Total mesorectal excision: assessment of the laparoscopic approach

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a case-control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer remains unproven. The aim of this prospective non-randomised study was to assess the feasibility and short-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) after 25--30 Gy preoperative radiotherapy and to compare the results with a matched-control group of open TME (OTME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A series of 41 patients with primary rectal cancer underwent LTME for rectal cancer and were matched with a historical control group of 41 patients who underwent OTME. Both groups received preoperative short-term radiotherapy.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in the LTME group and 2% mortality in the OTME group. The overall postoperative morbidity was 37% in the LTME group and 51% in the OTME group, including an anastomotic leakage of 9 and 14% in the LTME and OTME groups respectively. A positive circumferential margin was found in 7% of patients in the LTME group and in 12% of the patients in the OTME group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that LTME is technically feasible and can be performed safely. We show at least a similar surgical completeness using a laparoscopic technique compared with open surgery.

Laparoscopy-Assisted Low Anterior Resection with a Prolapsing Technique for Low Rectal Cancer

Laparoscopy-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) for low rectal cancer is a difficult procedure, presenting problems with rectal washout, selecting the appropriate distal transection line, and achieving safe anastomosis. To resolve these problems, we used a prolapsing technique to perform laparoscopy-assisted LAR. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is performed laparoscopically. The proximal colon is transected laparoscopically with the aid of an endoscopic stapler, and the distal rectum, including the lesion, are everted and pulled transanally to outside the body. Only washout of and wiping off the distal rectum and intestinal resection are performed extracorporeally. The distal rectum is pushed back through the anus into the pelvis, and intracorporeal anastomosis is completed laparoscopically with a double-stapling technique. Our limited experience suggests that the prolapsing technique helps to prevent problems with laparoscopy-assisted LAR in selected patients with low rectal cancer.

Minimally invasive treatment of colon cancer

The advantages of laparoscopy in the treatment of benign diseases have been well demonstrated. Compared with laparotomy, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter hospitalization period, shorter duration of ileus, decreased postoperative pain, earlier return to work, and improved cosmesis. The role of laparoscopy for the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancy has had a slower evolution and been the subject of considerable debate over the past decade. Since 1991, several concerns have limited the widespread use of laparoscopy for attempted cure of colorectal carcinoma. This review aims to analyze the results of several studies published to date on short and long term outcome of laparoscopy for colorectal carcinoma, based on levels of evidence. From the least to the most convincing data, the hierarchy of study designs progresses through a spectrum ranging from retrospective reviews to prospective series, to case-controlled, cohort, and ultimately randomized controlled trials.

Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without data from large-scale randomised trials to support its use. We compared short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer to predict long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Between July, 1996, and July, 2002, we undertook a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 794 patients with colorectal cancer from 27 UK centres. Patients were allocated to receive laparoscopic-assisted (n=526) or open surgery (n=268). Primary short-term endpoints were positivity rates of circumferential and longitudinal resection margins, proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours, and in-hospital mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN74883561.

FINDINGS

Six patients (two [open], four [laparoscopic]) had no surgery, and 23 had missing surgical data (nine, 14). 253 and 484 patients actually received open and laparoscopic-assisted treatment, respectively. 143 (29%) patients underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours did not differ between treatments (18 [7%] patients, open vs 34 [6%], laparoscopic; difference -0.3%, 95% CI -3.9 to 3.4%, p=0.89), and neither did in-hospital mortality (13 [5%] vs 21 [4%]; -0.9%, -3.9 to 2.2%, p=0.57). Apart from patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer, rates of positive resection margins were similar between treatment groups. Patients with converted treatment had raised complication rates.

INTERPRETATION

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cancer of the colon is as effective as open surgery in the short term and is likely to produce similar long-term outcomes. However, impaired short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum do not yet justify its routine use.

The oncological safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation for rectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although experience of laparoscopic treatment of rectal carcinoma has been reported, there is no evidence of its oncological safety because most procedures included partial mesorectal excision or abdominoperineal excision and quality of surgery is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation for rectal carcinoma.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2003, 144 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma. There were 88 men and 56 women, with a median age of 65 years. The tumor was located at 5.5 cm (range 1-12) from the anal verge and was classified uT1T2 in 25 cases and uT3 in 119 cases. One hundred twenty patients received preoperative radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 1% and 34% respectively. Conversion was 14% (n = 20). Macroscopic assessment of the specimen (n = 92) showed an intact mesorectum in 88% of the cases. The distal margin and the circumferential margin were safe in 98% and 94% of the cases, respectively. A complete microscopic excision, i.e., R0 resection, was achieved in 134 cases (93%). Pathological data were similar to those of an open match group. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there was no port-site recurrence and two patients had local recurrence (1.4%). The 3-year overall and disease- free survival rates were 89% and 77%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A high quality of surgical excision can be achieved by the laparoscopic dissection, suggesting that this approach in treatment of rectal carcinoma is oncologically safe.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: outcomes in 194 patients and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

There are few reports on laparoscopic rectum resection demonstrating its feasibility and efficacy in patients with rectal cancer. Most patient series are small, and results must be considered preliminary and medium-term. Our large prospective conducted study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a totally laparoscopic resection for rectum carcinoma with emphasis on perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Between November 1992 and July 2003, 194 unselected patients were resected laparoscopically for rectal carcinoma. Patients with locally advanced rectum carcinoma (uT3/uT4) and no evidence of distant metastases were candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Adjuvant treatment was administered to patients with UICC stage II/III disease. All patients were followed up prospectively to evaluate complications and late outcomes. Survival probability analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Study selection was made by Medline search using the following key words: rectal cancer, rectal neoplasms, laparoscopy, and resection. Single case reports and abstracts were excluded. When surgical series were reported more than once, only the most recent reports were considered and listed.

