Comparison and short-term outcomes between hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for anterior resections of left-sided colon cancer

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries in elderly patients with right colon cancers: A case-control study

An increasing proportion of patients aged more than 70 years old are suffering from colorectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-terms outcomes between open surgery (OS) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in treatment of these elderly patients with right colon cancers.We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent right colon resections for cancers in our institution between June, 2009 and December, 2014. Short- and long-terms outcomes including surgical endpoints, postsurgical recovery data, postoperative morbidity and mortality, overall survival and disease-free survival were compared among OS, LS, and HALS groups. All data were analyzed by SPSS 22.0.Finally, 69 consecutive patients (OS = 26, LS = 24, HALS = 19) with right colon cancers were included in the analysis. Compared with OS, HALS was associated with less time to first anus exhaust (P = .013), first liquid diet (P = .045), and first soft diet (P = .036). Meanwhile, there were significant less operative time (P = .0027), blood loss (P < .001), and less time to first liquid diet (P = .009) in HALS, compared with LS. In regards to long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in overall survival and disease-free survival among the 3 groups.Compared with OS or LS, HALS may be more favorable in the treatment of elderly right colon cancers with decreased surgical time and postoperative recovery, and comparable cancer-specific survivals.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on March 31, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, conversion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and readmission), and 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine articles published between 2007 and 2016 with a total of 1307 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer length of incision. No differences were found for operative time, blood loss, transfusion, conversion, lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, readmission, or 5-year survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that HALS is similar to LAS for CRC surgery in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes except for the longer length of incision.

Development of five-finger robotic hand using master-slave control for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery

This study aims to develop a robotic hand as a substitute for a surgeon's hand in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). We determined the requirements for the proposed hand from a surgeon's motions in HALS. We identified four basic behaviors: "power grasp," "precision grasp," "open hand for exclusion," and "peace sign for extending peritoneum." The proposed hand had the minimum necessary DOFs for performing these behaviors, five fingers as in a human's hand, a palm that can be folded when a surgeon inserts the hand into the abdomen, and an arm for adjusting the hand's position. We evaluated the proposed hand based on a performance test and a physician's opinions, and we confirmed that it can grasp organs.

Intraoperative localization of occult colorectal tumors during laparoscopic surgery by magnetic ring markers-a pilot study

PURPOSE

Intraoperative localization of small tumors or malignant polyps has been an important issue in laparoscopic colon surgery. We have developed a new method for preoperative endoscopic tumor marking using a ring-shaped magnetic marker.

METHODS

In a pilot study, 28 patients with small colonic (n = 23) or rectal tumors (n = 5) underwent endoscopic magnetic clipping prior to laparoscopic resection. A cap carrying a high-power neodymium ring magnet was mounted on the tip of a colonoscope. Near the lesion, the ring magnet was released and clipped to the colorectal wall. Standard laparoscopic instruments were used to find the magnet intraoperatively.

RESULTS

Endoscopic fixation of a ring magnet next to the tumor by clipping was technically feasible in all 28 patients. Intraoperative localization of the marked lesions was successful in 27 of 28 patients (96 %). All patients underwent magnet-guided radical laparoscopic resection of the tumor with an average proximal and distal resection margin of 101 and 63 mm, respectively. In one case, the magnet could not be found due to preoperative migration. Surgical complications related to magnetic clip application or intraoperative tumor localization were not observed. However, there was one case with an intraoperative perforation of the colon by the magnet, which was obviously caused by unchecked action with a laparoscopic instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative endoscopic labeling of colonic lesions with on-the-scope magnetic markers is simple and safe. Intraoperative tumor localization during laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be achieved reliably without additional equipment such as ultrasound or fluoroscopy.

Short-term Outcomes of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery vs. Open Surgery on Right Colon Cancer: A Case-Controlled Study

Purpose

This study was designed to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes by comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for right colon cancer.

Methods

Sixteen patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (HAL-RHC group) and 33 patients who underwent a conventional open right hemicolectomy (open group) during the same period were enrolled in this study with a case-controlled design.

