Laparoscopic or open surgery for the cancer of the middle and lower rectum short-term outcomes of a comparative non-randomised study

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been endorsed by clinical guidelines for colon cancer, but not for rectal cancer on account of unapproved oncologic equivalence with open surgery.

AIMS

We started this largest-to-date meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic proctectomy and open surgery between January 1990 and March 2020 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase Databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211718). The data of intraoperative, pathological, postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs and 93 NRCTs including 216,615 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 48,888 patients received laparoscopic surgery and 167,727 patients underwent open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery group showed faster recovery, less complications and decreased mortality within 30 days. The positive rate of circumferential margin (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.85, p < 0.0001) and distal margin (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.85 p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group, but the completeness of total mesorectal excision showed no significant difference. The 3-year and 5-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival were all improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, while the distal recurrence did not differ significantly between the two approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to oncological outcomes and long-term survival. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including faster recovery and less complications.

OPEN, LAPAROSCOPIC AND TRANSANAL TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND NETWORK META ANALYSIS

AIM: to compare the effectiveness of different methods of total mesorectumectomy (TME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: the systematic review performed in accordance with PRISMA practice and recommendations.

RESULTS: Forty-one papers were included in the analysis. Fourteen studies were for transanal total mesorectumectomy (TA TME) (n=480) compared with laparoscopic (LA TME), 26 – for LA TME vs open (n=6820), 1 – for open vs TA TME. There was no significant difference between open TME, LA TME and TA TME in grade 3 quality of mesorectumectomy by Quirke. The positive circular resection margin (CRM) is less often in TA TME group, then LA TME (OR=2.58, CI 1.34-4.97, p=0.005). There was significantly lower positive CRM rate in LA TME then open TME (OR=0.73, CI 0.63-0.85, p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications rates between LA TME and TA TME (p=0.72). Network meta-analysis showed less postoperative complications followed LA TME than open TME (OR=0.75, CI 0.65-0.84).

CONCLUSION: TA TME is comparable with laparoscopic and open TME in short term results. Rates of positive CRM, the quality of Grade 1 mesorectal excision, the conversion rate, the postoperative urinary dysfunction, may have better results in TA TME.

An anatomic anal sphincter-saving procedure for rectal cancers located at anorectal junction

Background

This study aims to present the feasibility of the open approach of hemilevator excision (HLE) as a promising alternative of the laparoscopic and/or robotic ones for the treatment of low rectal cancer extending to the ipsilateral puborectalis muscle.

Methods

A 60-year-old male patient with a high-grade differentiated rectal adenocarcinoma at the right side of the lower rectum invading puborectalis muscle. The proposed operation consists of a combination of extralevator abdomino-perineal excision (ELAPE), intersphicteric resection (ISR), and low anterior resection (LAR) since it resects the ipsilateral to tumor levator ani muscle (LAM) from its attachment at the internal obturator fascia and the deep part of ipsilateral external anal sphincter (EAS), while the distal part of dissection is completed in the intersphincteric space taking out the internal anal sphincter (IAS). At the contralateral side of the tumor, the dissection plane follows the classic route of LAR.

Results

Pathology proved the oncologic adequacy of resection. MRI at the fourth postoperative week showed clearly the right aspect of anorectal junction free of tumor. Anorectal manometry revealed a fair anorectal function which is in accordance with the findings of clinical assessment of patient after restoring large bowel continuity (post-op Wexner score, 7).

Conclusion

This is the first case of the open HLE that seems to be a good alternative compared to ELAPE or conventional APR, as it offers oncologic adequacy and a fair anorectal function.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism in rectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) following rectal surgery is a significant and preventable cause of morbidity and mortality, yet the true prevalence is not well established. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the available literature and determined its prevalence following rectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review assessed the prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery. In addition, we evaluated whether subgroups (open vs. minimally invasive or benign vs. malignant resections) impacted on its prevalence or rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE).

RESULT

Thirty-eight studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The aggregate prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery was 1.25% (95% CI 0.86-1.63), with DVT and PE occurring in 0.68% (95% CI 0.48-0.89) and 0.57% (95% CI 0.47-0.68) of patients. VTE following cancer and benign resection was 1.59% (95% CI 0.60-1.23 and 1.5% (95% CI 0.89-2.12) respectively. The prevalence of VTE in patients having minimally invasive resection was lower than those having open surgery [0.58% (16/2770) vs. 2.22% (250/11278); RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.86].

