Laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision of the rectum

Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Single Specialized Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754.RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE LA RESECCIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO ESPECIALIZADOANTECEDENTES:Estudios aleatorizados han validado la proctectomía laparoscópica para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto igual a la proctectomía abierta, pero la mayoría de esos estudios han incluido resecciones con preservación del esfínter junto con resección abdominoperineal.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo entre la resección abdominoperineal abierta y mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:Servicio único especializado en cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto primario entre 2000 y 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 452 pacientes, 372 en el grupo abierto y 80 en el grupo mínimamente invasivo, con una mediana de seguimiento de 74 meses. Hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en términos de tratamiento con radiación neoadyuvante (67,5% del grupo abierto versus 81,3% del grupo mínimamente invasivo, p = 0,01), tiempo operatorio (media de 200 minutos versus 287 minutos, p < 0,0001) y la duración media de la estancia (9,5 días frente a 6,6 días, p < 0,0001). Las tasas generales de complicaciones fueron similares entre los grupos (34,5% versus 27,5%, p = 0,177). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos (21,7 versus 22,2 ganglios, p = 0,7), márgenes radiales circunferenciales (1,48 cm y 1,37 cm, p = 0,4), ni en la tasa de márgenes radiales afectados (10,8 cm). % versus 6,3%, p = 0,37). La supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% en el grupo abierto frente al 80% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,344), mientras que la tasa de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años en el grupo abierto fue del 63,2% frente al 77,6% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,09).LIMITACIONES:Experiencia en una institución de referencia única.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien ambos tienen resultados perioperatorios similares, el enfoque mínimamente invasivo, beneficia a los pacientes con estadía más corta y menor riesgo de infecciones de la herida quirúrgica. Ambos enfoques, producen una calidad técnica oncológica similar en términos de ganglios linfáticos extraídos y estado de los márgenes, y tienen resultados oncológicos comparables a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

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.

Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy offers some evidence of benefit compared to open rectal surgery. Robotic rectal surgery is evolving into an accepted approach. The objective was to analyze and compare laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery learning curves with respect to operative times and perioperative outcomes for a novice minimally invasive colorectal surgeon.

METHODS

One hundred and six laparoscopic and 92 robotic LAR rectal surgery cases were analyzed. All surgeries were performed by a surgeon who was primarily trained in open rectal surgery. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Operative time and CUSUM plots were used for evaluating the learning curve for laparoscopic versus robotic LAR.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic versus robotic LAR outcomes feature initial group operative times of 308 (291-325) min versus 397 (373-420) min and last group times of 220 (212-229) min versus 204 (196-211) min-reversed in favor of robotics; major complications of 4.7 versus 6.5 % (NS), resection margin involvement of 2.8 versus 4.4 % (NS), conversion rate of 3.8 versus 1.1 (NS), lymph node harvest of 16.3 versus 17.2 (NS), and estimated blood loss of 231 versus 201 cc (NS). Due to faster learning curves for extracorporeal phase and total mesorectal excision phase, the robotic surgery was observed to be faster than laparoscopic surgery after the initial 41 cases. CUSUM plots demonstrate acceptable perioperative surgical outcomes from the beginning of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial robotic operative times improved with practice rapidly and eventually became faster than those for laparoscopy. Developing both laparoscopic and robotic skills simultaneously can provide acceptable perioperative outcomes in rectal surgery. It might be suggested that in the current milieu of clashing interests between evolving technology and economic constrains, there might be advantages in embracing both approaches.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

AIM

Evidence supporting the role of laparoscopy in abdominoperineal resection (APR) is limited. This study compared the short-term and long-term outcomes and complications associated with open and laparoscopic APR.

