus. We used propensity scores to assess potential heterogeneous treatment effects of RAS by patient obesity and sex.

RESULTS

In all, 17.1% of the 10,844 of patients received RAS. Males were slightly more likely to receive RAS. Obese patients were equally likely to receive RAS as nonobese patients. In comparison to nonRAS, RAS was associated with a 3.1% higher adverse composite outcome score. Mortality, reoperations, wound infections, sepsis, pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, blood transfusions, and average length of hospitalization were similar in both groups. Conversion to open surgery was 10.1% lower in RAS versus nonRAS patients, but RAS patients were in the operating room an average of 52.4 min longer. We found no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) by obesity status and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Worse patient outcomes and no differential improvement by sex or obesity suggest more cautious adoption of RAS.

Advances in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has now become widely adopted for the treatment of colorectal neoplasia, with steady increases in utilization over the past 15 years. Common minimally invasive techniques include multiport laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopy, and hand-assisted laparoscopy, with the choice of technique depending on several patient and surgeon factors. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery involves a robust learning curve, and fellowship training often lays the foundation for a high-volume laparoscopic practice. This article provides a summary of the various techniques for laparoscopic colorectal surgery, including operative steps, the approach to difficult patients, and the learning curve for proficiency.

Toward standardization of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in developing countries: A step by step module

BACKGROUND

Despite the proven benefits, laparoscopic colorectal surgery is still underutilized among surgeons especially in developing countries. Also a steep learning is one of the causes of its limited adoption.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the learning curve of single surgeon experience in laparoscopic colectomy and feasibility of implementing a well standardized step by step operative technique to overcome the beginning technical obstacles.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study included 50 patients with carcinoma of the left colon and rectum recruited from the department of surgical oncology at National Cancer Institute, Cairo University in the period 2012-2016. All the procedures were performed through laparoscopic approach. Intra and post-operative data were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 49.7±10.6years (range: 33-74years). They were 29 males and 21 females. The mean operation time was 180min (range 100-370min), and the mean blood loss was 350ml (60-600ml). Six patients (12%) were converted to a laparotomy. The median lymph nodes harvest was 12 (range 7-25). The mean time of passing flatus after surgery was 2days (1-4days) and the mean time of passing stools was 3.3days (2-5) days. The median hospitalization period after surgery was 4days (3-12). 5 patients (10%) had postoperative morbidity, major morbidity occurred in one patient.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for colorectal cancer is safe and oncologically sound, standardized well-structured laparoscopic technique masters the procedure even in early learning curve setting.

Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to be safe, oncologically comparable, and clinically beneficial over open colectomy for colon cancer, but utilization remains low. Objectives To evaluate the cost of laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective claims data analysis using the 2012 and 2013 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database. The denominator population consisted of individuals who had commercial insurance coverage in all months of 2012 and >1 month in 2013 and pharmacy coverage throughout eligibility. The study population included individuals aged 18-64 years who were identified with colon cancer in 2013 and underwent an elective inpatient open colectomy or laparoscopic colectomy between January and November 2013. The cost and re-admission rate of open vs laparoscopic colectomy were compared after risk, adjusting for comorbidities, demographics, and geographic region.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1299 elective inpatient colon cancer colectomies were performed (open, n = 558; laparoscopic, n = 741). After risk adjustment, the laparoscopic vs open group was shown to have lower re-admission rates (6.61 and 10.93 per 100 cases, respectively, p = .0165), lower average re-admission costs ($1676 and $3151, respectively, p = .0309), and lower 30-day post-discharge healthcare utilization costs ($4842 and $7121, respectively, p = .0047). Average allowed cost for the combined inpatient and 30-day post-discharge period was lower for laparoscopic vs open colectomy cases ($36,395 and $44,226, respectively, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost of laparoscopic colectomy was found to be statistically significantly less than that of open colectomy in patients undergoing elective surgery for colon cancer.