CONCLUSION

This review observed that there is sparse evidence on prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery. It provides aggregated data and analysis of available literature, showing overall prevalence is low, especially in those having minimally invasive procedures.

Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Rectum Amputation: a Clinical, Intraoperative, and Short-term Outcome Comparative Study

Objective: To evaluate and compare laparoscopic and conventional open rectum amputation procedures using clinical, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological criteria.

Methods: Fifty-nine patients with lower rectal and anorectal cancer were included in a retrospective study, conducted between 2014 and 2017. Patients underwent open or laparoscopic rectum amputation surgery and were divided into two groups: group 1 – laparoscopic amputation group (LAG) and group 2 – open amputation group (OAG). The clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes and oncological results were compared between the two groups.

Results: We found a significantly smaller intraoperative blood loss (325 mL vs. 538.29 mL, p = 0.0002), earlier return of bowel motility (2.41 days vs. 3.10 days, p = 0.036), shorter hospital stays (10.08 days vs. 12.66 days, p = 0.03), and a higher number of lymph nodes removed during surgery (12.33 nodes for LAG vs. 9.98 nodes for OAG, p = 0.049). In the open surgery group we found shorter durations of surgery (199.58 minutes for LAG vs. 157.87 minutes for OAG, p = 0.0046).

Conclusion: Laparoscopic rectum amputation is a technically demanding procedure. The present study demonstrates the benefits and disadvantages of this surgery, with comparable clinical, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological results compared to the conventional open rectum amputation procedure.

The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer was reported as advantageous compared to laparotomy resection. However, this finding remains controversial, especially given the two recent randomized controlled trials published on The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Objective

To perform a meta-analysis that compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

Data source

To identify clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer published by August 2016, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Springer Link and Clinicaltrials.gov databases by combining various key words. Data were extracted from every identified study to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 43 articles from 38 studies with a total of 13408 patients were included. Although laparoscopic radical rectectomy increased operation time (MD = 37.23, 95% CI: 28.88 to 45.57, P < 0.0001), it can significantly decrease the blood loss (MD = –143.13, 95% CI: –183.48 to –102.78, P < 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (MD = –0.97, 95% CI: –1.35 to –0.59, P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD = –2.40, 95% CI: –3.10 to –1.70, P < 0.0001), postoperative complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86, P < 0.0001), mortality (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.57, P < 0.0001) and the CRM positive rate (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75, P < 0.0001). No significant difference were noted between the groups regarding intraoperative complications, TME completeness and harvesting of lymph nodes. Regarding the long-term survival data, the laparoscopic group was not inferior to laparotomy. Some pooled data, such as 3-year DFS, 5-year OS and 5-year local recurrence were even superior for the laparoscopic group.

Conclusions

Given the definite benefits in short-term outcomes and trending benefits in long-term outcomes that were observed, we recommend laparoscopic surgery be used for rectal cancer resection.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes Regarding Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

It is to disclose whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible or not in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, Science Direct, SpringerLink, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library databases for the eligible studies. Review Manager 5.2 was used to test the heterogeneity and to evaluate the overall test performance.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n=2973). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival, and overall survival were similar between both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

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

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

Meta-analysis of the risk of small bowel obstruction following open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

One of the potential advantages of laparoscopic compared with open colorectal surgery is a reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction events. Early reports support this proposal, but accumulated evidence is lacking.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials and observational studies by searching the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from 1990 to August 2015. The primary outcomes were early and late postoperative bowel obstruction following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Both ileus and bowel obstruction were defined as a postoperative bowel obstruction. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed, and a random-effects model was used to account for the heterogeneity among the studies.

Results

Twenty-four randomized clinical trials and 88 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis; 106 studies reported early outcome and 12 late outcome. Collectively, these studies reported on the outcomes of 148 392 patients, of whom 58 133 had laparoscopic surgery and 90 259 open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced rates of early (odds ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·54 to 0·72; P &lt; 0·001) and late (odds ratio 0·61, 0·41 to 0·92; P = 0·019) postoperative bowel obstruction. Weighted mean values for early postoperative bowel obstruction were 8 (95 per cent c.i. 6 to 10) and 5 (3 to 7) per cent for open and laparoscopic surgery respectively, and for late bowel obstruction were 4 (2 to 6) and 3 (1 to 5) per cent respectively.

