The management of leaking rectal anastomoses by minimally invasive techniques

Non-conventional applications for Transanal endoscopic microsurgery. A single centre experience and a systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and Transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) have been initially described for local excision of rectal adenomas and selected cases of rectal carcinomas. In the past decade, however, several new indications raised, and others could raise in the future. The aim of this review was to evaluate, both in the literature and in our personal experience, the use of TEM and TEO for nonconventional applications, different from rectal tumors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published papers and we selected articles reporting patients who underwent endoscopic surgery for other medical reason than polyp cancer resection, with TEM or TEO. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and bibliographies of the selected studies were searched for articles in English published up to May 2020 to identify all relevant articles. We excluded articles reporting TEM and TEO used for classical indications. We finally report our experience of non-conventional use of TEO in 5 patients with different diseases.

RESULTS

The research revealed 800 papers and among them we selected 52 articles for a total of 697 patients. Of all patients, only 52 had intraoperative or postoperative complications, with only 10 patients requiring major surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggest that TEM and TEO may be valid alternatives to traditional surgery in situations other than its classical indication. These findings can positively impact on the care of patients, who could benefit from less invasive surgical procedures associated with lower morbidity.

Reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Does the laparoscopic approach have any advantages?

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic approach in colorectal complications is controversial because of its difficulty. However, it has been proven that it can provide advantages over open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic approach in reoperations for complications after colorectal surgery with the open approach taking into account the severity of the patient prior to reoperation.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2006 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients requiring urgent surgical procedures for complications in the postoperative period were divided in two groups: laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). To control clinical severity prior to reoperation, The Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 763 patients were studied, 40 required urgent surgery (24 OS/16 LS). More ileostomies were performed in the LS group (68.7% vs. 29.2%) and more colostomies in the OS group (37.5% vs. 6.2%), p<0.05. MPI was higher in OS group (27.31±6.47 [19-35] vs. 18.36±7.16 [11-24], p<0.001). Hospital stay after re-intervention, oral tolerance and surgical wound infection, were favorable in LS (p<0.05 in all cases). In patients with MPI score ≤26, laparoscopic approach showed shorter hospital stay after re-intervention, less stay in the critical care unit after re-intervention, earlier start of oral tolerance and less surgical wound infection (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach in re-intervention for complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery associates a faster recovery reflected in a shorter hospital stay, earlier start of oral tolerance and a lower abdominal wall complication rate in patients with low severity index.

The Role of Laparoscopy in the Treatment of Anastomotic Leaks After Minimally Invasive Colorectal Resections for Cancer

AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study was to describe the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of leaks occurring after minimally invasive colorectal resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four of 566 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection for cancer between January 2004 and December 2012 and who showed signs of anastomotic leakage (6%) requiring reoperation were studied using a prospectively maintained database. Patient characteristics, clinical signs, the surgical approach, the role of laparoscopy, operative and postoperative results, and the rate of permanent stoma were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median time to diagnosis of an anastomotic leak after surgery was 5.5 days. The median time to reoperation from the diagnosis of leakage was 2 days. Leaks were treated laparoscopically in 21 of 34 (61.8%) patients. Anastomoses were dismantled in 14 patients (41.2%) and the procedure was performed laparoscopically in 28.6% of the cases. The postoperative morbidity was 55.9%, the perioperative mortality 5.7%, and the rate of permanent stoma was 8.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic reoperation can be performed in most cases of anastomotic leaks occurring after minimally invasive colorectal resection for cancer. Anastomosis can be dismantled laparoscopically in 28.6% of the cases. A permanent stoma was necessary only in patients with terminal stomas.

