Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial

Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic.

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes.

METHODS

Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.

A critical appraisal of the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for oncological and non-oncological resections

The aim of this study was to critically appraise the cost effectiveness of the laparoscopic colorectal (LCRS) surgery using published randomised, control trials (RCTs). Published RCTs comparing the cost effectiveness of LCRS with conventional open surgery were selected from the search of standard electronic databases and the extracted data were analysed using the statistical software RevMan 5.3. Seven RCTs on 2197 patients reported the cost effectiveness of the LCRS. There was significant heterogeneity (τ ² = 161,772.25, χ ² = 166.69, df = 6, p = 0.00001, I ² = 96%) among included randomised, controlled trials. In the random effects model analysis (MD 320.37, 95% CI -38.21, 678.95, z = 1.75, p < 0.08), the LCRS was costing £320.37 more than open colorectal resection but it failed to reach the statistical significance indicating that LCRS is as much cost effective as the open approach. LCRS is a cost effective intervention and should be offered routinely to all patients requiring colorectal resections provided the resources and expertise are available.

Effects of age after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: Are there any specific outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery has demonstrated to give advantages in terms of postoperative outcomes, particularly in high-risk patients. The aim was to assess the impact of patients' age on the short-term outcomes after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer.

METHODS

From January 2004 to September 2014, all patients who underwent laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer in a single institution were divided into four groups (A: <64 years; B: 65-74 years; C: 75-84 years; D ≥85 years). Risk factors for postoperative complications were determined on multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic right colectomy was performed in 507 patients, including 171 (33.7%) in A, 168 (33.1%) in B, 131 (25.8) in C and 37 (7.4%) in D. Patients in Group C and Group D had higher ASA score (p<0.0001) and presented more frequently with anaemia (20.6% and 29.7%, p=0.001). Stages III and IV were more frequently encountered in groups C and D. Overall morbidity was 27.5% without any difference in the four groups (24.5%, 29.1%, 7.5% and 18.4% respectively, p=0.58). The rate of minor complications (such as wound infection or postoperative ileus) was higher in Group D compared to other groups (p=0.05). The only independent variable correlated with postoperative morbidity was intraoperative blood transfusion (OR 2.82; CI 95% 1.05-4.59, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present series suggests that patient's age did not significantly jeopardize the postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer.

Laparoscopic surgical challenge for T4a colon cancer

For patients with T4a colon cancer, the risk of peritoneal dissemination after surgery remains unclear. Seven hundred and eleven patients with T3 or T4a colon cancer, 80 years of age or younger, underwent curative resection (open surgery in 512 and laparoscopic surgery in 199) at the four Jikei University hospitals between 2006 and 2012. Their risk factors for peritoneal dissemination after surgery were evaluated retrospectively. Number of lymph node metastases, postoperative liver metastases and postoperative peritoneal dissemination events in the T4a group were significantly greater than the number in the T3 group. Peritoneal dissemination after surgery developed in four patients (0.7%) in the T3 group and in six patients (5%) in the T4a group. Risk factors for peritoneal dissemination consisted of macroscopic type (P = 0.016), serosal invasion (P = 0.017) and number of lymph node metastases (P = 0.009) according to the Cox proportional hazards regression model. However, tumor diameter and surgical approach (laparoscopic vs open) were not significant factors for peritoneal dissemination. There were no significant differences between the postoperative relapse‐free survival rates for each surgical approach within the T3 or T4a group. Because of comparable postoperative peritoneal dissemination in T3 and T4a colon cancer by the surgical approach (laparoscopic or open), laparoscopic surgery for patients with T4a colon cancer seems justified.

Pain management using acetaminophen throughout postoperative course of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A case-matched control study

Backgroud

The main advantage of laparoscopic surgery is that it is minimally invasive because of the use of small incisions. An approach using small incisions offers many benefits including attenuation of surgical wound pain. However, the presence of postoperative pain may undermine the advantages of laparoscopic surgery as a minimally invasive technique. In addition, perioperative pain management is an important factor affecting recovery after surgery. This study investigated the usefulness of a multimodal approach to postoperative pain management with acetaminophen as a baseline analgesic after minimally invasive laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Materials and methods

The study included 40 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery for colorectal cancer. 20 patients received acetaminophen as a baseline analgesic for postoperative pain management and 20 received epidural anesthesia.

Results

The urethral catheter could be removed earlier in the acetaminophen group (2.1 ± 0.22 days postoperatively) compared with the epidural group (4.1 ± 0.45days postoperatively). The frequencies of vertigo were significantly lower in the acetaminophen than epidural group (10.0% and 45.0%, respectively). The frequencies of the use of analgesics on an as-needed basis for postoperative pain relief as well as the variabilities in these frequencies, although not significantly different between the acetaminophen and epidural groups, were lower in the acetaminophen group than the epidural group.

Conclusion

We herein demonstrated that postoperative pain management with acetaminophen as a baseline analgesic, and without the use of epidural anesthesia, is a safe and useful analgesic modality.

•

Multimodal analgesia with acetaminophen was effective after laparoscopic surgery.

•

Adverse events were less frequent with acetaminophen than epidural anesthesia.

•

Frequency and variability of rescue use were lower with acetaminophen than epidural.

