Early postoperative results of a prospective series of laparoscopic vs. Open anterior resections for rectosigmoid cancers

Analgesic efficacy of intrathecal morphine and bupivacaine during the early postoperative period in patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background

The present study was performed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of intrathecal morphine and bupivacaine (ITMB) in terms of treating early postoperative pain in adult patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).

Methods

Fifty patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly classified into the non-ITMB (n = 25) and ITMB (n = 25) groups. The ITMB therapeutic regimen consisted of 0.2 mg morphine and 7.5 mg bupivacaine (total 1.7 mL). All patients were routinely administered the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia and appropriately treated with rescue intravenous (IV) opioid drugs, based on the discretion of the attending physicians who were blinded to the group assignments. Cumulative IV opioid consumption and the numeric rating scale (NRS) score were assessed at 1, 6, and 24 h postoperatively, and opioid-related complications were measured during the day after surgery.

Results

Demographic findings were comparable between patients who did and did not receive ITMB. The intraoperative dose of remifentanil was lower in the ITMB group than in the non-ITMB group. Pain scores (i.e., NRS) at rest and during coughing as well as cumulative IV opioid consumption were significantly lower in patients who received ITMB than in those who did not in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU; i.e., at 1 h after surgery) and the ward (i.e., at 6 and 24 h after surgery). ITMB was significantly associated with postoperative NRS scores of ≤ 3 at rest and during coughing in the PACU (i.e., at 1 h after surgery) before and after adjusting for cumulative IV opioid consumption. In the ward (i.e., at 6 and 24 h after surgery), ITMB was associated with postoperative NRS scores of ≤ 3 at rest and during coughing before adjusting for cumulative IV opioid consumption but not after. No significant differences in complications were observed, such as post-dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, or neurologic sequelae, during or after surgery.

Conclusion

A single spinal injection of morphine and bupivacaine provided proper early postoperative analgesia and decreased additional requirements for IV opioids in patients who underwent RALP.

Trial registration: Clinical Research Information Service, Republic of Korea; approval number: KCT0004350 on October 17, 2019. https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/en/search/search_result_st01.jsp?seq=15637

A meta-analysis to determine the oncological implications of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

AIM

Laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery is oncologically equivalent to open resection, but the impact of conversion is undetermined. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological outcome and predictive factors associated with conversion.

METHOD

A comprehensive search for published studies examining the associated factors and outcome of conversion from laparoscopic to open colorectal cancer resection was performed adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Only randomized control trials and prospective studies were included. Each study was reviewed and the data extracted. Random effects methods were used to combine data.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, including 5293 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Of these 4391 patients had a completed laparoscopic resection and 902 were converted to an open resection. The average conversion rate of the studies was 17.9 ± 10.1%. Meta-analysis showed completed laparoscopic surgery favoured lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.134, 95% CI 0.047-0.385, P < 0.0001), lower long-term disease recurrence (OR 0.634, 95% CI 0.421-0.701, P < 0.023) and lower overall mortality (OR 0.512, 95% CI 0.417-0.629, P < 0.0001). Factors negatively associated with completion of laparoscopic surgery were male gender (P = 0.011), rectal tumour (P = 0.017), T3/T4 tumour (P = 0.009) and node-positive disease (P = 0.009). Completed laparoscopic surgery was also associated with a lower body mass index (BMI; mean difference -0.93 kg/m(2) , P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that conversion from laparoscopic to open colorectal cancer resection is influenced by patient and tumour characteristics and is associated with an adverse perioperative outcome. Although confounding factors such as advanced tumour stage and elevated BMI are present, unsuccessful laparoscopic surgery appears to be associated with an adverse long-term oncological outcome.

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome.

METHOD

An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.

Optimizing cost and short-term outcomes for elderly patients in laparoscopic colonic surgery

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients often are regarded as high-risk for major abdominal surgery because of a lack of functional reserve and associated medical comorbidities. The goal of this study was to compare the cost of care and short-term outcomes of elderly and nonelderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Our hypothesis was that elderly patients managed with laparoscopic colorectal surgery and an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) can realize the same benefits of lower hospital length of stay (LOS) without increasing hospital costs or readmission rates.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified all patients that underwent an elective laparoscopic colectomy from 2009 to 2012. Patients were stratified into elderly (≥70 years old) and nonelderly (<70 years old) cohorts. The main outcome measures were discharge disposition, hospital costs, hospital LOS, and 30-day readmission rates between the laparoscopic and open groups.

RESULTS

A total of 302 nonelderly (66%) and 153 elderly (34%) patients were included in the analysis. The elderly cohort had significantly higher comorbidities than the nonelderly group. There were no mortalities. Operative variables (procedure time, blood loss, and intraoperative complications) were similar. At discharge, significantly more elderly patients required temporary nursing or home care. There were no significant differences in short-term outcomes of LOS, 30-day readmission rates, or costs for the episode of care between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining laparoscopic colectomy with an ERP is cost-effective and results in similar short-term outcomes for the elderly and nonelderly patients. Despite higher comorbidities, elderly patients realized the same benefits of shorter LOS with similar hospital costs and readmission rates.