Management of Peritonitis After Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: Can We Stick to Laparoscopy?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy is becoming the standard of care for the treatment of colorectal disease, its application in case of postoperative peritonitis is still not widespread. The objective of this article is to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the management of postoperative peritonitis after elective minimally invasive colorectal resection for malignant and benign diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2010 and May 2016, 536 patients received primary minimally invasive colorectal surgery at our Department. Among this series, we carried out a retrospective study of those patients who, having developed signs of peritonitis, were treated with a laparoscopic reintervention. Patient demographics, type of complication and of the main relaparoscopic treatment, and main outcomes of reoperation were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (3.7%) underwent relaparoscopy for the management of postoperative peritonitis, of which exact causes were detected by laparoscopy in 75% as follows: anastomotic leakage (n = 8, 40%), colonic ischemia (n = 2, 10%), iatrogenic bowel tear (n = 4, 20%), and other (n = 1, 5%). The median time between operations was 3.5 days (range, 2-8). The laparoscopic reintervention was tailored case by case and ranged from lavage and drainage to redo anastomosis with ostomy fashioning. Conversion rate was 10% and overall morbidity was 50%. No cases required additional surgery and 30-day mortality was nil. Three patients (15%) were admitted to intensive care unit for 24-hour surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that in experienced hands and in hemodynamically stable patients, a prompt laparoscopic reoperation appears as an accurate diagnostic tool and an effective and safe option for the treatment of postoperative peritonitis after primary colorectal minimally invasive surgery.

Re-interventions following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: data from 818 individuals from the Dutch surgical colorectal audit

BACKGROUND

The surgical procedure of choice for the resection of colorectal cancer has shifted in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Although increasing data prove advantages of elective laparoscopic surgery, less is known about the results in acute indications such as surgical re-interventions following colorectal resections. This study aims to assess the clinical benefits in recovery following laparoscopic re-interventions compared with open re-interventions following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed an analysis of data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit from January 2010 to December 2012. All patients requiring surgical re-intervention after initial laparoscopic colorectal surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 27,448 patients, 11,856 underwent laparoscopic surgery. Following laparoscopic surgery, 159 patients (1.3%) had a laparoscopic re-intervention, and 659 patients (5.6%) had an open re-intervention. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for patients' demographics and risk factors, the length of hospital stay was 17 days (interquartile range, 11-16 days) for the laparoscopic group and 23 days (interquartile range, 14-37 days) for the open group (odds ratio [OR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.84). In the laparoscopic group the intensive care unit admission rate was 39% compared with 66% in the open group. The 30-day mortality rate was 7 (4%) in the laparoscopic group compared with 89 (14%) in the open group (OR=0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is feasible in selected patients. Because of the unknown extent of selection bias, prospective studies are needed to define the exact position and benefits of laparoscopic re-interventions.

Relaparoscopy for management of postoperative complications following colorectal surgery: ten years experience in a single center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has increasingly become the standard of care for patients who undergo colorectal surgery for both benign and malignant disease. On the basis of this growing experience, there is now an expanded role for laparoscopic approach to postoperative complications after primary colorectal resection. However, there is little literature specific to this topic. We report a ten-year experience with laparoscopic treatment of early complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

From January 2003 to December 2012, a total of 1,292 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery in our department. One hundred and two (7.9%) patients required reoperation for a postoperative complication. Laparoscopy has been also adopted as the preferred procedure for management of postoperative complications. A retrospective review of 84 patients who had relaparoscopy (RL) for postoperative complications, including peritonitis, ureteral injury, bowel obstruction, and bleeding, was performed.

RESULTS

Reoperation was carried out laparoscopically in 79 (94.0%) patients. Five (6.0%) conversions were necessary because of massive colonic ischemia, generalized fecal peritonitis, and lack of working space. The most common finding at RL was anastomotic leakage (57.1%) that was managed by peritoneal lavage and ileostomy in 91.7% of cases. Six percent of patients had negative RL. Overall morbidity rate was 25.0%. Five patients required additional surgery: four (5.1%) after RL and one after a converted procedure. There were five (6.0%) deaths from septic shock, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective tool for management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In this setting, RL represents the first step of re-exploration and treatment, with no delay to conversion to open procedure even in skilled laparoscopic hands.

