Impact of enhanced recovery on oncological outcomes following minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Pancreatic Surgery: The Surgeon's Point of View

Pancreatic surgery is complex and associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to other abdominal surgeries. Over the past decade, the introduction of new technologies, such as minimally invasive approaches, improvements in multimodal treatments, advancements in anesthesia and perioperative care, and better management of complications, have collectively improved patient outcomes after pancreatic surgery. In particular, the adoption of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommendations has reduced hospital stays and improved recovery times, as well as post-operative outcomes. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the surgeon's perspective on the ERAS program for pancreatic surgery, with a focus on its potential advantages for perioperative functional recovery outcomes.

Perioperative Immunosuppressive Factors during Cancer Surgery: An Updated Review

Surgical excision of the primary tumor represents the most frequent and curative procedure for solid malignancies. Compelling evidence suggests that, despite its beneficial effects, surgery may impair immunosurveillance by triggering an immunosuppressive inflammatory stress response and favor recurrence by stimulating minimal residual disease. In addition, many factors interfere with the immune effectors before and after cancer procedures, such as malnutrition, anemia, or subsequent transfusion. Thus, the perioperative period plays a key role in determining oncological outcomes and represents a short phase to circumvent anesthetic and surgical deleterious factors by supporting the immune system through the use of synergistic pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. In line with this, accumulating studies indicate that anesthetic agents could drive both protumor or antitumor signaling pathways during or after cancer surgery. While preclinical investigations focusing on anesthetics' impact on the behavior of cancer cells are quite convincing, limited clinical trials studying the consequences on survival and recurrences remain inconclusive. Herein, we highlight the main factors occurring during the perioperative period of cancer surgery and their potential impact on immunomodulation and cancer progression. We also discuss patient management prior to and during surgery, taking into consideration the latest advances in the literature.

Effect of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The effect of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) in laparoscopic surgery is well known and significantly adds to longer hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative ileus, and inadvertent enterotomies. However, little evidence exists in patients with PAS undergoing robotic-assisted (RA) rectal surgery.

METHODS

All patients undergoing RA surgery for rectal cancer were reviewed. Patients with PAS were divided into minor and major PAS groups, defined as surgery involving >1 quadrant. The primary outcome was the risk of conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 750 patients were included, 531 in the no-PAS (NPAS) group, 31 in the major PAS group, and 188 in the minor PAS group. Patients in the major PAS group had significantly longer hospital LOS (P < .001) and lower adherence to enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs; P = .004). The conversion rates to open surgery were similar: 3.4% in the NPAS group, 5.9% in the minor PAS group, and 9.7% in the major PAS group (P = .113). Estimated blood loss (EBL; P = .961), operative times (OTs; P = .062), complication rates (P = .162), 30-day readmission (P = .691), and 30-day mortality (P = .494) were similar. Of note, 53 patients underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA). On multivariate analysis, EBL >500 mL and LOA significantly influenced conversion to open surgery. EBL >500 mL, age >65 years, conversion to open surgery, and prolonged OT were risk factors for prolonged LOS, whereas adherence to ERPs was a protector.

CONCLUSION

PAS did not seem to affect the outcomes in RA rectal surgery. Given this finding, the robotic approach may ultimately provide patients with PAS with similar risk to patients without PAS.

Extended Right-Sided Colon Resection Does Not Reduce the Risk of Colon Cancer Local-Regional Recurrence: Nationwide Population-Based Study From Danish Colorectal Cancer Group Database

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether extensive resection of right-sided colon cancer confers oncological benefits.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of extended surgical removal of the mesocolon compared to the conventional approach.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective population-based study.

SETTING

Study is based on a prospectively maintained Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures included local-regional recurrence in patients who underwent curative resection for right-sided colon cancer and 30-day postoperative complications. Distant metastasis, unplanned intraoperative adverse events, and 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality were also investigated. Patients who had palliative or compromised resection, emergency surgery, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 12,855 patients with resection of right-sided colon cancer retrieved, 1151 underwent extended right hemicolectomy. Patients who had extended right hemicolectomy were younger males with lower ASA scores, were operated on by colorectal surgeons using a laparoscopic approach, and had a significantly higher number of harvested lymph nodes. The rate of local-regional recurrence was 1.1% (136/12,855), with no difference between conventional right hemicolectomy and extended right hemicolectomy (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.63-2.18). Postoperative medical complications were significantly higher in extended right hemicolectomy even after adjusting for age, comorbidity, access to the abdomen, and other covariates (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.58). No significant difference was noticed between conventional right hemicolectomy and extended right hemicolectomy in the rates of distant metastasis, unplanned intraoperative adverse events, and mortality.