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer results in higher lymph node yield and better short-term outcomes than open surgery: a large single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

Prognosis in rectal cancer is closely related to mesorectal integrity, margin status, and adequate lymph node dissection. The impact of laparoscopy on the pathologic and short-term outcomes remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare the pathologic and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This is a large single-center retrospective comparative study using a prospective database.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent primary resections for rectal cancer from January 2007 to September 2011 were identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pathologic (nodal harvest, mesorectal integrity, circumferential, and distal margins) and operative outcomes were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four (mean age, 61 years; 65% male) patients underwent resections for primary rectal cancer, including 118 laparoscopic (99 restorative proctectomies, 19 abdominoperineal resections) and 116 open (69 restorative proctectomies, 47 abdominoperineal resections) resections. Both groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics. The laparoscopic group had significantly more lymph nodes (26 vs 21, p = 0.02) than the open group, with no differences in circumferential margins, proportion of distal resection margins <l cm, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. The impact of laparoscopic resection on lymph nodes was also observed for restorative proctectomy (27 vs 21, p = 0.03). Furthermore, obese and laparoscopic-converted patients had equivalent pathologic outcomes for laparoscopic and open resection. Laparoscopy was associated with longer operative time (245 vs 213 minutes, p = 0.002); less blood loss (284 vs 388 mL, p = 0.01); shorter incisions (8 vs 20 cm, p = 0.0001) and hospital stay (7 vs 8 days, p = 0.05); and lower rates of 30-day morbidity (25% vs 43%, p = 0.04) and wound infections (9 vs 20%, p = 0.04). On multivariate regression, laparoscopic resection and year of surgery were the only independent predictors of greater lymph node harvest.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy for primary rectal cancer is associated with a greater number of lymph nodes as well as short-term benefits.

Integration of transanal specimen extraction into laparoscopic anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a consecutive series of 179 patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This prospective study focused on patients with rectal cancer who underwent transanal specimen extraction after laparoscopic anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and specifically aims to investigate whether the transanal approach can be accepted as a safe and effective method for extracting the malignant specimen from the peritoneal cavity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospectively designed database of a consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal malignancy with various tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classifications from April 1991 to May 2011 at the Texas Endosurgery Institute was analyzed. Patient selection for transanal specimen extraction and intracorporeal anastomosis was made on the basis of size of the pathology and distance of rectal lesions from the anal verge.

RESULTS

179 anterior resections were completed laparoscopically with intracorporeal anastomosis and transanal specimen extraction. The operating time for the entire procedures including resection, anastomosis, and specimen extraction was 170.9 ± 51.2 min, blood loss during the procedures was 86.4 ± 37.7 ml, and distance of the lower edge of the lesion from the anal verge was measured to be 11.3 ± 7.3 cm. Postoperatively, three patients developed anastomotic leakage with a leak rate of 1.7%, and the overall major complication rate after the procedures was 5.0%. Length of hospital stay was 6.9 ± 2.8 days. Two-year follow-up showed development of anal stenosis in three patients (2.0%) and erectile dysfunction in one patient (0.36%) after surgery. Finally, 9 out of 179 patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection with transanal specimen extraction were confirmed to have cancer recurrence, with 2-year local recurrence rate of 5.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is a safe and effective approach with comparable local cancer recurrence rate and postoperative complication rates, suggesting it can be integrated into laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Hospital discharge criteria following colorectal surgery: a systematic review

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify and synthesize the hospital discharge criteria that have been used in the colorectal surgery literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using eight bibliographic databases. Searches were limited to English language journal articles published between January 1996 and October 2009. Primary research applying hospital discharge criteria following colorectal surgery was included. Study selection was made independently by two reviewers. Discharge criteria were extracted from each included study.

RESULTS

The 156 studies identified by the search strategy described 70 different sets of criteria to indicate readiness for discharge. The majority of studies applied a combination of three or four criteria; those most frequently cited were tolerance of oral intake (80%), return of bowel function (70%), adequate pain control (44%) and adequate mobility (35%). End-points employed to determine the achievement of criteria were generally poorly defined.

CONCLUSION

A variety of hospital discharge criteria were applied in the colorectal surgery literature. Development of standardized criteria will allow more accurate comparison of results between studies assessing hospital length of stay or other discharge-related outcome measures.