Surgical re-interventions following colorectal surgery: open versus laparoscopic management of anastomotic leakage

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of colorectal resections are performed laparoscopically each year. In 2010, 42% of all colorectal procedures in The Netherlands were performed laparoscopically. Although the anastomotic leakage rate is 3%-19% of all patients, little is known about laparoscopic options for re-intervention. Our study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic re-intervention compared with open surgery following colorectal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients who required a surgical re-intervention for an anastomotic leak, bowel perforation, or abscess after laparoscopic colorectal surgery between January 2008 and June 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, operative management, morbidity, hospital stay, and mortality were collected and analyzed for each patient.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included. Eighteen patients had a laparotomy following laparoscopy, and 38 patients had a laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopy. The median age was 65 years, with a median body mass index of 26 kg/m(2). Four patients had a previous laparotomy, and 73% had surgery for malignant colorectal disease. The length of hospital stay was 20 days in the laparoscopic group versus 31 days in the open group (P=.044). Six out of 38 versus 7 out of 18 patients required an additional re-intervention (P=.056). Fewer patients developed fascial dehiscence in the laparoscopic group (P=.033). In-hospital mortality was 4 out of 18 in the open group compared with 2 out of 38 in the laparoscopic group (P=.077).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic re-intervention could be a safe and feasible treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These promising results need to be further investigated in a prospective study to reduce uncertainty in the patient's condition and perioperative findings.

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer with versus without prophylactic drainage

PURPOSE

Little has been reported on routine prophylactic abdominal drainage after gastrectomy, especially after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG). We conducted this retrospective study on patients undergoing LADG to evaluate the benefit of routine drainage in LADG procedures.

METHODS

The subjects were 21 patients who underwent surgery for early gastric cancer (EGC) between January 2004 and March 2008. They comprised 10 who underwent LADG with drainage before January 2006 and 11 who underwent LADG without drainage after February 2006. We compared patient and tumor characteristics, operative results, and postoperative outcomes between the groups.

RESULTS

The no-drain group of patients were able to eat their first meal significantly sooner than the drain group patients (P < 0.01); however, the time to start ambulating, passing flatus, and drinking was similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences between the groups in the postoperative complication rate or the postoperative hospital stay. The drain did not seem to add benefit, and no complications due to the lack of drain placement were noted in the no-drain group.

CONCLUSION

Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage after LADG for EGC may not be necessary.

Management of colorectal anastomotic leakage: differences between salvage and anastomotic takedown

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the morbidity associated with 2 strategies of treatment of colorectal anastomotic leakage: surgical drainage of anastomosis with loop ileostomy versus anastomotic takedown.

METHODS

An observational study of patients operated on for ileocolic or colorectal anastomotic leakage between 2001 and 2009. Patients were classified into 2 groups: group 1, salvage of the anastomosis, and group 2, anastomotic takedown. Mortality and morbidity were assessed. Morbidity and mortality of bowel restoration were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included into group 1 and 54 into group 2. Mortality was 15% for group 1 and 37% for group 2 (P = .022). The rate of patients suitable for stoma reversal was 91% for loop ileostomy and 38% for end stoma (P < .001). Morbidity was 18% after loop ileostomy closure and 71% after end stoma reversal (P = .021). Hospitalization was 10 days and 21 days, respectively (P = .009). There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage of anastomosis with loop ileostomy is an effective strategy to control peritoneal sepsis for colorectal anastomotic leakage.

