Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial

Randomized clinical trials in rectal and anal cancers

This article reviews randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between April 2001 and November 2008 on the management of patients with rectal cancer. In total, the authors reviewed 78 RCTs on therapy for rectal cancer. Of these, five met the authors' criteria for level 1a evidence. The article discusses the major RCTs and relevant findings that have impacted clinical management most and includes most but not all RCTs on therapy for rectal cancer published during this period.

Transumbilical single incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for benign disease

BACKGROUND

Transumbilical single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has made its initial forays into clinical minimally invasive surgery. SILS combines in part the cosmetic advantage and decrease parietal trauma of natural orifice surgery, but allow operative realization with standard and validated laparoscopic instruments. We report here the first clinical transumbilical SILS sigmoidectomy for benign disease.

METHOD

Preliminary experience with transumbilical single incision laparoscopic surgery (or embryonic natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery) sigmoidectomy in a female patient (34 years, BMI 22 kg/m(2)) with sigmoid stenosis caused by nodular endometriosis was reported. Transumbilical SILS treatment of pelvic endometriosis was performed during the same operation through cauterization.

RESULTS

Transumbilical single incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy was feasible with conventional laparoscopic instruments. The combined uses of straight and articulated laparoscopic instruments allow the avoidance of transparietal sling suture for exposition. Operative time for sigmoidectomy and endometriosis therapy was 125 min. No intra-operative or postoperative complications were recorded. SILS achieved excellent cosmetic results and may be associated with accelerated recovery.

CONCLUSION

Transumbilical single incision laparoscopic sigmoidectomy is feasible by experienced laparoscopic surgeons using conventional laparoscopic instruments and staplers. The combined uses of strait and articulated instruments allow transumbilical SILS sigmoidectomy without the need for additional incision or transparietal sling suture. SILS sigmoidectomy may have the clinical advantage over NOTES of offering the safety of laparoscopic colectomy and the avoidance of vaginal access. It has to be determined if SILS offers benefit to the patient, except in cosmesis, compared with standard laparoscopic sigmoidectomy.

Single-port access laparoscopic radical left colectomy in humans

BACKGROUND

Transumbilical single-port access (SPA) surgery is a rapidly evolving field that combines in part the cosmetic advantage of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) with the ability to perform the operation with standard laparoscopic instruments. We report our experience with the first transumbilical single-port access radical left colectomy conforming to surgical oncologic principle and minimally invasive colectomy technique.

METHODS

Umbilical single-port access (embryonic natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery) left colectomy was performed in a patient with sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma in situ. During the same procedure, a single-port access cholecystectomy was performed for chronic cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Transumbilical single-port access radical left colectomy was feasible with conventional laparoscopic instruments. A 39-cm pathologic specimen with sufficient surgical margins and lymph nodes (34) was resected. Final diagnosis revealed an adenocarcinoma in situ. Operative time for left colectomy and cholecystectomy was 213 minutes. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Single-port access radical left colectomy is feasible when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Carcinologic surgical principles can be respected using this colectomy technique. Single-port access left colectomy may have a clinical advantage over natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in offering the safety of laparoscopic colectomy. It has yet to be determined whether or not this approach would offer patient benefits, except in cosmesis, compared with standard laparoscopic left colectomy.

Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of meta-analysis of nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs) of a surgical procedure with that of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and to assess the effect of design and conduct issues in NRCSs on measured outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Two meta-analyses of RCTs and NRCSs (2,512 and 6,438 procedures, respectively) of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer were performed according to accepted protocols, and 13 outcomes common between them were compared. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes were assessed for the degree of overlap. Continuous outcomes were compared using cumulative weighted ratios (CWRs) and percentages for which a mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated. The effects of design and conduct issues in the meta-analysis of NRCSs on measured morbidity rates were assessed using subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

The ORs of the three dichotomous outcomes overlapped widely. For the 10 continuous variables, the mean difference (SD) in the results of the two meta-analyses was only 5.6% (4.9%). Fulfillment of certain quality and conduct issues in the NRCSs determined the statistical homogeneity of the results of meta-analysis and their comparability with the "gold standard."

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of well-designed NRCSs of surgical procedures is probably as accurate as that of RCTs.

Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in dogs

In the last few years, the use of laparoscopy in veterinary medicine has expanded and consequently so was the need for studies that establish the advantages, disadvantages and possible complications of each procedure. The purpose of the current study was to describe a laparoscopic splenectomy technique and the alterations due to this access, and compare it to the open procedure in dogs. A total of 15 healthy female mongrel dogs were used, with mean weight of 17.4±2.5kg. The animals were distributed into three groups: Group IA of open splenectomy (laparotomy) using double ligation of the vessels of the splenic hilum with poliglicolic acid, Group IB of open splenectomy (laparotomy) with bipolar electrocoagulation of the splenic hilum, and Group II of laparoscopic access with bipolar electrocoagulation of the splenic hilum. Operative time, blood loss, size of incisions, complications during and after surgery were evaluated. Other parameters included pain scores, white blood cell (WBC) counts and postoperative serum concentrations of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), creatine kinase (CK), C-reactive protein (CRP), glucose and cortisol. No differences were found in the evaluation of parameters between both open splenectomy techniques employed. Laparoscopic access presented significant differences (p<0,05) when compared with open surgery: Longer operative time, smaller abdominal access, decrease in blood loss, lower concentrations of CRP, higher levels of CK and ALP, and lower scores in the pain scale. Laparoscopic surgery showed fewer complications of the surgical wound. No significant differences were observed between groups in the postoperative temperature, WBC, ALT, cortisol and glucose concentrations. In conclusion, the laparoscopic technique is useful for splenectomy in dogs, being advantageous in terms of blood loss, surgical stress and surgical wounds. However, it expends more operative time and causes transitory increase in hepatic and muscular enzymes.