Results

The operation time was 217 minutes in the HAL-RHC group and 213 minutes in the open group (P = 0.389). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar between the two groups (31 in the HAL-RHC group and 36 in the open group, P = 0.737). Also, there were no significant difference in the incidence of immediate postoperative leukocytosis, the administration of additional pain killers, and the postoperative recovery parameters. First flatus was shown on postoperative days 3.5 in the HAL-RHC group and 3.4 in the open group (P = 0.486). Drinking water and soft diet were started on postoperative days 4.8 and 5.9, respectively, in the HAL-RHC group and similarly 4.6 and 5.6 in the open group (P = 0.402 and P = 0.551). The duration of hospital stay was shorter in the HAL-RHC group than in the open group (10.3 days vs. 13.5 days, P = 0.048). No significant difference in the complication rates was shown between the two groups, and no postoperative mortality was encountered in either group.

Conclusion

The patients with right colon cancer in the HAL-RHC group had similar pathologic and postoperative recovery parameters to those of the patients in the open group. The patients in the HAL-RHC group had shorter hospital stays than those in the open group. Therefore, hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer is feasible.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for obese patients: decreased conversions with the hand-assisted technique

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery benefits obese patients but technical difficulties associated with suboptimal exposure and access in these subjects may prompt conversion to open surgery. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) confers advantages over standard laparoscopy (LAP) by facilitating tactile feedback, assisted dissection, and retraction. These benefits could be particularly valuable in obese patients, allowing completion of difficult laparoscopic procedures in this subgroup. Our aim was to compare intra-operative and post-operative outcomes of HALS and LAP approaches in obese patients undergoing colorectal resection at our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective study of a prospectively maintained laparoscopic colorectal surgery database was performed. HALS and LAP cases performed in obese patients (body mass index (BMI) >30) were identified and compared for the following outcomes: operative time, intra-operative complications, rate of conversion to open, blood loss, length of stay, post-operative morbidity, and mortality. Outcomes for the converted patients were included on an intention-to-treat basis for all primary analyses. A secondary analysis of nonconverted and converted cases was also performed.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year period, 496 obese patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection; 86 HALS and 410 LAP cases. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, BMI, and indications for surgery. Conversion to open surgery was less often necessary in HALS compared to LAP cases (3.5 % vs. 12.7 %, p = 0.014). The LAP group had a significantly smaller incision length for specimen extraction (HALS (7.0 ± 1.3 cm) vs. LAP (5.7 ± 2.1 cm), p < 0.001). Length of stay, operative time, morbidity, and mortality rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In obese patients who require colectomy, the HALS approach increases the likelihood of a successful minimally invasive operation. At the cost of a clinically negligible increase in incision length, HALS may save a high-risk group conversion to formal laparotomy and the adverse outcomes related to this.

Feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery as compared to open surgery for sigmoid colon cancer: a case-controlled study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes by comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open surgery for sigmoid colon cancer.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection (HAL-AR group) and 52 patients who underwent a conventional open anterior resection during the same period were enrolled (open group) in this study with a case-controlled design.

RESULTS

Pathologic parameters were similar between the two groups. The incidences of immediate postoperative leukocytosis were 38.5% in the HAL-AR group and 69.2% in the open group (P = 0.009). There were no significant differences between the two groups as to leukocyte count, hemoglobin, and hematocrits (P = 0.758, P = 0.383, and P = 0.285, respectively). Of the postoperative recovery indicators, first flatus, sips of water and soft diet started on postoperative days 3, 5, 7 in the HALS group and on days 4, 5, 6 in the open group showed statistical significance (P = 0.021, P = 0.259, and P = 0.174, respectively). Administration of additional pain killers was needed for 1.2 days in the HAL-AR group and 2.4 days in the open group (P = 0.002). No significant differences in the durations of hospital stay and the rates of postoperative complications were noted, and no postoperative mortality was encountered in either group.

CONCLUSION

The patients with sigmoid colon cancer who underwent a HAL-AR had a lower incidence of postoperative leukocytosis, less administration of pain killers, and faster first flatus than those who underwent open surgery. Clinical outcomes for patients' recovery and pathology status were similar between the two groups. Therefore, a HAL-AR for sigmoid colon cancer is feasible and has the same benefit as minimally invasive surgery.