The role of laparoscopic approach for anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a re-laparoscopic approach to manage anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive colorectal resection and to compare its clinical outcomes with those obtained using an open approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data from 1714 patients who underwent colorectal cancer resection from September 2006 to August 2009 at the Korea University Medical Center. Clinical data from a total of 57 surgery patients who developed anastomotic leakage were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six leakage cases were managed laparoscopically, whereas the remaining 31 leakage cases were managed using an open approach. There were no significant differences in age, sex, or other clinical features between patients in the two groups. The total operation time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (107.3 ± 68.1 minutes) than in the open group (126.5 ± 50.1 minutes), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .230). Six cases in each group required additional procedures such as reoperation or percutaneous intervention (P = .126). There was one case of postoperative mortality in the open group. Median (quartiles 25%-75%) number of days required to resume a soft diet tended to be shorter in the laparoscopic group than the open group (5 [3-7] versus 6 [5-10] days; P = .057). Patients in both groups showed similar postoperative complications including intraabdominal abscess; however, the incidence of wound infection was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than the open group (3.8% versus 25.8%; P = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional open treatment of anastomotic leakage, the laparoscopic approach resulted in fewer wound complications and tendency of early recovery of bowel movement without an increase in adverse outcomes. Using a laparoscopic approach, all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery can be realized in patients who develop anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma: Complications and management in 132 consecutive patients

AIM: To analyze the clinical manifestations and risk factors of complications in laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer patients.

METHODS: A series of 132 consecutive patients who received laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer in our center were included. The etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of rectal cancer were studied among the patients with surgery-related complications using both univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS: No conversion to open surgery was observed and 5 cases converted to hand-assisted laparoscopic operation. The overall morbidity rate was 20.5%. Complications occurred during the operation in 7 patients (5.3%), within 30 postoperative days in 24 patients (18.2%), and within 3 mo in 2 patients (1.5%). The most significant complications were anastomotic leakage (9.1%) and anastomotic hemorrhage (5.3%). Size and location of tumor, pathological staging and preoperative nutrition were significant factors associated with LAR complications, while gender, age and pathological type showed no relevance. Binary logistics regression showed that the size and location of tumor, and pathological staging were independent factors of laparoscopic LAR. All the complications were treated during their onset of clinical manifestations by interventional or conservative therapy.

CONCLUSION: Anastomotic leakage is a major complication in laparoscopic LAR. The complications may be associated with tumor size and site, and pathological stage. Interventional therapies are of value in the management of laparoscopic LAR complications.

Anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: the impact of fibrin glue

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the use of fibrin glue as a sealant over an anastomosis is a risk factor for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Prospective data were collected from 223 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic resection without defunctioning stoma.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal resection, followed by the application of fibrin glue over the stapled anastomosis, while 119 underwent surgery alone. No difference in clinically significant leakage was observed between the fibrin and the nonfibrin groups (5.8% vs 10.9%, P = .169). In multivariate analysis, extraperitoneal tumor location and operation duration >220 minutes were independently associated with anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant predictors of anastomotic leakage include extraperitoneal tumor location and operation length >220 minutes. Fibrin glue application over the stapled anastomosis was not found to be significantly associated with anastomotic leakage.

Anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic protectomy can be managed by a minimally invasive approach

PURPOSE

This study was designed to identify the clinical features of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer and to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic management for this problem.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were obtained from 307 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic proctectomy and primary anastomosis. Age, sex, tumor location, tumor stage, body mass index, comorbidities, ileostomy, conversion, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, previous abdominal operation, and hospital stay were analyzed for patients with or without anastomotic leakage. Management and outcome of anastomotic leakage also were analyzed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 29 patients (9.4 percent). Diverting ileostomy was initially fashioned in 65 patients (21.2 percent). Leakage was related to young age, male sex, lower tumor location, and longer operation time. Ten patients (34.5 percent) were successfully managed with conservative treatment. Seventeen patients (58.6 percent) were managed via a laparoscopic approach. Open surgery was performed in two patients who showed diffuse fecal soiling or had previous conversion, respectively. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

When leakage occurs, laparotomy or colostomy is not needed routinely. For surgical intervention, the abdominal cavity should be explored first by laparoscopic visualization because the majority of patients can be successfully managed with laparoscopy and ileostomy.

