Laparoscopic approach in surgical treatment of rectal cancer

Is survival after transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) worse than that after traditional total mesorectal excision? A retrospective propensity score-adjusted cohort study

PURPOSE

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) was developed to provide better vision during resection of the mesorectum. Conflicting results have shown an increase in local recurrence and shorter survival after taTME. This study compared the outcomes of taTME and abdominal (open, laparoscopic, robotic) total mesorectal excision (abTME).

METHODS

Patients who underwent taTME or abTME for stages I-III rectal cancer and who received an anastomosis were included. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively conducted database was performed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Risk factors were adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoints were local recurrence rates and combined poor pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2020, a total of 189 patients underwent taTME, and 119 underwent abTME; patients were followed up for a mean of 54.7 (SD 24.2) and 78.4 (SD 34.8) months, respectively (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates after taTME and abTME were not significantly different after PSM: OS: 78.2% vs. 88.6% (p = 0.073), CSS: 87.4% vs. 92.1% (p = 0.359), and DFS: 69.3% vs. 80.9% (p = 0.104), respectively. No difference in the local recurrence rate was observed (taTME, n = 10 (5.3%); abTME, n = 10 (8.4%); p = 0.280). Combined poor pathological outcomes were more frequent after abTME (n = 36, 34.3%) than after taTME (n = 35, 19.6%) (p = 0.006); this difference was nonsignificant according to multivariate analysis (p = 0.404).

CONCLUSION

taTME seems to be a good treatment option for patients with rectal cancer and is unlikely to significantly affect local recurrence or survival. However, further investigations concerning the latter are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT0496910).

Usefulness of Endoscopic Tattooing Before Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Clinical Complete Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer for Providing a Safe Distal Surgical Margin

Background: Endoscopic tattooing of colorectal tumors enables tumor localization and determination of appropriate surgical margins. It becomes very difficult to detect the distal surgical margins (DSMs) of rectal tumors in patients who obtain clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. In this study, our aim is to examine the benefits of endoscopic tattooing of the tumor before neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in accurate localization of the previous tumor and in providing appropriate DSMs in cases with cCR. Patients and Methods: The patients who were diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer, received neoadjuvant therapy and subsequently achieved cCR, and underwent surgery between January 2015 and October 2020 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they were endoscopically tattooed before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Results: A total of 49 cases were included in the study. Significantly better DSMs were observed especially in female gender in the tattooed group. DSMs were found to be closer to the resection margins in the nontattooed group. It was found that endoscopic tattooing had a significant effect on the DSM in the regression analysis (P = .06, R² = 0.47). It was determined that laparoscopy or open surgery alone did not differ in terms of DSMs but open surgery together with tattooing was found to be strongly effective in providing larger DSMs. Conclusion: In locally advanced rectal cancer, endoscopic tattooing of the distal margin of the tumor before neoadjuvant therapy is a reliable and effective method for obtaining a safe DSM and not leaving the residual tumor at the lower end of anastomosis, especially in cases of cCR.

Precision functional sphincter-preserving surgery (PPS) for ultralow rectal cancer: a natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery technique

BACKGROUND

In patients with ultralow rectal cancer, surgical resection of the tumor without impairing sphincter function remains a technical challenge. The purpose of this study was to describe a new technique of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery using our independently developed devices, aiming to achieve precise cancer resection and preserve sphincter function in patients with ultralow rectal cancer.

METHODS

Precision functional sphincter-preserving surgery (PPS) was performed on nineteen patients with ultralow rectal cancer between June 2019 and April 2020. With the help of our independently developed devices, surgeons directly and accurately removed the lower edge of the tumor and retained healthy rectal tissue on the nontumorous side. Hand-sewn anastomosis with a mattress suture was used to achieve sturdy anastomosis. Preoperative baseline characteristics, operative details, 90-day postoperative complications, costs, and anal function score at 6 months after surgery were documented.

RESULTS

Nineteen ultralow rectal cancer patients with a median distance to the dentate line of 2.0 cm successfully underwent PPS without serious postoperative complications. Six out of nineteen patients (31.6%) received a prophylactic stoma. The average cost was 62164.1 yuan. At 6 months after surgery, the average Wexner anal function score and the average Vaizey score were both 3 points.

CONCLUSIONS

PPS can be employed to precisely resect rectal tumors and preserve sphincter function in ultralow rectal cancer patients. The use of our devices enhanced surgical efficiency, reduced the need for prophylactic stoma, reduced surgery-related costs, and prevented abdominal surgical incisions.

Incidence of incisional hernia after laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have been broadly introduced to liver surgery during the last couple of years. In this study, we aimed to report the incidence and potential risk factors for incisional hernia (IH) as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic liver resections (LLR).

METHODS

All patients undergoing LLR between January 2014 and June 2017 were contacted for an outpatient hernia examination. In all eligible patients, photo documentation of the scar was performed and IH was evaluated by clinical examination and by ultrasound. Patients also completed a questionnaire to evaluate IH-specific symptoms and HRQoL. Obtained results were retrospectively analyzed with regard to patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes and applied minimally invasive techniques, such as multi-incision laparoscopic liver surgery or hand-assisted/single-incision laparoscopic surgery (HALS/SILS).

RESULTS

Of 184 patients undergoing surgery, 161 (87.5%) met the inclusion criteria and 49 patients (26.6%) participated in this study. After a median time of 26 months (range 19-50 months) after surgery, we observed an overall incidence of IH of 12%. Five of 6 patients were overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 25) and 5 of 6 hernias were located at the umbilical site. Univariate analysis suggested the performance status at time of operation (ASA score ≥ 3; HR 5.616, 95% CI 1.012-31.157, p = 0.048) and the approach (HALS/SILS, HR 6.571, 95% CI 1.097-39.379, p = 0.039) as potential risk factors for IH. A higher frequency of hernia-related physical restrictions (HRR; p = 0.058) and a decreased physical functioning (p = 0.17) were noted in patients with IH; however, both being short of statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Advantages of laparoscopic surgery with regard to low rates of IH can be translated to minimally invasive liver surgery. Even though there are low rates of IH, patients with poor performance status at the time of operation should be monitored closely. While patients' characteristics are hard to influence, it might be worth focusing on surgical factors such as the approach and the closure of the umbilical site to further minimize the rate of IH.

Safety and survival outcomes of transanal natural orifice specimen extraction using prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer

Objective

The transanal approach to specimen collection, combined with the prolapsing technique, is a well-established and minimally invasive surgery for treating rectal cancer. However, reports on outcomes for this approach are sparse. We compared short- and long-term outcomes of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) vs. transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) using the prolapsing technique for patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer.

Methods

From January 2013 to December 2017, we enrolled consecutive patients with middle- to low-rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection. Totally, 50 patients who underwent transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique were matched with 50 patients who received CLS. Clinical parameters and survival outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results

Estimated blood loss (29.70±29.28 vs. 52.80±45.09 mL, P=0.003), time to first flatus (2.50±0.79 vs. 2.86±0.76, P=0.022), time to liquid diet (3.62±0.64 vs. 4.20±0.76 d, P<0.001), and the need for analgesics (22%vs. 48%, P=0.006) were significantly lower for the NOSE group compared to the CLS group. The incidences of overall complications and fecal incontinence were comparable in both groups. After a median follow-up of 44.52 months, the overall local recurrence rate (6% vs. 5%, P=0.670), 3-year disease-free survival (86.7% vs. 88.0%, P=0.945) and 3-year overall survival (95.6% vs. 96.0%, P=0.708), were not significantly different.