Is laparoscopic colectomy as cost beneficial as open colectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy has yet to gain widespread acceptance in cost-conscious health-care institutions. The aim of the present study was to define the cost-benefit relationship of laparoscopic versus open colectomy.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy (LC) by a single colorectal surgeon between August 2004 and September 2005 were reviewed. Cases were matched with a historical cohort undergoing elective open colectomy (OC) between June 2003 and July 2004. Demography, perioperative data, histopathology and cost were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar demographics. Most resections (90.6%) were for cancer. Operative time was significantly longer for LC compared to OC (180 min vs 110 min, P < 0.001). Four patients (12.5%) in the LC group required conversion. LC patients, however, had lower median pain scores (3, 2 and 1 vs 6, 4 and 2 at 24, 48 and 72 h postoperatively, P < 0.001), faster resolution of ileus (3 vs 4 days, P < 0.001) and earlier discharge (6 vs 9 days, P < 0.001) compared to the OC group. As a result, overall hospital cost for both procedures was not significantly different (US$7943 vs US$7253, P = 0.41).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy is as cost-beneficial in the short term as open colectomy.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy versus standard laparoscopic colectomy: a cost analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is a relative dearth of literature comparing hand-assisted (HALC) to standard (SLC) laparoscopic colectomies. HALC seems beneficial in terms of shorter operative times and lower conversion rates, but this is counterbalanced by a greater inflammatory response, larger incisions and higher direct costs. Nevertheless, these results are not consistent throughout existing studies and there are to date no detailed cost comparisons. Our hypothesis was that HALC would not incur significantly higher institutional costs compared with standard laparoscopic techniques.

METHOD

Patients undergoing either SLC or HALC between August 2004 and September 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were managed using a standard protocol. Outcomes assessed included operative times, conversion rates, pain scores, time to resolution of ileus, length of stay and complications. Total costs were calculated from the day of surgery. Statistical analyses included chi(2), Fisher's exact test, the Mann-Whitney U-test or nonparametric bootstrapping method.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients underwent SLC while 101 had HALC. Demographics and indications for surgery in both groups were similar; the majority were performed for colorectal cancers. Operative times were shorter (147.5 vs 172.5 min, P < 0.05) and complication rates lower (28.7%vs 45.2%, P < 0.025) for HALC. There was no significant difference in the other clinical outcomes. Operative costs and cost of consumables were higher for HALC (US$4024.2 vs US$3568.1, P = 0.01 and US$1724.7 vs US$1302.7, P < 0.001, respectively). However, total costs were not significantly different (HALC US$8999.8, SLC US$7910.7, P = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

Institutional costs are not significantly higher for HALC compared with SLC.

Is gum chewing useful for ileus after elective colorectal surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of the usefulness of gum chewing for postoperative ileus has given inconclusive results. We evaluated the efficacy of gum chewing in the treatment of ileus after elective colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing the effect of gum chewing+standard treatment vs. standard treatment on ileus after colorectal surgery. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until August 2008. Primary outcomes were time to first flatus, time to first passage of feces, and length of hospital stay. The mean difference (MD) in hours was calculated with the random effects model to assess the effect of gum chewing on the outcomes.

RESULTS

Six trials including 244 patients were analyzed. Time to first flatus was significantly reduced with gum chewing+standard treatment compared to standard treatment alone (MD -14 h, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -23.5 to -4.6). Time to first passage of feces was significantly reduced (MD -25 h, 95%CI -42.3 to -7.7), but the length of hospital stay was only marginally reduced (MD -26.2 h, 95%CI -57.5 to 5.2) with gum chewing.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ileus after colonic surgery, gum chewing in addition to standard treatment significantly reduces the time to first flatus and the time to first passage of feces when compared to standard treatment alone. There is also a trend to reduce the length of hospital stay. Gum chewing should be added to the standard treatment of these patients.

What is the definition of "conversion" in laparoscopic colorectal surgery?

BACKGROUND

A web-based survey was conducted among colorectal surgeons who represented members of both SAGES and ASCRS to find out how they define conversion for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Questionnaires were designed based on MCQs, including three parts: surgeon information, different definitions for conversion, and four different clinical scenarios. Surgeons were asked to choose the best definition(s).

RESULTS

325 (28.5%) of 1,140 surgeons, 28.5% responded; approximately half of them were part of private-based practices. Fifty-three percent had more than 10 years experience; 35.9% performed more than 50 laparoscopic colon cases per year, 12% performed more than 25 laparoscopic rectal cases per year, and 60% less than 10. The majority (68.4%) agreed that any incision made earlier than planned is conversion. Whereas 81.4% felt that incision >5 cm is not a conversion, only 53.4% considered incision >10 cm a conversion, and 37% did not. Neither extracorporeal vessel ligation (73.8%), bowel resection (81.2%), anastomosis (77%), or incision made for specimen retrieval (91.1%) was counted as conversion. In clinical case scenarios, 62% found an incision made to facilitate phlegmon dissection after laparoscopically mobilizing the left colon up to and around the splenic flexure to be laparoscopic-assisted. A 10-cm incision required for fistula take down after finishing laparoscopic dissection was defined as conversion (55.6%). A 10-cm incision made for the rectal dissection in rectopexy was described as conversion in 51% and laparoscopic-assisted in 48%. Increasing a 5-12-cm for specimen extraction, 49.3% was declared a laparoscopic-assisted case.

CONCLUSIONS

It was considered clear that any incision made earlier than planned a conversion, whereas extra corporeal vessel ligation, bowel resection and anastomosis were not. However, there seem to be many views of conversion regarding incision length, and some clinical situations that might influence outcome among different centers.