Multimedia article. Relaparoscopy for salvage surgery in anastomotic recurrence of rectal cancer: feasible and safe

Laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer is technically challenging even for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Therefore, in a locally recurrent rectal cancer not many surgeons would be keen to adopt the relaparoscopy approach. In this video article, we present a case of salvage laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection performed for an isolated anastomotic recurrence developed 13 months after a laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection.

Pelvic drainage for anterior resection revisited: use of drains in anastomotic leaks

BACKGROUND

Although routine pelvic drainage in colorectal surgery has not been justified in randomized controlled trials, nevertheless, many surgical institutes routinely use pelvic drains after anterior resection. Some reports have focused mainly on the effect of a pelvic drain on anastomotic complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of pelvic drainage in the management of anastomotic leak following anterior resection.

METHODS

One hundred and ninety-six patients who underwent elective anterior resection for rectal cancer between April 2001 and June 2006 were included. Surgery was carried out with total or tumour-specific mesorectal excision depending on the anastomotic level. Pelvic drainage was established in all patients using a silastic drain in a closed, gravitational method.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leaks occurred in 21 (10.7%) patients. Changes in drain content suggesting an anastomotic leak were observed in 15 (71.4%) patients, 11 of whom remained asymptomatic. Anastomotic leaks were resolved by conservative treatment with the existing drain in 10 (47.6%) patients and the other 11 (52.4%) required further surgical interventions. In patients who developed anastomotic leaks, the pelvic drain was kept in place for a median duration of 52 days (range 32-169 days). Complications related to the drain included stitch abscess in five patients, herniation of the omentum in two and bowel perforation due to the drain in one patient.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic drainage may act as an early detector of anastomotic leaks and reduce the need for reoperation in selected patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery.

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a new method

BACKGROUND

Conservative treatment of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum seems to be possible in patients who have no occurrence of generalized peritonitis. This report describes a new method of endoscopic management of large anastomotic leakage in these patients.

METHOD

The main feature of this new method is the endoscopically assisted placement of an open-cell sponge connected to a vacuum device into the abscess cavity via an introducer device. The sponge system is changed every 48-72 h.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients with an anastomotic leakage after anterior resection were treated with the endoscopic vacuum therapy. The total duration of endovac therapy was 34.4 +/- 19.4 days. The total number of endoscopic sessions per patient was 11.4 +/- 6.3. In 21 of the 29 patients, a protecting stoma was created at the primary operation. Four patients were treated successfully without the need of a secondary stoma. Definitive healing was achieved in 28 of the 29 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure is a new efficacious modality for treating anastomotic leakage following anterior resection due to an effective control of the septic focus. Further studies will show if it is possible to reduce the high mortality rate of patients with anastomotic leakage through the avoidance of surgical reinterventions while at the same time preserving the sphincter function.

Three-dimensional computed tomography in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma

AIM

To evaluate the usefulness of three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients with colorectal cancer who underwent curative operation at our hospital were enrolled in this study. They were classified into two groups by operative procedures. Sixteen patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic group (LG), while 56 patients underwent conventional open surgery, open group (OG). At our institution, contrast-enhanced CT is routinely performed as part of intra-abdominal screening and the 3D images of the major regional vessels are described. We have previously described about the preoperative visualization of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) by 3DCT. This time we newly acquired 3D images of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA)/superior mesenteric vein (SMV), ileocecal artery (ICA), middle colic artery (MCA), and inferior mesenteric vein (IMV). We have compared our two study groups with regard to five items, including clinical anastomotic leakage. We have discussed here the role of 3DCT in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

RESULTS

The mean length of the incision in LG was 4.625+/-0.89 cm, which was significantly shorter than that in OG (P<0.001). The association between ICA and SMV and SMA was described in the right-sided colectomy. The preoperative imaging of IMA and IMV was created in the rectosigmoidectomy. There was no significant difference in anastomotic leakage between the two groups, but no patients in LG experienced anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

Most of the patients are satisfied with the shorter incisional length following laparoscopic surgery. Preoperative visualization of the major regional vessels may be helpful for the secure treatment of the anastomosis in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: a prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic resection (LR) in the management of extraperitoneal rectal cancer still is unclear. This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term results of laparoscopic and open resection (OR) for low and midrectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective nonrandomized trial comparing patients submitted to OR or LR for low and midrectal cancer at a single institution was conducted.