METHOD

The Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications comparing open and laparoscopic APR. The rates of local and distant recurrence of rectal cancer were compared as the primary end-point. The occurrence of complications related to the two procedures was studied as the secondary end-point. The adequacy of cancer resection and postoperative recovery were also compared in a secondary analysis. Combined and separate analyses were performed for randomized and non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Eight publications comparing open and laparoscopic APR were identified. The rates of local and distant disease recurrence were lower after laparoscopic surgery compared with open APR (odds ratio 2.736 and 1.994, 95% confidence interval 1.137-6.584 and 1.062-3.742, P = 0.025 and P = 0.032, respectively). Early postoperative complications were fewer after laparoscopic APR (OR 2.159, 95% CI 1.426-3.269, P = 0.000). No significant benefit of either technique was observed in the secondary analysis.

CONCLUSION

The long-term oncological benefits of laparoscopic APR are not convincingly superior to open surgery and need further validation. The laparoscopic approach is apparently associated with fewer postoperative complications, yet its role in improving the short-term outcomes is uncertain.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: early and late results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy is superior to open colectomy in terms of short-term surgical outcomes. There is solid evidence indicating that laparoscopic and open surgery are equally effective for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, the issues of neoadjuvant treatment, the need for total mesorectal excision and autonomic nerve preservation, and the technical demands of a well-constructed low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis challenge even the most specialized surgeons. This review discusses the available evidence on short-term and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic MEDLINE and Embase searches of outcomes on laparoscopic total mesorectal excision were conducted and data were retrieved.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on short-term and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision remains limited. Data are mainly retrospective and from randomized studies based on few cases that had minimal follow-up. Early non-oncologic surgical outcomes seem improved after laparoscopy, but an increased rate of positive circumferential resection margins has been detected. Though scarce, the available evidence on recurrence and survival does not indicates disadvantages to the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline.

METHODS

An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.

Anatomy of the lateral ligaments of the rectum: A controversial point of view

The existence and composition of the lateral ligaments of the rectum (LLR) are still the subjects of anatomical confusion and surgical misconception up to now. Since Miles proposed abdominoperineal excision as radical surgery for rectal cancer, the identification by “hooking them on the finger” has been accepted by many surgeons with no doubt; clamping, dividing and ligating are considered to be essential procedures in mobilization of the rectum in many surgical textbooks. But in cadaveric studies, many anatomists could not find LLR described by the textbooks, and more and more surgeons also failed to find LLR during the proctectomy according to the principle of total mesorectal excision. The anatomy of LLR has diverse descriptions in literatures. According to our clinical observations, the traditional anatomical structures of LLR do exist; LLR are constant dense connective bundles which are located in either lateral side of the lower part of the rectum, run between rectal visceral fascia and pelvic parietal fascia above the levator ani, and covered by superior fascia of pelvic diaphragm. They are pathways of blood vessels and nerve fibers toward the rectum and lymphatic vessels from the lower rectum toward the iliac lymph nodes.

Laparoscopic versus Open Total Mesorectal Excision: A Nonrandomized Comparative Prospective Trial in a Tertiary Center in Mexico City

Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer remains controversial. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). However, few prospective randomized studies have been performed. The main purpose of our study was to evaluate whether relevant differences in safety and efficacy exist after elective LTME for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with OTME in a tertiary referral medical center. This comparative nonrandomized prospective study analyzes data in 56 patients with middle and lower rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection from November 2005 to November 2007. Follow-up was determined through office charts or direct patient contact. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2 test and Student's t test. Twenty-eight patients underwent LTME and 28 patients were in the OTME group. No conversion was required in the LTME group. Mean operating time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (LTME) (181.3 vs 206.1 min, P < 0.002). Less intraoperative blood loss and fewer postoperative complications were seen in the LTME group. Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after laparoscopic surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and the overall morbidity was 17 per cent in the LTME group versus 32 per cent in the OTME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in the OTME group (12.1 ± 2 vs 9.3 ± 3). Mean follow-up time was 12 months (range 9-24 months). No local recurrence was found. LTME is a feasible procedure with acceptable postoperative morbidity and low mortality, however it is technically demanding. This series confirms its safety, although oncologic results are at present comparable with the OTME published series with the limitation of a short follow-up period. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.