Systematic Review of Quality of Life following Laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Quorum guidelines. Prospective studies comparing the HRQoL of patients after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery were identified. The primary outcome measure was postoperative quality of life; performance status and cosmesis were secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

23 studies were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria; 18 assessed HRQoL, 4 performance status, and 3 cosmesis. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to study heterogeneity. The studies reported outcomes for 2946 patients. The most frequent HRQoL instruments employed were SF-36, EORTC, and GIQLI. 6 studies, using a total of 12 separate measures, evaluated QoL during the first 3 post-operative months: 10 of these measures showed no significant difference, and 2 showed an improved HRQoL with laparoscopy. Twelve further studies evaluated HRQoL up to 5 years post-operatively: 9 showed no difference between the 2 groups, and 3 demonstrated a benefit for laparoscopy. Three of 4 studies assessing performance status on discharge, and all 3 studies assessing cosmesis, reported benefits with the laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests there is no significant difference in HRQoL following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery, although there is a lack of good quality data. There is a trend towards improved quality of life outcomes and performance status with laparoscopy in the early post-operative period. There is a need for further research, particularly assessing quality of life in the early post-operative period.

Laparoscopic versus open liver segmentectomy: prospective, case-matched, intention-to-treat analysis of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Reduction in hospital stay, blood loss, postoperative pain and complications are common findings after laparoscopic liver resection, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach may be a suitable alternative to open surgery. Some concerns have been raised regarding cost effectiveness of this procedure and potential implications of its large-scale application. Our aim has been to determine cost effectiveness of laparoscopic liver surgery by a case-matched, case-control, intention-to-treat analysis of its costs and short-term clinical outcomes compared with open surgery.

METHODS

Laparoscopic liver segmentectomies and bisegmentectomies performed at Ninewells Hospital and Medical School between 2005 and 2007 were considered. Resections involving more than two Couinaud segments, or involving any synchronous procedure, were excluded. An operation-magnitude-matched control group was identified amongst open liver resections performed between 2004 and 2007. Hospital costs were obtained from the Scottish Health Service Costs Book (ISD Scotland) and average national costs were calculated. Cost of theatre time, disposable surgical devices, hospital stay, and high-dependency unit (HDU) and intensive care unit (ICU) usage were the main endpoints for comparison. Secondary endpoints were morbidity and mortality. Statistical analysis was performed with Student's t-test, chi(2) and Fisher exact test as most appropriate.

RESULTS

Twenty-five laparoscopic liver resections were considered, including atypical resection, segmentectomy and bisegmentectomy, and they were compared to 25 matching open resections. The two groups were homogeneous by age, sex, coexistent morbidity, magnitude of resection, prevalence of liver cirrhosis and indications. Operative time (p < 0.03), blood loss (p < 0.0001), Pringle manoeuvre (p < 0.03), hospital stay (p < 0.003) and postoperative complications (p < 0.002) were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group. Overall hospital cost was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group by an average of 2,571 pounds sterling (p < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver segmentectomy and bisegmentectomy are feasible, safe and cost effective compared to similar open resections. Large-scale application of laparoscopic liver surgery could translate into significant savings to hospitals and health care programmes.

Ultrasound scissors: new single-use instruments vs. resterilised single-use instruments - a prospective randomised study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare reliability in handling and function of resterilised and single-use disposable ultrasonic scissors.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized study, the surgeon blindly tested new and resterilised ultrasonic scissors. The parameters were force of activation, cutting effect, coagulation effect, error messages and disturbing generator noise.

RESULTS

51 new and 49 resterilised instruments in 94 operations were evaluated. The differences in force of activation, cutting effect and coagulation were not significant. Error messages and disturbing noises were rare in both groups. 6 new instruments and 2 resterilised instruments had to be exchanged because of problems during surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates comparable reliability in function and handling of resterilised and new ultrasonic scissors. The use of resterilised instruments leads to distinctly reduced costs and could contribute to efficiency in laparoscopic surgery.

Prospective randomized study of monopolar scissors, bipolar vessel sealer and ultrasonic shears in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

Many instruments are used for laparoscopic dissection, including monopolar electrosurgery scissors (MES), electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers (BVS) and ultrasonically coagulating shears (UCS). These three devices were compared with regard to dissection time, blood loss, safety and costs.

Methods

Sixty-one consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left-sided colectomy were randomized to MES, BVS or UCS. The primary endpoint was dissection time.

Results

Patient and operation characteristics did not differ between the groups. Median dissection time was significantly shorter with BVS (105 min) and UCS (90 min) than with MES (137 min) (P &lt; 0·001). With BVS and UCS, significantly fewer additional clips were required (MES 9 versus BVS 0 versus UCS 3; P &lt; 0·001) and there was a trend towards lower blood loss (125 versus 50 versus 50 ml respectively; P = 0·223) and a reduced volume of suction fluid (425 versus 80 versus 110 ml; P = 0·058). Overall satisfaction was similar for the three instruments. Dissection with BVS and UCS was significantly cheaper than with MES, assuming a centre volume of 200 cases per year (P = 0·009).

Conclusion

BVS and UCS shorten dissection time in laparoscopic left-sided colectomy and are cost-effective compared with MES. Registration number: NCT00517608 (http://www.clinicaltrials.com).

Standardized algorithms for management of anastomotic leaks and related abdominal and pelvic abscesses after colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The risk factors and incidence of anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery are well reported in the literature. However, the management of the multiple clinical scenarios that may be encountered has not been standardized.

METHODS

The medical literature from 1973 to 2007 was reviewed using PubMed for papers relating to anastomotic leaks and abdominal abscess, with a specific emphasis on predisposing factors, prevention strategies, and treatment approaches. A six-round modified Delphi research method was utilized to find consensus among a group of expert colorectal surgeons and interventional radiologists regarding standardized management algorithms for anastomotic leaks.