Abdominoperineal Resection without an Abdominal Incision for Rectal Cancer Has the Advantage of No Abdominal Wound Complication and Easier Stoma Care

Abdominoperineal resection has been used for years for the management of low rectal cancer. However, the abdominal incision is associated with many complications and causes interference of the stoma care. If the abdominal incision can be avoided, it would be beneficial to the patient. The aim of the study is to evaluate the possibility and safety of performing abdominoperineal resection and the oncology result without an abdominal incision. From September 2001 to May 2010, 40 patients with rectal malignancies received excision of the rectum, anus, and perineum through a perineal incision and a skin hole created for stomy. No harmonic scalpel or laser was used during surgery. No laparoscope or hand port was used in the procedure. There were 19 males and 21 females. Age ranged from 31 to 87 years old (average, 62.9 years). There were 39 adenocarcinomas and one malignant gastrointestinal stromal cell tumor. There was no operative mortality. Six patients had postoperative complications; three patients had intestinal obstructions; and one patient each had bleeding, urinary tract infection, and colostomy separation from the skin. The lymph nodes in the specimens ranged from 9 to 33 cm (average, 16.8 cm). The survival is similar to the traditional abdominoperineal resection. This limited experience suggests that an abdominal incision is not necessary for radical resection of the rectum, anus, and perineum in patients with low-lying rectal cancer. It also offers the patient easier care of stoma without interference of the abdominal incision.

Comparative study of laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been shown to be an effective surgical option for benign lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. However, its advantages and disadvantages have not been well characterized. In this study, we compared the outcomes of LDP and open pancreatectomy performed in our clinic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Peri- and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively compared between patients with benign pancreatic disorders who underwent open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (n = 35) and those who underwent LDP (n = 40). The peri- and postoperative factors analyzed included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative recovery, biochemical findings, and complications.

RESULTS

LDP was associated with significantly less operative blood loss (363 versus 606 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (22 versus 27 day; P = 0.009), but longer operative time (342 versus 250 min; P = 0.000), compared with ODP. There were no significant differences between the two groups in complication rates or postoperative recovery, except for the significantly shorter duration of postoperative pain-killer intake and earlier improvement of the biochemical analysis in LDP than in ODP.

CONCLUSIONS

LDP appears to be a safe, desirable procedure for the management of benign pancreatic diseases, with outcomes similar to ODP.

Short-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Although laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer improves post operative recovery, its use for curative treatment especially for rectal cancer is still controversial. The present study is an attempt to analyze the results of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery including short-term results for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study accumulated 109 patients with rectal cancer retrospectively who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Patients with rectosigmoid colon cancer were excluded from this study. Patients' data, perioperative data including morbidity and mortality, surgical data were analyzed, and the 3-year disease-free survival data were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method, according to the location of the tumor and the UICC stage.

RESULTS

There were 71 males and 38 females who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Mean age of them was 63.7+/-12.5 years. The mean BMI was 22.6+/-2.8 kg/m(2). The operative procedure was low anterior resection (LAR) in 80 cases, abdominoperineal resection (APR) in 14 cases, intersphincteric resection (ISR) in 14 cases, and Hartmann's procedure in 1 case. The operation time was 237.0+/-71.6 minutes. Blood loss was 165.0+/-163.8. The postoperative morbidity was 22.9%. The postoperative mortality within 30 days after surgery was not experienced. The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 94.2% after curative surgery. According to the UICC stage, the 3-year disease survival rate was 100% in stage 0/I, 89.1% in stage II, and 84.6% in stage III.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was safe and feasible including postoperative morbidity, mortality and postoperative short-term results. Further study is necessary to clarify the quality of laparoscopic surgery including the postoperative long-term results.

Intra-Abdominal Lesions Could be Missed by Inadequate Laparoscopy

Laparoscopic resection has become one of the choices for colectomy for various colon and rectal diseases in recent years. Despite some uncertainties of laparoscopic procedures, especially during cancer surgery, its popularity has forced surgeons to pursue the approach. One of the concerns is inadequate examination of the intra-abdominal organs with a laparoscope. This study is a retrospective analysis of a single surgeon's experience of the frequencies of unexpected findings during laparotomies. From July 1990 to November 2005, 2775 patients with various colorectal diseases receiving laparotomies by a single surgeon were analyzed. Among them, 2282 patients were operated for primary colorectal cancer. Excluded were patients who did not receive a formal laparotomy, who had a recent laparotomy, who had peritoneal and omental metastasis, and whose pathology did not attract attention for management. Exploration of the entire peritoneal cavity was performed for all cases in the series. There were 1423 males and 1352 females. Ages ranged from 12 to 94 years, averaging 62.6-years-old. Forty-six patients (1.7%) were found to have unexpected intra-abdominal lesions during laparotomies. Eleven patients were found to have synchronous colorectal cancers; five patients were found to have unexpected liver metastases; three patients each were found to have gastric cancers, stromal tumors of the small bowel, and ectopic pancreas; two patients each were found to have gastric leiomyosarcomas, pancreatic cancers, mucoceles of the appendix, ulcers of the small intestine, bleeding Meckel's diverticula, pancreatitis, and perforations of the ileum; one patient each was found to have gall bladder cancer, malignant carcinoid tumor, pheochromocytoma, diverticulitis of the jejunum, diverticulitis of the colon, duplication of the colon, and aortic aneurysm larger than 6 cm. Forty-one of the lesions were likely to be missed by laparoscope. This experience suggests that incomplete laparotomies might miss various pathologies. Laparoscopy is not a complete form of laparotomy because of loss of tactile sensation. Laparoscopy might result in an inadequate or inappropriate management due to misdiagnosis.