Does laparoscopic surgery offer adequate clearance in rectal cancer?--A discussion

Currently in the UK, the national institute of clinical excellence (NICE), only advocates laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer as part of commissioned clinical trials. Laparoscopic teaching, training and techniques have evolved greatly and offer many benefits to patients, whilst remaining technically demanding to surgeons still on the slope of the learning curve. Can such minimally invasive techniques be used with the same results as open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer? Are laparoscopic colorectal surgeons able to achieve the same clearance of tumours and so avoid recurrence at the same rate compared to conventional techniques? The discussion to follow, aims to shed some light on such questions and briefly review some of the literature. If laparoscopic anterior resections and abdominoperineal resections achieve the same results as open procedures, then should these techniques be more widely taught and practised? Surely the peri-operative cost of these laparoscopic procedures does not over shadow the potential outcome from much less traumatic surgery?

Oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

AIM

To review and compare the oncologic outcomes in patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic vs. open rectal surgery.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed for trials reporting oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic rectal resections. Variables of interest were survival, recurrence rates, margin status and nodal retrieval. Trials were excluded if variables were not specifically analysed for rectal resections. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the difference in oncologic outcomes between the two treatment approaches.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 1403 laparoscopic (LG) and 1755 open (OG) rectal resections were gathered from 24 publications. Overall survival at 3 years (LG=76%, OG=69%) was not statistically different between the two treatment groups. The mean local recurrence rates were 7% for laparoscopic and 8% for open procedures (NS). There was no difference in radial margin positivity, 5% of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery compared to 8% for open surgery. Laparoscopic procedures harvested a mean of 10 nodes as compared to 12 for open procedures, p=0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Data gathered in this meta-analysis indicate that there are no oncologic differences between laparoscopic and open resections for treatment of primary rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer remains controversial. However, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether there are any relevant differences in safety and efficacy after elective LTME, for the resection of rectal cancer, compared with OTME.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Current Contents from 1990 to December 2005. Searches were conducted using MESH terms: "laparoscopy", "minimally invasive","colorectal neoplasms". Furthermore we used the following text words: laparoscopy, surgical procedures, minimally invasive, rectal cancer, rectal carcinoma, rectal adenocarcinoma, rectal neoplasms, anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, total mesorectal excision.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials and case series comparing LTME versus OTME. Furthermore case reports which describe LTME were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. All relevant studies have been categorized according to the evidence they provide according to the guidelines for "Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation" supplied by the "Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine". Disagreements were solved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

80 studies were identified of which 48 studies, representing 4224 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of most of the included studies was poor; three studies were grade 1b (individual randomised trial), 12 grade 2b (individual cohort study), 5 grade 3b (individual case-control study) and 28 grade 4 (case-series). As only one RCT described primary outcome, 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival rates, no meta-analyses could be performed. No significant differences in terms of disease-free survival rate, local recurrence rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, resection margins, or recovered lymph nodes were found. There is evidence that LTME results in less blood loss, quicker return to normal diet, less pain, less narcotic use and less immune response. It seems likely that LTME is associated with longer operative time and higher costs. No results of quality of life were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence mainly from non-randomized studies, LTME appears to have clinically measurable short-term advantages in patients with primary resectable rectal cancer. The long-term impact on oncological endpoints awaits the findings from large on-going randomized trials.

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection (LR) has become increasingly popular for the management of rectal cancer. Despite a decade of experience, the safety and efficacy of LR for rectal cancer remains to be established. This report performs a meta-analysis to compare LR with conventional open resection (CR) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Using a defined search strategy, studies directly comparing CR with LR for rectal cancer were identified. The data for patients with rectal cancer treated with both approaches were extracted and used in our meta-analysis. Open surgery and laparoscopic surgery were compared in terms of postoperative mortality, morbidity, complications, oncological clearance, operating time, and time before recovery to a normal diet.