LIMITATIONS

Because it is a register-based study, underreporting cannot be excluded. Extended right hemicolectomy, as defined in this study, does not reflect the extent of lymphatic dissection performed during the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This large population-based register study showed no difference in local-regional recurrence of right-sided colon cancer between conventional and extended right hemicolectomy with mesenteric resection and ligation of the middle colic vessels. Extended resection was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B907 .

LA RESECCIN AMPLIADA DEL COLON DERECHO NO REDUCE EL RIESGO DE RECURRENCIA LOCALREGIONAL DEL CNCER DE COLON ESTUDIO POBLACIONAL A NIVEL NACIONAL DE LA BASE DE DATOS DEL GRUPO DANS DE CNCER COLORRECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:Es aun un tema controversial si la resección ampliada del cáncer de colon del lado derecho confiere beneficios oncológicos.OBJETIVOS:El objetivo de este estudio fue examinar los resultados a corto y largo plazo de la resección quirúrgica ampliada del mesocolon en comparación con el enfoque convencional.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio poblacional de tipo retrospectivo basado en una base de datos del Grupo Danés de Cáncer Colorrectal mantenida de manera prospectiva.AJUSTES:La medida de resultado primaria fue la recurrencia local-regional en pacientes sometidos a resección curativa por cáncer de colon del lado derecho y las medidas de resultado secundarias fueron las complicaciones posoperatorias a los 30 días. También fueron investigadas las metástasis a distancia, los eventos adversos intraoperatorios no planificados y la mortalidad posoperatoria a los 30 y 90 días. Se excluyeron los pacientes sometidos a resección paliativa o comprometida, cirugía de urgencia y quimioterapia neoadyuvante.RESULTADOS:De los 12.855 pacientes recuperados y sometidos a resección de cáncer de colon del lado derecho, 1151 fueron sometidos a hemicolectomía derecha ampliada. Los pacientes sometidos a hemicolectomía derecha ampliada fueron varones más jóvenes con puntuaciones ASA más bajas, operados por cirujanos colorrectales, utilizando la vía laparoscópica, y tuvieron un número significativamente mayor de ganglios linfáticos extraídos. La tasa de recidiva local-regional fue del 1,1% (136 / 12.855) sin diferencia entre la hemicolectomía derecha convencional y la hemicolectomía derecha ampliada (OR 1,7 IC 95% 0,63-2,18). Las complicaciones médicas post operatorias fueron significativamente mayores en la hemicolectomía derecha ampliada incluso después del ajuste por edad, comorbilidad, acceso al abdomen y otras covariables (OR 1,26; IC 95% 1,01-1,58). No se observaron diferencias significativas entre la hemicolectomía derecha convencional y la hemicolectomía derecha ampliada con respecto a las tasas de metástasis a distancia, eventos adversos intraoperatorios no planificados y mortalidad.LIMITACIONES:Es un estudio basado en registros, por lo tanto, no se puede excluir la sub notificación. La hemicolectomía derecha ampliada como se define en este estudio no refleja la extensión de la disección linfática realizada durante la cirugía.CONCLUSIONES:Este gran estudio basado en el registro poblacional no mostró diferencias en la recurrencia local-regional del cáncer de colon del lado derecho entre la hemicolectomía derecha convencional y ampliada con resección mesentérica y ligadura de los vasos cólicos medios. La resección ampliada se asoció con tasas más altas de complicaciones posoperatorias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B907 . (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

ERAS Protocol Applied to Oncological Colorectal Mini-invasive Surgery Reduces the Surgical Stress Response and Improves Long-term Cancer-specific Survival

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are known to reduce postoperative complications and improve short-term outcomes by minimizing the surgical stress response (SSR). Retrospective reviews of large cohorts suggest that they may also have an impact on long-term oncological outcomes. In 2016, Mari et al published a randomized trial on ERAS protocol and the impact on the SSR; they found that IL-6 was less expressed in patients who undergo laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol compared with controls. The aim of the present study is to report the long-term oncological outcomes of patients enrolled 5 years after the conclusion of the study.

METHODS

Patients enrolled had received the indication for major colorectal surgery, aged between 18 and 80 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades I to III, autonomous for mobilization and walking, eligible for laparoscopic technique. In total, 140 patients were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups of 70 patients each. Among these patients, 52 in the ERAS group (EG) and 53 in the Standard group (SG) had colorectal cancer. For them, a 5-year oncological follow-up according to the NCCN 16 guidelines was planned. IL-6, C-reactive protein, prolactine, white blood cell count, albumin, and prealbumin were compared between oncological patients in the EG and in the SG.