RESULTS

The most common procedures were low anterior resection with total mesorectum excision in 65.5% of patients and high anterior resection in 25.3%. Average operative time was 174 min. Average number of lymph nodes removed was 25.4 and length of specimen resected was 27.6 cm. Resection was curative in 145 patients and palliative in 49 cases. UICC tumor stages were as follows: stage I: 25.2%, stage II: 27.3%, stage III: 30.4%, and stage IV: 17%. Intraoperative complications were <1% for lesions of the ureter, urinary bladder, and deferent duct. Conversion to conventional surgery was necessary in two cases (1%). The most common postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage in 13.5% of patients. There was no postoperative mortality. Follow-up evaluation ranged from 1 to 128 months with a mean of 46.1 months. The most common late complication was incisional hernia in 3.6% of patients. Port-site metastases occurred in one patient (0.5%). Tumor recurrence developed in 23 of the 145 curative resected patients (11.7% distant metastases and 4.1% local recurrence). Overall local recurrence rate was 6.7% (4.1% after curative resection and 14.3% after palliative resection). Overall survival rate was 90.6% at 1 year, 74.5% at 3 years, and 66.3% at 5 years. Overall 5-year survival rate was 76.9% after curative resection and 31.8% after palliative resection. Cancer-related survival rate was 94% at 1 year, 82.4% at 3 years, and 78.9% at 5 years. At 5 years it was 87.7% after curative resection and 48.5% after palliative resection. At 5 years, the survival rate was 100% for stage I, 94.4% for stage II, 66.6% for stage III, and 44.6% for stage IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results and the literature review clearly demonstrate that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is not associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Established oncological and surgical principles are respected and long-term outcomes are at least as good as those after open surgery.

Résection rectale pour cancer par laparoscopie avec exérèse totale du mésorectum (ETM). Résultats à long terme d'une série de 179 patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and the five-year survival of 179 consecutive patients with rectal carcinoma operated with a laparoscopic procedure between April 1992 and April 2003.

METHODS

Patients with obstructing, bulky cancers were excluded from this study. Tumor stage was defined according to the TNM classification. Preoperative radiation therapy was offered to T(3) N(0) or N(+) patients (45 Gy). The laparoscopic-assisted technique included total mesorectal excision (TME), primary high vascular ligation, centrifugal dissection of the mesentery, and "no touch" technique. All the N+ patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The outcomes were defined as five-years recurrence (local recurrence and distant metastasis) and the diseases-free survival. The survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier test.

RESULTS

There were 108 males and 71 females, median age was 67 (range 39-88). There were 61 upper rectum localizations (34%), 68 middle rectum (38%) and 50 low rectum (28%). Twenty-nine patients required open conversion (16%). Surgical operative morbidity was 24% and medical morbidity was 4%. There were 60 stage I (40%), 25 stage II (16%), 49 stage III (32%), and 16 stage IV (10%). Ninety patients (71%) are alive and disease free, ten (5%) are alive with disease recurrence, and 37 patients (20%) are deceased. Only one case of trocar site implantation occurred after curative resection during an average follow up of 76 months. Five-year observed survival rate were 85% for stage I, 70% for stage II, and 63% for stage III.

CONCLUSION

In our experience laparoscopic rectal resection could be done safely. The oncologic outcome was similar to that of open surgery. Further randomized trials will be necessary to confirm the value of this technique.

Safety of Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Rectal Transection With Double-Stapling Technique Anastomosis

To assess the feasibility and analyze the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection with double-stapling technique anastomosis, a review was performed of a prospective registry of 67 patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy and anterior resection with intracorporeal rectal transection and double-stapling technique anastomosis between July 2001 and January 2004. Patients were divided into 3 groups: sigmoid colon/rectosigmoid carcinoma, upper rectal carcinoma, and middle/lower rectal carcinoma. A comparison was made of the short-term outcomes among the groups. The number of cartridges required in bowel transection was significantly increased in patients with middle/lower rectal carcinoma, and significant differences were observed in the length of the first stapler cartridge fired for rectal transection. Furthermore, mean operative time and blood loss were also significantly greater in the middle/lower rectum group; however, complication rates and postoperative course were similar among the 3 groups. No anastomotic leakage was observed. Laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection with double-stapling technique anastomosis can be performed safely without increased morbidity or mortality.