Conclusions

For total laparoscopic rectal resection, transanal NOSE using the prolapsing technique is effective and safe, and associated with less trauma and pain, a faster recovery, and similar survival outcomes compared to CLS.

Evaluation of anatomical landmarks for transanal total mesorectal excision based on MRI

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is a novel sphincter-preserving procedure for low rectal cancer. This "bottom to up" approach is unfamiliar to colorectal surgeons and the crucial anatomical landmarks also remain unclear.

METHODS

Two hundred and five cases of pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from 2015 to 2016 were reviewed. Curvature of posterior mesorectal fascia, distal mesorectal angle, length of posterior mesorectal fascia, main structures around the mesorectum were measured and analyzed. The landmarks identified on MRI were verified in taTME procedures of five rectal cancer patients.

RESULTS

The most of acute angles of posterior mesorectal fascia located at the joint of anococcygeal ligament-coccyx. Degree of distal mesorectal angle was independently correlated with gender and degree of angle of anococcygeal ligament-coccyx. Candidate landmarks evaluated by MRI with verification during taTME procedures included: anterior: seminal vesicle for male while cervix for female. And peritoneal reflection was a substitute landmark when cervix was hardly confirmed in operation; posterior: the joint of anococcygeal ligament-coccyx. The area between the joint of anococcygeal ligament-coccyx and S3S4 was a "transitional zone", the level of S3S4 could be the as the terminal landmark of transanal posterior dissection during taTME.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative MRI geometrical measurement of mesorectum might play an important role in evaluating the difficulty of taTME procedure before operation, as well as standardizing landmarks during taTME procedure.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) versus laparoscopic TME for MRI-defined low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

While a shift to minimally invasive techniques in rectal cancer surgery has occurred, non-inferiority of laparoscopy in terms of oncological outcomes has not been definitely demonstrated. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been pioneered to potentially overcome difficulties experienced when operating with a pure abdominal approach deep down in the pelvis. This study aimed to compare short-term oncological results of TaTME versus laparoscopic TME (lapTME), based on a strict anatomical definition for low rectal cancer on MRI.

METHODS

From June 2013, all consecutive TaTME cases were included and compared to lapTME in a single institution. Propensity score-matching was performed for nine relevant factors. Primary outcome was resection margin involvement (R1), secondary outcomes included intra- and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

After matching, forty-one patients were included in each group; no significant differences were observed in patient and tumor characteristics. The resection margin was involved in 5 cases (12.2%) in the laparoscopic group, versus 2 (4.9%) TaTME cases (P = 0.432). The TME specimen quality was complete in 84.0% of the laparoscopic cases and in 92.7% of the TaTME cases (P = 0.266). Median distance to the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was 5 mm in lapTME and 10 mm in TaTME (P = 0.065). Significantly more conversions took place in the laparoscopic group, 9 (22.0%) compared to none in the TaTME group (P < 0.001). Other clinical outcomes did not show any significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to compare results of TaTME with lapTME in a highly selected patient group with MRI-defined low rectal tumors. A significant decrease in R1 rate could not be demonstrated, although conversion rate was significantly lower in this TaTME cohort.

Laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: are they obsolete?

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer offers favorable short-term results without compromising long term oncological outcomes so far, according to the data from major trials. For this reason, it is currently considered as a standard option for rectal cancer surgery. The learning curve of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is generally longer compared to colon cancer. Appropriate standardization and training of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is required. Several RCTs suggested the potential negative effect on quality of resected specimen, which can increase local recurrence. The long-term outcomes - especially local recurrence rate - of these RCTs are awaited. Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) has a certain effect of reducing local recurrence of rectal cancer even after neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Since LPLND is associated with postoperative morbidity, we should carefully select the candidate to maximize the effect of LPLND and minimize the morbidity caused by LPLND. Recent advancements in imaging study such as CT and MRI enable us to find the suitable candidates for LPLND. The morbidity caused by LPLND could be reduced by minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery. We have to improve oncological outcomes and reduce morbidity by the multidisciplinary strategy for rectal cancer including total mesorectal excision, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and LPLND together with laparoscopic surgery.

Reevaluation of laparoscopic surgery's value in pathological T4 colon cancer with comparison to open surgery: A retrospective and propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

In spite of the unique advantages of minimally invasive treatment, laparoscopic surgery is not recommended in T4 colon cancer patients with the concern of technical feasibility and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. We used the database of our center to reevaluate laparoscopic surgery's value in T4 colon cancer and compared with open surgery in both short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and propensity score-matched study of pathological T4 colon cancer patients who received laparoscopic surgery or open surgery from March 2011 to August 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 411 pathological T4 colon cancer patients were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in 86 patients in laparoscopic group and 86 patients in open group. Our study showed longer operation time, less blood loss and less length of postsurgical stay compared with open surgeries (167 ± 56 min vs. 111 ± 50.1 min, P < 0.001; 72 ± 61.5 mL vs. 113 ± 113.9 mL, P = 0.004; 7.3 ± 2.1 days vs. 7.9 ± 2.1 days, P = 0.046, respectively). 7 (8.2%) patients underwent conversions to open surgery. 5-years of DFS and OS showed no statistic difference between the two groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.4%, 77.5% and 73.2% for laparoscopic surgery and 95.2%, 82.7% and 73.9% for open surgery (P = 0.618). The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.5%, 77.2% and 61.7% for laparoscopic surgery and 91.7%, 75.3% and 66.8% for open surgery (P = 0.903).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates that there is no statistic difference in short- and long-oncologic outcomes in our center and it is a reliable evidence to support the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer patients. Still, considering the lack of randomized controlled trails, conducting large prospective multi-center population-based studies is not only required, but also pressing.

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal surgery in high-risk patients

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is associated with a steep learning curve and high conversion rate despite progress in equipment design and consistent practice. The robotic system has shown an advantage over the laparoscopic approach due to stable three-dimensional views, improved dexterity and better ergonomics. These factors make the robotic approach more favourable for rectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery in high-risk patients.

METHOD

A prospectively collected dataset for high-risk patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between May 2013 and November 2015 was analysed. Patients with any of the following characteristics were defined as high risk: a body mass index ≥30, male gender, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumour <8 cm from the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 184 high-risk patients were identified: 99 in the robotic group and 85 in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly higher sphincter preservation rate (86% vs 74%, P = 0.045), shorter operative time (240 vs 270 min, P = 0.013) and hospital stay (7 vs 9 days, P = 0.001), less blood loss (10 vs 100 ml, P < 0.001) and a smaller conversion rate to open surgery (0% vs 5%, P = 0.043) compared with the laparoscopic technique. Reoperation, anastomotic leak rate, 30-day mortality and oncological outcomes were comparable between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery in high-risk patients is associated with higher sphincter preservation, reduced blood loss, smaller conversion rates, and shorter operating time and hospital stay. However, further studies are required to evaluate this notion.