RESULTS

The study included 191 consecutive patients: 98 patients who underwent LR and 93 who underwent OR. The mean follow-up period was 46.3 months for LR and 49.7 months for OR. The conversion rate for LR was 18.4%. With the use of LR, the mean time for complete patient mobilization was shorter (1.7 vs 3.3 days; p < 0.001) and patients were earlier in passing flatus (2.6 vs 3.9 days; p < 0.001) and stools (3.8 vs 4.7 days; p < 0.01), and in resuming oral intake (3.4 vs 4.8 days; p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was shorter for LR, but the difference did not reach significance (11.4 vs 13 days). Morbidity and mortality rates were similar: LR (24.4% and 1%) and OR (23.6% and 2.2%). Laparoscopic patients presented a higher rate of anastomotic fistulas (13.5% vs 5.1%) and reoperations (6.1% vs 3.2%) but the difference was statistically nonsignificant. Laparoscopic resection presented a significantly lower local recurrence rate (3.2% vs 12.6%; p < 0.05). The cumulative survival and disease-free rates at 5 years were, respectively, 80% and 65.4% after LR and 68.9% and 58.9% after OR (nonsignificant difference). Stage-by-stage comparison showed prolonged cumulative survival for stages III and IV cancer in LR (82.5% vs 40.5%; p = 0.006 and 15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.013, respectively) and a reduced rate of cancer-related death for stage III in LR (11.4% vs 51.9%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with conventional open surgery, LR for low and midrectal cancer is characterized by a faster recovery and similar overall morbidity (but a higher rate of anastomotic leakages), and does not present any adverse oncologic effect.

Estándares de calidad de la cirugía del cáncer de recto

The results of surgery for rectal cancer have classically been measured through indicators such as morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. In the last few years other parameters have been included that evaluate healthcare quality such as the functional results of the surgical technique employed and quality of life. Total resection of the mesorectum, performed by experienced surgeons, is the surgical technique of choice. Currently, the sphincter can be preserved in 70% of patients. Anastomotic dehiscence after anterior resection of the rectum is the most serious complication and the most important risk factor is the height of the anastomosis. The overall dehiscence rate should be less than 15% and operative mortality should be between 2% and 3%. The colonic reservoir improves functional outcome and consequently it is the procedure of choice to reconstruct transit after low anterior resection. Local recurrence should be less than 10% and 5-year survival should be between 70% and 80%. In general, quality of life is better after anterior resection of the rectum than after abdominoperineal amputation, despite the functional deterioration presented by some patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic versus conventional open resection of rectal carcinoma: A clinical comparative study

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of rectal carcinoma and to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic procedure with conventional open surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with rectal cancer were included in a prospective non-randomized study. The patients were assigned to laparoscopic (n = 18) or open (n = 18) colorectal resection. Case selection, surgical technique, and clinical and pathological results were reviewed.

RESULTS: The operative time was longer in laparoscopic resection group (LAP) than in open resection group (189 ± 18 min vs 146 ± 22 min, P < 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were less in LAP resection group than in open resection group. An earlier return of bowel motility was observed after laparoscopic surgery. The overall postoperative morbidity was 5.6% in the LAP resection group and 27.8% in open resection group (P < 0.05). No anastomotic leakage was found in both groups. The pathologic examination showed that the length of the resected specimen, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes in laparoscopic resection group were comparable to those in open resection group.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is a feasible but technically demanding procedure. The present study demonstrates the safety of the procedure, while oncologic results are comparable to the open surgery, with a favorable short-term outcome.