RESULTS

Management scenarios were divided into those for intraperitoneal anastomoses, extraperitoneal (low pelvic) anastomoses, and anastomoses with proximal diverting stomas. Management options were then based on the clinical presentation and radiographic findings and organized into three interconnected algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

This process was a useful first step toward establishing guidelines for the management of anastomotic leak.

Does the laparoscopic colorectal surgery learning curve adversely affect the results of colorectal cancer resection? A 3-year prospective study in a district general hospital

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is slowly being adopted across the UK. We present a 3-year prospective study of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections in a district general hospital.

METHOD

Data relating to premorbid, operative and postoperative parameters were recorded for all patients undergoing laparoscopic, open, planned converted (laparoscopic assisted) and unplanned converted resections prospectively from April 2003 to April 2006.

RESULTS

A total of 238 colorectal resections were performed, 153 of which were for cancer. Of these 44 (29%) were open, 77 (50%) were laparoscopic and 32 (21%) were converted [26 (17%) planned and six (4%) unplanned]. Blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (P = 0.02) as was intra-operative fluid replacement (P = 0.01). Time to requiring oral analgesia alone was shorter (P = 0.001) and bowel function returned earlier (P = 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. This is reflected in a trend towards a shorter hospital stay for the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (P = 0.049). The operating time of the laparoscopic group was not significantly longer (P = 0.38). The complication rate was similar between groups (P = 0.31) and the mortality in the laparoscopic group was 1.3%.

CONCLUSION

Changing from open to laparoscopic dissection for colorectal cancer is safe even during the initial learning curve. There are clear potential short-term benefits for patients and the technique can be introduced without penalties in terms of reduced surgical throughput.

Surgical complications and the risk factors of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy in early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Information on surgical complications of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) and their risk factors is limited in the literature despite increasing popularity of this procedure. This study was performed to identify the surgical complications and their associated risk factors of LADG in early gastric cancer.

METHODS

LADG was performed in 347 gastric cancer patients from January 2002 to December 2006 at the Korean National Cancer Center by four surgeons with ample experience of open gastric surgery before LADG. LADG indications for cases of gastric cancer at our institution are preoperatively diagnosed cT1N0 or cT1N1, except in cases with an absolute indication for endoscopic resection. Lymph node dissection of more than D1 + beta was performed in all patients. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were reviewed and their risk factors were retrospectively analyzed by prospective database information.

RESULTS

Forty complications occurred in 34 patients (9.8%), but there was no mortality. Intraoperative complications occurred in nine patients (2.6%), and open conversion was performed in eight (2.3%) of these patients. Early and late postoperative complications occurred in 21 (6.1%) and 10 (2.9%) patients, respectively. The most serious complication was vascular injury resulting in bleeding or organ ischemia, which occurred in seven patients. Degree of lymph node dissection and surgical inexperience were found to be risk factors of surgical complication (P = .023, odds ratio 2.832, 95% confidence interval 1.155-6.946 vs. P = .028, odds ratio 2.975, 95% confidence interval 1.127-7.854).

CONCLUSIONS

Lymph node dissection during LADG should be performed cautiously to prevent surgical complications like vascular injuries, especially during the surgeon's early learning period.

Benefits of laparoscopic colorectal resection are more pronounced in elderly patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic colorectal resection on short-term postoperative outcome in elderly patients.

METHODS

A series of 535 patients with colorectal disease who had been randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n=268) or open (n=267) resection was analyzed. A total of 201 patients (37.6 percent) were elderly (aged 70 years or older) and 334 patients (62.4 percent) were younger than aged 70 years. Follow-up for postoperative morbidity was performed for 30 days after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Elderly patients had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score compared with younger patients in both the laparoscopic and open groups (P=0.0001). In the open group, elderly patients had higher morbidity rate (37.5 vs. 23.9 percent; P=0.02) and longer length of hospital stay (13 vs. 10.6; P=0.007) compared with younger patients. In the laparoscopic group, morbidity rate (20.2 vs. 15.1 percent) and length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 9.1) were similar in elderly and younger patients. In elderly patients, the laparoscopy-reduced morbidity rate (20.2 vs. 37.5 percent; P=0.01) and length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 13; P=0.001) compared to the open approach. In younger patients, the advantages of the laparoscopic approach on morbidity rate (15.1 vs. 23.9 percent; P=0.06) and length of stay (9.1 vs. 10.6; P=0.004) were less pronounced.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy improved short-term postoperative outcome more in elderly than in younger patients. Advanced age was associated with higher morbidity and longer length of stay only in patients who underwent open colorectal surgery.

Open right colectomy is still effective compared to laparoscopy: results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary goal of this study was to clarify whether a laparoscopic (LPS) approach could be considered the dominant strategy in patients undergoing right colectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Because few nonrandomized or small sized studies have been carried out so far, definitive conclusions about the role of LPS right colectomy cannot be drawn.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-six patients, candidates for right colectomy, were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 113) or open (n = 113) resection. The postoperative care protocol was the same for both groups. Trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative morbidity. Follow-up was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and hospitalization.

RESULTS

Conversion rate in the LPS group was 2.6% (3 of 113). Operative time (in minutes) was longer in the LPS group (131 vs. 112, P = 0.01). Postoperative morbidity rate was 18.6% in the open group and 13.3% in the LPS group (P = 0.31). Postoperative stay was one day longer in the open group (P = 0.002). No difference was found in postoperative quality of life. The additional operative charge in the LPS group was euro980 per patient randomized (euro821 for surgical instruments and euro159 for longer operative time). The savings in the LPS group was euro390 per patient randomized (euro144 for shorter length of hospital stay and euro246 for the lower cost of postoperative morbidity). The net balance resulted in a euro590 extra charge per patient randomly allocated to the LPS group.