How Do Mobile Information Services Improve Quality of Life? The Case of Japanese Students

Every technology should be geared to improve the quality of users’ lives. Our study aims to understand how mobile information services (MIS) contribute to quality of life (QoL) for young mobile users. This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive analysis of relationship between two variables: the contribution of MIS in 15 specific life domains and the contribution of MIS to overall quality of life (QoL). We examined bottom-up spillover theory with original and our additional life domains. Eleven life domains derived from previous research include: leisure life, family life, friend life, cultural life, work life, community life, consumer life, financial life, health life, safety life, and self-life. Our proposed four life domains are: home-healthcare life, informational life, educational life and trustworthy life. Questionnaire surveys were conducted in Japan among young mobile users. We analyzed the data of 189 effective respondents. Results from this study clearly indicate that two variables (individual contribution and overall contribution) are valid and reliable to analyze. Contribution to the informational life has the highest influence on the overall contribution for Japanese young, followed by culture life, friend life, leisure life, educational life and work life.

[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.

Short-term outcomes of single-port surgery for palliative resection of the primary tumor in patients with incurable stage IV colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-port surgery (SPS) for palliative resection of the primary tumor in patients with incurable stage IV colon cancer.

METHODS

We studied 66 consecutive patients who underwent SPS or multiport surgery (MPS) for palliative resection of their primary tumor in our department from January 2008 to December 2013. Short-term outcomes and the postoperative course were analyzed between groups retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients, 32 underwent SPS, and 34 underwent MPS. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of preoperative evaluation and short-term outcomes. In the SPS group, one patient was converted to MPS (3.1%); no patients were converted to open surgery. Oncological resection, the proportion of patients who received postoperative chemotherapy, and time to the beginning of postoperative chemotherapy was similar in both groups. The 1-year overall survival rates were 76.7% in the SPS group and 79.4% in the MPS group (P = 0.711).

CONCLUSIONS

SPS is safe and feasible for palliative resection of the primary tumor in patients with incurable stage IV colon cancer.

Network meta-analysis of protocol-driven care and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approaches and standardized recovery protocols have reduced morbidity following colorectal cancer surgery. As the optimal regimen remains inconclusive, a network meta-analysis was undertaken of treatments for the development of postoperative complications and mortality.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries and related reviews were searched for randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery within protocol-driven or conventional perioperative care for colorectal cancer resection, with complications as a defined endpoint. Relative odds ratios (ORs) for postoperative complications and mortality were estimated for aggregated data.

RESULTS

Forty trials reporting on 11 516 randomized patients were included with the network. Open surgery within conventional perioperative care was the index for comparison. The OR relating to complications was 0·77 (95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 0·91) for laparoscopic surgery within conventional care, 0·69 (0·48 to 0·99) for open surgery within protocol-driven care, and 0·43 (0·28 to 0·67) for laparoscopic surgery within protocol-driven care. Sensitivity analyses excluding trials of low rectal cancer and those with a high risk of bias did not affect the treatment estimates. Meta-analyses demonstrated that mortality risk was unaffected by perioperative strategy.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery combined with protocol-driven care reduces colorectal cancer surgery complications, but not mortality. The reduction in complications with protocol-driven care is greater for open surgery than for laparoscopic approaches. Registration number: CRD42015017850 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic compared to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is now established as standard of care for a variety of gastrointestinal procedures for benign and malignant indications. However, due to concerns regarding superiority to open liver resection (OLR), the uptake of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been slow. Data on long-term outcomes of LLR for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long-term outcomes of LLR compared to OLR for CRLM.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing LLR and OLR for CRLM and reporting on survival outcomes. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, post-operative major morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and resection margins.

RESULTS

Eight non-randomized studies (NRS) were included (n=2,017 total patients). Six were matched cohort studies. LLR reduced estimated blood loss [mean difference: -108.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), -214.0 to -3.7) and major morbidity [relative risk (RR): 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83], but not mortality. No difference was observed in operative time, LOS, resection margins, R0 resections, and recurrence. Survival data could not be pooled. No studies reported inferior survival with LLR. OS varied from 36% to 60% for LLR and 37% to 65% for OLR. RFS ranged from 14% to 30% for LLR and 22% to 38% for OLR. According to the grade classification, the strength of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. The use of parenchymal sparing resections with LLR and OLR could not be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited retrospective evidence, LLR offers reduced morbidity and blood loss compared to OLR for CRLM. Comparable oncologic outcomes can be achieved. Although LLR cannot be considered as standard of care for CRLM, it is beneficial for well-selected patients and lesions. Therefore, LLR should be part of the liver surgeon's armamentarium.

Health economic analysis of costs of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer within a randomized trial (COLOR II)

Background

Previous studies regarding the comparative costs of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer provide ambiguous conclusions, and there are no large randomized trials or long-term follow-up.

Methods

A prospective cost-minimization analysis was carried out by using data of clinical resource use from the randomized controlled trial COLOR II. Some data needed for the health economic evaluation were not collected in the clinical trial; therefore, a retrospective data collection was made for COLOR II-patients operated at the largest participating Swedish hospital (n = 105). Sick leave information was provided by the Swedish social insurance agency. Unit costs were collected from Swedish sources. The primary outcome was the difference in mean cost between laparoscopic and open surgery.