RESULTS

EG showed lower IL-6 on postoperative day 1 (21.2±9.1 vs. 40.3 ±11.3; P <0.05) and on day 5 (14.9±6.2 vs. 38.7±8.9; P <0.05), lower C-reactive protein on day 1 (48.3±15.7 vs. 89.4±20.3; P <0.05) and on day 5 (38.3±11.4 vs. 74.3±19.7; P <0.05), and lower pre-albumine on day 5 (18.9±7.2 vs. 12.3±6.9; P <0.05) compared with SG. Median oncological follow-up was 57 months [46.5 to 60]. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (log rank=0.195) and disease-free survival (Log rank=0.089) between groups. Cancer-specific survival was significantly better (log rank=0.038) in the EG compared with patients in the SG.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol applied to colorectal laparoscopic surgery for cancer is able to minimize the SSR. As a possible result, cancer-specific survival seems to be improved in patients within enhanced protocols. However, even though there may be an association between an excess of SSR and worse oncological outcomes, the favorable effect of ERAS protocols toward better overall and disease-free survival is yet to be demonstrated.

Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been proven valuable for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who received traditional surgery. While for those receiving minimally invasive surgery (MIS), its efficacy and safety remain debatable. Materials and Methods: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, and Web of science, were searched for relevant articles from their inception to February 23, 2022. Eligible articles were subjected to quality assessment and data extraction. The comparison between ERAS and traditional care (TC) was performed. Primary outcomes of this study were postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, time to the first anal exhaust, and defecation. Results: Thirteen cohort studies covering 4308 patients were included. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS (weight mean differences [WMD]: -1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.33 to -1.45; P < .001), lower incidence of postoperative complications (risk ratios [RR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5-0.88; P < .001), lower 30-day readmission rate (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; P < .05), and shorter time to the first defecation (WMD: -1.93; 95% CI: -3.26 to -0.59; P < .001), but unimproved mortality, reoperation rate, and time to the first anal exhaust (P > .05) compared with those in the TC group. Conclusions: ERAS was effective and safe for CRC patients receiving MIS from a real-world perspective. Hence, the implementation of ERAS should be recommended for minimally invasive CRC surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CRD42022321333.

A retrospective study of post-operative complications and cost analysis in robotic rectal resection versus laparoscopic rectal resection

Background

Robotic rectal cancer surgery has proven to be a viable alternative to laparoscopic surgery in treating rectal cancer. This study assessed the short-term operative measures of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.

Material

Data was obtained retrospectively from July 2019 to November 2021. Patient demographics, pre-and post-operative features, initial bowel movement, length of hospital stay, and short-term postoperative outcomes such as harvested lymph node, sepsis, Clavien–Dindo Classification, and cost were evaluated.

Results

A total of 155 patients were treated for colorectal cancer, with 64 receiving robotic surgery and 91 receiving laparoscopic surgery. According to the Clavien–Dindo classification, there is a significant P < 0.05 between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery, with robotic having fewer patients in grade III-IV than laparoscopic. Despite this, laparoscopic surgery is associated with more sepsis patients (P < 0.05), and harvested lymph nodes are likewise associated with significant results.

Conclusion

With respect to post-operative complication and cost analysis, our finding imply that robotic rectal resection achieves better-quality short-term outcome but more costly than laparoscopic as well as Clavien–Dindo classification plays a crucial role in assessing postoperative rectal cancer complications and considerably impacts the quality of life.

Principles of enhanced recovery in gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND

To reduce the impact of surgery-related stress, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been developed since over 15 years with subsequent improved postoperative outcome. This multimodal and evidence-based perioperative approach has spread to all fields of gastrointestinal surgery, from esophagus, stomach, duodenum and pancreas, liver, small intestine and colon, and rectum, as well as for other specialties like vascular and cardia surgeries or neurosurgery, among others.

PURPOSE

The aim of this state-of-the-art article is to assess current state of evidence on perioperative management specifically in gastrointestinal surgery, with a focus on surgery-related aspects, outcome benefit, and future directions.

CONCLUSION

The surgical team must promote continuous improvement of the patient's ERAS compliance to ensure optimal perioperative care. Everyday clinical practice should be performed according to latest evidence-based medicine and challenging surgical dogma. Moreover, the surgeon must lead and support a multidisciplinary and collaborative teamwork tailored to patient's need especially with anesthetists and nursing staff.