Conclusion

The reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction demonstrates an advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal disease.

Impact of splenic flexure mobilization on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic left colectomy for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Depending on the extent of left colon resection, splenic flexure mobilization is sometimes necessary to achieve a tension-free anastomosis. The aim of the study was the assessment of necessity and impact on morbidity of splenic flexure mobilization for laparoscopic colectomy with anastomosis for cancer located distally to the splenic flexure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients subjected to laparoscopic colectomy for carcinoma located at any site from the descending colon to the distal rectum from 2004 to 2010 were reviewed. Comparisons were made between cases with and without splenic flexure mobilization.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients were operated for left colon or rectal cancer. There was no difference with regard to the intraoperative bleeding and bowel perforation and no differences concerning the conversion rates. In contrast, stoma formation rates were higher in the mobilized group. Moreover, total operative time was higher for the mobilized group except for the middle rectum cancer cases. Postoperative outcomes as far as mortality and morbidity rates and primary hospital stay are concerned, did not display any difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenic flexure mobilization can provide a tension-free anastomosis and sufficiently vascularized anastomosis in laparoscopic colorectal surgery for distal colon pathology, with no impact on immediate postoperative outcomes, despite longer operative time.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The safety of laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer treatment has remained controversial, especially regarding the long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible.

METHODS

We searched all of studies that compared the short- or long-term outcomes regarding laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgeries (the tumour distance from anal verge within 10 cm). The data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The combined outcome of the dichotomous variables was expressed as an estimation of the odds ratios and continuous variables were presented in the form of weighted mean differences with 95% credible intervals. Subgroup, publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n = 3,678). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery appear to be equivalent to open surgery for treatment of mid- low rectal cancer, with the more favourable short-term benefits, fewer complications, comparable pathological outcomes and long-term outcomes.

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.

Single-access laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery using the glove technique

INTRODUCTION

Single-access laparoscopic surgery has been widely adopted in many kinds of surgery including laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Performing single-access rectal surgery, however, has technical drawbacks such as instrument collision and endostaple application issues. The glove technique is likely to mitigate these problems.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with anal canal to mid-rectum cancers were recruited and underwent single-access laparoscopic surgery via the glove technique. An incision was made at the paraumbilicus to insert a wound protector with surgical gloves. The operation was medial to lateral and inferior mesenteric artery and inferior mesenteric vein were identified and controlled. Total mesorectal excision was performed while keeping traction and countertraction down to the pelvic floor.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 251.66 min (range, 180-300 min). Hospital stay ranged from 5 to 8 days (median, 7 days). No serious early postoperative surgical problems related to complications were observed. The pathologic results showed good mesorectal capsule grading. The mean lymph node harvest was 14 nodes (range, 7-26 nodes), and the mean wound length was 5 cm (range, 4-6 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

In rectal surgery, the glove technique for single-access laparoscopic surgery is feasible and is comparable to commercial single-port techniques in terms of oncologic results.

Efficacy of laparoscopic versus Dixon radical resection for rectal cancer

AIM: To compare the clinical effects of laparoscopic versus Dixon radical operation for rectal cancer.

METHODS: Fifty-three patients who underwent laparoscopic operation and sixty-nine cases who underwent Dixon operation from January 2006 to January 2013 at our hospital were included in this study. The operative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative anal exhaust time, and postoperative complications as well as short-term and long-term curative effects were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Compared with the Dixon operation group, laparoscopic surgery had significantly shorter operative time (165.18 min ± 25.45 min vs 177.19 min ± 12.28 min, P = 0.014), less intraoperative bleeding volume (589.85 mL ± 127.45 mL vs 682.30 mL ± 122.76 mL, P = 0.004), and shorter postoperative anal exhaust time (3.94 d ± 1.0 d vs 4.62 d ± 1.3 d, P = 0.01), while the number of intraoperatively removed lymph nodes (3.8 ± 1.6 vs 3.7 ± 1.2, P = 0.756) did not significantly between the two groups. In addition, the satisfaction to low incidence of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage, wound infection and adhesion obstruction, as well as urinary and sexual functions was significantly higher in the laparoscopic operation group (P = 0.033, 0.049, 0.000), although there were no statistical differences in local tumor recurrence or distant metastasis and 5-year survival rate between the two groups (P = 0.701, 0.583).