CONCLUSION

LPS slightly improved postoperative recovery. This translated into a savings that covered only 40% of the extra operative charge. Therefore, open right colectomy could be still considered an effective procedure.

Economics and the laparoscopic surgery learning curve: comparison with open surgery for rectosigmoid cancer

BACKGROUND

Wide-ranging costs of laparoscopic surgery (LAP) are associated with variations in the experience levels of surgeons. There is no available report on the changes of economic outcomes relative to the LAP learning curve in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In the present study, we have compared changes in economic outcomes according to the LAP learning curve with the economic outcomes of open surgery (OS) for rectosigmoid cancer.

METHODS

A total of 197 patients with rectosigmoid cancer were included in this analysis; 116 received LAP and 81 received OS. Scatter of operative times demonstrated an early learning period of 37 cases in LAP. The following outcomes were compared between LAP and OS during the early learning period and experienced periods; operating room (OR) costs, OR-related hospital profit, total hospital charge, and patient payment. During the median interval of two periods according to the laparoscopic surgery learning curve, there was an inflation rate of about 10% on the medical charges such as operation, radiology, laboratory, and admission fee.

RESULTS

Operating room costs were significantly higher after LAP during the two periods, but the median difference between LAP and OS decreased during the experienced period ($3,055 to $1,850). With increasing operative experience in LAP, the OR-related hospital deficit improved (-$1,072 to-$840). Total hospital charges were significantly higher for LAP than for OS in the early learning period (p < 0.05), but they were similar in the experienced period ($7,983/patient versus $7,045/patient, p > 0.05). During the experienced period, patients paid a lower surcharge for LAP ($1,885-$1,118).

CONCLUSIONS

Total hospital charges for laparoscopic surgery were substantially higher than those of open surgery during the early learning period, but become similar during the experienced period. The shortening of the learning period is a critical factor for achieving cost-effective laparoscopic surgery.

Money well spent: a comparison of hospital operating margin for laparoscopic and open colectomies

BACKGROUND

Cost analysis after laparoscopic colectomy has been examined, although reports evaluating the effects of laparoscopy on hospital operating margin are lacking. We compared several cost/revenue measures, including hospital operating margin, between open and laparoscopic colectomies at an academic center.

METHODS

Our cost-accounting database was queried for laparoscopic partial (LPC) and total colectomies (LTC), and open partial (OPC) and total colectomies (OTC) to analyze net revenue, total costs, and total hospital operating margin over a 4-year period. Laparoscopic and open colectomy cases were compared, with mean operating margin as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

From July, 2002 through May, 2006, 842 patients were included for analysis with 138 undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Net revenue was higher in the LTC group compared with open (US dollars 30,300 vs US dollars 26,800 [P = .02]), and lower in the LPC group (US dollars 15,300 vs US dollars 21,300 open [P < .0001]). Total costs were reduced in both the LPC and LTC groups compared with open [US dollars 11,700 vs US dollars 17,600 [P < .0001] and US dollars 18,000 vs US dollars 19,400 [P = .0019], respectively). LPC resulted in a similar HOM (US dollars 3,602) compared with OPC (US dollars 3,647; P = .35). LTC resulted in a higher HOM (US dollars 12,300) compared with OTC (US dollars 7,400; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

LTC generates a significantly higher hospital operating margin than an OTC, although the margins are similar for LPC and OPC.

Is laparoscopic colectomy for cancer cost-effective relative to open colectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) for cancer has been shown to be safe, with equivalent long-term survival rates to conventional open colectomy (OC) and better short-term patient outcomes. However, LAC tends to require more operating theatre time and disposable equipment. This study investigated, in the context of the New Zealand public hospital system, the extent to which LAC for cancer is cost-effective relative to OC.

METHODS

Estimates of the hospital resources used and patient recovery times for LAC and OC for colorectal cancer were obtained from a meta-analysis of published international randomized controlled trials. Using prices from a representative New Zealand public hospital, the additional resources for LAC (relative to OC) were summed to obtain an estimate of LAC's total incremental (additional) cost. The recovery time savings from LAC were also represented in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), enabling a cost-utility analysis of LAC, which was subjected to a one-way sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

On average, a LAC costs New Zealand public hospitals $1267 (range: $259-$3808; all dollars referred to are New Zealand dollars) more than an OC. Average recovery time savings of 12 and 33 days (from two randomized controlled trials) translate into QALY gains of 0.018 and 0.049. Thus, relative to an OC, an LAC costs $38 and $106 per recovery day saved, or $70 389 and $25 857 (combined range: $14 389-$211 556) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

LAC for cancer appears to be cost-effective relative to OC (per recovery day saved and QALY gained, respectively) for the lower of the average cost estimates and is probably not cost-effective for the higher estimate. Expected future reductions in operating times, conversion rates and postoperative stays will further improve cost-effectiveness.

Totally intracorporeal laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis using circular stapler

BACKGROUND

A number of surgical techniques for colorectal anastomosis have been described for laparoscopic left-sided colectomies. Due to the complexity of these procedures, open preparation of the proximal bowel for circular stapler anastomosis through a Pfannenstiel incision has become the gold standard. We report a new laparoscopic technique for totally intracorporeal colorectal circular anastomosis (TLCCA) using a circular stapler.

METHODS

Preliminary experience using TLCCA in three patients scheduled for laparoscopic left colectomies (two) and sigmoidectomy (one).