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

The present scarcity of literature on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery makes it premature to determine whether laparoscopic surgery should be the standard of care for rectal cancer. Notwithstanding that, the available evidence proves its safety and adequate oncological clearance. Moreover, current data do not suggest any detrimental effect on the postoperative and early oncological outcomes. On the contrary, there is level three evidence showing that laparoscopic technique results in less blood loss, shorter length of stay, and reduced abdominal wound disorders and pulmonary complications, albeit the overall morbidity remains similar to that of open surgery. Long-term survival outcomes remain largely unclear, however. Hence, it is high time that laparoscopic technique should be further evaluated, preferably by means of large-scale randomized trials, to define its exact role in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

Acceptance of laparoscopy for the management of oncological disease has been slow due to the increased complexity of the technique, requirement of technological advances, and fears for the oncological safety of the approach. Laparoscopic oncological surgery has a role in the management of oncological patients at all stages of disease. Good evidence exists for the laparoscopic approach being a viable option for colon cancer patients. Current large multicenter trials will report the true outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery and how it compares with open surgery. This article examines some of the parameters by which laparoscopic colectomy will be judged.

Laparoscopic TME-the surgeon's or the patient's preference

Since laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer was introduced ten years ago large patient collectives have been published by several authors in the meantime. The literature was carefully reviewed to analyse data on postoperative complications, long term prognosis and quality of life after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer to answer the question whether laparoscopic surgery is still just feasible or maybe has even reached the golden standard. The review showed that there is not a single prospectively randomized trial published comparing laparoscopic vs. open surgery for rectal cancer. It is clearly evident that until now the most laparoscopic series are published with patients selected according to criteria that vary significantly especially regarding the kind of procedures performed (anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric resections and abdomino-perineal excision), other demographic items like gender, body mass index, eventual prior laparotomies, emergencies and tumor related characteristics like tumor stage or T-categories. At the moment any data concerning outcome from prospectively randomized trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer are missing. Therefore, there is more speculation and belief concerning the true quality of laparoscopic surgery. The review in the literature only indicates, that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is feasible. To prove the potential advantage of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer randomized trials are essential. If a surgeon discusses laparoscopic surgery outside a randomized trial, he should go through a questionnaire, presented in the paper which reflects the present situation without any proven advantage and not available long term results and should leave a final decision to the patient.

Laparoscopic TME: better vision, better results?

One of the most controversial discussions on laparoscopic surgery deals with the question of whether to apply this technique to malignant disease and specifically to rectal cancer. The four major issues are the adequacy of oncologic resection, recurrence rates and patterns, long-term survival and quality of life. There is evidence, from nonrandomized studies, suggesting that margins of excision and lymph node harvest achieved laparoscopically reached comparable results to those known from conventional open resection. Our own experience of laparoscopic surgery on rectal cancer is based on 52 patients treated with curative intent. Focusing on the postoperative long-term run, we gained the following results: The median age of patients was 66.7 years and ranged from 42-88. Anastomotic leakage was seen in 6.1% of cases. In a median follow-up of 48 months (36-136), we reached an overall 3-year survival rate of 93% and a 5-year survival rate of 62%. Local recurrence was 1.9%, distant metastasis occurred in 11.5% of cases. We saw no port-site metastasis. To evaluate functional results following laparoscopic surgery a matched pair analysis was carried out. Matching of patients after laparoscopic and conventional open surgery was performed according to sex, age, type of resection, time period of surgery, and stage of disease classified by UICC. Regarding bladder and sexual dysfunction, using the EORTC QLQ CR38 score we found no statistical significant difference between the examined groups. As far as can be seen, laparoscopic surgery in rectal carcinoma may achieve the same or, in selected patients, even better results than open surgery. However, at present no published study has shown much evidence. Many more studies are necessary to define the place of laparoscopic technique in rectal cancer surgery, regarding appropriate selection of patients and evaluating adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment in combination with the laparoscopic approach.

Current status of laparoscopic therapy of colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic colorectal resections offer several benefits postoperatively, including minimal impairment of gastrointestinal and pulmonary function, less immunosuppression, shorter hospital stay and improved reconvalescence. Since the introduction of laparoscopic surgery for the therapy of curable colorectal cancer, some concern was voiced in terms of oncologic radicality, the issue of port-site metastases and tumor cell distribution. However, the clinical reality has demonstrated that oncologic radicality is equivalent to open surgery, and the incidence of port-site metastases is not increased when compared to wound recurrence at the laparotomy site. Focusing on colon and rectum, various indications of laparoscopic-endoscopic 'rendezvous' procedures exist including laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic transluminal resection, endoscopic-assisted wedge or anatomical resections, and, finally, intraoperative tumor location by colonoscopy to achieve oncologic resection margins in laparoscopic curative resections. In terms of colorectal curative resections, long-term results provide level I evidence that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is oncologically adequate and can be performed with equivalent morbidity and mortality rates when compared to conventional surgery. In terms of rectal cancer, no level I evidence is available. However, short-term data from experienced centers do not report inferior oncologic outcome particularly related to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

Early outcomes of 100 patients with laparoscopic resection for rectal neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection has been shown to be a feasible option in patients with colorectal diseases. However, there have been only a few studies on laparoscopic resection for rectal neoplasm. This report aimed to evaluate the early outcomes of patients treated by laparoscopic rectal resection for neoplasm.