RESULTS

Compared with CR, LR is associated with lower morbidity rates [OR 0.63 (0.41, 1.96) P=0.03], longer operating times [weighted mean difference 1.59 (1.20, 1.98) P<0.00001], similar mortality rates, wound healing disorder rates, urinary disorder rates, cardiopulmony disease rates, all leakage rates, all abscess rates and a positive rate of margin.

CONCLUSION

LR is associated with less postoperative morbidity, but longer operation time. A prospective randomized controlled trial is warranted to fully investigate these and other outcome measures.

A comparative clinical study of short-term results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer during the learning curve

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal carcinoma (LSRC) during the learning curve throughout the introduction of this technique at our medical center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2003 to April 2004, 40 patients undergoing surgery were assigned to laparoscopic surgery group (LSG) (n=20) or conventional surgery group (CSG) (n=20). Data were prospectively collected to statistically analyze clinical, anatomopathological, and economic variables.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, surgical technique performed, tumor size and distance, Dukes' stage, and proportion of patients with previous abdominal surgery and radiotherapy. There was no difference in operative time. LSG blood loss was lower (p<.0001). LSG peristalsis and oral intake began earlier (p<.0001). LSG hospital stay was shorter (p<.0001). Intraoperative complications (10% LSG vs 15% CSG) and overall morbidity (35% LSG vs 45% CSG) were no different. LSG did not record any anastomotic leakages. Two patients (10%) were converted to open surgery. Regarding oncologic adequacy of resection, specimen length and number of nodes harvested were no different. LSG distal and radial resection margins were greater (p<.0001; p=.03). LSG operative costs were greater (p<.0001). However, CSG hospitalization costs were higher (p<.001). There was no overall difference (p=0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

LSRC has been a reliable and efficient technique during the learning curve at our hospital.

Laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision with colonic J-pouch reconstruction: five-year results

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the oncologic and functional outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with colonic J-pouch reconstruction.

BACKGROUND

TME is considered the established gold standard in rectal cancer surgery. However, data on laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME are limited.

METHODS

Patients with mid or low rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic TME with colonic J-pouch reconstruction by a single surgical team. Clinical and oncologic data were prospectively recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

From March 1999 to September 2004, 105 patients underwent laparoscopic TME with colonic J-pouch reconstruction. The mean operating time was 170.4 minutes and mean blood loss was 91.5 mL. The mean anastomotic distance from the anal verge was 3.9 cm. Conversion was required in 2 cases. The mean circumferential and distal margins were 17.1 mm and 3.4 cm, respectively. There was 1 case of microscopic circumferential margin involvement and 1 case of microscopic distal margin involvement. There was no 30-day mortality, and 6 patients underwent reoperation for major complications. There was no port-site metastasis. The mean follow-up time was 26.9 months (range, 1.3-65.6 months). The actuarial 5-year cancer-specific survival and local recurrence rates were 81.3% and 8.9%, respectively. Erectile dysfunction occurred in 13.6% of males, while 2 patients developed incomplete bladder denervation. Bowel function after ileostomy closure was satisfactory, with an average bowel motion of less than 3 times per day at 2 years after ileostomy closure.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic TME with colonic J-pouch reconstruction is a safe procedure with reasonable operating time and does not appear to pose any threat to the oncologic and functional outcomes.