RESULTS

Side-to-end colorectal anastomosis through TLCCA was feasible in all patients scheduled for preliminary experience. Median time from anvil insertion into abdominal cavity to anastomosis was 14 (11-17) minutes. No postoperative complications were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Side-to-end anastomosis can be easily and safely performed using conventional circular stapler through TLCCA. TLCCA is performed using four laparoscopic ports without additional skin incision (except trocars incision) and allows the retrieval of surgical pieces through a specimen bag.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery - results from 200 patients

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly being performed for benign and malignant colorectal disease. This study examines the short-term results in a consecutive series of laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed over 2 years.

METHOD

A prospective database was established for all elective patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery by one surgeon. The main outcome measures assessed were operative duration, conversion rate, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality and lymph node harvest.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients were referred for elective colorectal surgery, with 18 patients excluded from laparoscopic surgery. Thirteen patients had nonresective laparoscopic colorectal procedures for endometriosis and have been excluded from the series. Of 200 patients who underwent a laparoscopic colorectal procedure, 114 (57%) were female, the median age was 67 years (inter-quartile range (IQR) 57-76), and there were 116 malignancies. The most common operations were anterior resection and sigmoid colectomy (n = 82), right hemicolectomy (n = 62) and left hemicolectomy (n = 12). The median operating time was 120 min (IQR 90-150) and 10 patients (5%) required conversion to open surgery. The median lymph node harvest in malignancies was 21 nodes (IQR 15-30) and no positive resection margins were found. There were two deaths and 29 significant complications (14.5%), with seven patients requiring re-operations because of postoperative complications. The median postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 3-6) and 13 patients (6.5%) were re-admitted within 30 days of hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is possible for most benign and malignant conditions, with low conversion and complication rates, as well as short hospital stay.

Meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies of the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic resection remains to be established as the procedure of first choice for operable colorectal cancer. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review of non-randomized comparative studies of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Published work in English was searched for relevant articles published by the end of 2003. The MOOSE statement was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed by two investigators using the MINORS tool and the analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). One thousand two hundred and twenty abstracts were reviewed and 398 articles examined in detail. Out of 108 articles reporting the results of relevant studies, 75 were reports of 64 non-randomized comparative studies. Fifteen studies were excluded. Analysis of the outcomes of 6438 resections showed that the conversion rate was 13.3% with a statistically significant difference between studies with more than 50 versus those with 50 or less attempted resections (11.7 vs 16.5%; P<0.001). Laparoscopic resection took 27.6% (41 min) longer to carry out than open resection. There was no significant difference between the two groups in early mortality rates (1.2 vs 1.1%; P=0.787) or likelihood of re-operation (2.3 vs 1.5%; P=0.319). Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower morbidity rate (24.05 vs 30.80%, odds ratio (95% confidence interval)=0.77 (0.63-0.95); P=0.014, n=4111, random-effects model). Time until passage of first flatus, passage of a bowel motion, tolerating oral fluids and a solid diet was 1.2-1.6 days (26 to 37%) shorter, measurements of pain and narcotic analgesic requirements were 16-35% lower and hospital stay was 3.5 days (18.8%) shorter following laparoscopic resection compared with open resection. The two approaches were 99% similar in terms of adequacy of oncological clearance. Meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies favours laparoscopic over open resection for colorectal cancer. The results were remarkably similar to those of a contemporaneous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published by the end of 2002.

Laparoscopic approach in surgical treatment of rectal cancer

Background

High rates of conversion to open operation and morbidity have been reported after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. This study examined risk factors for conversion and morbidity to determine which patients with rectal cancer could benefit from a laparoscopic resection.

Methods

Two hundred patients (117 men) with mid and low rectal cancer treated by laparoscopic TME were studied. The impact of clinical and pathological characteristics on conversion and complications was assessed by multivariable analysis.

Results

Reconstruction after TME included 79 low colorectal and 121 coloanal anastomoses. Conversion was necessary in 31 patients (15·5 per cent), and was independently associated with sex, type of anastomosis and intraoperative rectal fixity. Postoperative morbidity in 50 patients (25·0 per cent) was independently associated with sex and type of anastomosis. Men with a stapled anastomosis had a threefold higher rate of conversion (13 (34 per cent) of 38 versus 18 (11·1 per cent) of 162; P &lt; 0·001) and morbidity (22 (58 per cent) versus 28 (17·3 per cent); P &lt; 0·001) than other patients.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic TME is a good option for women and for men treated by coloanal anastomosis. Technical improvement of laparoscopic stapling is needed before the laparoscopic approach can be offered to all patients.

Surgery insight: minimally invasive surgery for IBD

The most frequently described laparoscopic operations for the management of patients with IBD are restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease. For patients with Crohn's disease, there is level 1b evidence that, in experienced hands, laparoscopic ileocolic resection enhances recovery and leads to a shorter hospital stay compared with conventional ileocolic resection. The demonstrated advantages of laparoscopic ileocolic resection with regard to cost and cosmesis, and the acceptable long-term results achieved (which are at least comparable to those achieved by conventional ileocolic resection) favor the use of laparoscopic ileocolic resection over conventional ileocolic resection in patients with ileocolic Crohn's disease. For patients with ulcerative colitis, the expected advantages of laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy over conventional restorative proctocolectomy have yet to be clearly shown. Although there is a trend towards a reduced hospital stay (of only 1.6 days) when laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy is performed, operating times are disproportionably prolonged. The most important argument for offering patients with IBD the chance to undergo a laparoscopic procedure, rather than conventional open surgery, is (particularly for women) the long-term superior cosmesis and body image it confers.