CONCLUSION: Compared with Dixon operation for rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery was associated with minimal invasion, quicker recovery, fewer postoperative complications and higher satisfaction to sexual and urinary functions, although the 5-year survival rate, local tumor recurrence and distant metastasis showed no significant differences between the two groups.

The implementation of a standardized approach to laparoscopic rectal surgery

Data from this report supports the view that standardization of the operative steps in laparoscopic rectal surgery seems to limit the risk of anastomotic complications and provides clear indications for early and safe conversion to open surgery.

Background and Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to audit our results after implementation of a standardized operative approach to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer within a fast-track recovery program.

Methods:

From January 2009 to February 2011, 100 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic surgery on an intention-to-treat basis for rectal cancer. The results were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Operative steps and instrumentation for the procedure were standardized. A standard perioperative care plan was used.

Results:

The following procedures were performed: low anterior resection (n=26), low anterior resection with loop-ileostomy (n=39), Hartmann's operation (n=14), and abdominoperineal resection (n=21). The median length of hospital stay was 7 days; 9 patients were readmitted. There were 9 cases of conversion to open surgery. The overall complication rate was 35%, including 6 cases (9%) of anastomotic leakages requiring reoperation. The 30-day mortality was 5%. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 15 (range, 2 to 48). There were 6 cases of positive circumferential resection margins. The median follow-up was 9 (range, 1 to 27) months. One patient with disseminated cancer developed port-site metastasis.

Conclusions:

The results confirm the safety of a standardized approach, and the oncological outcomes are comparable to those of similar studies.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision compared to open surgery

AIM: To investigate the short-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with mid and low rectal cancers.

METHODS: A consecutive series of 138 patients with middle and low rectal cancer were randomly assigned to either the laparoscopic TME (LTME) group or the open TME (OTME) group between September 2008 and July 2011 at the Department of Colorectal Cancer of Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University and pathological data, as well as surgical technique were reviewed retrospectively. Short-term clinical and oncological outcome were compared in these two groups. Patients were followed in the outpatient clinic 2 wk after the surgery and then every 3 mo in the first year if no adjuvant chemoradiation was indicated. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 13.0 software.

RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were treated with LTME and 71 patients were treated with OTME (sex ratio 1.3:1 vs 1.29:1, age 58.4 ± 13.6 years vs 59.6 ± 9.4 years, respectively). The resection was considered curative in all cases. The sphincter-preserving rate was 65.7% (44/67) vs 60.6% (43/71), P = 0.046; mean blood loss was 86.9 ± 37.6 mL vs 119.1 ± 32.7 mL, P = 0.018; postoperative analgesia was 2.1 ± 0.6 d vs 3.9 ± 1.8 d, P = 0.008; duration of urinary drainage was 4.7 ± 1.8 d vs 6.9 ± 3.4 d, P = 0.016, respectively. The conversion rate was 2.99%. The complication rate, circumferential margin involvement, distal margins and lymph node yield were similar for both procedures. No port site recurrence, anastomotic recurrence or mortality was observed during a median follow-up period of 21 mo (range: 9-56 mo).

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TME is safe and feasible, with an oncological adequacy comparable to the open approach. Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the present results.

Implementation of fast-track protocols in open and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a multicenter, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study

BACKGROUND

Data on the role of laparoscopy within an enhanced recovery protocol for rectal cancer patients is rather limited. The aim of the study was to investigate the role of laparoscopy within a 'fast-track' protocol in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS/METHODS