Transanal Inspection and Management of Low Colorectal Anastomosis Performed With a New Technique: the TICRANT Study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is one of the most serious complications after rectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

A prospective multicenter interventional study to assess a newly described technique of creating the colorectal and coloanal anastomosis. The primary outcome was to access the safety and efficacy of this technique in the reduction of anastomotic leak.

RESULT

Fifty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent low or ultra-low anterior resection were included in the study. There were 35 males and 18 females, with a median age of 68 years (range = 49-89 years). The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm (range = 4-12 cm), and the median body mass index was 24 kg/m² (range = 20-35 kg/m²). Thirty patients underwent open, 16 laparoscopic, and 7 robotic surgeries. Multiple firing (2-charges) was required in 30 patients to obtain a complete rectal division. Forty-five patients had colorectal anastomosis, and 8 patients had coloanal anastomosis. The protective ileostomy was created in 40 patients at the time of initial surgery. There was no mortality in the first 30 days postoperatively, and only 10 (19%) patients developed complications. There were 3 anastomotic leakages (6%); 2 of them were subclinical with ileostomy created at initial operation and both were treated conservatively with transanal drainage and intravenous antibiotics. One patient required reoperation and ileostomy. The median length of hospital stay was 10 days (range = 4-20 days).

CONCLUSION

Our technique is a safe and efficient method of creation of colorectal anastomosis. It is also a universal method that can be used in open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries.

Risk Factors for Conversion and Morbidity During Initial Experience in Laparoscopic Proctectomies: a Retrospective Study

The aim of this study was to determine the predictable factors for conversion during laparoscopic proctectomies, and for postoperative morbidity, in order to assist in defining the best candidates of patients for initial experience in laparoscopic proctectomies for rectal adenocarcinoma. A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma operated by a single surgeon, between 2005 and 2012, were performed. Predictive factors for conversion and for postoperative morbidity were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analysis. Sixty-nine patients were included. There were 35 (50.7 %) men with a median age of 53 years. Forty-seven patients had tumors located below 8 cm from the anal verge, and sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 52 (75.4 %) patients. Thirty-four patients were operated in the early period (before 2009). Conversion rate was 17.4 %. In multivariate analysis, the independent predictive factors for conversion were time period (before 2009) (p = 0.007, Exp. 19.9; CI (95 %) 2.2-177.4) and tumors located 8 cm above the anal verge (p = 0.028, Exp. 5.23, CI (95 %) 1.2-22.8). Twenty-two patients (31.9 %) had a complicated postoperative course. Only male gender was associated with postoperative complications (p = 0.01, CI (95 %) 1.3-11.8). Our study showed that conversion rate is influenced by surgeon's experience, and height of the tumor and that male gender is a predisposing factor for a higher morbidity rate. These results suggest that women with low rectal tumors requiring colo-anal anastomosis or abdomino-perineal resection would be the best candidates for early surgeons' experience in laparoscopic proctectomies for rectal adenocarcinoma.

An evidence-based medicine approach to the laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer

During the 1990s, laparoscopic resection was established as a treatment for gastrointestinal malignant tumors.　A number of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery with conventional open colorectal surgery for colon cancer have been conducted.　These trials have shown short-term benefits, and the vast majority demonstrated no significant difference in long-term outcomes.　Laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery is widely performed for the treatment of colon cancer, whereas laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery for rectal cancer is less commonly performed.　In recent years, there have been an increasing number of reports of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery for rectal cancer, where improving short-term outcomes was shown, but no definitive effect on long-term survival has been shown to date.　Randomized controlled trials focusing on long-term survival are currently ongoing.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopy for advanced-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the operative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic (LAR) versus open anterior rectal resection (OAR) for patients with pT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

This is a multicenter propensity score matching (PSM) study of patients undergoing elective curative-intent LAR or OAR for pT4 rectal cancer (TNM stage II/III/IV) between 2005 and 2015.

RESULTS

In total, 137 patients were included in the analysis. After PSM, demographic, clinical and tumor characteristics were similar between the 52 LAR and the 52 OAR patients. Overall, 52 tumors were located in the high rectum, 25 in the mid-rectum and 27 in the low rectum. Multivisceral resection was performed in 26.9% of LAR and 30.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.829). Conversion was required in 11 LAR patients (21.2%). The LAR group showed significantly shorter time to flatus (3.13 vs. 4.97 days, p = 0.001), time to regular diet (3.59 vs. 6.36 days, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (15.49 vs. 17.96 days, p = 0.002) compared to the OAR group. The 90-day morbidity and mortality were not different between groups. In the majority of patients (85.6%), R0 resection was achieved. A complete mesorectal excision was obtained in 82.7% of LAR and 78.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.855). The 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were, respectively, 95.6, 73.8 and 66.7% for the LAR group and 86.7, 66.9 and 64.1% for the OAR group (p = 0.219). The presence of synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 2.26), R1 resection (HR 2.71) and lymph node involvement (HR 2.24) were significant predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that LAR for pT4 rectal cancer can achieve good pathologic and oncologic outcomes similar to open surgery despite the risk of conversion. Moreover, laparoscopy offers the benefits of a faster recovery and a shorter hospital stay.

[Total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer management: laparoscopic or transanal?]

AIM

To evaluate and compare intraoperative features, early surgical outcomes, quality of excised specimen after laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision (LA-TME and TA-TME).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective randomized study included 45 patients with confirmed rectal adenocarcinoma (cT2-4N0-2M0) since October 2013. LA-TME and TA-TME groups consisted of 23 and 22 patients respectively. Inclusion criteria were patients with primary-operable rectal cancer and satisfactory response after neoadjuvant chemo- and radiotherapy. Both groups were comparable in stages of cancer, age and body mass index (BMI). Median length from anal edge was 6.5 cm and 7 cm in TA-TME and LA-TME groups respectively. There was significantly greater number of patients after chemo- and radiotherapy in TA-TME group (86% vs. 48%, p=0.006).

RESULTS

Surgery time was 305 and 320 minutes in LA-TME and TA-TME groups recpectively, median blood loss -- less than 100 ml. Mean hospital-stay was 8.0 days in both groups. Each group had 1 conversion including laparoscopic procedure in TA-TME group. Transanal extraction of specimen was performed in 86% vs. 48% in TA-TME and LA-TME groups respectively (p=0.021). Complications (Clavien-Dindo sclale) were observed in 27% and 26% in TA-TME and LA-TME groups respectively without statistically significance. Complications IIIb, IVb and V degrees were not diagnosed in TA-TME group. Also in this group «good», «satisfactory» and «unsatisfactory» quality of TME was obtained in 68%, 14% and 18% of cases. At the same time in LA-TME group these values were 74%, 9% and 17% respectively (p=0.859). One of operated patients had «positive» lateral edge (TA-TME). Median distal edge of resection was 21 mm and 23 mm in TA-TME and LA-TME groups respectively.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data show comparable early outcomes after transanal and laparoscopic techniques. Laparotomy and associated compications are avoided in case of transanal extraction of specimen. Further researches are necessary to study functional and long-term results.