Laparoscopy for metastatic colorectal cancer

Patients with metastatic disease from colorectal cancer are now living twice as long as they were one decade ago. With this increasing life expectancy, we are beginning to see these patients strive for an acceptable and improved quality of life. Medical advances have led to unanswered questions regarding the role of surgery in metastatic colorectal cancer. Despite the increasing application of laparoscopy for primary treatment of colorectal cancer, the appropriate role for laparoscopy in patients with stage IV disease has yet to be defined. This review addresses this topic and suggests treatment algorithms for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. While unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer remains incurable at the current time, continued advances will inevitably challenge this presumption and it is crucial to outline the role of laparoscopy in this patient population.

Systematic review of the costs of laparoscopic colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

Recent studies have confirmed the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic colorectal surgery; however, its use has not become widespread. One reason for this is perceived economic implications. A systematic review was undertaken examining the costs of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for articles comparing laparoscopic colorectal surgery and open surgery. Primary outcome measures were operating room, direct hospital, and indirect costs. Secondary outcomes were conversion rates and length of hospital stay. The percentage difference in costs was used for comparisons between studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were identified in which cost data were presented (total number of patients 3,681); the economic data in most studies was limited. Operating room costs were greater for laparoscopic colorectal surgery than open surgery in all studies (median difference, 50 percent; interquartile range, 27-78 percent; P < 0.001). There was no overall difference in total hospital costs (median difference, 0 percent; interquartile range, -17.5 to 21 percent). Only two articles collected data on indirect costs, with both in favor of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in all studies (median difference, 2.8 days; interquartile range, 1.3-3.7; P < 0.001). Median conversion rate was 7.8 percent (mean, 14 percent; interquartile range, 6-21 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

Operating room costs are greater for laparoscopic colorectal surgery than open surgery. Total hospital costs are similar. There may be societal benefits associated with lower indirect costs for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Cost should not be a deterrent to performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Comparison of conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted oncologic segmental colonic resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopically assisted colon resection has evolved to be a viable option for the treatment of colorectal cancer. This study evaluates the efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) as compared with totally laparoscopic surgery (LAP) for segmental oncologic colon resection with regard to lymph node harvest, operative times, intraoperative blood loss, pedicle length, incision length, and length of hospital stay in an attempt to help delineate the role of each in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed to acquire data for this evaluation. Between June 2001 and July 2005, 40 patients underwent elective oncologic segmental colon resection (22 HALS and 18 LAP). The main outcome measures included lymph node harvest, operative times, intraoperative blood loss, pedicle length, incision length, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics. The tumor margins were clear in all the patients. The HALS resection resulted in a significantly higher lymph node yield than the LAP resection (HALS: 16 nodes; range, 5-35 nodes vs LAP: 8 nodes; range, 5-22 nodes; p < 0.05) and significantly shorter operative times (HALS: 120 min; range, 78-181 min vs LAP: 156 min; range, 74-300 min; p < 0.05). Both groups were comparable with regard to length of hospital stay, pedicle length, and intraoperative blood loss. However, the LAP group yielded a significantly smaller incision for specimen extraction (LAP: 7 cm; range, 6-8 cm vs HALS: 5.5 cm; range, 5-7 cm; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that hand-assisted laparoscopic oncologic segmental colonic resection is associated with shorter operative times, more lymph nodes harvested, and equivalent hospital stays, pedicle lengths, and intraoperative blood losses as compared with the totally laparoscopic approach. The totally laparoscopic technique was completed with a smaller incision. However, this less than 1 cm reduction in incision length has doubtful clinical significance.

Wound infection after elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate various clinical parameters that would influence the occurrence of wound infection (WI) in elective laparoscopic surgery (LS) for colorectal carcinoma.

METHODS

The study included 290 patients who underwent LS between June 2001 and December 2005. WI was diagnosed within 30 days of the operation, and both superficial and deep incision surgical site infection were evaluated together.

RESULTS

Eighteen (6.2%) were diagnosed with WI. Of the infected patients, nine (50%) had WI at the extraction site, six (33%) at the port site of the drainage tube, and three (17%) at the supraumbilical incision. Following bivariate analysis, the variables of stoma creation, intraoperative hypotension, and length of operation were selected for multivariate analysis as their P values were <0.2, the predominant cutoff, and stoma creation and intraoperative hypotension were independently predictive of developing WI. Regarding the duration of postoperative hospital stay, there was no significant difference between patients with or without WI.

CONCLUSIONS

Stoma creation and intraoperative hypotension were independent risk factors for WI. The results obtained in this study should be considered in an effort to prevent WI in LS for colorectal carcinoma, although these risk factors need further evaluation.

The cost of laparoscopic myotomy versus pneumatic dilatation for esophageal achalasia

BACKGROUND

The two main treatment options for esophageal achalasia are laparoscopic distal esophageal myotomy (LM) and pneumatic dilatation (PD). Our objective was to compare the costs of these management strategies.

METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic model consisting of two treatment strategies for patients diagnosed with achalasia. Probabilities of events were systematically derived from a literature review, supplemented by expert opinion when necessary. Costs were estimated from the perspective of a third-party payer and society, including both direct and indirect costs. Future costs were discounted at a rate of 5.5% over a time horizon of 5 and 10 years. Uncertainty in the probability estimates was incorporated using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We tested uncertainty in the model by modifying key assumptions and repeating the analysis.

RESULTS

From the societal perspective, the expected cost per patient was $10,789 (LM) compared with $5,315 (PD) five years following diagnosis, and $11,804 (LM) compared with $7,717 (PD) after 10 years. The 95% confidence interval of the incremental cost per patient treated with LM was ($5,280, $5,668) after five years, and ($3,863, $4,311) after 10 years. The incremental cost of LM was similar from the third-party payer perspective and in the secondary model analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial LM is a more costly management strategy under all clinically plausible scenarios tested in this model. Further research is needed to determine patients' preferences for the two treatment modalities, and society's willingness to bear the incremental cost of LM for those who choose it.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open repair of incisional hernia

AIM

The purpose of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic or open surgery for incisional hernia repair using meta-analytical techniques.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes on laparoscopic versus open surgery for incisional hernia repair. A random-effect meta-analytical model was used and subgroup analysis performed on high-quality studies, those reporting on more than 30 patients, and those published since 2000.