Results

The COLOR II-trial enrolled 1044 rectal cancer patients randomized between laparoscopic and open surgery 2:1. At the 3-year follow-up data for the clinical variables used in the analysis were available for 74–89 % of patients. Laparoscopic surgery costs the health care sector more than the open technique, both at 28 days ($1910, 95 % CI 677–3143) and 3 years ($3854, 95 % CI 1527–6182) after surgery. There were, however, no differences in long-term costs to society between laparoscopic and open surgery ($684, 95 % CI −5799 to 7166).

Conclusions

Though the study found short- and long-term cost differences for the healthcare sector, there was no difference in regard to the long-term societal perspective. Future research is suggested to investigate the effects of sick leave costs using material from a greater number of patients.

Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in elderly patients

The safety of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SLS) in elderly patients with colorectal cancer has not been established. The aim of the current study was to compare the outcomes of SLS and multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS) and to assess the feasibility of SLS in colorectal cancer patients aged ≥70 years. A retrospective case-control study of colon cancer patients undergoing elective surgical intervention between 2011 and 2014 was conducted. A total of 129 patients with colon cancer underwent surgery and were included in the analysis. Data regarding patient demographics, surgical variables, oncological outcomes and short-term outcomes were evaluated for statistical significance to compare MLS (n=79) and SLS (n=50) in colon cancer patients. No significant differences were observed in patient characteristics. No case required re-admission within 30 days post surgery. The mean surgery times were similar for the MLS and SLS groups when cases with left and right hemicolectomies were combined (207.7 and 215.9 min, respectively; P=0.47). In addition, overall perioperative outcomes, including blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, size of the surgical margin and complications, were similar between these groups. Thus, we suggest that SLS can be performed safely in elderly patients with colon cancer.

Pneumoperitoneum deteriorates intratidal respiratory system mechanics: an observational study in lung-healthy patients

BACKGROUND

Pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery leads to atelectasis and impairment of oxygenation. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is supposed to counteract atelectasis. We hypothesized that the derecruiting effects of pneumoperitoneum would deteriorate the intratidal compliance profile in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

In 30 adult patients scheduled for surgery with pneumoperitoneum, respiratory variables were measured during mechanical ventilation. We calculated the dynamic compliance of the respiratory system (C _RS) and the intratidal volume-dependent C _RS curve using the gliding-SLICE method. The C _RS curve was then classified in terms of indicating intratidal recruitment/derecruitment (increasing profile) and overdistension (decreasing profile). During the surgical interventions, the PEEP level was maintained nearly constant at 7 cm H₂O. Data are expressed as mean [confidence interval].

RESULTS

Baseline C _RS was 60 [54-67] mL cm H₂O^-1. Application of pneumoperitoneum decreased C _RS to 40 [37-43] mL cm H₂O^-1 which partially recovered to 54 [50-59] mL cm H₂O^-1 (P < 0.001) after removal but remained below the value measured before pneumoperitoneum (P < 0.001). Baseline compliance profiles indicated intratidal recruitment/derecruitment in 48 % patients. After induction of pneumoperitoneum, intratidal recruitment/derecruitment was indicated in 93 % patients (P < 0.01), and after removal intratidal recruitment/derecruitment was indicated in 59 % patients. Compliance profiles showing overdistension were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of the intratidal compliance profiles reveal that pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery causes intratidal recruitment/derecruitment which partly persists after its removal. The analysis of the intratidal volume-dependent C _RS profiles could be used to guide intraoperative PEEP adjustments during elevated intraabdominal pressure.

A modified Delphi method toward multidisciplinary consensus on functional convalescence recommendations after abdominal surgery

Background

Evidence-based information on the resumption of daily activities following uncomplicated abdominal surgery is scarce and not yet standardized in medical guidelines. As a consequence, convalescence recommendations are generally not provided after surgery, leading to patients’ insecurity, needlessly delayed recovery and prolonged sick leave. The aim of this study was to generate consensus-based multidisciplinary convalescence recommendations, including advice on return to work, applicable for both patients and physicians.

Method

Using a modified Delphi method among a multidisciplinary panel of 13 experts consisting of surgeons, occupational physicians and general practitioners, detailed recommendations were developed for graded resumption of 34 activities after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic and open appendectomy, laparoscopic and open colectomy and laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. A sample of occupational physicians, general practitioners and surgeons assessed the recommendations on feasibility in daily practice. The response of this group of care providers was discussed with the experts in the final Delphi questionnaire round.

Results

Out of initially 56 activities, the expert panel selected 34 relevant activities for which convalescence recommendations were developed. After four Delphi rounds, consensus was reached for all of the 34 activities for all the surgical procedures. A sample of occupational physicians, general practitioners and surgeons regarded the recommendations as feasible in daily practice.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary convalescence recommendations regarding uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy (laparoscopic, open), colectomy (laparoscopic, open) and inguinal hernia repair (laparoscopic, open) were developed by a modified Delphi procedure. Further research is required to evaluate whether these recommendations are realistic and effective in daily practice.

Factors Predicting Difficulty of Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision and Double Stapling Technique

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sphincter-preserving low anterior resection for rectal cancer is a surgery demanding great skill. Immense efforts have been devoted to identifying factors that can predict operative difficulty, but the results are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

Our study was conducted to screen patients' factors to build models for predicting the operative difficulty using well controlled data.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed records of 199 consecutive patients who had rectal cancers 5-8 cm from the anal verge. All underwent laparoscopic sphincter-preserving low anterior resections with total mesorectal excision (TME) and double stapling technique (DST). Data of 155 patients from one surgeon were utilized to build models to predict standardized endpoints (operative time, blood loss) and postoperative morbidity. Data of 44 patients from other surgeons were used to test the predictability of the built models.