METHODS

From May 2000 to April 2003, 100 patients underwent laparoscopic resection for rectal neoplasm with mesorectal excision. Data on the patients' demographics, operative details, and outcomes were collected prospectively. In those with successful laparoscopic resection, comparison was made between patients with predominantly intracorporeal surgery (ICS) and those with anterior resection performed with extracorporeal rectal transection and anastomosis following intracorporeal bowel mobilization and vessel ligation (IECS).

RESULTS

Sixty-six men and 34 women (median age, 69 years; range, 40-85) were included. Operations included 91 anterior resections, eight abdominoperineal resections, and one Hartmann's procedure. Conversion was required in 15 patients and no conversion was needed in patients treated by laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. One patient died 30 days after surgery because of liver failure. Postoperative complications occurred in 31 patients. Among them, three had anastomotic leakage and all of them could be treated conservatively. Reoperation was required in one patient with intestinal obstruction. Patients with conversion were found to have significantly more blood loss, longer time to resume diet, a longer hospital stay, and a higher morbidity rate when compared to those with successful laparoscopic surgery. Among those with successful laparoscopic procedures, no difference was observed between patients with ICS (n = 57) and those with IECS (n = 28), except that a shorter incision and less blood loss were found in patients in the former group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal resection with mesorectal dissection is feasible. The operating mortality and reoperation rates were low. Conversion was associated with an increased morbidity rate, leading to a longer hospital stay. Laparoscopically assisted anterior resection with rectal transection by a transverse stapler through the abdominal incision produced similar results when compared to a procedure that was predominantly intracorporeally performed.

Laparoscopic-assisted approach in rectal cancer patients: lessons learned from >200 patients

BACKGROUND

The applicability of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colorectal diseases is still controversial. Early reports on laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in patients with colon cancer suggested that it minimizes surgical trauma, decreases perioperative complications, and leads to a more rapid recovery. To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared the laparoscopic vs the open approach in rectal cancer. The aim of this paper was to assess the results of laparoscopic techniques in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

From March 1998 to February 2003, all patients admitted to our unit with adenocarcinoma of the rectum were evaluated for surgery by the laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients with a mean age of 67.3 years were included in the study. One hundred thirty patients (59%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In >75% of the patients, a surgical procedure with sphincter preservation was performed. The rate of conversion to the open approach was 20%. Ten patients had intraoperative complications. Fifty-eight patients (26.3%) developed postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was 6.8 days. The distribution of tumor stages was as follows: stage I, 16.81%; stage II, 33.6%; stage III, 26.36%; stage IV, 19.09%. The mean number of lymph nodes was 13.8. The incidence of local relapse was 5.3%, with a follow-up of 18 months.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery can be safely performed in patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum with good short-term results. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

A comparison of the complication rates between laparoscopic colectomy and laparoscopic low anterior resection

BACKGROUND

This study compared the short-term outcomes, including the complication rate and minimum surgical invasiveness, between patients with colon and rectal carcinomas, who underwent laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

A review evaluated 151 patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (Lap-colectomy; n = 120) and laparoscopic low anterior resection (Lap-LAR; n = 31) between July 2001 and December 2003. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean operative time and blood loss were significantly greater in the Lap-LAR group. However, the complication rates and postoperative course between the two approaches were similar, and no anastomotic leakage was observed. There was no significant difference in the serum C-reactive protein level and white blood cell count between the two groups in the early postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Lap-LAR for rectal carcinoma can be performed safely without increased morbidity or mortality, and its short-term benefits are comparable with those conferred by Lap-colectomy.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: the state of the art

Laparoscopic techniques have expanded since their introduction 15 years ago. The laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has been slower to develop than other fields of surgery. However, this approach does provide significant benefits for colorectal resection, although concerns regarding the ability to satisfy oncological criteria have restricted its use in the past. This review studies the published data on the use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer including the short- and long-term outcomes. New long-term outcome data is now available which is likely to encourage the use of this technique for colon cancer resection. Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is also discussed including the more limited outcome data that is available.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The Laparoscopic approach has been applied to colorectal surgery for many years; however, there are only a few reports on laparoscopic low and ultralow anterior resection with construction of coloanal anastomosis. This study compares open versus laparoscopic low and ultralow anterior resections, assesses the feasibility and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach of total mesorectal excision (TME) with anal sphincter preservation (ASP), and analyzes the short-term results of patients with low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed our experience via a prospective, randomized control trail. From June 2001 to September 2002, 171 patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME with ASP, 82 by the laparoscopic procedure and 89 by the open technique. The lowest margin of tumors was below peritoneal reflection and 1.5-8 cm above the dentate line (1.5-4.9 cm in 104 cases and 5-8 cm in 67 cases). The grouping was randomized.

RESULTS

Results of operation, postoperative recovery, and short-term oncological follow-up were compared between 82 laparoscopic procedures and 89 controls who underwent open surgery during the same period. In the laparoscopic group, 30 patients in whom low anterior resection was performed had the anastomosis below peritoneal reflection and more than 2 cm above the dentate line, 27 patients in whom ultralow anterior resection was performed had anastomotic height within 2 cm of the dentate line, and 25 patients in whom coloanal anastomosis was performed had the anastomosis at or below the dentate line. In the open group, the numbers were 35, 27, and 27, respectively. There was no statistical difference in operation time, administration of parenteral analgesics, start of food intake, and mortality rate between the two groups. However, blood loss was less, bowel function recovered earlier, and hospitalization time was shorter in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Totally laparoscopic TME with ASP is feasible, and it is a minimally invasive technique with the benefits of much less blood loss during operation, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospitalization.