RESULTS

Five studies, with a total of 351 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Laparoscopic surgery was attempted in 148 (42.2%) patients. Overall, in the laparoscopic group, operative time was significantly longer--by 12.0 minutes (P = 0.03) and length of stay reduced by 3.3 days (P < 0.003) although this finding was associated with significant heterogeneity between studies (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the short-term adverse events between the groups, but there were fewer wound infections for laparoscopic patients in high-quality studies [odds ratio (OR) = 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05, 0.85, P = 0.03] and those reporting on more than 30 patients (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.84, P = 0.03). No difference in hernia recurrence was shown in the overall or subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair was associated with a reduced length of stay and lower wound infection rate. The impact on post-operative quality of life and financial implications needs further prospective, validated evaluation.

Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic rectal resection on short-term postoperative morbidity and costs.

METHODS

A total of 168 patients with rectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 83) or open (n = 85) resection. Outcome parameters were: postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, quality of life, long-term survival, and local recurrences. The mean follow-up period was 53.6 months. Cost-benefit analysis was based on hospital costs.

RESULTS

Operative time was 53 minutes longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity rate was 28.9 percent in the laparoscopic vs. 40 percent in the open group (P = 0.18). The mean length of hospital stay was 10 (4.9) days in the laparoscopic group and 13.6 (10) days in the open group (P = 0.004). Local recurrence rate and five-year survival were similar in both groups; however, the limited number of patients does not allow firm conclusions. Quality of life was better in the laparoscopic group only in the first year after surgery (P < 0.0001). The additional charge in the laparoscopic group was $1,748 per patient randomized ($1,194 the result of surgical instruments and $554 the result of longer operative time). The saving in the laparoscopic group was $1,396 per patient randomized ($647 the result of shorter length of hospital stay and $749 the result of the lower cost of postoperative complications). The net balance resulted in $351 extra cost per patient randomly allocated to the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term postoperative morbidity was similar in the two groups. Laparoscopic resection reduced length of hospital stay, improved first-year quality of life, and slightly increased hospital costs.

Laparoscopic approach to colonic cancer: critical appraisal of the literature

BACKGROUND/AIMS

As laparoscopic colectomy finds its place in the surgical armamentarium, the literature concerning the safety, efficacy, and oncological rational for treatment of colonic cancer is also enriched. A review and critical appraisal of the literature on this subject was the aim of this paper.

METHODS

A systematic research and a hand search were conducted to gain access to all controlled studies involving laparoscopic colectomy using the Medline, Embase, HealthSTAR, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, CancerLit data bases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991-2006.

RESULTS

Over 40 controlled randomized trials and ten systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were found. Several of the completed controlled randomized trials have published either short- or long-term results; only partial and short-term results are available in rectal cancer. The principal conclusions are that the laparoscopic approach affords better short-term outcomes including surgical site morbidity, but with increased operative times and direct costs. Among the proven long-term outcomes, cancer recurrence and survival do not seem to be worse. Whether conversion, a source of increased operative time and costs, is responsible for poorer outcomes or whether specific settings associated with poorer outcomes are among the causes of conversion remains to be shown. However, there are still concerns as regards specific laparoscopic-related complications.

CONCLUSION

There seems to no real safety problems in performing laparoscopic colectomy for cancer; improvement in operative times, conversion rates, and complications should make laparoscopy the best cost-effective approach to colectomy.

Laparoscopic colon surgery: past, present and future

Since its first described case in 1991, laparoscopic colon surgery has lagged behind minimally invasive surgical methods for solid intra-abdominal organs in terms of acceptability, dissemination, and ease of learning. In colon cancer, initial concerns over port site metastases and adequacy of oncologic resection have considerably dampened early enthusiasm for this procedure. Only recently, with the publication of several large, randomized controlled trials, has the incidence of port site metastases been shown to be equivalent to that of open resection. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has also been demonstrated to be at least equivalent to traditional laparotomy in terms of adequacy of oncologic resection, disease recurrence, and long-term survival. In addition, numerous reports have validated short-term benefits following laparoscopic resection for cancer, including shorter hospital stay, shorter time to recovery of bowel function, and decreased analgesic requirements, as well as other postoperative variables. In benign colonic disease, much less high-quality literature exists supporting the use of laparoscopic methods. Two recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated some short-term benefits to laparoscopic ileocolic resection for CD, in addition to evident cosmetic advantages. On the other hand, the current evidence on laparoscopic surgery for UC does not support its routine use among nonexpert surgeons outside of specialized centers. Laparoscopic colonic resection for diverticular disease appears to provide several short-term benefits, although these advantages may not translate to cases of complicated diverticulitis. Despite the increasing acceptability of minimally invasive methods for the management of benign and malignant colonic pathologies, laparoscopic colon resection remains a prohibitively difficult technique to master. Numerous technological innovations have been introduced onto the market in an effort to decrease the steep learning curve associated with laparoscopic colon surgery. Good evidence exists supporting the use of second-generation, sleeveless, hand-assist devices in this context. Similarly, new hemostatic devices such as the ultrasonic scalpel and the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer may be particularly helpful for extensive colonic mobilizations, in which several vascular pedicles must be taken. The precise role of these hemostatic technologies has yet to be established, particularly in comparison with stapling devices and significantly cheaper laparoscopic clips. Finally, recent advances in camera systems are promising to improve the ease with which difficult colonic dissections can be performed.