Intraoperative Ultrasound as a Screening Modality for the Detection of Liver Metastases during Resection of Primary Colorectal Cancer - A Systematic Review

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancer diseases worldwide. One in 4 patients with CRC will have a disseminated disease at the time of diagnosis and often in the form of synchronous liver metastases. Studies suggest that up to 30% of patients have non-recognized hepatic metastases during primary surgery for CRC. Intraoperative ultrasonography examination (IOUS) of the liver to detect liver metastases was considered the gold standard during open CRC surgery. Today laparoscopic surgery is the standard procedure, but laparoscopic ultrasound examination (LUS) is not performed routinely. Aim To perform a systematic review of the test performance of IOUS and LUS regarding the detection of synchronous liver metastases in patients undergoing surgery for primary CRC. Method The literature was systematically reviewed using the search engines: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Google. 21 studies were included in the review and the key words: intraoperative ultrasound, laparoscopic ultrasound, staging colon and rectum cancer. Results Intraoperative ultrasound showed a higher sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and overall accuracy for the detection liver metastases during surgery for primary CRC, compared to preoperative imaging modalities (ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT)). LUS showed a higher detection rate for liver metastases compared to CT, CE-CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Conclusion This systematic review found that both IOUS and LUS had a higher detection rate regarding liver metastases during primary CRC surgery, especially liver metastases<10 mm in diameter, when compared to US, CT, CE-CT and MRI.

Incidence of Iatrogenic Ureteral Injury During Open and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Single Center Experience and Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Iatrogenic ureteral injury is a rare but potentially devastating complication of colorectal surgery. We evaluated the incidence and management of iatrogenic ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery during the transition phase from open to laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single center study. All patients who underwent colorectal surgery between 2004 and 2014 were evaluated by collecting data of electronic patient charts. Both acute and elective procedures were included.

RESULTS

A total of 3302 colorectal procedures were performed in the study period. Of these, 2817 operations were performed open and 484 laparoscopically. A total of 23 iatrogenic ureteral injuries were identified, of which 5 were found during laparoscopic surgery. The cumulative incidence of ureteral injuries was 0.6% for open procedures and 1.0% for laparoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteral injury is a rare complication of colorectal surgery. The incidence might rise with the increasing use of laparoscopy.

Pregnane X receptor is associated with unfavorable survival and induces chemotherapeutic resistance by transcriptional activating multidrug resistance-related protein 3 in colorectal cancer

Background

Although chemotherapy represents a predominant anti-cancer therapeutic modality, drug treatment efficacy is often limited due to the development of resistant tumor cells. The pregnane X receptor (PXR) affects chemotherapeutic effects by regulating targets involved in drug metabolism and transportation, but the regulatory mechanism is poorly understood.

Methods

Oxaliplatin (L-OHP) content in tumor cells was analyzed by mass cytometry. The roles of PXR on cancer cell proliferation, apoptosis and tumor growth with L-OHP-treated were investigated by MTS, colony formation, flow cytometry and xenograft tumor assays. Luciferase reporter, Chromatin-immunoprecipitation and Site-directed mutagenesis were evaluated the mechanisms. The PXR and multidrug resistance-related protein 3 (MRP3) expressions were examined by western blot, RT-PCR or immunohistochemistry of TMA. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were adopted to analyze the prognostic value of PXR in colorectal cancer (CRC).

Results

PXR over-expression significantly increased oxaliplatin (L-OHP) transport capacity with a reduction of its content and repressed the effects of L-OHP on tumour cell proliferation and apoptosis. Conversely, PXR knockdown augments L-OHP-mediated cellular proliferation and apoptosis. Moreover, PXR significantly reduced the therapeutic effects of L-OHP on tumor growth in nude mice. Further studies indicated a positive correlation between PXR and MRP3 expression and this finding was confirmed in two independent cohorts. Significantly increased MRP3 expression was also found in PXR over-expressing cell lines. Mechanistically, PXR could directly bind to the MRP3 promoter, activating its transcription. The PXR binding sites were determined to be at -796 to -782bp (CTGAAGCAGAGGGAA) and the key binding sites were the “AGGGA” (-787 to -783bp) on the MRP3 promoter. Accordingly, blockade of MRP3 diminishes the effects on drug resistance of PXR. In addition, PXR expression is significantly associated with poor overall survival and represents an unfavorable and independent factor for male or stage I + II CRC patient prognosis.