156 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer from three centers were assigned in four groups: the open fast track (OPEN-FT), the laparoscopic fast track (LAP-FT), the open (OPEN), and the laparoscopic (LAP). The fast-track protocol was applied in one center and traditional care in the other two. All patients underwent sphincter-preserving surgery and were followed-up for 30 days.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was less in the fast-track groups (p = 0.007). On the other hand, no statistical significance could be identified in mortality, readmission or reoperations rates among the groups (p = 0.562, p = 0.896, p = 0.238). Fast-track patients required significantly less intramuscular opioids for postoperative analgesia (p < 0.001). Primary (p < 0.001) and total hospital stays (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the fast-track groups.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a fast-track protocol is feasible and safe in low rectal cancer patients. Laparoscopy seems to be a basic element of such protocol as it further enhances recovery and reduces morbidity.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare LTME and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) as the primary treatment for patients with middle and low rectal cancer with regard to short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches up to October 30, 2011 were performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated by LTME versus OTME. Fixed and random effects models were used. Review Manager version 5.1 software was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Four RCTs enrolling 624 participants (LTME group, 308 cases; OTME group, 316 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. LTME for rectal cancer was associated with a significantly longer operative time but significantly less intraoperative blood loss and earlier time to pass first flatus. We found no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, overall morbidity, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups. Time to resume liquid diet, time to resume normal diet, and length of hospital stay, although not significantly different between the two groups, did suggest a positive trend toward LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be concluded that LTME is a safe and effective alternative to OTME and is justifiable under the setting of clinical trials. Additional RCTs that compare LTME and OTME and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of LTME are required to determine the advantages of LTME over OTME.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has undergone tremendous advancement in the last two decades, with maturation of techniques and integration into current practice.

SOURCES OF DATA

Worldwide English-language literature on laparoscopic surgery for the management of colon and rectal cancer was reviewed.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

A large body of evidence has attested to the improved short-term outcomes and long-term oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Laparoscopic colectomy can be recommended to suitable patients where expertise is available. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is feasible, with good evidence of faster post-operative recovery and adequate surgical quality, but requires more data on long-term oncological outcomes. This review examines the evidence and current practice of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Does laparoscopic surgery confer a survival advantage for colorectal cancer patients?

GROWING POINTS

The role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery in colorectal cancer.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Barriers to the adoption of the laparoscopic technique.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a matched case-control study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) currently is commonly incorporated into the multimodal treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer after nCRT.

METHODS

A series of 72 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group) for rectal cancer after nCRT were matched for type of surgery, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class with 72 patients who underwent conventional surgery during the same time period (Open group). The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of age, distance of tumor from the anal verge, body mass index, or posttreatment pathologic stage of the disease. There were significant differences between the Lap and Open groups in terms of blood loss (median: 200 vs 400 ml; P < 0.001), duration of surgery (median: 270 vs 240 min; P < 0.001), time to passing of first flatus (median: 2 vs 3 days; P < 0.001), time to start of normal diet (median: 5 vs 6 days; P < 0.001), and hospital stay (median: 12 vs 15 days; P < 0.001). A significant difference in the number of lymph nodes harvested was not identified between the two groups, although more patients in the Open group had a positive circumferential resection margin than in the Lap group (10 vs 1%; P = 0.03). The short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery also were observed when the 64 patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) in each of the two groups were compared separately.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, especially laparoscopic APR, after nCRT is safe and associated with earlier recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, and an oncologically adequate specimen compared with conventional open surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: The state of the art

At present time, there is evidence from randomized controlled studies of the success of laparoscopic resection for the treatment of colon cancer with reported smaller incisions, lower morbidity rate and earlier recovery compared to open surgery. Technical limitations and a steep learning curve have limited the wide application of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer. The present article discusses the current status of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. A review of the more recent retrospective, prospective and randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer including the role of trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery and robotics was performed. A particular emphasis was dedicated to mid and low rectal cancers. Few prospective and RCT trials specifically addressing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are currently available in the literature. Improved short-term outcomes in term of lesser intraoperative blood loss, reduced analgesic requirements and a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated. Concerns have recently been raised in the largest RCT trial of the oncological adequacy of laparoscopy in terms of increased rate of circumferential margin. This data however was not confirmed by other prospective comparative studies. Moreover, a similar local recurrence rate has been reported in RCT and comparative series. Similar findings of overall and disease free survival have been reported but the follow-up time period is too short in all these studies and the few RCT trials currently available do not draw any definitive conclusions. On the basis of available data in the literature, the mini-invasive approach to rectal cancer surgery has some short-term advantages and does not seem to confer any disadvantage in term of local recurrence. With respect to long-term survival, a definitive answer cannot be given at present time as the results of RCT trials focused on long-term survival currently ongoing are still to fully clarify this issue.