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

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

Comparison of short-term outcomes between laparoscopically-assisted vs. transverse-incision open right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer: a retrospective study

Background

Laparoscopically-assisted right hemicolectomy (LRH) is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for right-sided colon cancer which offers patients less pain and faster recovery. However, special equipment and substantial surgical experience are required. The aim of the study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of LRH and open right hemicolectomy through right transverse skin crease incision (ORHT) for right-sided colon cancer.

Patients and methods

This retrospective study included 33 patients with right-sided colon cancer who underwent elective right hemicolectomy by laparoscopic or open approaches through right transverse skin crease incision between March 2004 and September 2006 at the Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital. Operative details, postoperative requirement of narcotics, recovery of bowel function, and oncological parameters were analyzed.

Results

Thirteen patients underwent LRH and 20 patients underwent ORHT. Both approaches achieved adequate oncological resection of the tumor. The laparoscopic group were characterized by shorter average incision lengths (7.7 vs 10.3 cm; p < 0.001), but longer average operating times (208 vs 105 min; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the time to first bowel movement, time to defecation, and time to resumption of normal diet between both groups (59 vs 64 hr; p = 0.64, 3.2 vs 3.7 d; p = 0.25 and 3.9 vs 4.3 d; p = 0.39). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to discontinuation of intravenous nacrotics and the length of hospital stay (1.0 vs 1.4 d; p = 0.25 and 6.2 vs 7.1 d; p = 0.3).

Conclusion

LRH and ORHT for right-sided colon cancer resulted in the same short-term surgical outcomes including postoperative bowel function, narcotics consumption and length of hospital stay. However, LRH required a significantly longer operating time.

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.

A multicenter study on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy for malignant disease technically is feasible but not widely accepted because there are no large-series studies or data on long-term outcomes. A retrospective, multicenter study investigating a large series of patients was conducted in Japan to evaluate preliminary long-term results of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The study group comprised 2,036 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection April 1993 to August 2002 in 12 participating surgical units (Japanese Laparoscopic Surgery Study Group).

RESULTS

Of the 1,495 patients with colon cancer, 781 (59%) had International Union Against Cancer (UICC) stage I, 248 (19%) had stage II, and 284 (22%) had stage III disease. Cancer recurred for 61 (4.1%) of 1,367 curatively treated patients (median follow-up period, 32 months; range, 6-125 months). The 5-year survival rate was 96.7% for stage I, 94.8% for stage II, and 79.6% for stage III disease. Of the 541 patients with rectal cancer, 220 (56%) had stage I, 62 had (16%) stage II, and 108 (28%) had stage III disease. Cancer recurred for 30 (5.6%) of 476 curatively treated patients (median follow-up period, 25 months; range 6-102 months). The 5-year survival rate was 95.2% for stage I, 85.2% for stage II, and 80.8% for stage III disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer yields an oncological outcome as good as that reported for conventional open surgery in the Japanese Registry for all disease stages.

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 versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery aims to provide patients with curative resection while minimizing postoperative morbidity and mortality. This study used meta-analytical techniques to compare laparoscopic and open surgery as the primary treatment for patients with rectal cancer with regard to short-term and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on all studies between 1993 and 2004 comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. The following end points were evaluated: operative outcomes, postoperative recovery, and early and late adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 2071 subjects, of whom 909 (44%) underwent laparoscopic and 1162 (56%) underwent open surgery for rectal cancer. Time to stomal function (weighted mean difference [WMD], -1.52; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -2.20, -1.01), first bowel movement (WMD, -.72; 95% CI, -1.21, -.22), feeding solids (WMD, -.92; 95% CI, -1.35, -.50), and length of hospital stay (WMD, -2.67; 95% CI, -3.81, -1.54) were all significantly reduced after laparoscopic surgery. In patients who underwent abdominoperineal excision of the rectum, wound infection (odds ratio, .15; 95% CI, .03, .73) and requirement for postoperative parenteral analgesia (WMD, -.63; 95% CI, -1.22, -.04) were also significantly reduced. There was no difference between groups in the extent of oncological clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery results in an earlier postoperative recovery and a resected specimen that is oncologically comparable to open surgery. Results from randomized trials reporting long-term outcomes such as cancer recurrence (local and metastatic) and 5-year survival are eagerly awaited.

LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN COLORECTAL SURGERY IN EVERYDAY PRACTICE: RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Most studies available on laparoscopic colorectal surgery focus on highly selected patient groups. The aim of the present study was to review short- and long-term outcome of everyday patients treated in a general surgery department.

METHODS

Retrospective review was carried out of a prospective database of all consecutive patients having undergone primary laparoscopic (LAP) or open colorectal surgery between March 1993 and December 1997. Follow-up data were completed via questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients underwent LAP resection and 215 patients underwent open surgery. Follow up was complete in 95% with a median of 59 months (range, 1-107 months) and 53 months (range, 1-104 months), respectively. There were 28 conversions (15%) in the LAP group and these remained in the LAP group in an intention-to-treat analysis. The LAP operations lasted significantly longer for all types of resections (205 vs 150 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (8 vs 13 days, P < 0.001). Recovery of intestinal function was faster in the LAP group, but only after left-sided procedures (3 vs 4 days, P < 0.01). However, preoperative patient selection (more emergency operations and patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score in the open group) had a major influence on these elements and favours the LAP group. Surprisingly, the overall surgical complication rate (including long-term complications such as wound hernia) was 20% in both groups with rates of individual complications also being comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite a patient selection favourable to the laparoscopy group, only little advantage in postoperative outcome could be shown for the minimally invasive over the open approach in the everyday patient.

Ventajas y peculiaridades del abordaje laparoscópico en el anciano

Both the age of the population and anesthetic and surgical techniques are advancing. Currently, 40% of surgical activity is performed in patients older than 65 years, who present a higher surgical risk than younger patients. The aim of treatment in the elderly is to provide the best possible quality of life, even though this represents a surgical challenge because of associated comorbidity and reduced cardiopulmonary reserve. From the moment at which laparotomy becomes an increased stress in the elderly, laparoscopic surgery can be particularly advantageous in this population. Therefore, minimally invasive surgery may have a greater impact in these individuals than in younger patients in reducing postoperative pain, cardiorespiratory complications, hospital stay, and recovery time before resuming physical activity. The recent advances in anesthesia, together with improved patient selection and perioperative cardiac care, and the general adoption of minimally invasive access have enabled more complex gastrointestinal procedures to be performed in the elderly. The factors that could influence the development of this type of approach in the elderly, as well as the precautions that should be taken, should be further analyzed.

Feasibility of colectomy with mini-incision

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection has been advocated as a method of colectomy for various colon and rectal disease. One advantage claimed by laparoscopy is its smaller incision size. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether mini-incision is feasible along with the advantage of adequate exploration of the peritoneal cavity.

METHODS

From December 2000 to November 2003, 316 patients with various colorectal diseases receiving colectomies through a skin incision less than 7 cm were analyzed. All of the colectomies were performed by a single surgeon. Exploration of the entire peritoneal cavity was possible for all the cases. There were 153 men and 163 women. Ages ranged from 19 to 90 years, averaging 62.4 years. Two hundred ninety-five patients were operated on for carcinoma of the colon or rectum; 4 had operations for villous tumors with severe dysplasia; 3 each for radiation enterocolitis and diverticulitis; 2 each for malignant stromal tumor and rectal prolapse; and 1 each for lymphoma, actinomycosis, volvulus, angiodysplasia, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and ovarian cancer with rectal invasion. There were 15 abdominoperineal resections, 97 low anterior resection, 49 anterior resections, 64 sigmoidectomies, 7 left hemicolectomies, 81 right hemicolectomies, 2 subtotal colectomies, and 1 restorative proctocolectomy. No Harmonic scalpel or laser was used during surgery. No hand-port or laparoscope was used in the series.

RESULTS

Five patients died of acute respiratory failure, 2 patients died of terminal cancer, and 1 patient died of hypoglycemia due to poor control of diabetes mellitus. Complications included 11 urinary tract infections, 8 intestinal obstructions, 6 anastomotic leakages, 6 wound infections, 5 respiratory failures, 5 pelvic bleedings, 2 pneumonias, 2 gastrointestinal bleedings, and 1 pancreatitis. Small incisions did not prolong operation time.

CONCLUSION

This experience suggests that the majority of colectomies can be accomplished by an incision of less than 7 cm, which is no larger than the incision size used in a laparoscope colectomy if multiple incisions made for trocars are added to the main incision length. The advantages of mini-incision include lower cost, faster completion of procedure, reduced bulkiness of equipment, and the possibility of exploring the entire peritoneal cavity by hand without loss of tactile sensation.