Ressecção laparoscópica pós terapia neo-adjuvante no tratamento do câncer no reto médio e baixo

Desde o início da década de 90, diversas publicações têm reportado equivalência de resultados entre as ressecções colorretais laparoscópicas e convencionais de neoplasias, seja quanto ao número de linfonodos, extensão da ressecção, margens e implantes parietais. Quanto às neoplasias colônicas, séries recentes demonstraram não haver alteração dos índices de recidiva e sobrevida. Entretanto, a avaliação dos resultados oncológicos nas ressecções retais ainda suscita controvérsias. Este trabalho visou apresentar a experiência do Hospital de Câncer de Barretos no tratamento vídeo-laparoscópico do câncer do reto e discutir o impacto do tratamento neo-adjuvante nos resultados intra e pós-operatórios imediatos. PACIENTES E MÉTODOS: a presente casuística é constituída por série de pacientes operados consecutivamente no período de janeiro de 2000 a janeiro de 2003, submetidos a ressecções pretensamente curativas para tumores T3 ou T4 no reto médio e baixo. Esses pacientes receberam tratamento neoadjuvante e foram operados por videolaparoscopia (LAP) ou laparotomia (CONV) 4 a 6 semanas após. Analisaram-se dados clínicos, cirúrgicos, patológicos, recidiva e sobrevida após seguimento mínimo de 24 meses. RESULTADOS: foram computados 43 pacientes (20 LAP, 23 CONV), que não apresentaram diferença em relação ao gênero, IMC, estadio clínico, tipo de procedimento, tempo de internação, morbidade pós-operatória, linfonodos, tamanho de espécime e margens. A recidiva global foi semelhante entre os grupos (35% LAP vs. 26% CONV, p = 0,43). A curva de sobrevida avaliada pelo método de Kaplan Meier para um período de seguimento médio de 45,6 meses no grupo LAP e 39,8 meses no grupo CONV (p = 0,86) mostrou sobrevida global de 76,7% (85% LAP e 70% CONV; p = 0,761) sem diferença entre os grupos. CONCLUSÕES: Os dados apresentados indicam equivalência nos índices de recidiva e sobrevida de pacientes portadores de câncer no reto médio e distal, tratados pelas vias de acesso laparoscópica e convencional. A realização de terapia neoadjuvante parece não dificultar a dissecação laparoscópica do reto extra-peritonial, favorecendo a obtenção de resultados oncológicos adequados.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

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

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

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

Laparoscopic colon resection for colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colon resection for cancer is as yet an unproven operation. This review article summarizes current data on the topic.

METHODS

A Medline review identified articles published since 1990 summarizing patients with potentially curable colon cancer who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted colon resection. Only articles that were randomized or had a control group with historical or matched open cases were used.

RESULTS

Very few prospective randomized controls exist. Several clinical trials are under way with one completed. Data thus far support some patient benefits with a laparoscopic approach. No differences in morbidity, oncologic data, or survival appear to exist.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of ongoing clinical trials are still needed to further evaluate the role of laparoscopic assisted colon resection in patients with potentially curable colon cancer.

Conventional approach x laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: results of a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared to conventional approach for surgical treatment of patients with distal rectal cancer presenting with incomplete response after chemoradiation.

METHOD

Twenty eight patients with distal rectal adenocarcinoma were randomized to undergo surgical treatment by laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection or conventional approach and evaluated prospectively. Thirteen underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and 15 conventional approach.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference (p<0,05) between the two studied groups regarding: gender, age, body mass index, patients with previous abdominal surgeries, intra and post operative complications, need for blood transfusion, hospital stay after surgery, length of resected segment and pathological staging. Mean operation time was 228 minutes for the laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection versus 284 minutes for the conventional approach (p=0.04). Mean anesthesia duration was shorter (p=0.03) for laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection when compared to conventional approach : 304 and 362 minutes, respectively. There was no need for conversion to open approach in this series. After a mean follow-up of 47.2 months and with the exclusion of two patients in the conventional abdominoperineal resection who presented with unsuspected synchronic metastasis during surgery, local recurrence was observed in two patients in the conventional group and in none in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection is feasible, similar to conventional approach concerning surgery duration, intra operative morbidity, blood requirements and post operative morbidity. Larger number of cases and an extended follow-up are required to adequate evaluation of oncological results for patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection after chemoradiation for radical treatment of distal rectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The impact of new technology on surgery for colorectal cancer

