Laparoscopic Versus Open Transverse Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colorectal cancer: Recent advances in management and treatment

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. In 2020, the estimated number of deaths due to CRC was approximately 930000, accounting for 10% of all cancer deaths worldwide. Accordingly, there is a vast amount of ongoing research aiming to find new and improved treatment modalities for CRC that can potentially increase survival and decrease overall morbidity and mortality. Current management strategies for CRC include surgical procedures for resectable cases, and radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, in addition to their combination, for non-resectable tumors. Despite these options, CRC remains incurable in 50% of cases. Nonetheless, significant improvements in research techniques have allowed for treatment approaches for CRC to be frequently updated, leading to the availability of new drugs and therapeutic strategies. This review summarizes the most recent therapeutic approaches for CRC, with special emphasis on new strategies that are currently being studied and have great potential to improve the prognosis and lifespan of patients with CRC.

Chinese national clinical practice guidelines on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of early colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in China are increasing in recent years. The clarified pathogenesis and detectable precancerous lesions of CRC make it possible to prevent, screen, and diagnose CRC at an early stage. With the development of endoscopic and surgical techniques, the choice of treatment for early CRC is also worth further discussion, and accordingly, a standard follow-up program after treatment needs to be established.

METHODS

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed following the recommended process of the World Health Organization, adopting Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in assessing evidence quality, and using the Evidence to Decision framework to formulate clinical recommendations, thereby minimizing bias and increasing transparency of the CPG development process. We used the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) as reporting and conduct guides to ensure the guideline's completeness and transparency.

RESULTS

This CPG comprises 46 recommendations concerning prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of CRC. In these recommendations, we have indicated protective and risk factors for CRC and made recommendations for chemoprevention. We proposed a suitable screening program for CRC based on the Chinese context. We also provided normative statements for the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of CRC based on existing clinical evidence and guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The 46 recommendations in this CPG are formed with consideration for stakeholders' values and preferences, feasibility, and acceptability. Recommendations are generalizable to resource-limited settings with similar CRC epidemiology pattern as China.

Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare laparoscopic with open resection for transverse colon cancer (TCC) regarding long-term survival outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing laparoscopic with open resection for TCC. The last search was performed on October 7, 2022. Oncological and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).

RESULTS

This study included fifteen studies published between 2014 and 2022 with 2556 patients in total. When compared with the laparoscopic group, the open group had significantly more tumors locating on middle transverse colon (P = 0.006, OR = 0.67, 95%CI [0.50, 0.89], I² = 12%) and more patients received transverse colectomy (P = 0.03, OR = 0.66, 95%CI [0.46, 0.96], I² = 53%) as results. Comparable tumor stage (P = 0.13, OR = 0.81, 95%CI [0.62, 1.06], I² = 55%) and number of lymph node harvested (P = 0.22, WMD =  -0.81, 95%CI [-2.09, 0.47], I² = 73%) were observed between the two groups. As for survival outcomes, no significant difference was observed between the two groups for 5-year disease-free survival (DFS; P = 0.61, OR = 0.93, 95%CI [0.72, 1.21], I² = 0%), 5-year overall survival (OS; P = 0.83, OR = 0.97, 95%CI [0.71, 1.32], I² = 0%), 3-year DFS (P = 0.97, OR = 0.96, 95%CI [0.69, 1.32], I² = 0%), and 3-year OS (P = 0.67, OR = 0.92, 95%CI [0.63, 1.35], I² = 0%). In the subgroup analysis according to tumor stage, the results did not change.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence based on studies demonstrated that laparoscopic procedure could be safely performed for TCC, and it would not affect the long-term survival. Randomized clinical trials with a larger sample size are warranted in the future for further investigation.

Follow-The-Leader Mechanisms in Medical Devices: A Review on Scientific and Patent Literature

Conventional medical instruments are not capable of passing through tortuous anatomy as required for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery due to their rigid shaft designs. Nevertheless, developments in minimally invasive surgery are pushing medical devices to become more dexterous. Amongst devices with controllable flexibility, so-called Follow-The-Leader (FTL) devices possess motion capabilities to pass through confined spaces without interacting with anatomical structures. The goal of this literature study is to provide a comprehensive overview of medical devices with FTL motion. A scientific and patent literature search was performed in five databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, IEEExplore, Espacenet). Keywords were used to isolate FTL behavior in devices with medical applications. Ultimately, 35 unique devices were reviewed and categorized. Devices were allocated according to their design strategies to obtain the three fundamental sub-functions of FTL motion: steering, (controlling the leader/end-effector orientation), propagation, (advancing the device along a specific path), and conservation (memorizing the shape of the path taken by the device). A comparative analysis of the devices was carried out, showing the commonly used design choices for each sub-function and the different combinations. The advantages and disadvantages of the design aspects and an overview of their performance were provided. Devices that were initially assessed as ineligible were considered in a possible medical context or presented with FTL potential, broadening the classification. This review could aid in the development of a new generation of FTL devices by providing a comprehensive overview of the current solutions and stimulating the search for new ones.

Oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic colectomy in patients with transverse colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Literature concerning surgical management of transverse colon cancer is scarce, since many key trials excluded transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic transverse colon cancer resection.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for transverse colon cancer between December 2005 and July 2021 were included. Data were kept in a prospective database approved by the institutional ethics committee. Primary outcome was overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included complications, operative time, length of stay and lymph node harvest. Statistical analysis was corrected for age and tumour localisation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six (38 robotic, 71 open and 137 laparoscopic resections) were recruited in this study. There were five conversions during laparoscopic procedures. Operative time was significantly shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic procedures (195 vs 238 min, p = 0.005) and length of stay was shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic and open group (7 vs 9 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall complications. R0 resections were similar. Lymph node harvest was highest in the robotic group vs. laparoscopic or open (32 vs. 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001). Overall survival was 97%, 85% and 60% (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival was 91%, 78% and 56% (p < 0.001) for the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for transverse colon cancer is safe and offers good clinical and oncological outcomes. Robotic resection is associated with significantly shorter operating times, higher lymph node harvest, lower conversion rate and does not increase morbidity. Differences in disease-free and overall survival should be further explored in randomised controlled trials.