[Surgical therapy of rectal carcinoma]

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has gained a revolutionary impact on the surgical therapy of rectal cancer within the last 2 decades, providing superior local tumor control in comparison to conventional resection. Consequently, 85% of rectal carcinomas can be resected by sphincter-preserving surgery without compromising either oncologic radicality or continence. With the introduction of TME, local recurrence rates have been reliably decreased below 10% after curative resection. Surgical dissection along the connective tissue space between rectal and parietal pelvic fascia with complete mesorectal excision results in reliable excision of all relevant lymphatic pathways with preservation of continence and sexual function. Complete removal of a TME specimen is mandatory in carcinomas of the middle and lower third of the rectum. Both removal of the complete TME specimen and careful pathologic examination of the circumferential resection margin have decisive significance. An additional pelvic lymphadenectomy with the potential risk of increased morbidity does not improve prognosis. As a spread of tumor distally along the bowel wall rarely exceeds a few centimeters, a distal resection margin of 1-2 cm is oncologically sufficient in sphincter-saving procedures without compromising prognosis. Taken together, the convincing results of TME provide a rationale for using TME as the dissection policy of choice to resect rectal cancers in the distal two-thirds of the rectum, despite the absence of direct evidence from prospective randomized trials. The question whether laparoscopic curative resection for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate cannot be definitely answered to date, as results of randomized studies are currently missing. However, the preliminary results of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer provided by centers are promising.

Outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal diseases.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients undergoing a laparoscopic colorectal procedure (LCP) for large bowel disease. All operations were performed by a single experienced team. Patients were divided chronologically into three consecutive groups (G1, G2, and G3). Data collection included the incidence and cause of both "proper" and "mandatory" conversions to laparotomy, the incidence and type of early and late postoperative complications, incidence of operative mortality, and the length of hospital stay. The incidences of conversion to laparotomy and of early and late postoperative complications were also determined as related to diagnosis, type of LCP attempted, and chronological group.

RESULTS

Between January 1996 and December 2001, a total of 108 patients (49 men and 59 women) with a mean age of 65.1 years underwent an LCP for colorectal disease. Proper conversion to open surgery was necessary in five patients (4.6%), whereas a mandatory conversion was needed in 10 with patients advanced cancer (9.2%). The overall morbidity rate was 11.9%. There were no anastomotic leaks. In two patients (1.85%) developed a complication requiring reoperation. Postoperative mortality was nil. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.2 days. The rates of conversion and of early and late complications decreased through the three chronological periods. No trocar site recurrences were observed in the cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed in experienced centers is safe; the observed morbidity and mortality rates are low and acceptable and compare favorably to those observed after standard open surgery.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) offers the lowest reported rates of local recurrence and the best survival results in patients with rectal cancer. However, the laparoscopic approach to resection for colorectal cancer remains controversial due to fears that oncologic principles will be compromised. We assessed the feasibility, safety and long-term outcome of laparoscopic rectal cancer resections following the principles of TME. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative outcome and long-term results of laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospective database of 102 consecutive unselected patients undergoing laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer between November 1991 and December 2000. Follow-up was done through office charts or direct patient contact. Recurrence and survival curves were generated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic TME was completed successfully in 99 patients, whereas conversion to an open approach was required in three cases (3%). The overall morbidity and mortality rates were 27% and 2%, respectively, with an overall anastomotic leak rate of 17%. Of the 102 patients, four were excluded from the oncologic evaluation because final pathology was not confirmatory (two had anal canal squamous cell carcinoma and two had villous adenoma with dysplasia). In 90 of the 98 remaining patients (91.8%), the resection was considered curative. The remainder had a palliative resection due to synchronous metastatic disease or locally advanced disease. Mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 6-96). There were no trocar site recurrences. The local recurrence rate was 6%, and the cancer-specific survival of all curatively resected patients was 75% at 5 years. The overall survival rate of all curatively resected patients was 65% at 5 years; mean survival time was 6.23 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.39-7.07).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic TME is feasible and safe. The laparoscopic approach to the surgical treatment of operable rectal cancer does not seem to entail any oncologic disadvantages.

Comparative evaluation of immune response after laparoscopical and open total mesorectal excisions with anal sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer

AIM: The study of immune response of open versus laparoscopical total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer has not been reported yet. The dissected retroperitoneal area that contacts directly with carbon dioxide is extensive in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation surgery. It is important to clarify whether the immune response of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation (LTME with ASP) in patients with rectal cancer is suppressed more severely than that of open surgery (OTME with ASP). This study was designed to compare the immune functions after laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

METHODS: This study involved 45 patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 20) and open (n = 25) total mesorectal excisions with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. Serum interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor α (TNF_α) were assayed preoperatively and on days 1 and 5 postoperatively. CD3⁺ and CD56⁺ T lymphocyte count, CD3^- and CD56⁺ natural killer cell (NK) count and immunoglobulin (IgG/IgM/IgA) were assayed preoperatively and on day 5 postoperatively. The numbers of CD3⁺ and CD56⁺ T lymphocytes and CD3^- and CD56⁺ NK cells were counted using flow cytometry. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used for IL-2, IL-6 and TNF_α determination. And IgG, IgM, and IgA were assayed using immunonephelometry.