Conclusions

PXR is a potential biomarker for predicting outcome and activates MRP3 transcription by directly binding to its promoter resulting in an increased L-OHP efflux capacity, and resistance to L-OHP or platinum drugs in CRC. Our work reveals a novel and unique mechanism of drug resistance in CRC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12943-017-0641-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Single-Center Results of 587 Cases

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the short-term and long-term results of laparoscopic and open rectal resections.

METHODS

A total of 587 rectal cancer patients were included. The main measures were demographic data, duration of surgery, early postoperative results, pathologic data, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic data, morbidity rate, tumor location, and sphincter-preservation rates between the 2 groups. The duration of surgery (155 vs. 173 min, P<0.001), time to gas passage, defecation, and solid food intake and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than the open group (P<0.05). According to the univariate and multivariate analysis, laparoscopic surgery did not have an effect on local recurrence but had a favorable effect on survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has advantages over open surgery with respect to short-term and long-term clinical results and when performed in high-volume centers.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery Combined with Laparoscopic Colectomy for Synchronous Colorectal Tumors: A Word of Caution

BACKGROUND

The incidence of malignant synchronous colorectal tumors (SCRT) is between 2% and 5%, and the association of synchronous adenomatous polyps in colon cancer has been reported to be 15%-50%. Surgical resection is the primary treatment option for SCRT not amendable to endoscopic resection. Lesions in adjacent segments are usually treated with more extensive resection; however, there is still some controversy on how to best treat synchronous lesions in separate segments, especially when the rectum is involved. In this study, we aimed to report the outcome of patients with SCRT treated by laparoscopic colectomy combined with Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery.

METHODS

Data pertaining patients undergoing combined colectomy and Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) between 2004 and 2014 were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

141 TEM performed in the study period, 9 (6.5%) with combined laparoscopic colectomy were included. Mean age was 69.1 ± 10.6 years. There were 6 (66%) right, 2 (22%) left, and one (11%) sigmoid colectomy. All rectal lesions were benign adenomas, with mean tumor size 2.5 cm, and distance from the verge 9 ± 2.5 cm. Lesions were located in lateral rectal wall in 4, posterior in 4, and anterior in one case. Seven patients had the colectomy before TEM, and 2 had the TEM first. Mean operative time was 245 minutes (range 185-313) for the combined procedures. Median time of hospitalization was 6 days (range 4-11). Six patients (66%) had prolonged postoperative diarrhea. The final rectal pathology reports were adenoma with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in 5 patients and adenoma with low-grade dysplasia in four cases. The colon pathology was T1 N0 in 3, T2 N0 in one, T3 N1 in one, adenoma with HGD in 2, and no residual tumor in 2 patients. Two patients underwent re-TEM for recurrent adenoma of rectum at 14 and 18 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of TEM with laparoscopic colectomy is feasible and should be kept in mind as an alternative procedure in case of SCRT. However, more strict selection criteria should be considered and the disadvantages should be discussed with the patient.

[Combined surgery for locally advanced colorectal cancer]

AIM

To study the types and early outcomes of combined interventions for locally advanced colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since 2009 four hundreds and ninety eight patients underwent surgery in the Rostov Research Institute of Oncology for locally advanced colorectal cancer. Most cases of surgical procedures on adjacent organs included resection of small intestine (23.69%), supravaginal hysterectomy (16.47%), resection of bladder (12.25%), total hysterectomy (11.45%).