Association between enrollment in an enhanced recovery program for colorectal cancer surgery and long-term recurrence and survival

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to minimize the surgical inflammatory response in colorectal cancer. Our objective was to determine the association between an ERAS program for colorectal cancer surgery and oncologic recurrence and survival.

METHODS

A before-after intervention study was designed, including patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery between November 2010 and March 2016. Cox hazard regression analysis was performed per cumulative year of follow-up to evaluate the association between ERAS program exposure and overall survival. Subgroup analysis was performed by cancer stage (low [I/II] vs. advanced [III/IV]).

RESULTS

In total, 646 patients were included, of which 339 were pre-ERAS and 307 were ERAS. Our overall median compliance rate with ERAS interventions was 90% (interquartile range: 85%-95%). Overall survival rates were higher in the ERAS group within the first 2 years after surgery (89.2% vs.  83.2%; p = 0.04). Multivariable analysis revealed that the ERAS enrollment was associated with a significantly lower risk in 5-year oncologic recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.94; p = 0.03) and higher 3-year survival (aHR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.33-0.93; p = 0.03) among patients with advanced cancer stage compared to pre-ERAS counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced colorectal cancer were less likely to suffer oncologic recurrence when managed during the ERAS period.

Improving postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in an era of increasing laparoscopic resection

PURPOSE

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon cancer, but implementation in rectal cancer is different because of neo-adjuvant therapy and surgical differences. Laparoscopic resection may further improve outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of introducing ERAS on postoperative outcome after rectal cancer resection in an era of increasing laparoscopic resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2009 till 2015 were included in this observational cohort study. In 2010, ERAS was introduced and adherence to the protocol was registered. Open and laparoscopic resections were compared. With regression analysis, predictive factors for postoperative outcome and LOS were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 499 patients were included. The LOS decreased from 12.3 days in 2009 to 5.7 days in 2015 (p = 0.000). Surgical site infections were reduced from 24% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 (p = 0.013) and postoperative ileus from 39% in 2009 to 6% in 2015 (p = 0.000). Only postoperative ERAS items and laparoscopic surgery were associated with an improved postoperative outcome and shorter LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS proved to be feasible, safe, and contributed to improving short-term outcome in rectal cancer resections. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery may in part be explained by reaching better ERAS adherence rates. However, the laparoscopic approach was also associated with anastomotic leakage. Despite the potential of bias, this study provides an insight in effects of ERAS and laparoscopic surgery in a non-randomized real-time setting.

Oncologic and long-term outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery in cancer surgeries - a systematic review

Background

Clinical evidence has proved that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) can improve short-term clinical outcomes after various types of surgeries, but the long-term benefits have not yet been examined, especially with respect to cancer surgeries. Therefore, a systematic review of the current evidence was conducted.

Methods

The Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using the following key words as search terms: “ERAS” or “enhanced recovery” or “fast track”, “oncologic outcome”, “recurrence”, “metastasis”, “long-term outcomes”, “survival”, and “cancer surgery”. The articles were screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed.

Results

A total of twenty-six articles were included in this review. Eighteen articles compared ERAS and conventional care, of which, 12 studies reported long-term overall survival (OS), and only 4 found the improvement by ERAS. Four studies reported disease-free survival (DFS), and only 1 found the improvement by ERAS. Five studies reported the outcomes of return to intended oncologic treatment after surgery (RIOT), and 4 found improvements in the ERAS group. Seven studies compared high adherence to ERAS with low adherence, of which, 6 reported the long-term OS, and 3 showed improvements by high adherence. One study reported high adherence could reduce the interval from surgery to RIOT. Four studies reported the effect of altering one single item within the ERAS protocol, but the results of 2 studies were controversial regarding the long-term OS between laparoscopic and open surgery, and 1 study showed improvements in OS with restrictive fluid therapy.

Conclusions

The use of ERAS in cancer surgeries can improve the on-time initiation and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery, and the high adherence to ERAS can lead to better outcomes than low adherence. Based on the current evidence, it is difficult to determine whether the ERAS protocol is associated with long-term overall survival or cancer-specific survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02306-2.

Clinical Effect of Radiotherapy Combined with Capecitabine after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer

Objective

The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical effect of radiotherapy combined with capecitabine in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy.