Minimally invasive treatment of colon cancer

The advantages of laparoscopy in the treatment of benign diseases have been well demonstrated. Compared with laparotomy, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter hospitalization period, shorter duration of ileus, decreased postoperative pain, earlier return to work, and improved cosmesis. The role of laparoscopy for the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancy has had a slower evolution and been the subject of considerable debate over the past decade. Since 1991, several concerns have limited the widespread use of laparoscopy for attempted cure of colorectal carcinoma. This review aims to analyze the results of several studies published to date on short and long term outcome of laparoscopy for colorectal carcinoma, based on levels of evidence. From the least to the most convincing data, the hierarchy of study designs progresses through a spectrum ranging from retrospective reviews to prospective series, to case-controlled, cohort, and ultimately randomized controlled trials.

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 colorectal cancer: the state of the art

Laparoscopic techniques have expanded since their introduction 15 years ago. The laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has been slower to develop than other fields of surgery. However, this approach does provide significant benefits for colorectal resection, although concerns regarding the ability to satisfy oncological criteria have restricted its use in the past. This review studies the published data on the use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer including the short- and long-term outcomes. New long-term outcome data is now available which is likely to encourage the use of this technique for colon cancer resection. Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is also discussed including the more limited outcome data that is available.

Laparoscopic resection of colon Cancer: Consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer during the annual congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2002.

METHODS

A systematic review of the current literature was combined with the opinions, of experts in the field of colon cancer surgery to formulate evidence-based statements and recommendations on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer.

RESULTS

Advanced age, obesity, and previous abdominal operations are not considered absolute contraindications for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The most common cause for conversion is the presence of bulky or invasive tumors. Laparoscopic operation takes longer to perform than the open counterpart, but the outcome is similar in terms of specimen size and pathological examination. Immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality are comparable for laparoscopic and open colonic cancer surgery. The laparoscopically operated patients had less postoperative pain, better-preserved pulmonary function, earlier restoration of gastrointestinal function, and an earlier discharge from the hospital. The postoperative stress response is lower after laparoscopic colectomy. The incidence of port site metastases is <1%. Survival after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer appears to be at least equal to survival after open resection. The costs of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are higher than those for open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure that improves short-term outcome. Results regarding the long-term survival of patients enrolled in large multicenter trials will determine its role in general surgery.

Laparoscopy as a prognostic factor in curative resection for node positive colorectal cancer: results for a single-institution nonrandomized prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Several studies reporting preliminary long-term survival data after laparoscopic resections for colonic adenocarcinoma did not show any detrimental effect in comparison with historic studies of laparotomies. A previous randomized study has reported an unforeseen better long-term survival for node-positive patients treated by laparoscopic colectomy.

METHODS

A single-institution prospective nonrandomized trial compared short- and long-term results of laparoscopic and open curative resection for adenocarcinoma of the left colon or rectum in 255 consecutive patients from January 1996 to December 2000.

RESULTS

In this study, 34 left hemicolectomy, 202 anterior resections, and 19 abdominoperineal resections were performed. A total of 74 patients underwent a laparoscopic resection (LR), and 181, an open resection (OR). The tumor site was the descending colon in 32 cases, the sigmoid colon in 98 cases, and the rectum in 125 cases, including 87 mid-low rectal cancers. Ten LR procedures (13.5%) were converted to open surgery. The hospital mortality was 0.08%, and in hospital morbidity was 16.2% for LR and 13.3% for OR (p = 0.56). The median postoperative stay was 1 day shorter for LR (9 days) than for OR (10 days) (p = 0.09). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved were 13.8 +/- 5.7 for OR and 12.7 +/- 5; for LR (p = 0.23). Age exceeding 70 years, T stage, N stage, grading, mid-low rectal site, and laparoscopy were found by multivariate analysis to be significant prognostic factors for disease-free and cancer-related survival. When patients were stratified by stage, a trend toward a better disease-free and cancer-related survival was identified in stage III patients undergoing LR.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colonic resection is a safe procedure in terms of postoperative outcome and long-term survival. Multivariate analysis showed that laparoscopy is a positive prognostic factor for disease-free and cancer-related survival. The current data agrees with the data for the only randomized study reported so far. Both suggest a better outcome for node-positive patients treated by laparoscopy.

Laparoscopy and its current role in the management of colorectal disease

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current place of laparoscopy in the management of colorectal disease.

METHOD

A literature search was undertaken on Medline between the period 1991 and 2002.

RESULTS

From the literature there is good evidence that the laparoscopic approach is associated with at least some short-term advantages. Improved cosmesis and better patient's satisfaction are also evident. Because of this laparoscopy has been widely employed in various benign conditions. Among others, laparoscopic stoma formation, laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease and Crohn's disease, laparoscopic rectopexy, as well as laparoscopic assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure were commonly reported. As port site recurrence and oncological safety are of less concern, there have been increasing reports on laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Although long-term follow up data is still limited, results of large prospective studies as well as various randomized trials show that recurrence and survival rates of the laparoscopic approach were at least comparable to open surgery. As experience and confidence accumulates, there are also increasing reports on technically demanding, laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal excision. Articles on functional aspects following this type of resection also start to appear, which might be one of the future directions.