Impact of Conversion to Open Surgery on Early Postoperative Morbidity After Laparoscopic Resection for Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The impact of conversion to open surgery after a laparoscopic resection for rectal adenocarcinoma on postoperative morbidity is still unclear. Most previous studies included colon and rectal carcinomas and produced conflicting results. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative morbidity in patients who underwent a laparoscopic resection for rectal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This was a retrospective bicentric study. It included all consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic resection for nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma between January 2005 and December 2013. The impact of conversion to open surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity was analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Risk factors for conversion were also investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one patients were included. The conversion rate was 26.7%. The global 30-day morbidity rate was 31.3% (41 patients). The conversion to open surgery was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications, anastomotic leaks, and reoperations. It was also an independent predictive factor to postoperative morbidity in the multivariate analysis (P = .01; odds ratio 2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-6.63), in addition to T4 tumors (P = .04; odds ratio 3.92; 95% CI 1.05-14.61). Risk factors for conversion in the multivariate analysis were T4 tumors (P = .006; odds ratio 6.09; 95% CI 1.66-22.32) and the height of the tumor (P = .025; odds ratio 2.7; 95% CI 1.13-6.43).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that conversion to open surgery after laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma was associated with higher rates of early postoperative complications. It also showed that T4 tumors and the height of the tumor were independent factors associated with the conversion to open surgery. Reducing postoperative morbidity could be achieved by a better patient selection and a policy of early conversion.

Outcomes following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection by supervised trainees

Background

The aim was to evaluate the applicability of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of primary rectal cancer in a training unit.

Methods

A cohort analysis was undertaken of consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for primary rectal cancer over a 7-year interval. Data on patient and operative details, and short-term clinicopathological outcomes were collected prospectively and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

A total of 306 patients (213 men, 69·6 per cent) of median (i.q.r.) age 67 (58–73) years with a median body mass index of 26·6 (23·9–29·9) kg/m2 underwent surgery. Median tumour height was 8 (6–11) cm from the anal verge, and 46 patients (15·0 per cent) received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Seven patients (2·3 per cent) were considered unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery and underwent open resection; 299 patients (97·7 per cent) were suitable for laparoscopic surgery, but eight were randomized to open surgery as part of an ongoing trial. Some 291 patients (95·1 per cent) underwent a laparoscopic procedure, with conversion required in 29 (10·0 per cent). Surgery was partially or completely performed by trainees in 72·4 per cent of National Health Service patients (184 of 254), whereas private patients underwent surgery primarily by consultants. Median postoperative length of stay for all patients was 6 days and the positive circumferential resection margin rate was 4·9 per cent (15 of 306).

Conclusion

Supervised trainees can perform routine laparoscopic rectal cancer resection.

Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer: a consensus statement of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncologists (HeSMO)

In rectal cancer management, accurate staging by magnetic resonance imaging, neo-adjuvant treatment with the use of radiotherapy, and total mesorectal excision have resulted in remarkable improvement in the oncological outcomes. However, there is substantial discrepancy in the therapeutic approach and failure to adhere to international guidelines among different Greek-Cypriot hospitals. The present guidelines aim to aid the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, considering both the local special characteristics of our healthcare system and the international relevant agreements (ESMO, EURECCA). Following background discussion and online communication sessions for feedback among the members of an executive team, a consensus rectal cancer management was obtained. Statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology voting system on two rounds to achieve further consensus by invited multidisciplinary international experts on colorectal cancer. Statements were considered of high, moderate or low consensus if they were voted by ≥80%, 60-80%, or <60%, respectively; those obtaining a low consensus level after both voting rounds were rejected. One hundred and two statements were developed and voted by 100 experts. The mean rate of abstention per statement was 12.5% (range: 2-45%). In the end of the process, all statements achieved a high consensus. Guidelines and algorithms of diagnosis and treatment were proposed. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and personalization is emphasized.

Laparoscopic resection for T4 colon cancer: perioperative and long-term outcomes

Laparoscopic resection has been considered a contraindication for T4 colorectal cancer. It is argued that it is a challenging and demanding procedure with high conversion rate, inadequate oncologic clearance and surgical outcomes. There are only a few data on short- and long-term operative results. This review aimed at assessing feasibility and operative and oncologic results of laparoscopic resection for T4 colorectal cancer.

Short-term outcomes after transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has potential benefits of better visual control, especially in male patients with a high body mass index and low rectal cancer. However, this method has not yet been validated in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic (lap) TME.

METHODS

From October 2013 to January 2015, consecutive patients undergoing transanal or laparoscopic TME for biopsy-proven mrT1-4aN0-2M0 rectal cancer were included in a prospective database. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 and higher and patients undergoing partial mesorectal excision were excluded. This analysis focused on short-term surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

From October 2013 to January 2015, 22 taTME procedures and 23 laparoscopic TME procedures were performed. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups, but more patients in the taTME group underwent neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy (87 vs. 48 %, p = 0.006). Median operative time was 320 min in the taTME group and 305 min in the lapTME group. There was one conversion in each group, but the transanal procedure was converted to laparoscopic resection. Transanal specimen extraction was performed in 86 versus 48 % patients in taTME and lapTME groups accordingly (p = 0.021). There was no post-operative mortality and post-operative morbidity in the taTME and lapTME groups was similar (27 vs. 26 %). One patient in the taTME group had positive circumferential resection margins. Oncologic results from resected specimens were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience demonstrates comparable short-term results for taTME and lap TME. Further investigation is necessary to assess long-term functional and oncologic outcomes.

Surgery for rectal cancer after high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer: is sphincter preservation relevant?

AIM

The feasibility and outcome of sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer were assessed in patients previously treated by high-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

METHOD

Between 2000 and 2012, 1066 patients underwent rectal excision for rectal cancer. Of these, 236 were treated by conventional radiotherapy (45 Gy) and sphincter-saving resection (Group A) and 12 were treated by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (70 Gy) and sphincter-saving resection (Group B) of whom five had a metachronous and seven a synchronous cancer. The end-points were surgical morbidity, pelvic sepsis, reoperation and definitive stoma.

RESULTS

Tumour characteristics were similar in both groups. Surgical morbidity (67% vs 25%, P = 0.004), anastomotic leakage (50% vs 10%, P = 0.001, and reoperation (50% vs 17%, P = 0.011) were significantly higher in Group B. Multivariate analyses showed that EBRT for prostate cancer was the only independent factor for anastomotic leakage (OR = 5.12; 95% CI 1.45-18.08; P = 0.011) and definitive stoma (OR = 10.56; 95% CI 3.02-39.92; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

High-dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer increases morbidity from rectal surgery and the risk of a permanent stoma. This suggests that a delayed coloanal anastomosis or a Hartmann procedure should be proposed as an alternative to low anterior resection in this population.