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 178 (35.7%) patients. Their incidence was significantly lower in case of laparoscopic approach (12.5%). Functional-sparing interventions on bladder followed by its augmentation with enteric graft improves rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach and functional-sparing surgery improve the results of locally advanced colorectal cancer management.

[Laparoscopic colectomy versus colectomy performed via laparotomy in the treatment of non-metastatic colic adenocarcinomas]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colectomy is considered with increasing frequency the gold standard treatment for colorectal cancer. Our study aims to show that short-term results and the oncological safety of laparoscopy are at least equivalent to those of laparotomy in the treatment of non-metastatic colic adenocarcinomas. We also highlight the impact of the learning curve on outcomes after laparoscopy in patients with these cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients undergoing surgery for resectable colic adenocarcinomas over a period of 6 years. The study population was divided into 2 groups based on the surgical procedure used initially. The group "OC" included 35 patients who underwent midline laparotomy and the group "LAC" included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopy. All data were analyzed using SPSS software version 19.0.

RESULTS

Our study showed that there was no significant difference in short-term outcomes between the 2 groups, namely intraoperative morbidity, hospital stay, intensive care unit stay as well as postoperative morbidity and mortality. Regarding the long-term outcomes, there was also no significant difference in the incidence of late complications, type of recurrence, overall survival and disease-free survival. Oncological safety based on the limits of resection and the number of lymph nodes removed was not significantly different between the two groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (p <0.001). Convertion rate was 33%. It went from 67% in the first 2 years of the study to 13% in the last 2 years. The conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy had no significant impact neither on early postoperative outcomes nor on overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is a surgical procedure resulting in at least equivalent short and long term outcomes as laparotomy. The learning curve representing a "prerequisite" has no negative impact on the outcomes of laparoscopic treatment of non-metastatic colic cancers.

Adoption of Robotic Technology for Treating Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Debate exists regarding the role of robotic-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer. Robotic-assisted surgery has been promoted as a strategy to increase the availability of minimally invasive surgery, which is associated with improved short-term morbidity; however, robotic-assisted surgery is much more expensive than laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand hospital and patient trends in the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery.

DESIGN

The study used cross-sectional and longitudinal designs.

SETTINGS

The study included 2010 and 2012 American Hospital Association surveys, as well as the 2010-2012 Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

PATIENTS

US hospitals responding to the American Hospital Association survey were included to measure patients with colorectal cancer who were undergoing elective minimally invasive surgery or open resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Robotic-assisted surgery adoption by US hospitals was measured, regarding specifically patients with colorectal cancer who were treated with robotic surgery.

RESULTS

In 2010, 20.1% of hospitals adopted robotic-assisted surgery, increasing to 27.4% by 2012. Hospitals more likely to adopt robotic-assisted surgery included teaching hospitals, those with more advanced imaging services, those in metropolitan rather than rural areas, and those performing the highest inpatient surgery volume. Robotic-assisted surgery only accounted for 1.3% of colorectal cancer operations during 2010-2012, but patient probability of robotic-assisted surgery ranged from 0.1% to 15.2%. The percentage of patients with colorectal cancer who were treated robotically among those undergoing minimally invasive surgery increased over time (2010, 1.5%; 2012, 3.6%). Robotic-assisted surgery is increasing more rapidly for patients with rectal cancer with minimally invasive surgery (2010, 5.5%; 2012, 13.3%) versus patients with colon cancer treated with minimally invasive surgery (2010, 1.3%; 2012, 3.3%).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its observational study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted surgery uptake remains low for colon cancer but higher for rectal cancer surgery, suggesting a more thoughtful adoption of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer by focusing its use on more technically challenging cases.

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: What is the impact on short-term outcomes and survival?

Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer is associated with quicker return of bowel function, reduced postoperative morbidity rates and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, with no differences in long-term survival. Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 30% of patients enrolled in randomized control trials comparing open and laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer. In this review, reasons for conversion are anatomical-related factors, disease-related-factors and surgeon-related factors. Body mass index, local tumour extension and co-morbidities are independent predictors of conversion. The current evidence has shown that patients with converted resection for colon cancer have similar outcomes compared to patients undergoing a laparoscopic completed or open resection. The few studies that have assessed the outcomes after conversion of laparoscopic rectal resection reported significantly higher rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay in converted patients compared to laparoscopically treated patients. No definitive conclusions can be drawn when converted and open rectal resections are compared. Early and pre-emptive conversion appears to have more favourable outcomes than reactive conversion; however, further large studies are needed to better define the optimal timing of conversion. With regard to long-term oncologic outcome, overall and disease-free survival in the case of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery seems to be worse than those achieved in patients in whom resection was successfully completed by laparoscopy. Although a worse long-term oncologic outcome has been suggested, it remains difficult to draw a proper conclusion due to the heterogeneity of the long-term outcomes as well as the inclusion of both colon and rectal cancer patients in most of the studies. Therefore, we discuss the currently available evidence of the impact of conversion in laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer on both short-term outcomes and long-term survival.

Randomized trial of subfascial infusion of ropivacaine for early recovery in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

Background

There is a need for investigating the analgesic method as part of early recovery after surgery tailored for laparoscopic colorectal cancer (LCRC) surgery. In this randomized trial, we aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of an inverse ‘v’ shaped bilateral, subfascial ropivacaine continuous infusion in LCRC surgery.

Methods

Forty two patients undergoing elective LCRC surgery were randomly allocated to one of two groups to receive either 0.5% ropivacaine continuous infusion at the subfascial plane (n = 20, R group) or fentanyl intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IV PCA) (n = 22, F group) for postoperative 72 hours. The primary endpoint was the visual analogue scores (VAS) when coughing at postoperative 24 hours. Secondary end points were the VAS at 1, 6, 48, and 72 hours, time to first flatus, time to first rescue meperidine requirement, rescue meperidine consumption, length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation, hypotension, dizziness, headache, and wound complications.

Results

The VAS at rest and when coughing were similar between the groups throughout the study. The time to first gas passage and time to first rescue meperidine at ward were significantly shorter in the R group compared to the F group (P = 0.010). Rescue meperidine was administered less in the R group; however, without statistical significance. Other study parameters were not different between the groups.

Conclusions

Ropivacaine continuous infusion with an inverse ‘v ’ shaped bilateral, subfascial catheter placement showed significantly enhanced bowel recovery and analgesic efficacy was not different from IV PCA in LCRC surgery.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) - Abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs.

The ‘Hughes Repair’ combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision.

Methods/design

This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome.

Discussion

A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions.

Trial registration

Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 25616490. Registered on 1 January 2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1573-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in colorectal surgery comparing with traditional laparoscopic surgery or open surgery

In order to compare the curative effect of the Da Vinci surgical system (DVSS) with laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery for colorectal resection, literature search was conducted in PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), and Cochrane library up to January 15, 2016. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were used as effect size for evaluation of different outcomes. In total, 10 studies consisting of 2767 patients were included for the meta-analysis. As a result, there were no significant differences between DVSS and LS/open surgery in the long-term oncologic outcomes ( p > 0.05). However, DVSS achieved a significantly lower length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss (EBL), but a longer operation time. Moreover, DVSS showed a significantly reduced conversion to open surgery than LS (OR = 0.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.08–0.48). Subgroup analysis indicated that DVSS had different results in rectal adenocarcinoma and colon cancer subgroups on outcomes of conversion to open surgery and operation time. DVSS is superior to LS/open surgery in length of hospital stay and EBL, but needs longer operation time. Long-term outcomes of DVSS are comparable with the other approaches. From long-term perspective, DVSS has an equivalent effect to the other two techniques.

Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite proven safety and efficacy, rates of minimally invasive approaches for colon cancer remain low in the USA. Given the known benefits, investigating the root causes of underutilization and methods to increase laparoscopy is warranted. Our goal was to develop a predictive model of factors impacting use of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer.

METHODS

The Premier Hospital Database was reviewed for elective colorectal resections for colon cancer (2009-2014). Patients were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis code and then stratified into open or laparoscopic approaches by ICD-9-CM procedure codes. An adjusted multivariate logistic regression model identified variables predictive of use of laparoscopy for colon cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 24,245 patients were included-12,523 (52 %) laparoscopic and 11,722 (48 %) open. General surgeons performed the majority of all procedures (77.99 % open, 71.60 % laparoscopic). Overall use of laparoscopy increased from 48.94 to 52.03 % over the study period (p < 0.0001). Patients with private insurance were more likely to have laparoscopy compared with Medicare patients (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.089, 95 % CI [1.004, 1.181], p = 0.0388). Higher volume of surgeons (OR 3.518, 95 % CI [2.796, 4.428], p < 0.0001) and larger hospitals by bed size were more likely to approach colon cancer laparoscopically. Colorectal surgeons were 32 % more likely to approach a case laparoscopically than general surgeons (OR 1.315, 95 % CI [1.222, 1.415], p < 0.0001). Teaching hospitals, hospitals in the Midwest, and hospitals with less than 500 beds were less likely to use laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

There are patient, provider, and hospital characteristics that can be identified preoperatively to predict who will undergo surgery for colon cancer using laparoscopy. However, additional patients may be eligible for laparoscopy based on patient-level characteristics. These results have implications for regionalization and increasing teaching of MIS. Recognizing and addressing these variables with training and recruiting could increase use of minimally invasive approaches, with the associated clinical and financial benefits.

Cost implications and oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for right hemicolectomy

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection confers a cost benefit compared with open surgery. These studies have considered a wide range of colorectal operations together rather than focusing on a single procedure. Our study compared direct clinical costs for laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy.

METHODS

Clinicopathological data and cost of treatment for all patients who underwent a right hemicolectomy between 2012 and 2013 were collected. The primary outcome was total cost of treatment. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, operative time and morbidity. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months. Costs for laparoscopic and open surgery for elective resection alone were compared. Further analyses were performed comparing emergency cases with elective cases and cancer with non-cancer cases.

RESULTS

There were 83 patients who underwent a right hemicolectomy during the study period and of these, 65 had an elective procedure. The total cost of a laparoscopic procedure was £3,998.12 compared with £3,427.50 for open surgery (p=0.039). The length of stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery while the cost of an emergency right hemicolectomy was significantly greater than for elective surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the length of stay for laparoscopic surgery was shorter, this did not translate to a reduction in cost. The cost benefit from a shorter length of stay was offset by a greater cost of consumables. Cost effectiveness analyses should be designed carefully, and they should consider individual operations separately when making healthcare management and funding decisions.

Incisional hernias after laparoscopic and robotic right colectomy

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication after colectomy, with impacts on both health care utilization and quality of life. The true incidence of IH after minimally invasive colectomy is not well described. The purpose of this study was to examine IH incidence after minimally invasive right colectomies (RC) and to compare the IH rates after laparoscopic (L-RC) and robotic (R-RC) colectomies.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients undergoing minimally invasive RC at a single institution from 2009 to 2014. Only patients undergoing RC for colonic neoplasia were included. Patients with previous colectomy or intraperitoneal chemotherapy were excluded. Three L-RC patients were included for each R-RC patient. The primary outcome was IH rate based on clinical examination or computed tomography (CT). Univariate and multivariate time-to-event analyses were used to assess predictors of IH.