RESULTS

Our results showed prior abdominal surgery, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumor distance to anal verge, interspinous distance, and BMI were predictors for the standardized operative times. Gender and tumor maximum diameter were related to the standardized blood loss. Temporary diversion and tumor diameter were predictors for postoperative morbidity. The model constructed for the operative time demonstrated excellent predictability for patients from different surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

With a well-controlled patient population, we have built a predictable model to estimate operative difficulty. The standardized operative time will make it possible to significantly increase sample size and build more reliable models to predict operative difficulty for clinical use.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Age and Gender: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.

Laparoscopic surgery for patients with colorectal cancer produces better short-term outcomes with similar survival outcomes in elderly patients compared to open surgery

The number of operations on elderly colorectal cancer (CRC) patients has increased with the aging of the population. The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes in elderly patients who underwent laparoscopic or open surgery for CRC. We analyzed the data of 280 patients aged 80 or over who underwent surgery for CRC between January 2001 and December 2010. Seventy-one pairs were selected after propensity score matching for laparoscopic or open surgery. Operative time, return to normal bowel function, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and prognostic factors affecting survival were investigated. In matched cohorts, operative time in the laparoscopic group was longer than in the open group (P < 0.001). In the laparoscopic group, time to flatus passage (P < 0.001) and length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.037) were shorter than in the open group. The rate of operation-related morbidity was higher in the open group (P = 0.019). There was no difference in OS and RFS between two groups. This study suggests that laparoscopic surgery for CRC in elderly patients may be safe and feasible, with better short-term outcomes. OS and RFS, however, were not different in both groups.

Incisional hernias after open versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer decreases the incidence of postoperative complications and length of hospital stay as compared with open surgery, while the oncologic outcome remains equivalent. It is unknown whether the surgical approach impacts on the long-term rate of incisional hernia. Furthermore, risk factors for incisional hernia formation are not fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term effect of elective open versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer on development of incisional hernia.

METHODS

This nationwide cohort study included patients operated on electively for colonic cancer with primary anastomosis in Denmark from 2001 to 2008. Patient data were obtained from the database of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group and merged with data from the National Patient Registry. Multivariable Cox regression and competing risks analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8489 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 8.8 (interquartile range 7.0-10.7) years. The incidence of incisional hernia was increased among patients operated on with open techniques compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery (7.3 vs. 5.2 %, p < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders, laparoscopic approach was associated with a decreased risk of incisional hernia formation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.89; p = 0.009). Other factors associated with increased risk of incisional hernia were wound infection, fascial dehiscence, anastomotic leak, and body mass index >25 kg/m(2).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide analysis demonstrated that laparoscopic as compared with open access for curative resection of colonic cancer was associated with a decreased risk of incisional hernia formation.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients’ characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intra-corporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is safe and has survival outcomes similar to those of open surgery in elderly patients with a poor performance status: subanalysis of a large multicenter case-control study in Japan

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether open or laparoscopic surgery should be indicated for elderly patients with colorectal cancer and a poor performance status.

METHODS

In those patients aged 80 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or greater who received elective surgery for stage 0 to stage III colorectal adenocarcinoma and had no concomitant malignancies and who were enrolled in a multicenter case-control study entitled "Retrospective study of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for elderly patients" that was conducted in Japan between 2003 and 2007, background characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes for open surgery and laparoscopic surgery were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 398 patients included, 295 underwent open surgery and 103 underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between open surgery and laparoscopic surgery patients, except for previous abdominal surgery and TNM stage. The median operation duration was shorter with open surgery (open surgery, 153 min; laparoscopic surgery, 202 min; P < 0.001), and less blood loss occurred with laparoscopic surgery (median open surgery, 109 g; median laparoscopic surgery, 30 g; P < 0.001). An operation duration of 180 min or more (odds ratio, 1.97; 95 % confidence interval, 1.17-3.37; P = 0.011) and selection of laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio, 0.41; 95 % confidence interval, 0.22-0.75; P = 0.003) were statistically significant in the multivariate analysis for postoperative morbidity. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery did not result in an inferior overall survival rate compared with open surgery (log-rank test P = 0.289, 0.278, 0.346, 0.199, for all-stage, stage 0-I, stage II, and stage III disease, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients with a poor performance status is safe and not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival.

Clinical comparison of laparoscopy vs open surgery in a radical operation for rectal cancer: A retrospective case-control study

AIM: To assess the diverse immediate and long-term clinical outcomes, a retrospective comparison between laparoscopic and conventional operation was performed.

METHODS: A total number of 916 clinical cases, from January 2006 to December 2013 in our hospital, were analyzed which covered 492 patients underwent the laparoscopy in radical resection (LRR) and 424 cases in open radical resection (ORR). A retrospective analysis was proceeded by comparing the general information, surgery performance, pathologic data, postoperative recovery and complications as well as long-term survival to investigate the diversity of immediate and long-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical operation.