Outcomes in 132 patients following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with greater than 5-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The role of laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is still questioned as a safe and adequate cancer operation. Currently, multicenter randomized prospective trials are underway to evaluate this. We analyze our long-term results using laparoscopic TME in the treatment of rectal cancer to evaluate its oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective laparoscopic database was queried to identify all patients operated upon for rectal cancer from April 1997 to September 2007. In total, 151 patients were identified. Metastatic disease excluded 19 patients, leaving 132 patients to be analyzed for perioperative and 5-year oncologic outcomes. Procedures included LAR, n = 35; transanal abdominal transanal proctosigmoidectomy, n = 77; and APR, n = 20. All surgeries were TME or pTME.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic TME was performed on 89 men (67%), mean age 61 (22-85). Preoperative chemoradiation was administered in 119 (90.2 %) with median dose of 5500 cGy (3800-10,080). Mean EBL was 300 ml, and 4.5% were transfused. Seven patients (5.3%) underwent conversion, 5 to lap-assisted, with a 1.5% conversion rate to open. Pathologic stage of disease: complete response: 24%; I: 36%; II: 22%; III: 18%. There were no mortalities. Overall morbidity was 23.5%, with no anastomotic leaks and 5 (3.8%) delayed anastomotic stricture/fistula. There were no port site recurrences. Mean follow-up was 69.4 months (7.6-168.0). Overall LR was 5.3% (n = 7). There was only one isolated LR (0.8%). Mean time to local recurrence was 13.9 months. Metastatic rate was 18.2%. By stage, disease-specific survival was: CR 86.3%; I: 87.4%; II: 86.4%; III: 77.4%. Overall, 5-year survival was 84.8%.

CONCLUSION

The long-term data confirm that laparoscopic TME can be performed with lasting low local recurrence (5.3 %) and excellent 5-year survival (84.8%). This report's importance stems from it representing one of the largest experiences of rectal cancer treated by laparoscopic TME with greater than 5-year follow-up reported in the literature.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Oncologic and functional outcomes were compared between transanal and transabdominal specimen extraction after laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis is an attractive new surgical option in patients with low rectal cancer because laparotomy is not necessary due to transanal specimen extraction. Risks of tumor spillage and fecal incontinence induced by transanal extraction are not known.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2010, 220 patients with low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic rectal excision with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. The rectal specimen was extracted transanally in 122 patients and transabdominally in 98 patients. End points were circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence, survival, and functional outcome.

RESULTS

The mortality rate was 0.5% and surgical morbidity rate was 17%. The rate of positive circumferential resection margin was 9% and the mesorectum was graded complete in 79%, subcomplete in 12%, and incomplete in 9%. After a follow-up of 51 months (range, 1-151), the local recurrence rate was 4% and overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 83% and 70% at 5 years, respectively. The continence score was 6 (range, 0-20). There was no difference of mortality rate, morbidity rate, circumferential resection margin, mesorectal grade, local recurrence (4% vs 5%, P = 0.98), and disease-free survival rate (72% vs 68%, P = 0.63) between transanal and transabdominal extraction groups. Continence score was also similar (6 vs 6, P = 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal extraction of the rectal specimen did not compromise oncologic and functional outcome after laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer and seems as a safe option to preserve the abdominal wall.

Perineal transanal approach: a new standard for laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer, a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer is challenging because of the high risk of positive circumferential resection margin. We hypothesized that perineal dissection of the distal rectum may improve quality of surgery, compared with the conventional abdominal dissection.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2012, 100 patients with low rectal cancer (< 6 cm from the anal verge) suitable for sphincter preservation were randomized between perineal and abdominal low rectal dissection. Surgery included laparoscopic mobilization of the left colon with high rectal dissection. Distal rectal dissection was performed laparoscopically in the abdominal group and transanally in the perineal group. The primary endpoint was quality of surgery (circumferential resection margin, mesorectum grade, and lymph nodes). Secondary end points were morbidity and conversion.

RESULTS

The rate of positive circumferential resection margin decreased significantly after perineal compared with abdominal low rectal dissection, 4% versus 18% (P = 0.025). The mesorectum grade and the number of lymph nodes analyzed did not differ between the 2 groups. There was no difference in surgical morbidity (12% vs 14%; P = 0.766) and conversion (4% vs 10%; P = 0.436) between perineal and abdominal rectal dissection. Multivariate analysis showed that abdominal rectal dissection was the only independent factor of positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 5.25; 95% confidence interval: 1.03-26.70; P = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal rectal dissection reduces the risk of positive circumferential resection margin, as compared with the conventional abdominal dissection in low rectal cancer. This suggests the perineal rectal dissection as a new standard in laparoscopic sphincter-saving resection for low rectal cancer.

Comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes of stage III colorectal cancer following laparoscopic versus open surgery

Purpose

The oncologic outcomes after performing laparoscopic surgery (LS) compared to open surgery (OS) are still under debate and a concern when treating patients with colon cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of LS and OS as treatment for stage III colorectal cancer patients.

Methods

From January 2001 to December 2007, 230 patients with stage III colorectal cancer who had undergone LS or OS in this single center were assessed. Data were analyzed according to intention-to-treat. The primary endpoints were disease-free survival and overall survival.

Results

A total of 230 patients were entered into the study (114 patients had colon cancer-33 underwent LS and 81 underwent OS; 116 patients had rectal cancer-44 underwent LS and 72 underwent OS). The median follow-up periods for the colon and rectal cancer groups were 54 and 53 months, respectively. The overall conversion rate was 12.1% (n = 4) for colon cancer, and 4.5% (n = 2) for rectal cancer. Disease-free 5-year survival of colon cancer was 84.3% and 90% in LS group (LG) and OS group (OG), respectively, and that of rectal cancer was 83% and 74.6%, respectively (P > 0.05). Overall 5-year survival for colon cancer was 72.2% and 71.3% for LG and OG, respectively, and that for rectal cancer was 67.6% and 59.2%, respectively (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The long-term analyses for oncologic aspects of our study may confirm the safety of LS compared to OS in stage III colorectal cancer patients.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: long-term results

The long-term role of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, the feasibility, the perioperative outcome, and the long-term results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for extraperitoneal rectal cancer considering a single center series.

METHODS

Data about 186 unselected consecutive patients that underwent laparoscopic TME for middle and low rectal cancer between January 2001 and December 2011 were prospectively recorded and were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Distribution of TNM stage was 5 % T1, 37 % T2, 52.5 % T3, and 6 % T4. Fifty-one percent of patients have lymph node metastases. The average duration of surgery was 234 min. Fourteen patients required conversion (7.5 %). A complete microscopic excision was achieved in 169 patients (91 %). The mean hospital stay was 9 days. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 24 %. Surgical-related complications were reported in 19 %. Overall mortality was 0.5 %. Sex, tumor level, and the presence of a stoma were the only statistically significant independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Median follow-up was 71 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 77 %, with 89 % for stage 1, 81 % for stage 2, 43 % for stage 3, and 10 % for stage 4. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 66 %. The 10-year survival rate was 54 %. Nine patients (4.8 %) experienced a pelvic recurrence. Late metastases developed in 31 patients (17.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the oncological safety of laparoscopic TME in a long follow-up period.

Have early postoperative complications from laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery improved over the past 20 years?

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been increasingly used since 1991 following the publication of the first case series. Since then, several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is challenging with associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine if the rates of early postoperative complications in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have improved over the past 20 years.