Methods

80 rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy in our hospital from February 2016 to February 2018 were selected as the study subjects and divided into the control group (n = 40) and experimental group (n = 40) according to the order of admission. Among them, the control group was treated with radiotherapy, while the experimental group was treated with radiotherapy combined with capecitabine. The therapeutic efficacy, CEA levels, the incidence and recurrence rate of adverse reactions, as well as the progression-free survival and survival rate after 2-year treatment were analyzed in the two groups.

Results

The effective rate of treatment in the experimental group of 87.5% (35/40) was significantly higher than 50% (20/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (X² = 13.09, P < 0.001). After treatment, the CEA levels in the two groups both decreased significantly, and the CEA level in the experimental group of 3.75 ± 1.76 ng/ml was significantly lower than 7.35 ± 2.11 ng/ml in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 8.29, P < 0.001). The incidence and the recurrence rate of adverse reactions of 5% (2/40) and 10% (4/40), respectively, in the experimental group were significantly lower than those of 40% (16/40) and 30% (12/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (X² = 14.05, 5.00, P < 0.001, 0.05). After the 2-year follow-up, it was found that the progression-free survival of 21.53 ± 6.23 months in the experimental group was significantly longer than that of 18.18 ± 5.41 months in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 2.57, P < 0.05), and the 2-year survival rate of 97.5% (39/40) in the experimental group was significantly higher than 80% (32/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 6.13, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Radiotherapy combined with capecitabine in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy can improve the therapeutic efficacy with fewer adverse reactions and longer patients' survival, which is worthy of popularization and application after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

Enhanced Recovery: A Decade of Experience and Future Prospects at the Mayo Clinic

This work aims to describe the implementation and subsequent learnings from the first decade after the full implementation of enhanced recovery pathway for colorectal surgery at a single institution. This paper will describe the diffusion efforts and plans through the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC) process of ongoing quality improvement and through research efforts. The information applies to all readers that provide surgical care within their organization as the fundamental principles of enhanced recovery for surgery are applicable regardless of the setting.

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery and its increasing compliance improved 5-year overall survival in resectable stage III colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves short-term outcomes after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, but its benefits on oncological results remain unclear. The objectives of this study are (1) to compare 5-year overall survival (OS) following non-metastatic CRC surgery between ERAS and conventional care (CC), and (2) to evaluate the association between ERAS compliance and OS.

METHODS

Patients undergoing curative resection for stage I-III CRC in a university hospital were reviewed. Utilizing the 2010-2012 CRC registry, 5-year OS of surgical patients between ERAS and CC were compared. Utilizing the 2010-2016 ERAS registry, 5-year OS between patients with high ERAS compliance (≥ 70%) and their counterparts were compared.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2012, 349 patients had curative surgery: 70 (20%) with ERAS and 279 (80%) with CC. The 5-year OS was 80.3% in ERAS and 65.6% in CC (HR 0.54, 95%CI 0.33-0.88, p = 0.014). After adjustment with other variables, ERAS was associated with better 5-year OS for stage III CRC only (72.6% vs. 57.2%, adjusted HR 0.54, 95%CI 0.30-0.98, p = 0.041). Regarding ERAS compliance, 320 patients were reviewed: 232 (73%) with high compliance. The 5-year OS was 83.9% in high compliance and 69.6% in low compliance (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29-0.83, p = 0.007). After adjustment with cancer staging, high compliance had better 5-year OS in stage III CRC only (80.5% vs. 60.7%, adjusted HR 0.44, 95%CI 0.23-0.84, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

ERAS was associated with improved 5-year OS following non-metastatic CRC surgery (especially stage III disease) than CC. High ERAS compliance had better OS than its counterpart.

Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach versus total minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection: short- and long-term results

OBJECTIVES

To reduce the technical challenges of a totally minimally invasive approach (TMA) and to decrease the morbidity associated with open surgery, a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach (HMOA) has been introduced as a surgical technique for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative results and long-term oncologic outcomes between hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and totally minimally invasive approach in patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

All patients with rectal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive approach or hybrid minimally invasive/open approach proctectomy between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database.

RESULTS

Among 283 patients, 138 (48.8%) underwent a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and 145 (51.2%) a totally minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups except for distance from the anal verge, which was lower in totally minimally invasive approach group (50.7% vs 29%; p = 0.0008). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the hybrid minimally invasive/open approach group (6.4 vs 4.3; p = < 0.0001). The median follow-up was 29.6 (14-40.6) months. Overall survival and disease-free survival were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, a totally minimally invasive approach has a shorter length of stay and may improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for cancer.