RESULTS

276 patients where included, of which 69 had undergone R-RC and 207 L-RC. Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between the groups, except for higher tumor stage in L-RC patients. Both the median time to diagnosis (9.2 months) and the overall IH rate were similar between the groups (17.4 % for R-RC and 22.2 % for L-RC), as were all other postoperative complications. In multivariable analyses, the only significant predictor of IH was former or current tobacco use (hazard raio 3.0, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the incidence of IH is high after minimally invasive colectomy and that this rate is equivalent after R-RC and L-RC. Reducing the IH rate represents an important opportunity for improving quality of life and reducing health care utilization after minimally invasive colectomy.

The Thunderbeat and Other Energy Devices in Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections: Analysis of Outcomes and Costs

BACKGROUND

The THUNDERBEAT™ (TB) is a recently developed energy-based device. To date, there are no clinical studies comparing TB and other energy sources, such as standard electrosurgery (ES), ultrasonic coagulating shears (US) and electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers (EBVS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and costs in patients undergoing LCR with TB, US, EBVS, or ES for both benign and malignant colorectal diseases.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients undergoing LCR. Unselected consecutive patients who had the laparoscopic dissection conducted by using TB were compared with consecutive patients undergoing LCR with US, EBVS, or ES.

RESULTS

Mean operative time did not significantly differ between the groups (P = .947). Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the ES group (P < .001). Device-related complications occurred in 2.5% of ES patients, in 2.5% of US patients, and in 5% of EBVS patients, while no complications occurred in TB patients (P = .768). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates between the groups. Mean postoperative hospital stay was similar in the groups. Cost analysis showed no significant differences between US (1519.1 ± 303 €), EBVS (1474.4 ± 372.8 €), and TB (1474.3 ± 176.3 €) (P = .737).

CONCLUSION

This is the first clinical study comparing TB and other energy-based devices in LCR. They all appear to be equally safe and effective. Costs of surgery are very similar. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these data.

Laparoscopic resection of right colon cancer-a matched pairs analysis

PURPOSE

Laparoscopy for colorectal cancer resection bares early post-operative advantages and results in equal oncologic long-term outcome. However, data on laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy is scarce. Aim of the present study was to analyze a well selected collective of patients with right-sided colon cancer treated open and laparoscopically with regard to peri-operative and long-term outcome.

METHODS

We analyzed all patients who underwent right-sided hemi-colectomy for colon cancer between January 1996 and March 2013. Data was extracted from our prospective database. Inclusion criteria were tumor localization in the ascending colon, oncologic resection, histology of an adenocarcinoma, tumors UICC I-III, and R0 resection. Exclusion criteria were multiple malignancies including colon, emergency operation, adenoma or pT0 status, and UICC IV. For the matched pairs approach between patients undergoing laparoscopic (LAP) or open (OPEN) surgery, the parameters age, UICC stage, tumor grading, and sex were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 188 patients was included in the analysis with n = 94 in both the LAP and the OPEN group. Some peri-operative results demonstrated advantages for laparoscopy including median return to liquid (p < 0.0001) and solid diet (p = 0.008), median length of ICU stay (p < 0.0001), and median length of hospital stay (p = 0.022). No significant differences were revealed for complication rates, rates of anastomotic leakage, or 30-day mortality. Lymph node yield was identical. Also, no differences in oncologic long-term outcome were detected. Rates for local recurrence were 4.3 and 2.0 %.

CONCLUSION

This matched pairs analysis verifies peri-operative advantages of laparoscopy explicitly for the sub-group of CRC patients undergoing right-sided hemi-colectomy in comparison to open surgery while demonstrating equivalent oncologic long-term results.

Surgery for Colorectal Cancer - Trends, Developments, and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Although colorectal surgery is long established as the mainstay treatment for colon cancer, certain topics regarding technical fine-tuning to increase postsurgical recurrence-free survival have remained a matter of debate throughout the past years. These include complete mesocolic excision (CME), treatment strategies for metastatic disease, significance of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and surgical techniques for the treatment of colorectal cancer recurrence. In addition, new surgical techniques have been introduced in oncologic colorectal surgery, and their potential to provide sufficiently radical resection has yet to be proven.