METHOD

A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases between August 1991 and August 2011 was conducted using the keywords laparoscopy, rectal cancer and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using linear regression ANOVA performed in GNUMERICS software.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included for analysis. Over the last 20 years there has been no significant change in the rate of any early postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, conversion, sexual, urinary or faecal dysfunction, wound infection, overall morbidity or mortality). However, in the last 3 years, the rate of positive resection margins has decreased significantly (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of a statistically significant change in early postoperative complications until 3 years ago. This may reflect the inherent morbidity associated with rectal surgery regardless of the approach used, the limitations of the current laparoscopic instrumentation or the relatively long learning curve. With increasing experience, a repeat analysis in the near future following the publication of ongoing randomized clinical trials might show improved outcomes.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection using needlescopic instruments

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a procedure designed to preserve anal function in cases with very low rectal cancer. We report our clinical experience with laparoscopic ISR (Lap ISR) performed using needlescopic instruments. First, a camera port is created at the umbilicus. Two 5-mm ports are then inserted at the right upper and lower quadrants. Two needlescopic forceps (Endo-Relief^™ Hope Denshi Co., Chiba, Japan) are inserted at the left upper and lower quadrants. We then perform the following procedures; ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery and vein, total mesorectal excision and dissection of the intersphincteric space. After the transanal intersphincteric dissection, the specimen is extracted through the anus and a hand —sewn coloanal anastomosis is performed. The covering ileostomy is finally created at the right upper port. We performed Lap ISR using needlescopic forceps in two patients with very low rectal cancer. In both cases, we were able to perform this procedure without insertion of an additional port or to change the needlescopic forceps to conventional 5-mm forceps. Lap ISR with needlescopic instruments is a feasible procedure for minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic and converted approaches to rectal cancer resection have superior long-term outcomes: a comparative study by operative approach

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes for rectal cancer resection by operative approach. Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic (LAP) and LAP converted to open (OPEN) rectal cancer resections have excellent patient and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified curative rectal cancer resections. Patients were stratified by operative approach: LAP, OPEN, or CONVERTED. Oncologic and clinical outcomes data was examined for each operative approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 294 patients were analyzed-116 LAP (39.5%), 153 OPEN (52.0%), and 25 (8.5%) CONVERTED. Groups were comparable in demographics. Mean distal margin, circumferential resection margin, and lymph nodes harvested were comparable. The median length of stay was 4 days (range 1-20) LAP, 6 days (range 3-13) CONVERTED, and 8 days (range 1-35) OPEN (p < 0.01). More OPEN had postoperative complications (p < 0.01)-complication rates were 43.8% OPEN, 32.0% CONVERTED, and 21.5 % LAP. Unplanned readmissions and reoperations were similar (21.6% OPEN, 16.0% CONVERTED, 12.1% LAP). Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 98.3%, and local recurrence rate was 2.0%. By approach, DFS was 100% CONVERTED, 93.1% LAP, and 87.6% OPEN (p = 0.31). Overall survival (OS) was 100 % CONVERTED, 99.1% LAP, and 97.4%. OPEN. Local recurrence was 0% CONVERTED, 2% OPEN, and 2.6% LAP. 3-year DFS for LAP and CONVERTED was superior to OPEN (p = 0.05), with comparable local recurrence (p = 0.07) and OS rates (0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

LAP and converted procedures have comparable or superior clinical and oncologic outcomes. More procedures should be approached through a LAP approach. If the procedure cannot be completed laparoscopically, outcomes are not compromised for converted patients.

Integration of open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer resection: oncologic and short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is increasingly used for rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is not attempted for some suitable patients because of concerns for conversion or technical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate oncologic and short-term outcomes for patients undergoing curative resection for rectal cancer via laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed to identify rectal cancer resections from 2005 to 2011. Patients who had primary rectal cancer within 15 cm of the anal verge were included in the study. Those with recurrent or metastatic disease were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic or open approaches preoperatively based on clinical criteria and imaging. All patients underwent a standard total mesorectal excision and followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. The oncologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by approach.

RESULTS

The analysis included 81 patients. The preoperative assignments consisted of 62 laparoscopic (77%) and 19 open (23%) procedures. Nine laparoscopic procedures (14.5%) were converted to open procedures. After a median follow-up period of 25 months, all oncologic outcomes were comparable. Three patients (two laparoscopic, one open) had a positive circumferential margin (≤1 mm). The laparoscopic and open groups were similar in terms of their 3-year disease-free periods (93.6 vs. 88.2%; P = 0.450) and overall survival periods (93.5 vs. 90.9%; P = 0.766). The local recurrence rate was 2.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer can be attempted for most patients. Conversion to open procedure does not compromise clinical or oncologic outcomes. In practice, combining laparoscopic and open surgery optimizes resource use and results in at least equivalent outcomes.

Laparoscopic rectal resection versus open rectal resection with minilaparotomy for invasive rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The minilaparotomy approach is technically feasible for the resection of rectal cancer in selected patients with rapid postoperative recovery and small incision. The study aimed to compare the clinical and oncological outcomes of minilaparotomy and laparoscopic approaches in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The 122 included patients with rectal cancer were assigned to either minilaparotomy group (n=65) or laparoscopic group (n=57) which ran from January 2005 to January 2008. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, postoperative and long-term complications, pathological results and survival rates were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The demographic data of the two groups were similar. The time to normal diet (P=0.024) and the hospital stay (P=0.043) were less in the laparoscopic group than that in the minilaparotomy group. Compared with the minilaparotomy group, the mean operation time was significantly longer [low anterior resection (LAR), P=0.030; abdominoperineal resection (APR), P=0.048] and the direct costs higher for laparoscopic group (P<0.001). The morbidity and mortality were comparable between the two groups. Local recurrence was similar (5.3% laparoscopic, 1.5% minilaparotomy, P=0.520). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were also similar (overall survival is 87.1% in laparoscopic group, and 82.5%in minilaparotomy group, P=0.425; disease-free survival is 74.2% in the laparoscopic group, and 71.4% in mini- laparotomy group, P=0.633).

CONCLUSIONS

The minilaparotomy approach was similarly safe and oncologically equivalent to laparoscopic approach for patients with rectal cancer. At the expense of a longer operative time and higher cost, laparoscopic surgery was associated with faster postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: current status and future perspective

Although laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is accepted in the treatment guidelines, the laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer is recommended only in clinical trials. Thus far, several trials have shown favorable short-term results such as early recovery and short hospital stay, but long-term results remain a critical concern for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. To date, no randomized control trials have shown an increased local recurrence after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Additionally, according to previous studies, open conversion, which is more frequent in laparoscopic rectal surgery than in laparoscopic colon surgery, may affect short-term and long-term survival. The evidence on male sexual function has been contradictory. Long-term results from ongoing multicenter trials will be available within several years. Based on accumulated evidence from well-organized clinical trials, laparoscopic surgery will likely be accepted as a treatment choice for rectal cancer. In the future, extended laparoscopic rectal surgery might be feasible for additional procedures such as laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection and laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for rectal cancer invading the adjacent pelvic organ.

Waist circumference and waist/hip ratio are better predictive risk factors for mortality and morbidity after colorectal surgery than body mass index and body surface area

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether body fat distribution, measured by waist circumference (WC) and waist/hip ratio (WHR), is a better predictor of mortality and morbidity after colorectal surgery than body mass index (BMI) or body surface area (BSA).