["Practical course for visceral surgery in Warnemünde" 10 years on. Significance and benefits of a surgical training course]

BACKGROUND

Skill courses for surgery offer a good but cost and personnel-intensive possibility to obtain practical and theoretical knowledge by the employment of a close teacher-pupil contact of a large group of surgeons. The goal of the study presented here was to evaluate the satisfaction and benefits of the practical course for visceral surgery in Warnemünde after 10 years of course experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All participants in the annual course for visceral surgery were included since 1999. During this 1-week course conventional and laparoscopic exercises are performed under direct guidance of an experienced tutor. The participants are divided into 3 groups based on their surgical experience (e.g. <3 years, 3-5 years, >5 years). All participants received a standardised questionnaire before and after successful course completion for the collection of relevant data (e.g. demography, training, surgical experience and course evaluation).

RESULTS

A total of 1,062 participants (435 female, 627 male, mean age 37 years) participated in the course. The average surgical experience of the participants was 5 years. Of the participants 489 came from a hospital of basic medical care, 499 from a hospital of maximum medical care and 74 from a university hospital. Of the participants 96% had no or only little experience with skill courses (1,020 out of 1,065) and 827 participants had no or only few possibilities for training outside of the operation room (78%). The conventional part of the course was evaluated by 77% of the participants as very good and by 50% as very good for the laparoscopic part. Only 8.3% of the participants were willing to finance the costs of the course by themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

The practical course for visceral surgery leads to a subjective success in learning. Participation in the course leads to a high satisfaction and offers a cost-intensive possibility for a standardised surgical training. But there are too few experiences with skill courses and possibilities for surgical training outside the operation room so far.

Perioperative blood transfusions for the recurrence of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The improvement of renal allograft survival by pre-transplantation transfusions alerted the medical community to the potential detrimental effect of transfusions in patients being treated for cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate the role of perioperative blood transfusions (PBT) on colorectal cancer recurrence. This is accomplished by validating the results of a previously published meta-analysis (Amato 1998); and by updating it to December 2004.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Published papers were retrieved using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, controlled trials web-based registries, or the CCG Trial Database. The search strategy used was: {colon OR rectal OR colorectal} WITH {cancer OR tumor OR neoplasm} AND transfusion. The tendency not to publish negative trials was balanced by inspecting the proceedings of international congresses.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Patients undergoing curative resection of colorectal cancer (classified either as Dukes stages A-C, Astler-Coller stages A-C2, or TNM stages T1-3a/N0-1/M0) were included if they had received any amount of blood products within one month of surgery. Excluded were patients with distant metastases at surgery, and studies with short follow-up or with no data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A specific form was developed for data collection. Data extraction was cross-checked, using the most recent publication in case of repetitive ones. Papers' quality was ranked using the method by Evans and Pollock. Odds ratios (OR, with 95% confidence intervals) were computed for each study, and pooled estimates were generated by RevMan (version 4.2). When available, data were stratified for risk factors of cancer recurrence.

MAIN RESULTS

The findings of the 1998 meta-analysis were confirmed, with small variations in some estimates. Updating it through December 2004 led to the identification of 237 references. Two-hundred and one of them were excluded because they analyzed survival (n=22), were repetitive (n=26), letters/reviews (n=66) or had no data (n=87). Thirty-six studies on 12,127 patients were included: 23 showed a detrimental effect of PBT; 22 used also multivariable analyses, and 14 found PBT to be an independent prognostic factor. Pooled estimates of PBT effect on colorectal cancer recurrence yielded overall OR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.20 to 1.67) against transfused patients in randomized controlled studies. Stratified meta-analyses confirmed these findings, also when stratifying patients by site and stage of disease. The PBT effect was observed regardless of timing, type, and in a dose-related fashion, although heterogeneity was detected. Data on surgical techniques was not available for further analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated meta-analysis confirms the previous findings. All analyses support the hypothesis that PBT have a detrimental effect on the recurrence of curable colorectal cancers. However, since heterogeneity was detected and conclusions on the effect of surgical technique could not be drawn, a causal relationship cannot still be claimed. Carefully restricted indications for PBT seems necessary.