METHODS

A structured review of the literature was performed to identify the current state of the art with regard to the mentioned key issues in colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

This article provides a comprehensive review of the current literature addressing the above-mentioned current challenges in colorectal surgery. The focus lies on the impact of CME and, in relation to this, on lymph node dissection, as well as on treatment of metastatic disease including peritoneal spread, and finally on the treatment of recurrent disease.

CONCLUSION

Uniformly, the current literature reveals that surgery aiming at complete malignancy elimination within multimodal treatment approaches represents the fundamental quantum leap for the achievement of long-term tumor-free survival.

Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Recent randomized controlled data have shown possible limitations to laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer. The retrospective data, used as the basis for designing the trials, and which showed no problems with the technique, are discussed. The design of the randomized trials is discussed relative to the future meta-analysis of the recent data. The implications of the current findings on practice are discussed as surgeons try to adjust their practice to the new findings. The possible next steps for clinical and research innovations are put into perspective as new technology is considered to compensate for newly identified limitations in the laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer.

Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open colectomy for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and open approaches to colon resection have equivalent long-term outcomes and oncologic integrity for the treatment of colon cancer. Differences in short-term outcomes should therefore help to guide surgeons in their choice of operation. We hypothesized that minimally invasive colectomy is associated with superior short-term outcomes compared to traditional open colectomy in the setting of colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing nonemergent colectomy for colon cancer in 2012 and 2013 were selected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted colectomy participant use file. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on operative approach-open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Univariate, multivariate, and propensity-adjusted multivariate analyses were performed to compare postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 11,031 patients were identified for inclusion in the study, with an overall MIS rate of 65.3% (n = 7200). On both univariate and multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with fewer postoperative complications and lower mortality. In the risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with an odds ratio of 0.598 for any postoperative morbidity compared to open (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study of patients undergoing colectomy for colon cancer demonstrates significantly improved outcomes associated with a MIS approach, even when controlling for baseline differences in illness severity. When feasible, minimally invasive colectomy should be considered gold standard for the surgical treatment of colon cancer.

Selection for laparoscopic resection confers a survival benefit in colorectal cancer surgery in England

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is being increasingly used in colorectal cancer resections. The aim of this national study was to determine whether laparoscopy confers a long-term survival advantage in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A national administrative data set (Hospital Episode Statistics-HES) encompassing all elective hospital admissions in England between 2001 and 2011 was analysed. All patients that had a colorectal cancer resection (open or laparoscopic) were identified. Cox hazard regression was used to determine differences in overall survival (10 year) between the open and laparoscopy groups.

RESULTS

A total of 141,682 patients underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer, of which 20.9 % (n = 29,550) had a laparoscopic procedure. The median 5-year survival in the open group was 36.1 months compared with 46.1 months in the laparoscopic group (p = <0.001). Survival analysis demonstrated laparoscopy to be an independent predictor of survival. Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection were 18 % less likely to die than patients who had an open CRC resection (HR 0.82, CI 0.79-0.83, p < 0.001). This survival benefit persisted even when initial post-operative mortality (90 day) was excluded (HR 0.87, CI 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis, exploring the effect of CRC laparoscopic surgery on survival in the elderly (>79 years old), demonstrated similar survival benefit amongst patients treated using laparoscopy (HR 0.90, CI 0.86-0.94, p < 0.001). Patients not undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to survive if they underwent laparoscopic resection (HR 0.81, CI 0.78-0.83, p < 0.001). Similarly, patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a survival benefit if a minimal access surgical approach was utilised (HR 0.86, CI 0.81-0.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy confers a survival benefit, irrespective of age and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, beyond the initial post-operative period in patients selected for elective colorectal cancer resection.