CONCLUSION

The applicability of laparoscopy to colorectal disease continues to expand. Laparoscopic approach should be considered for patients with benign conditions. For colorectal cancer, results from randomized trials so far have been favourable. Hence, the authors suggest the utility of laparoscopy in potentially curable cancer can also be judiciously relaxed.

Technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with pouch coloanal anastomosis for rectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical and oncological feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

During a 2-year period, 50 patients underwent laparoscopic TME with coloanal anastomosis for rectal carcinoma located at a median of 4.5 (range 2-11) cm from the anal verge. Pre-operative radiotherapy was used in 46 patients. Intersphincteric dissection was combined with the laparoscopic procedure to achieve sphincter preservation.

RESULTS

Conversion to a laparotomy was necessary in six patients. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2% and 28%, respectively. Morbidity was lower in patients operated on during the second part of the study, who had extraction of the rectal specimen through a small laparotomy incision, than in those operated on during the first part of the study when removal of the specimen was by transanal extraction. Oncological quality of excision was safe in 44 patients with intact or almost intact rectal fascia in 88% and R0 resection in 90%. At a median follow-up of 18 months, there was no local or port-site recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms our preliminary results of oncological feasibility of laparoscopic TME with sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer, and showed that morbidity can be decreased by using a standardized surgical procedure.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation to mitogens and gut oxygen tension were surrogate endpoints.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Evidence-based proof of the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery on immunometabolic response and clinically relevant outcome variables is scanty. Further randomized trials are desirable before proposing laparoscopy as a superior technique.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 136) or open (n = 133) colorectal resection. Four trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative complications. Lymphocyte proliferation to Candida albicans and phytohemagglutinin was evaluated before and 3 and 15 days after surgery. Operative gut oxygen tension was monitored continuously by a polarographic microprobe.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic group the conversion rate was 5.1%. The overall morbidity rate was 20.6% in the laparoscopic group and 38.3% in the open group. Postoperative infections occurred in 15 of the 136 patients in the laparoscopic group and 31 of the 133 patients in the open group. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.4 +/- 2.9 days in the laparoscopic group and 12.5 +/- 4.1 days in the open group. On postoperative day 3, lymphocyte proliferation was impaired in both groups. Fifteen days after surgery, the proliferation index returned to baseline values only in the laparoscopic group. Intraoperative gut oxygen tension was higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in a significant reduction of 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation and gut oxygen tension were better preserved in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

Use of intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Laparoscopic surgery has become popular in recent years, but few studies have addressed analgesia for this type of surgery. We conducted a prospective double-blind randomised trial on 36 cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to determine the influence of intrathecal morphine on postoperative pain relief. All patients received a subarachnoid block with local anaesthetic in addition to general anaesthesia. One group also received intrathecal morphine. A patient-controlled analgesic (PCA) device was prescribed for pain control postoperatively and the visual analogue score (VAS) was used for pain assessment. The group who received intrathecal morphine used significantly less morphine. There were no adverse cardiovascular effects of the combined anaesthetic technique. Nausea and vomiting remained the main side-effect of intrathecal morphine but this was easily treated with anti-emetics.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation to mitogens and gut oxygen tension were surrogate endpoints.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Evidence-based proof of the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery on immunometabolic response and clinically relevant outcome variables is scanty. Further randomized trials are desirable before proposing laparoscopy as a superior technique.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 136) or open (n = 133) colorectal resection. Four trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative complications. Lymphocyte proliferation to Candida albicans and phytohemagglutinin was evaluated before and 3 and 15 days after surgery. Operative gut oxygen tension was monitored continuously by a polarographic microprobe.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic group the conversion rate was 5.1%. The overall morbidity rate was 20.6% in the laparoscopic group and 38.3% in the open group. Postoperative infections occurred in 15 of the 136 patients in the laparoscopic group and 31 of the 133 patients in the open group. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.4 +/- 2.9 days in the laparoscopic group and 12.5 +/- 4.1 days in the open group. On postoperative day 3, lymphocyte proliferation was impaired in both groups. Fifteen days after surgery, the proliferation index returned to baseline values only in the laparoscopic group. Intraoperative gut oxygen tension was higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in a significant reduction of 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation and gut oxygen tension were better preserved in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

Bladder and sexual dysfunction following laparoscopically assisted and conventional open mesorectal resection for cancer

BACKGROUND

Bladder and sexual dysfunction, secondary to pelvic nerve injury, are recognized complications of rectal resection. This study investigated the frequency of these complications following laparoscopically assisted and conventional open mesorectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

A total of 170 patients with rectal cancer was identified from a previous randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open resection. A retrospective analysis of bladder and sexual function before and after operation was performed by means of postal questionnaires and telephone interviews.