RESULTS: There were no statistically significance differences between gender, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), tumor loci, tumor node metastasis stages, cell differentiation degree or American Society of Anesthesiologists scores of the patients (P > 0.05). In contrast to the ORR group, the LRR group experienced less operating time (P < 0.001), a lower blood loss (P < 0.001), and had a 2.44% probability of conversion to open surgery. Postoperative bowel function recovered more quickly, analgesic usage and the average hospital stay (P < 0.001) were reduced after LRR. Lymph node dissection during LRR appeared to be slightly more than in ORR (P = 0.338). There were no obvious differences in the lengths and margins (P = 0.182). And the occurrence rate in the two groups was similar (P = 0.081). Overall survival rate of ORR and LRR for 1, 3 and 5 years were 94.0% and 93.6% (P = 0.534), 78.1% and 80.9% (P = 0.284) and 75.2% and 77.0% (P = 0.416), respectively.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy as a radical operation for rectal cancer was safe, produced better immediate outcomes. Long-term survival of laparoscopy revealed that it was similar to the open operation.

Clinical Significance of Closure of Mesenteric Defects in Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Single-Institutional Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The effect of closure of mesenteric defects to prevent complications, such as internal hernia, during laparoscopic colectomy remains controversial and is a subject of debate.

PURPOSE

This retrospective single-institution study aimed to clarify the clinical significance of mesenteric defect closure during a laparoscopic colectomy.

METHODS

We evaluated 58 patients who underwent laparoscopic right-side colectomy or transverse colectomy. The statistical relevance of complications, surgical maneuvers, and clinical factors was examined.

RESULTS

The mesenteric defects were closed in 30 patients and not closed in 28 patients. Two patients with ileus and 1 with a deep incisional surgical site infection required a second surgery. The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the nonclosure group than in the closure group (11% vs. 0%, respectively; P=0.033).

CONSIDERATION

Serious complications requiring reoperation occurred only in the nonclosure group. The procedure for closing the defect did not extend the operation time or increase the bleeding.

Core value of laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Since laparoscopy was first used in cholecystectomy in 1987, it has developed quickly and has been used in most fields of traditional surgery. People have now accepted its advantages like small incision, quick recovery, light pain, beauty and short hospital stays. In early times, there are still controversies about the application of laparoscopy in malignant tumor treatments, especially about the problems of oncology efficacy, incision implantation and operation security. However, these concerns have been fully eliminated by evidences on the basis of evidence-basis medicine. In recent years, new minimally invasive technologies are appearing continually, but they still have challenges and may increase the difficulties of radical dissection and the risks of potential complications, so they are confined to benign or early malignant tumors. The core value of the laparoscopic technique is to ensure the high quality of tumor’s radical resection and less complications. On the basis of this, it is allowed to pursue more minimally invasive techniques. Since the development of laparoscopic colorectal surgery is rapid and unceasing, we have reasons to believe that laparoscopic surgery will become gold standard for colorectal surgery in the near future.

Impact of splenic flexure mobilization on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic left colectomy for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Depending on the extent of left colon resection, splenic flexure mobilization is sometimes necessary to achieve a tension-free anastomosis. The aim of the study was the assessment of necessity and impact on morbidity of splenic flexure mobilization for laparoscopic colectomy with anastomosis for cancer located distally to the splenic flexure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients subjected to laparoscopic colectomy for carcinoma located at any site from the descending colon to the distal rectum from 2004 to 2010 were reviewed. Comparisons were made between cases with and without splenic flexure mobilization.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients were operated for left colon or rectal cancer. There was no difference with regard to the intraoperative bleeding and bowel perforation and no differences concerning the conversion rates. In contrast, stoma formation rates were higher in the mobilized group. Moreover, total operative time was higher for the mobilized group except for the middle rectum cancer cases. Postoperative outcomes as far as mortality and morbidity rates and primary hospital stay are concerned, did not display any difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenic flexure mobilization can provide a tension-free anastomosis and sufficiently vascularized anastomosis in laparoscopic colorectal surgery for distal colon pathology, with no impact on immediate postoperative outcomes, despite longer operative time.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection in Octogenarian Patients: Is it Safe? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The population older than 80 years has been increasing. A significant proportion of colorectal diseases that require colorectal resection occur in very elderly patients. However, the benefits of laparoscopy remain controversial in octogenarians. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational study was performed to compare clinical outcomes between laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection in octogenarians.The PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from the years 1990 to 2015 were searched for studies that compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic and open colorectal resection in octogenarians (≥80 years old).Seven eligible studies including 528 laparoscopic and 484 open colorectal resections were identified. Laparoscopic approach was associated with lower rate of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, P = 0.03), overall complications (OR 0.54, P < 0.001), and prolonged ileus (OR 0.56, P = 0.009), quicker bowel function return (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.50, P< 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (SMD -0.47, P = 0.007). No differences were found in anastomotic leak (OR 1.16, P = 0.72), respiratory complication (OR 0.60, P = 0.07), and reoperation (OR 0.85, P = 0.69).Laparoscopic colorectal resection is as safe as open approach, and the short-term outcomes appear to be more favorable in octogenarians.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Middle and Lower Rectal Cancer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer remain controversial because anatomical and complex surgical procedures specifically influence oncologic outcomes. This study analyzes the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer.

Methods

Patients (laparoscopic: n = 129, open: n = 152) who underwent curative resection for middle and lower rectal cancer from 2003 to 2008 participated in the study. The same surgical team performed all operations. The mean follow up time of all patients was 74.3 months.