RESULTS: The demographic data of the two groups had no difference. The preoperative levels of CD3⁺ and CD56⁺ T lymphocyte count, CD3^- and CD56⁺ NK count, serum IgG, IgM, IgA, IL-2, IL-6 and TNF_α also had no significant difference in the two groups (P > 0.05). The CD3⁺ and CD56⁺ T lymphocyte counts had no obvious changes after surgery in laparoscopic (d = -0.79% ± 3.83%) and open (d = 0.42% ± 2.09%) groups. The CD3^- and CD56⁺ NK counts were decreased postoperatively in both laparoscopic (d = -7.23% ± 11.33%) and open (d = -9.21% ± 13.93%) groups. The differences of the determined values of serum IgG, IgM and IgA on the fifth day after operation subtracted those before operation were -2.56 ± 2.14 g/L, -252.35 ± 392.94 mg/L, -506.15 ± 912.24 mg/L in laparoscopic group, and -1.81 ± 2.10 g/L, -282.72 ± 356.75 mg/L, -252.20 ± 396.28 mg/L in open group, respectively. The levels of IL-2 were decreased after operation in both groups. However, the levels of IL-6 were decreased after laparoscopic surgery (d₁ = -23.14 ± 263.97 ng/L and d₅ = -40.08 ± 272.03 ng/L), and increased after open surgery (d₁ = 27.38 ± 129.14 ng/L and d₅ = 21.67 ± 234.31 ng/L). The TNF_α levels were not elevated after surgery in both groups. There were no significant differences in the numbers of CD3⁺ and CD56⁺ T lymphocytes and CD3^- and CD56⁺ NK cells, the levels of IgG, IgM, IgA, IL-2, IL-6 and TNF_α between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: There are no differences in immune responses between the patients having laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation and those undergone open surgery for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopy and its current role in the management of colorectal disease

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current place of laparoscopy in the management of colorectal disease.

METHOD

A literature search was undertaken on Medline between the period 1991 and 2002.

RESULTS

From the literature there is good evidence that the laparoscopic approach is associated with at least some short-term advantages. Improved cosmesis and better patient's satisfaction are also evident. Because of this laparoscopy has been widely employed in various benign conditions. Among others, laparoscopic stoma formation, laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease and Crohn's disease, laparoscopic rectopexy, as well as laparoscopic assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure were commonly reported. As port site recurrence and oncological safety are of less concern, there have been increasing reports on laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Although long-term follow up data is still limited, results of large prospective studies as well as various randomized trials show that recurrence and survival rates of the laparoscopic approach were at least comparable to open surgery. As experience and confidence accumulates, there are also increasing reports on technically demanding, laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal excision. Articles on functional aspects following this type of resection also start to appear, which might be one of the future directions.

CONCLUSION

The applicability of laparoscopy to colorectal disease continues to expand. Laparoscopic approach should be considered for patients with benign conditions. For colorectal cancer, results from randomized trials so far have been favourable. Hence, the authors suggest the utility of laparoscopy in potentially curable cancer can also be judiciously relaxed.

Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients

BACKGROUND

Controversy continues to surround laparoscopic rectal resection for malignancy. A longer follow-up period is required to evaluate the long-term efficacy of the procedure and its impact on survival. Furthermore, no data from ongoing randomized controlled trials are yet available. The aims of this study were to compare long-term outcomes for unselected patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open rectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

A series of 124 unselected consecutive patients with rectal cancer, who underwent surgery by the same surgical team, have been included in this study. Patients with T1N0 tumors underwent local excision, and emergency cases were excluded from the study. Written consent was submitted by each patient, and inclusion in either group (laparoscopic or open) was left to the patient's choice. The laparoscopic approach was chosen by 81 patients, and 43 patients chose open surgery. All the patients underwent preoperative radiotherapy (5,040 cGy), performed in selected cases with chemotherapy (for patients younger than 70 years). The following parameters were compared between the two groups: length of the surgical specimen, clearance of the margins of the specimen, number of lymph nodes identified, local recurrence rate, incidence of distant metastases, and survival probability analysis. The mean follow-up period for both groups was 43.8 months (range, l-9 years).