BACKGROUND

Obesity measured by BMI is not a consistent risk factor for postoperative mortality and morbidity after abdominal surgery. Studies in metabolic and cardiovascular diseases have shown WC and WHR to be better outcome predictors than BMI.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter international study was conducted among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. The WHR, BMI, and BSA were derived from body weight, height, and waist and hip circumferences measured preoperatively. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1349 patients (754 men) from 38 centers in 11 countries were included. Increasing WHR significantly increased the risk of conversion [odds ratio (OR) = 15.7, relative risk (RR) = 4.1], intraoperative complications (OR = 11.0, RR = 3.2), postoperative surgical complications (OR = 7.7, RR = 2.0), medical complications (OR = 13.2, RR = 2.5), anastomotic leak (OR = 13.7, RR = 3.3), reoperations (OR = 13.3, RR = 2.9), and death (OR = 653.1, RR = 21.8). Both BMI (OR = 39.5, RR = 1.1) and BSA (OR = 4.9, RR = 3.1) were associated with an increased risk of abdominal wound complication. In multivariate analysis, the WHR predicted intraoperative complications, conversion, medical complications, and reinterventions, whereas BMI was a risk factor only for abdominal wall complications; BSA did not reach significance for any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The WHR is predictive of adverse events after elective colorectal surgery. It should be used in routine clinical practice and in future risk-estimating systems.

Laparoscopic surgery for stage 0/I rectal carcinoma: short-term outcomes of a single-arm phase II trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To examine the technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal carcinoma, we conducted a single-arm phase II trial to evaluate laparoscopic surgery for stage 0/I rectal carcinoma, and short-term surgical outcomes were evaluated.

METHODS

Accredited surgeons from 43 institutions in Japan participated in the study. Eligibility criteria included histologically proven rectal carcinoma; clinical stage 0/I; tumor size 8 cm or smaller; patient age 20 to 75 years; no bowel obstruction; and written informed consent. Patients were registered preoperatively. The planned sample size was 490. Surgical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 495 patients were registered between February 2008 and August 2010. Five patients were ineligible after registration. Conversion to open surgery was needed for 8 (1.6%) patients. Sphincter-preserving procedures were performed in 477 (97%) patients. Median operative time was 270 minutes, and median blood loss was 28 mL. Postoperative median intervals until liquid and solid intake were 1 and 3 days, respectively, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 12 days. The positive resection margin rate was 0.4% (2/490), and 68.6% (336/490) of the patients were graded stage 0/I. There were no perioperative mortalities. Twenty-four intraoperative and 160 postoperative complications occurred, and the morbidity rate was 23.9% (117/490). The anastomotic leakage rate in patients who underwent anterior resection was 8.3% (33/400), and that in patients who underwent intersphincteric resection was 9.1% (7/77). Nineteen (3.9%) patients underwent reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Technically, laparoscopic surgery can be used for safe and radical resection of clinical stage 0/I rectal carcinoma. (ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT00635466.).

Short- and long-term impact of body mass index on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery

AIM

Obesity is associated with increased technical difficulty in laparoscopic surgery. However, its impact has been measured mainly for colectomy but not specifically for rectal excision. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on technical feasibility and oncological outcome of laparoscopic rectal excision for cancer.

METHOD

A total of 490 patients treated by laparoscopic rectal excision for rectal cancer from January 1999 to June 2010 were included. Seventy per cent had had preoperative radiochemotherapy. Patients were separated into four groups according to BMI (kg/m(2) ): < 20, 20-25, 25-30 and ≥ 30. The impact of BMI on conversion, surgical morbidity, quality of excision (Quirke mesorectal grade and circumferential resection margin) and long-term oncological outcome was determined.

RESULTS

Among the 490 patients BMI was < 20 in 43, 20-25 in 223, 25-30 in 177 and ≥ 30 in 47. Mortality (overall 1%) and morbidity (overall 19%) were similar between the groups. Conversion in the four groups was 5%, 14%, 23% and 32% (P = 0.001). The quality of mesorectal excision and circumferential margins did not differ between the groups. The 5-year local recurrence rates (0%, 4.6%, 5.3% and 5.9% respectively; P = 0.823) and the overall and disease-free survival were not significantly influenced by BMI.

CONCLUSION

In laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, BMI influenced the risk of conversion but not surgical morbidity, quality of surgery and survival. This suggests that all patients, including obese patients, are suitable for laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer is a safe and established alternative to traditional open colectomy. The potential advantages of shorter length of stay, faster recovery and fewer operative complications are well documented. The last 5 years has seen an increase in the number of laparoscopic colorectal operations as more surgeons learn this technique. Short and medium term results have been encouraging with respect to oncological outcomes. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remains a contentious issue. The increased complexity of operating within the confines of the pelvis and the greater risk of oncological compromise, have led to some surgeons urging caution. We present the challenges associated with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and explain that appropriate patient selection, surgical planning and laparoscopic experience are the key to successful outcomes.

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: Where do we stand?

Large comparative studies and multiple prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) have reported equivalence in short and long-term outcomes between the open and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical treatment of colon cancer which has heralded widespread acceptance for laparoscopic resection of colon cancer. In contrast, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of rectal cancer has been welcomed with significantly less enthusiasm. While it is likely that patients with rectal cancer will experience the same benefits of early recovery and decreased postoperative pain from the laparoscopic approach, whether the same oncologic clearance, specifically an adequate TME can be obtained is of concern. The aim of the current study is to review the current level of evidence in the literature on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery with regard to short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes. The data from 8 RCTs, 3 meta-analyses, and 2 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was reviewed. Current data suggests that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection may benefit patients with reduced blood loss, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospital length of stay. Concerns that laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery compromises short-term oncologic outcomes including number of lymph nodes retrieved and circumferential resection margin and jeopardizes long-term oncologic outcomes has not conclusively been refuted by the available literature. Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is feasible but whether or not it compromises short-term or long-term results still needs to be further studied.

Current status of robotic rectal cancer surgery

SUMMARY After the introduction of robotic surgery for rectal cancer, the safety and feasibility of robotic rectal cancer surgery was demonstrated. However, early comparative studies between laparoscopic and robotic surgery did not show a significant postoperative benefit. Recently, it was reported that robotic rectal surgery showed better postoperative outcomes than laparoscopic surgery with regard to postoperative recovery, pain and function preservation. In addition, robotic transanal specimen extraction was safely performed while maintaining a lower level of postoperative pain and recovery time. All of these findings should be validated with well-designed comparative studies. As robotic technology advances and continues to be studied, the use of robotic surgical systems will become more common among colorectal surgeons.

Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia

OBJECTIVE

Ventral incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery. The incidence ranges from 2% to 20% and varies greatly from one series to another. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures for ventral incisional hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of the surgical literature was performed using the search engines EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed with the keywords: abdominal hernia, wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, incidence, trocar site hernia, and hernia prevention.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy was 9.9%. The incidence was significantly higher for midline incisions compared with transverse incisions (11% vs. 4.7%; P=0.006). In contrast, the incidence of ventral hernia was only 0.7% after laparoscopy. A compilation of all the studies comparing laparotomy to laparoscopy showed a significantly higher incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy (P=0.001). Independent risk factors for incisional hernia included age and infectious complications. Only two meta-analyses were able to show a significant decrease in risk-related to the use of non absorbable or slowly absorbable suture material. No difference in incisional hernia risk was shown with different suture techniques (11.1% for running suture, 9.8% for interrupted sutures: NS).