Results

No statistical difference in local recurrence rate (7.8% vs. 7.2%; log-rank = 0.024; P = 0.876) and distant recurrence rate (20.9% vs.16.4%; log-rank = 0.699; P = 0.403) between laparoscopic and open groups were observed within 5 years. The 5-year overall survival rates of the laparoscopic and open groups were 72.9% and 75.7%, respectively; no significant statistical difference was observed between them (log-rank = 0.163; P = 0.686). The 5-year survival rates between groups were not different between stages: Stage I (92.6% vs. 86.7%; log-rank = 0.533; P = 0.465); stage II (75.8% vs. 80.5%; log-rank = 0.212; P = 0.645); and Stage III (63.8% vs. 69.1%, log-rank = 0272;P = 0.602). However, significant statistical difference amongst different stages were observed (log-rank = 1.802; P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic and open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer offer equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes. Laparoscopic surgery is feasible in these patients.

Screening strategies for colorectal cancer among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and family history

Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at higher risks but how they should be screened remains uncertain. Hence, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening among patients with NAFLD and family history by different strategies. A hypothetical population of 100,000 subjects aged 40-75 years receive: (i) yearly fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at 50 years; (ii) flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) every 5 years at 50 years; (iii) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years; (iv) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years among those with family history/NAFLD and yearly FIT at 50 years among those without; (v) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 40 years among those with family history/NAFLD and yearly FIT at 50 years among those without and (vi) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 40 years among those with family history/NAFLD and colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years among those without. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was studied by Markov modeling. It was found that colonoscopy, FS and FIT reduced incidence of CRC by 49.5, 26.3 and 23.6%, respectively. Using strategies 4, 5 and 6, the corresponding reduction in CRC incidence was 29.9, 30.9 and 69.3% for family history, and 33.2, 34.7 and 69.8% for NAFLD. Compared with no screening, strategies 4 (US$1,018/life-year saved) and 5 (US$7,485) for family history offered the lowest ICER, whilst strategy 4 (US$5,877) for NAFLD was the most cost-effective. These findings were robust when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case. These indicated that screening patients with family history or NAFLD by colonoscopy at 50 years was economically favorable.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in the older person: A systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is being increasingly offered to the older person.

Objective

To systematically review the literature regarding laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in older people and compare to younger adult populations.

Study selection

We included randomized controlled trials that compared open to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Older people were defined as being 65 years and above.

Outcome measures

Overall survival and post-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, wound recurrence, disease-free survival and conversion rate.

Results

Seven trials included older people, average age of approximately 70 years. Two reported data specific to older patients (over 70 years): The ALCCaS study reported reduced length of stay and short-term complication rates in the laparoscopic group when compared to open surgery (8 versus 10 days, and 36.7% versus 50.6% respectively) and the CLASICC study reported equivalent 5 year survival between arms and a reduction of 2 days length of stay following laparoscopic surgery in older people. In trials which considered data on older and younger participants all five trials reported comparable overall survival and showed comparable or reduced complication rates; two demonstrated significantly shorter length of stay following laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery.

Conclusion

Large numbers of older people have been included in well-conducted, multi-centre, randomized controlled trials for laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery. This systematic review suggests that age itself should not be a factor when considering the best surgical option for older patients.

•

Seven well conducted randomised controlled trials of open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery have included older people.

•

Age alone should not be a barrier to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

•

The effect of comorbidity in older people undergoing laparoscopic surgery is less clear and warrants further study.

Initial experience of reduced port surgery using a two-surgeon technique for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

With the decreasing number of surgeons on surgical teams, reduced port surgery (RPS) operations have become popular. We herein present our initial experience with RPS, which was successfully performed using a two-surgeon technique. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare the two-surgeon technique with conventional laparoscopic colectomy and evaluate its efficacy.

METHODS

A total of 535 patients were eligible among 749 registered patients. Conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with three surgeons and RPS using the two-surgeon technique with a surgeon and surgeon's assistant were performed in 429 and 106 cases, respectively. The patient characteristics, short-term outcomes (including intraoperative and postoperative findings) and pathological results were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, BMI, history of abdominal surgery, depth of tumor invasion and TNM classification. Reconstruction via extracorporeal functional end-to-end anastomosis was performed in a significantly higher number of patients in the two-surgeon technique group (74 %) than in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (57 %). Furthermore, the mean operative time in the two-surgeon technique group (117.9 min) was significantly shorter than that observed in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (170 min), and the median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the two-surgeon technique group (6 days) than in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (7 days). There were no major postoperative complications. The final TNM stage was similar in both procedures.

CONCLUSION

RPS using the two-surgeon technique compares favorably with conventional laparoscopic colectomy and is considered to be a safe and successful procedure.

The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques

The conventional laparoscopic approach to rectal surgery has several limitations, and therefore many colorectal surgeons have great expectations for the robotic surgical system as an alternative modality in overcoming challenges of laparoscopic surgery and thus enhancing oncologic and functional outcomes. This review explores the possibility of robotic surgery as an alternative approach in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The da Vinci® Surgical System was developed specifically to compensate for the technical limitations of laparoscopic instruments in rectal surgery. The robotic rectal surgery is associated with comparable or better oncologic and pathologic outcomes, as well as low morbidity and mortality. The robotic surgery is generally easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery, improving the probability of autonomic nerve preservation and genitourinary function recovery. Furthermore, in very complex procedures such as intersphincteric dissections and transabdominal transections of the levator muscle, the robotic approach is associated with increased performance and safety compared to laparoscopic surgery. The robotic surgery for rectal cancer is an advanced technique that may resolve the issues associated with laparoscopic surgery. However, high cost of robotic surgery must be addressed before it can become the new standard treatment.

Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes after single- or multiport surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the short-term surgical results of single-port surgery (SPS) with those of multiport surgery (MPS) for colorectal cancer.

METHOD

We studied 673 consecutive patients who underwent SPS or MPS for colorectal cancer in our department from January 2008 to December 2013. The operative parameters and oncological outcome were analysed and compared between the SPS and the MPS groups retrospectively.

RESULTS

The SPS and MPS groups did not differ significantly in terms of preoperative evaluation. The median operative time was significantly shorter with SPS than with MPS (176 min vs 193 min; P < 0.001). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of postoperative complications. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with SPS than with MPS (8 days vs 10 days; P < 0.001). Oncological resection was similar in the two groups. The disease-free survival rates at 2 years according to the TNM stage did not differ significantly between the two groups (Stage I, 98.5% vs 94.7%; Stage II, 93.4% vs 90.7%; and Stage III, 70.8% vs 68.4%).

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates that SPS is safe and can provide oncological outcomes equal to those of MPS in patients with colorectal cancer.

The integration of minimally invasive surgery in surgical practice in a Canadian setting: results from 2 consecutive province-wide practice surveys of general surgeons over a 5-year period

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been quickly embraced, the introduction of advanced procedures appears more complex. We assessed the evolution of MIS in the province of Quebec over a 5-year period to identify areas for improvement in the modern surgical era.

METHODS

We developed, test-piloted and conducted a self-administered questionnaire among Quebec general surgeons in 2007 and 2012 to examine stated MIS practice, MIS training and barriers and facilitators to the use of MIS.

RESULTS

Response rates were 51.3% (251 of 489) in 2007 and 31.3% (153 of 491) in 2012. A significant increase was observed for performance of most advanced MIS procedures, especially for colectomy for benign (66.0% v. 84.3%, p < 0,001) and malignant diseases (43.3% v. 77.8%, p < 0,001) and for rectal surgery for malignancy (21.0% v. 54.6%, p < 0.001). More surgeons practised 3 or more advanced MIS procedures in 2012 than in 2007 (82.3% v. 64.3%, p < 0,001). At multivariate analysis, the 2007 survey administration was associated with fewer surgeons practising advanced MIS (odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.29). In 2012, more respondents stated they gained their skills during residency (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

From 2007 to 2012 there was a significant increase in advanced MIS procedures practised by general surgeons in Québec. This technique appears well established in current surgical practice. The growing place of MIS in residency training seems to be a paramount part of this development. Results from this study could be used as a baseline for studies focusing on ways to further improve the MIS practice.

Minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

Surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease is a challenging endeavor given infectious and inflammatory complications, such as fistula, and abscess, complex often postoperative anatomy, including adhesive disease from previous open operations. Patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis also bring to the table the burden of their chronic illness with anemia, malnutrition, and immunosuppression, all common and contributing independently as risk factors for increased surgical morbidity in this high-risk population. However, to reduce the physical trauma of surgery, technologic advances and worldwide experience with minimally invasive surgery have allowed laparoscopic management of patients to become standard of care, with significant short- and long-term patient benefits compared with the open approach. In this review, we will describe the current state-of the-art for minimally invasive surgery for inflammatory bowel disease and the caveats inherent with this practice in this complex patient population. Also, we will review the applicability of current and future trends in minimally invasive surgical technique, such as laparoscopic "incisionless," single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), robotic-assisted, and other techniques for the patient with inflammatory bowel disease. There can be no doubt that minimally invasive surgery has been proven to decrease the short- and long-term burden of surgery of these chronic illnesses and represents high-value care for both patient and society.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

AIM: To evaluate the 5-year survival after laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer.

METHODS: This study enrolled 406 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for stages II and III rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2009 [laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR), n = 152; open rectal resection (ORR), n = 254]. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pathological outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 5-year survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Most of the clinical characteristics were similar except age (59 years vs 55 years, P = 0.033) between the LRR group and ORR group. The proportion of anterior resection was higher in the LRR group than that in the ORR group (81.6% vs 66.1%, P = 0.001). The LRR group had less estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, P < 0.001) and a lower rate of blood transfusion (4.6% vs 11.8%, P = 0.019) compared to the ORR group. The pathological outcomes of the two groups were comparable. The LRR group was associated with faster recovery of bowel function (2.8 d vs 3.7 d, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11.7 d vs 13.7 d, P < 0.001). The median follow-up time was 63 mo in the LRR group and 65 mo in the ORR group. As for the survival outcomes, the 5-year local recurrence rate (16.0% vs 16.4%, P = 0.753), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate (63.0% vs 63.1%, P = 0.589), and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (68.1% vs 63.5%, P = 0.682) were comparable between the LRR group and the ORR group. Stage by stage, there were also no statistical differences between the LRR group and the ORR group in terms of the 5-year local recurrence rate (stage II: 6.3% vs 8.7%, P = 0.623; stage III: 26.4% vs 23.2%, P = 0.747), 5-year DFS rate (stage II: 77.5% vs 77.6%, P = 0.462; stage III: 46.5% vs 50.9%, P = 0.738), and 5-year OS rate (stage II: 81.4% vs 74.3%, P = 0.242; stage III: 53.9% vs 54.1%, P = 0.459).