RESULTS

We performed 60 laparoscopic and 27 open anterior resections, as well as 21 laparoscopic and 16 open abdomino perineal resections, respectively. No mortality occurred in either group. The mean length of the resected specimens was 24.3 cm in the laparoscopic group and 23.8 cm in the open group ( p = 0.47). The mean tumor-free margin was 3.0 cm in the laparoscopic group and 2.8 cm in the open group ( p = 0.57), and the mean number of lymph nodes identified was 10.3 in the laparoscopic group and 9.8 in the open group ( p = 0.63). Of the 124 patients, 86 (52 laparoscopic and 34 open) were included in out study. We excluded patients who underwent a palliative resection (6 laparoscopic and 6 open patients) or conversion to open surgery ( n = 10) and patients who had undergone surgery in the past year ( n = 16). One laparoscopic patient was lost to follow-up evaluation, whereas three laparoscopic patients and one open patient died of causes not related to cancer. No wound recurrence was observed. The local recurrence rate after laparoscopic resection was 20.8%, as compared with 16.6% after open resection ( p = 0.687). Distant metastases occurred in 18.2% of the patients in the laparoscopic group, as compared with 21.2% in the open group ( p = 0.528). Cumulative survival probability was 0.709 after laparoscopic resection after LR and 0.606 after open resection ( p = 0.162), whereas for Dukes' stages A, B, and C in the laparoscopic group versus the open group, it was 0.875 vs 0.889 ( p = 0.392), 0.722 vs 0.584 ( p = 0.199), and 0.500 vs 0.417 ( p = 0.320), respectively. At this writing 20 laparoscopic patients (62.5%) and 20 open patients (60.6%) are disease free ( p = 0.623).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologic surgical principles were respected. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer was comparable with that after conventional resection. We should wait to draw conclusive scientific statements until the completion of ongoing international randomized controlled trials.

Technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with pouch coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

During a 2-year period, 50 patients underwent laparoscopic TME with coloanal anastomosis for rectal carcinoma located at a median of 4.5 (range 2-11) cm from the anal verge. Pre-operative radiotherapy was used in 46 patients. Intersphincteric dissection was combined with the laparoscopic procedure to achieve sphincter preservation.

RESULTS

Conversion to a laparotomy was necessary in six patients. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2% and 28%, respectively. Morbidity was lower in patients operated on during the second part of the study, who had extraction of the rectal specimen through a small laparotomy incision, than in those operated on during the first part of the study when removal of the specimen was by transanal extraction. Oncological quality of excision was safe in 44 patients with intact or almost intact rectal fascia in 88% and R0 resection in 90%. At a median follow-up of 18 months, there was no local or port-site recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms our preliminary results of oncological feasibility of laparoscopic TME with sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer, and showed that morbidity can be decreased by using a standardized surgical procedure.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of low rectal cancer with preservation of anal sphincter: A report of 82 cases

AIM: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) of low rectal cancer with preservation of anal sphincter.

METHODS: From June 2001 to June 2003, 82 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with preservation of anal sphincter. The lowest edge of tumors was below peritoneal reflection and 1.5-7 cm from the dentate line (1.5-5 cm in 48 cases, 5-7 cm in 34 cases).

RESULTS: LTME with anal sphincter preservation was performed on 82 randomized patients with low rectal cancer, and 100% sphincter preservation rate was achieved. There were 30 patients with laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) at the level of the anastomosis below peritoneal reflection and 2 cm above from the dentate line; 27 patients with laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection (LULAR) at the level of anastomoses 2 cm below from the dentate line; and 25 patients with laparoscopic coloanal anastomoses (LCAA) at the level of the anastomoses at or below the dentate line. No defunctioning ileostomy was created in any case. The mean operating time was 120 min (ranged from 110-220 min), and the mean operative blood loss was 20 mL (ranged from 5-120 mL). Bowel function was restored and diet was resumed on day 1 or 2 after operation. The mean hospital stay was 8 d (ranged from 5-14). Postoperative analgesics were used in 45 patients. After surgery, 2 patients had urinary retention, one had anastomotic leakage, and another 2 patients had local recurrence one year later. No interoperative complication was observed.

CONCLUSION: LTME with preservation of anal sphincter is a feasible, safe and minimally invasive technique with less postoperative pain and rapid recovery, and importantly, it has preserved the function of the sphincter.

Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with colonic J-pouch reconstruction for mid and low rectal cancers

BACKGROUND

Results of laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision and colonic J-pouch reconstruction are few. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes after this procedure.

METHODS

Patients with mid or low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with construction of a colonic J pouch, performed by a single surgeon. The patients were evaluated prospectively.

RESULTS

From March 1999 to January 2002, 44 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with colonic J-pouch reconstruction. There were 21 men and 23 women of median age 65.5 years. The median operating time was 180 min and median blood loss 80 ml. There was no conversion to an open procedure. The median distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge was 4 cm. No procedure-related death occurred. Four patients developed significant complications that required reoperation. With a median follow-up period of 15 months, no port-site recurrence was noted. Five patients developed distant metastases, and two had local recurrence in the pelvis. Bowel function was satisfactory at 6, 12 and 18 months after ileostomy closure.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with colonic J-pouch reconstruction is safe, with a reasonable operating time. Early results suggest satisfactory oncological control and functional outcomes.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with coloplasty and coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of laparoscopic rectal resection in patients with mid or low rectal cancer was studied prospectively with regard to quality of mesorectal excision, autonomic pelvic nerve preservation and anal sphincter preservation.

METHODS

Laparoscopic rectal excision was performed in 32 patients (21 men) with rectal carcinoma located 5 cm from the anal verge. Most patients had T3 disease and received preoperative radiotherapy. The surgical procedure was performed 6 weeks after radiotherapy and included total mesorectal excision, intersphincteric resection, transanal coloanal anastomosis with coloplasty and loop ileostomy.