CONCLUSION

A review of the literature shows that only the choice of incisional approach (transverse incision or laparotomy vs. midline laparotomy) allows a significant decrease in the incidence of ventral incisional hernia.

Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia

OBJECTIVE

Ventral incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery. The incidence ranges from 2% to 20% and varies greatly from one series to another. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures for ventral incisional hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of the surgical literature was performed using the search engines EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed with the keywords: abdominal hernia, wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, incidence, trocar site hernia, and hernia prevention.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy was 9.9%. The incidence was significantly higher for midline incisions compared with transverse incisions (11% vs. 4.7%; P=0.006). In contrast, the incidence of ventral hernia was only 0.7% after laparoscopy. A compilation of all the studies comparing laparotomy to laparoscopy showed a significantly higher incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy (P=0.001). Independent risk factors for incisional hernia included age and infectious complications. Only two meta-analyses were able to show a significant decrease in risk-related to the use of non absorbable or slowly absorbable suture material. No difference in incisional hernia risk was shown with different suture techniques (11.1% for running suture, 9.8% for interrupted sutures: NS).

CONCLUSION

A review of the literature shows that only the choice of incisional approach (transverse incision or laparotomy vs. midline laparotomy) allows a significant decrease in the incidence of ventral incisional hernia.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a stapling technique

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a stapling technique.

METHODS

The total prospective registry of 111 patients with rectal cancer who initially underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection using a stapling technique was reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify relevant risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall anastomotic leakage rate was 5.4% (6/111). Univariate analysis demonstrated that body mass index (BMI) (P=0.0377) was significantly associated with anastomotic leakage. After univariate analysis, the variables of BMI and the size of the circular stapler (P=0.0923) were selected for multivariate analysis, as their P values were <0.2, and multivariate analysis demonstrated that BMI was independently predictive of developing anastomotic leakage (P=0.0458).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a stapling technique can be performed safely without increasing the risk of anastomotic leakage, and increased BMI might be a potential risk factor for anastomotic leakage.

Risk factor analysis of postoperative complications after robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The robotic system has been adopted as the new modality for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. However, analysis of risk factors for complications after robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRS) has been limited. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for complications after RRS.

METHODS

The records of 389 consecutive patients who underwent RRS between June 2006 and October 2010 were retrieved from our prospectively collected database.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was 19%. The most common complication was anastomotic leakage (7.0%), followed by voiding difficulty, intrapelvic abscess, and ileus/obstruction. Multivariate analysis revealed the following as risk factors for postoperative complications: male gender, history of previous abdominal surgery, and lower tumor level (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-3.1, p = 0.041; HR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.2-4.6, p = 0.012; and HR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.1-3.3, p = 0.020, respectively). With regard to pelvic septic complications, lower tumor level, large tumor size, and preoperative chemoradiation remained variables that retained their statistical significance in multivariate analysis (HR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.1-6.1, p = 0.029; HR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.1-6.1, p = 0.017; HR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.3-6.5, p = 0.007, respectively). The rate of postoperative complications was not influenced by the difference in laparoscopic surgery experience or the technique of robotic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons should be more cautious with these patient factors to optimize the benefits of robotic rectal resection.

The feasibility of laparoscopic resection compared to open surgery in clinically suspected T4 colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic resection in patients with clinical T4 colorectal cancer remains controversial. This study compared the outcome of laparoscopic resection for clinical T4 colorectal cancer with that of an open approach.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer with suspected involvement of another organ (T4) by computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging were reviewed. Twenty-four patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection were matched with 19 patients who underwent an open approach. All available clinicopathologic variables possibly associated with the outcome were compared.

RESULTS

Two patients (8.3%) who underwent the laparoscopic procedure were converted to the open technique. Patients in the open group displayed more advanced pathologic T category (P = .008) and underwent more combined operation than patients in the laparoscopic group (P = .017). The R0 resection rate was 75% in the laparoscopic group and 52.6% in the open group (P = .135). Patients in the laparoscopic group displayed a tendency for lower estimated blood loss (P = .083), sooner bowel movement (P=.075), and shorter length of hospital stay (P = .089) than patients in the open group. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the laparoscopic and open groups (20.8% versus 36.8%, P = .246). After a median follow-up of 27 months, the 3-year disease-free survival rate in the laparoscopic group was found to be not significantly different from that in the open group (76.7% versus 58.8%; P=.303).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal resection for T4 colorectal cancer is feasible and has perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes similar to those of an open approach. However, further studies with long-term follow-up are needed to resolve these issues.

Pelvic anatomy as a factor in laparoscopic rectal surgery: a prospective study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), focusing on the pelvic anatomy.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients who underwent L-TME were prospectively enrolled. Tumor and patient factors, including magnetic resonance imaging-based pelvic measurements (obstetric conjugate, sacral length, sacral depth, interspinous distance, and intertuberous distance), were analyzed with respect to pelvic dissection time. Variable significantly correlated with pelvic dissection time in linear regression were considered risk factors which we defined as lower or upper quartile of each significant variable. Patients were categorized into 3 groups: easy group, no risk factors; moderate group, 1 to 2 risk factors; and difficult group, ≥ 3 risk factors.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that long sacral length, shallow sacral angle, narrow intertuberous diameter, and large tumor size were significantly associated with longer pelvic dissection time (P=0.018, P<0.001, P=0.034, P=0.032, respectively). The cutoff values of the upper quartile were 11.5 cm and 4.5 cm for sacral length and tumor size, and cutoff values of the lower quartile were 3.0 cm and 8.9 cm for sacral depth and intertuberous diameter. Logistic regression analysis showed that difficult group significantly contributed to intraoperative complication (95% confidence interval: 1.364-122.313, P=0.026) but not postoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Having a narrow, deep pelvis and a large tumor were not found to adversely affect postoperative outcomes. However, in terms of operation time and intraoperative difficulty, anatomical factors should be taken into consideration when planning L-TME.

Evaluation of diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Diverting ileostomy is believed to mitigate the effects of anastomotic complications in low anterior resections (LAR) for rectal cancer. However, there are no data about the effects of diverting ileostomy on the outcomes of laparoscopic LAR METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 77 consecutive rectal cancer patients who had undergone laparoscopic LAR with (n = 23) or without (n = 54) diverting ileostomy. The patients' data were recorded and supplemented on short-term follow-up visits and included standard demographics, operative procedure, location of the cancer, and final pathologic diagnosis. We noted length of hospitalisation, complications, and time interval from ileostomy creation to closure. Morbidity and mortality were also included.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention requiring anastomotic leakage occurred in three patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR without diverting ileostomy. The anastomosis level of patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR with diverting ileostomy was significantly lower than that of patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR without diverting ileostomy (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Anastomosis level and total mesorectal excision are the main factors for creation of diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic LAR Laparoscopic LAR without diverting ileostomy could be selectively performed. Our study provides a basis for further prospective randomised studies on the role of diverting ileostomy in LAR.