Advances in technology continue at a rapid pace and affect all aspects of life, including surgery. We have reviewed some of these advances and the impact they are having on the investigation and management of colorectal cancer. Modern endoscopes, with magnifying, variable stiffness and localisation capabilities are making the primary investigation of colonic cancer easier and more acceptable for patients. Imaging investigations looking at primary, metastatic and recurrent disease are shifting to digital data sets, which can be stored, reviewed remotely, potentially fused with other modalities and reconstructed as 3 dimensional (3D) images for the purposes of advanced diagnostic interpretation and computer assisted surgery. They include virtual colonoscopy, trans-rectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and radioimmunoscintigraphy. Once a colorectal carcinoma is diagnosed, the treatment options available are expanding. Colonic stents are being used to relieve large bowel obstruction, either as a palliative measure or to improve the patient’s overall condition before definitive surgery. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery and minimally invasive techniques are being used with similar outcomes and a lower mortality, morbidity and hospital stay than open trans-abdominal surgery. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery allows precise excision of both benign and early malignant lesions in the mid and upper rectum. Survival of patients with inoperable hepatic metastases following radiofrequency ablation is encouraging. Robotics and telemedicine are taking surgery well into the 21^st century. Artificial neural networks are being developed to enable us to predict the outcome for individual patients. New technology has a major impact on the way we practice surgery for colorectal cancer.

Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: an oncologic feasible option

The conventional and accepted treatment for curative resection of colon cancer is laparotomy with hemicolectomy for right or left sided lesions. The technique of colon resection through an open laparotomy incision is well known. Over the past several years, laparoscopically assisted colectomy has been developed and studied, following the explosion of laparoscopic technology from the cholecystectomy experience and with acquisition of advanced general laparoscopic techniques. The right, left or sigmoid colon can be mobilized and regional lymphadenectomy performed using laparoscopic instruments and video-imaging equipment. The advantage of laparoscopic colectomy is the use of small abdominal port site and wound incisions which translate to reduced postoperative pain and analgesic requirement, earlier return of bowel function and normal physical activities, and shorter hospital stay without increasing health care costs. Laparoscopic colectomy compares favorably with open colectomy in terms of surgical morbidity and mortality. The laparoscopic approach has been shown to be technically and oncologically feasible with equivalent lymph node harvest from mesenteric lymphadenectomy and achieves adequate proximal and distal margins of colonic resection. Despite initial early anecdotal reports of port site cancer recurrence in laparoscopically assisted colectomy, port site recurrence is rare and its incidence is similar to incisional recurrences in conventional open colectomy. Recent prospective comparative studies have demonstrated equivalent patient survival and equivalent local or distant colon cancer recurrences for open versus laparoscopic curative resection of colon cancer.

Gasless laparoscopically assisted colonic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic technique has been applied to a variety of colonic and rectal operations, generally using carbon dioxide insufflation (CDI). However, CDI is inevitably associated with cardiopulmonary loading and can cause complications. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of gasless laparoscopic colonic surgery.

METHODS

The abdominal wall was lifted up using an originally designed retractor. A small incision, 3 to 5 cm in length, was made at the start of the operation. The surgeon operated through this incision using both conventional and laparoscopic instruments.

RESULTS

Operations were undertaken in 67 patients. In 6 patients (9%), conversion to open surgery was necessitated. In the remaining 61 patients, operations were completed with gasless laparoscopically assisted technique. Four reoperations (7%) were performed because of postoperative bleeding, anastomotic rotation, anastomotic stricture, and transmesenteric hernia. Fifty-three patients with colonic cancer were operated on with potentially curative intent. Of these, 1 (2%) developed hepatic recurrence during the mean follow-up period of 23.8 months. There was no port site recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Gasless laparoscopic colonic surgery is technically feasible. CDI is not necessary to perform minimal access surgery.