RESULTS

Three patients needed conversion to a laparotomy. Postoperative morbidity occurred in ten patients, related mainly to coloplasty. Macroscopic evaluation showed an intact mesorectal excision in 29 of 32 excised specimens; microscopically, 30 of the 32 resections were R0. Sphincter preservation was achieved in 31 patients. The hypogastric nerves and pelvic plexuses were identified and preserved in 24 of the 32 patients. Sexual function was preserved in ten of 18 evaluable men.

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic approach can be considered in most patients with mid or low rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a consecutive series of 100 patients

OBJECTIVE

To analyze total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer by the laparoscopic approach during a prospective nonrandomized trial.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Improved local control and survival rates in the treatment of rectal cancer have been reported after TME.

METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective consecutive series of 100 laparoscopic TMEs for low and mid-rectal tumors. All patients had a sphincter-saving procedure. Case selection, surgical technique, and clinical and oncologic results were reviewed.

RESULTS

The distal limit of rectal neoplasm was on average 6.1 (range 3-12) cm from the anal verge. The mean operative time was 250 (range 110-540) minutes. The conversion rate was 12%. Excluding the patient who stayed 104 days after a severe fistula and reoperation, the mean postoperative stay was 12.05 (range 5-53) days. The 30-day mortality was 2% and the overall postoperative morbidity was 36%, including 17 anastomotic leaks. Of 87 malignant cases, 70 (80.4%) had a minimum follow-up of 12 months, with a median follow-up of 45.7 (range 12-72) months. During this period 18.5% (13/70) died of cancer and 8.5% (6/70) are alive with metastatic disease. The port-site metastasis rate was 1.4% (1/70): a rectal cancer stage IV presented with a parietal recurrence at 17 months after surgery. The locoregional pelvic recurrence rate was 4.2% (3/70): three rectal cancers stage III at 19, 13, and 7 postoperative months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic TME is a feasible but technically demanding procedure (12% conversion rate). This series confirms the safety of the procedure, while oncologic results are at present comparable to the open published series with the limitation of a short follow-up period. Further studies and possibly randomized series will be necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome in cancer patients.

The role of laparoscopy in the multimodality treatment of colorectal cancer

Ten years after the first reports of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery the precise role for these approaches in future colorectal practice as still to be defined. However, it seems most unlikely that the application is going to disappear. Laparoscopic colectomy is undoubtedly a complex. time-consuming procedure and it is clear that the technique is intolerant of difficult cases and will likely remain thus. Therefore. the potential advantages of laparoscopy do not as yet appear to be attainable across the board in colorectal resection. Such generalized advantage may, however, be tantalizingly close. Although many studies have failed to show major benefits for laparoscopy in terms of postoperative recovery, it must be remembered that most of these have been of insufficient statistical power to settle the issue. What is clear to all involved in the field is that very many patients do gain major benefit from the minimally invasive approach. The challenge for the future lies in developing the technology to such a point that these benefits for patients are more reproducible. The requirement for a significant abdominal incision to deliver an intact specimen represents a significant hurdle in this regard. The importance of pathological staging for colorectal cancer at present mandates retrieval of an intact specimen. It is of course possible that radiological staging may develop to such a point that surgeons need only remove the lesion with minimal attention to lymphadenectomy. Alternatively, new adjuvant therapies may arrive that, by virtue of increased efficacy and low side-effect profiles, may be applicable to all but the earliest lesions. Finally, increasing health awareness and application of screening programs may lead to a preponderance of large polyps and preinvasive lesions for which a more limited resection may be appropriate. Obviously these scenarios remain almost entirely speculative. However, the trend towards less invasive local therapy for colorectal cancer seems inexorable, and we firmly believe that laparoscopy will come to play an increasing role. Finally, we suggest that the oncological safety of laparoscopy is of less concern than was the case some years ago. The specter of port-site metastasis, once so alarming, has faded. It is now apparent from all of the larger scale studies that port-site metastases are not a significant issue in the presence of adequate training and laparoscopic skills. Almost without exception, the accumulating evidence seems to point to equivalence in terms of disease-specific recurrence and survival between patients treated using conventional and laparoscopic techniques. We foresee these findings being confirmed by the North American and European trials.

Strategies in the management of mid and distal rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision

In the last two decades, dramatic improvement in outcome has been made in the management of rectal cancer. This has been brought about mainly by advancements in surgical technique for radical resection. With the recognition of the importance of the circumferential margin and presence of spread in the lymphovascular tissues in the mesorectum, total mesorectal excision is now commonly recognized as the optimal surgical technique for cancer of the mid and distal rectum. Not only have local control and disease-specific survival improved with the practice of total mesorectal excision, but various bodily functions have also been preserved following surgery for rectal cancer. New issues have arisen with the practice of total mesorectal excision and the strategies for management of rectal cancer require re-evaluation. In this article, the rationale and the outcomes of total mesorectal excision are reviewed. Issues such as the high anastomotic leakage rate following sphincter-preserving surgery, the poor results of abdominoperineal resection, the role of adjuvant therapy and bowel function disturbances will be addressed. Lastly, the status of the laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer with the principle of total mesorectal excision are discussed.