RESULTS

At the time of the study, 111 (65 per cent) of the 170 patients were alive, of whom 80 (72 per cent) responded. Of the responders, 40 patients had undergone laparoscopically assisted resection and 40 had had an open operation. No significant deterioration in bladder function following operation was observed, although two patients in the laparoscopic group required long-term intermittent self-catheterization. A significant difference in male, but not female, sexual function was noted, with seven of 15 sexually active men in the laparoscopic group reporting impotence or impaired ejaculation, compared with only one of 22 patients having an open operation (P = 0.004). All patients with bladder or sexual dysfunction in the laparoscopic group had resection of either bulky or low rectal cancers.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopically assisted rectal resection is associated with a higher rate of male sexual dysfunction, but not bladder dysfunction, compared with the open approach. This has implications, particularly for sexually active males with bulky or low rectal cancers, when deciding the best operative approach.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery For Colorectal Carcinoma

The role of laparoscopic resection in the management of colorectal cancer is still unclear. It has been shown that laparoscopic colectomies can be accomplished with acceptable morbidity. Major concerns are port-site recurrences and neoplastic dissemination. The aims of this study were to compare perioperative results and long-term outcomes in a prospective, nonrandomized study of patients treated by laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer. In particular, the effects of an initial laparoscopic approach on survival and recurrence were examined. One hundred fifty-seven patients with colorectal carcinoma were included in the prospective trial: 74 underwent laparoscopic resection and 83 underwent conventional open surgery. The two groups were comparable in terms of characteristics, demographic data, stage of disease, and use of adjuvant or palliative chemoradiotherapy. All patients were observed at 1.3- and 6-month intervals. The median duration of follow-up was 60 months (range, 10-125 months). The mean operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group. Six conversions (8.1%) were necessary. The passage of flatus and the restarting of oral intake (P = 0.0001) occurred earlier in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open conventional surgery group. The mean postoperative stay was significantly shorter in the former group (P = 0.005), as was the length of the scar (P = 0.001). There were no deaths in either group. The overall morbidity was significantly lower (13% versus 33.7%; P = 0.001) in patients treated laparoscopically. No significant differences were observed between the groups in the length of specimens, the size of the tumor, or the number of nodes removed. Late complications were more frequent after open resection (12% versus 5.4%; P = 0.01). Two port-site metastases (2.6%) were seen in stage III and IV locally advanced carcinoma. There was no significant difference in recurrent disease between the groups (24.3% versus 25%) during the 60-month follow-up. Stage-for-stage comparisons showed that disease recurrence rates and crude death rates were comparable.

Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal malignancies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal malignancies with open colectomy.

METHODS

Two search strategies were devised to retrieve literature from the Medline, Current Contents, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until July 1999. Inclusion of papers was determined using a predetermined protocol, independent assessments by two reviewers, and a final consensus decision. English language papers were selected. Acceptable study designs included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, or case reports. Fifty-two papers met the inclusion criteria. They were tabulated and critically appraised in terms of methodology and design, outcomes, and the possible influence of bias, confounding, and chance.

RESULTS

Little high-level evidence was available. Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancy was more expensive and time-consuming, but little evidence suggests high rates of port site recurrence. The new procedure's advantages revolve around early recovery from surgery and reduced pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal malignancies is inadequate to determine the procedure's safety and efficacy. Because of inadequate evidence detailing circumferential marginal clearance of tumors and the necessity of determining a precise incidence of cardiac and other major complications, along with wound and port site recurrence, it is recommended that a controlled clinical trial, ideally with random allocation to an intervention and control group, be conducted. Long-term survival rates need to be a primary aim of such a trial.

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.

Trocar site recurrence in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been associated with less postoperative pain, an early return of bowel function, a shorter period of hospitalization and disability, and better cosmetic results. However, the application of laparoscopic techniques to the curative resection of colorectal cancer is still controversial, owing to reports of cancer recurrence at the port site wounds. The accumulation of numerous such reports in a relatively short period raised concern that there might be an extraordinary high rate of port site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. This concern has led to intense clinical and basic research aimed at determining the incidence and causes of wound recurrence and developing preventative measures to address this problem. Despite these efforts, it is still not clear whether port site metastasis is really an inherent drawback to laparoscopic cancer surgery.

METHODS

In this review of the literature on port site metastasis, we gathered data from clinical series of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. We eliminated series of <50 patients, since they may be flawed by the learning curve required for this technically demanding procedure.

RESULTS

The rate of port site recurrences in the 1737 patients who participated in these series was 1%. Although the methods and criteria for patient selection in these studies varied, this figure appears to be comparable to the incidence reported for other malignancies and for laparotomies performed to treat colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that wound recurrence may actually be the result of an unfortunate learning curve, rather than an inherent concern. However, we must await the final results of large randomized studies before drawing any definitive conclusions.