Surgical management of adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon: What should be the extent of resection?

Transverse colon, owing its origin to midgut and hindgut and harbouring a flexure at both ends, continues to pose a surgical challenge. When compared to the rest of the colon, transverse colon adenocarcinoma is relatively uncommon. These cancers usually present late and lie in close proximity to the stomach, omentum, and pancreas. Adequate lymphadenectomy entails dissection around and ligation of the middle colic vessels. Hence, resectional surgery for transverse colon carcinoma is considered difficult. This is more so because of the variation of arterial and venous anatomy. From this perspective, the surgeon is tempted to perform a more radical operation like extended right or left hemicolectomy to secure an adequate lymphadenectomy. Such a cancer has also been dealt with a more limited transverse colectomy with colo-colic anastomosis. For all these reasons, patients with transverse colon adenocarcinoma were excluded from randomised trials which compared laparoscopic resection with traditional open operation. Surgical literature is yet to establish a definite operation for transverse colon cancer and the exact procedure is often dictated by surgeon's preference. This is primarily because this is an uncommon cancer. The rapid adoption of laparoscopic operation favoured extended colectomy as transverse colectomy can be difficult by minimally invasive technique. However, in the recent past, cohort studies and meta-analyses have shown equivalent oncological outcome between transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. It is time to resurrect transverse colectomy and consider it equivalent to its radical counterpart for cancers around the mid-transverse colon.

How to Prevent Anastomotic Leak in Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review

Anastomosis leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery is an embarrassing problem. It is associated with poor consequence. This review aims to summarize published evidence on prevention of AL after colorectal surgery and provide recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. We conducted bibliographic research on January 15, 2020, of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We retained meta-analysis, reviews, and randomized clinical trials. We concluded that mechanical bowel preparation did not reduce AL. It seems that oral antibiotic or oral antibiotic with mechanical bowel preparation could reduce the risk of AL. The surgical approach did not affect the AL rate. The low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery could reduce the AL rate. The mechanical anastomosis is superior to handsewn anastomosis only in case of right colectomies, with similar results in rectal surgery between the 2 anastomosis techniques. In the case of right colectomies, this anastomosis could be performed intracorporeally or extracorporeally with similar outcomes. The air leak test did not reduce AL. There is no interest of external drainage in colonic surgery but drains reduced the rate of AL and rate of reoperation after low anterior resection. The transanal tube reduced the rate of AL.

Laparoscopic versus open complete mesocolic excision: a systematic review by updated meta-analysis

Recent evidence has proven the non-inferiority of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) to open complete mesocolic excision (OCME) with regard to feasibility and oncological safety. However, the differences in survival benefits between the 2 procedures have not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether or not one procedure was superior to the other using updated meta-analysis. A systematic search for relevant literature was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library and Google scholar databases. This meta-analysis included retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial comparing LCME to OSCME. LCME to OCME was evaluated using updated meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodologic quality of the studies. Fixed- and random-effects models were used, and survival outcomes were assessed using the inverse variance hazard ratio (HR) method. Operative time was significantly shorter in the OCME cohort than in the LCME cohort. Blood loss, wound infections, time to flatus, time to oral feeding, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survivals were better in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.37 (0.22, 0.65); p = 0.004], [HR = 0.48 (0.31, 0.74); p = 0.008], and [HR = 0.64 (0.45, 0.93); p = 0.02], respectively). No difference in the 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the 2 procedures was observed ([HR = 0.68 (0.44, 1.03); p = 0.07]). In contrast, the LCME cohort had better 3- and 5-year DFS rates than those of the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.63 (0.42, 0.97), p = 0.03] and [HR = 0.68 (0.56, 0.83), p = 0.001], respectively). The results of the present study must be interpreted cautiously because the included studies were retrospective from single centres. Therefore, selection, institutional and national bias may have influenced the results. LCME is associated with the faster postoperative recovery and some better potential survival benefits than OCME.

Comparing the safety, efficacy, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy in transverse colon cancer: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In order to compare the safety, efficacy, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic (LC) and open colectomy (OC) for transverse colon cancer (TCC) patients, the present systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was designed.

METHODS

This study was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic screening of the electronic databases was performed (Medline, Web of Science and Scopus). The validity of the pooled results was verified through the performance of trial sequential analysis (TSA). The level of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 studies and 2498 patients were included in our study. Pooled comparisons and TSA analyses reported a superiority of LC over OC in terms of postoperative complications (OR 0.64, p = 0.0003), blood loss (WMD - 86.84, p < 0.00001), time to first flatus (WMD - 0.94, p < 0.00001) and oral diet (WMD - 1.25, p < 0.00001), and LOS (WMD - 2.39, p < 0.00001). Moreover, OC displayed a lower operation duration (p < 0.00001). A higher rate of complete mesocolic excision (p = 0.001) was related to OC. Although inconclusive in TSA, the recurrence rate in LC group was lower. LC and OC were equivalent in terms of postoperative survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering several limitations of the eligible studies and the subsequent low level of evidence, further RCTs of a higher quality and methodological level are required to verify the findings of our meta-analysis.