CONCLUSION: LRR for stages II and III rectal cancer can yield comparable long-term survival while achieving short-term benefits compared to open surgery.

[Current evidence for laparoscopic surgery of colonic cancer]

BACKGROUND

The development of modern videoendoscopy enables surgeons to perform laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer.

AIM

This manuscript evaluated the literature concerning clinically relevant differences in the short and long-term course after laparoscopic or conventional resection of colonic cancer.

METHODS

An investigation of meta-analyses from randomized controlled clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and conventional surgery for colonic cancer was carried out.

RESULTS

The incidence of intraoperative complications was higher during laparoscopic surgery, the duration of surgery was increased and blood loss was less when compared to open surgery. Overall morbidity and the incidence of surgical complications were decreased after laparoscopic surgery. General morbidity and mortality were not different after laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer. Duration of hospital stay was shorter but was also associated with the type of perioperative care (i.e. traditional or enhanced recovery). Following minimally invasive or conventional resection, the incidence of tumor recurrence (local and distant) and the duration of survival (overall and disease-free) showed no differences. Wound implantations were rare after both operative techniques but with a tendency to occur more often after laparoscopic than open resection.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer has clinically relevant short-term benefits for the patients and long-term results are not different from open colectomy. However, most of the patients included in randomized controlled trials underwent right or left colectomy and sigmoid or rectosigmoid resections. Data with a high level of evidence concerning carcinomas of the flexures or the transverse colon do not exist. Suitable patients with colonic cancer should undergo laparoscopic resection by experienced surgeons.

Efficacy of perioperative synbiotics treatment for the prevention of surgical site infection after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of perioperative oral administration of synbiotics on the surgical outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection.

METHODS

In this single-center randomized, controlled trial, patients scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery were eligible to participate and randomly assigned to a synbiotics group or a control group. The primary study outcome was the development of infectious complications, particularly surgical site infection (SSI), within 30 days of surgery.

RESULTS

In this study, 379 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (173 to the synbiotics group and 206 to the control group), of whom 362 patients (168 to the synbiotics group and 194 to the control group) were eligible for this study. SSI occurred in 29 (17.3%) patients in the synbiotics group and 44 (22.7%) patients in the control group (OR: 0.761, 95% CI 0.50-1.16; p = 0.20). Overall, the rate of postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage, did not differ significantly between the two groups. Synbiotics treatment reversed the changes in fecal bacteria and organic acids after surgery and suppressed the increases in potentially pathogenic species, such as Clostridium difficile.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of perioperative administration of synbiotics was not validated as a treatment for reducing the incidence of infectious complications after laparoscopic colorectal resection. However, the microbial imbalance, in addition to the reduction in organic acids, could be improved by perioperative synbiotics treatment.

Non-surgical complications after laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer - A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cardiac and pulmonary complications account for a large part of postoperative mortality, especially in the growing number of elderly patients. This review studies the effect of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer on short term non-surgical morbidity.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify randomised trials on laparoscopic compared to open surgery for colorectal cancer with reported cardiac or pulmonary complications.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 3302 articles; 18 studies were included with a total of 6153 patients. Reported median or mean age varied from 56 years to 72 years. The percentage of included patients with ASA-scores ≥ 3 ranged from 7% to 38%. Morbidity was poorly defined. Overall reported incidence of postoperative cardiac complications was low for both laparoscopic and open colorectal resection (median 2%). There was a trend towards fewer cardiac complications following laparoscopic surgery (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41-1.06, p = 0.08), and this effect was most marked for laparoscopic colectomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.71, p = 0.007). Incidence of pulmonary complications ranged from 0 to 11% and no benefit was found for laparoscopic surgery, although a possible trend was seen in favour of laparoscopic colectomy (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53-1.13, p = 0.19). Overall morbidity rates varied from 11% to 69% with a median of 33%.

CONCLUSION

Although morbidity was poorly defined, for laparoscopic colectomies, significantly less cardiac complications occurred compared with open surgery and a trend towards less pulmonary complications was observed. Subgroup analysis from two RCTs suggests that elderly patients benefit most from a laparoscopic approach based on overall morbidity rates.

Laparoscopic right colectomy in patients treated with previous gastrectomy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is increasingly being performed in patients treated with previous abdominal surgery. This is a retrospective study designed to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic right colectomy in patients with a previous history of gastrectomy.

METHODS

Of 838 consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic right colectomy, 23 had previously undergone gastrectomy (PG group) and 516 had no history of previous abdominal surgery (NS group). The short-term surgical outcomes were retrospectively investigated in the PG and NS groups.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 75 years in the PG group and 67 years in the NS group (p = 0.0026), and the median body mass index in both groups was 19.2 and 22.6 kg/m(2), respectively (p = 0.0006). The mean operative time, amount of blood loss and postoperative hospital stay were similar. One patient in the PG group and five patients in the NS group required conversion to laparotomy (p = 0.1307). Three patients in the PG group experienced postoperative complications, one each with an intraperitoneal abscess, wound infection and enterocolitis; however, none of these complications were directly attributable to adhesiolysis. The rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic right colectomy is feasible in patients treated with previous gastrectomy.