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

The Multidisciplinary Approach of Rectal Cancer: The Experience of "COMRE Group" Model

Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard to treat locally advanced rectal cancer. This monocentric retrospective study evaluates the results of laparotomic, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in “COMRE GROUP” (REctalCOMmittee). Methods: 327 selected stage I-II-III patients (pts) underwent TME between November 2005 and April 2020 for low or middle rectal cancer; 91 pts underwent open, 200 laparoscopic and 36 robotic TME. Of these, we analyzed the anthropomorphic, intraoperative, anatomopathological parameters and outcome during the follow up. Results: The length of hospital stay was significantly different between robotic TME and the other two groups (8.47 ± 3.54 days robotic vs. 11.93 ± 5.71 laparotomic, p < 0.001; 8.47 ± 3.54 robotic vs. 11.10 ± 7.99 laparoscopic, p < 0.05). The mean number of harvested nodes was higher in the laparotomic group compared to the other two groups (19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 8 laparoscopic, p < 0.001; 19 ± 9 laparotomic vs. 15 ± 7 robotic, p < 0.05). Median follow-up was 52 months (range: 1−169). Overall survival was significantly shorter in the open TME group compared with the laparoscopic one (Chi2 = 13.36, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the experience of the “COMRE” group, laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is a better choice than laparotomy in a multidisciplinary context. Robotic TME has a significant difference in terms of hospital stay compared to the other two groups.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Complications Between Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer

Aim:

To compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer with open surgery.

Methods:

The multiple databases including PubMed, Springer, EMBASE, EMBASE, OVID were adopted to search for the relevant studies, and full-text articles involving the comparison of unilateral and bilateral PVP surgery were reviewed. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among the selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted.

Results:

Finally, 1186 patients were included in the 10 studies, which eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria, and laparoscopic and open surgery group were 646 and 540, respectively. The meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference of the operation time between laparoscopic and open surgery group, while the time to solid intake, hospital stay time, blood loss and complication rate of laparoscopic group are much less than those of open surgery.

Conclusion:

Although both these two punctures provide similar operation time, we encourage the use of the laparoscopic surgery as the preferred surgical technique for treatment of lower rectal cancer due to less time to solid intake, hospital stay time, blood loss and lower complication rate.

Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes in Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personal Experience in a Single Institution

The oncologic merits of the laparoscopic technique for colorectal cancer surgery remain debatable. Eligible patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer who were scheduled for an elective resection by one surgeon in a medical institution were randomized to either laparoscopic or open surgery. During this period, a total of 188 patients received laparoscopic surgery and the other 163 patients received the open approach. The primary endpoint was cancer-free five-year survival after operative treatment, and the secondary endpoint was the tumor recurrence incidence. Besides, surgical complications were also compared. There was no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic groups regarding the average number of lymph nodes dissected, ileus, anastomosis leakage, overall mortality rate, cancer recurrence rate, or cancer-free five-year survival. Even though performing a laparoscopic approach used a significantly longer operation time, this technique was more effective for colorectal cancer treatment in terms of shorter hospital stay and less blood loss. Meanwhile, fewer patients receiving the laparoscopic approach developed postoperative urinary tract infection, wound infection, or pneumonia, which reached statistical significance. For non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better short-term outcomes, whether in several surgical complications and intra-operative blood loss. Though there was no significant statistical difference in terms of cancer-free five-year survival and tumor recurrence, it is strongly recommended that patients undergo laparoscopic surgery if not contraindicated.

[Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic interventions in patients with colon cancer: single-centre experience]

OBJECTIVE

To compare short- and long-term outcomes of treatment in patients with colon cancer undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 281 patients with colon cancer. All patients underwent open (n=144, 51.2%) or laparoscopic (n=137, 48.8%) procedures. Short- and long-term outcomes of treatment were compared in both groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, location of tumors and tumor differentiation grade in both groups. Conversion was required in 10 (7.2%) cases. The median of duration of surgery was greater for laparoscopic procedures (150 min vs. 130 min; p<0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in laparoscopic surgery (100 ml vs. 300 ml; p=0.001). Postoperative mortality was similar (3.5% vs. 2.5%; p=0.5) while incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower after laparoscopic interventions (13.1% vs. 22.2%; p=0.04). There was earlier recovery of the gastrointestinal tract after laparoscopic procedures (2.1±0.9 days vs. 3.6±1.5 days, respectively; p<0.001). The postoperative hospital-stay was significantly less in the 2^nd group (p<0.001). Two-year disease -free and overall survival was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic interventions for colon cancer are followed by similar overall and disease-free 2-year survival and better early outcomes.

Comparing laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for long-term outcomes in patients with stage I to III colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Although the short-term advantages of laparoscopy for colon cancer (CC) over open surgery have been clearly demonstrated, there is little evidence available concerning the long-term outcomes. This study aimed to compare the long-term results of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in a cohort of CC patients from a single center.

METHODS

A series of 443 patients consecutively operated on for stage I to III CC between January 2006 and December 2013 were followed up. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique and were compared for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) before and after 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Due to exclusions and drop-outs, the statistical analysis of the study is based on 398 patients. Open surgery was performed in 133 patients, and laparoscopic surgery was performed in 265. After propensity score matching, two comparable groups of 89 patients each were obtained. The 5-year DFS was 64.3% and 78.2% for patients in the open and laparoscopic resection groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-1.19; P = 0.148]. A 5-year OS of 72.1% and 86.8% was observed in the open and laparoscopic resection groups, respectively (HR 0.43, 95%CI 0.20-0.94; P = 0.026). The multivariate survival analysis demonstrated better results of laparoscopy compared with open surgery for both DFS (HR 0.43, 95%CI 0.23-0.78; P = 0.004) and OS (HR 0.28, 95%CI 0.14-0.59; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our study confirms better results for laparoscopic surgery in terms of DFS and OS compared with open surgery in CC treatment.

Oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic colon cancer resection for T4 lesions: a case-control analysis of 7-years' experience

BACKGROUND

According to many Societies' guidelines, patients presenting with clinical T4 colorectal cancer should conventionally be approached by a laparotomy. Results of emerging series are questioning this attitude.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the oncologic outcomes of 147 patients operated on between June 2008 and September 2015 for histologically proven pT4 colon cancers. All patients were treated with curative intent, either by a laparoscopic or open "en bloc" resection.

RESULTS

Median operative time, blood loss and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative surgical complication rate and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ between the two groups ( p = 0.09 and p = 0.99, respectively). R1 resection rate and lymph nodes harvest, as well, did not remarkably differ when comparing the two groups. In the laparoscopic group, conversion rate was 19%. Long-term outcomes were not affected in patients who had undergone conversion. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (44.6% and 40.3% vs. 39.4% and 38.9%). Locally advanced stages (IIIB-IIIC) and R1 resections were detected as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach might be safe and acceptable for locally advanced colon cancer and does not jeopardize the oncologic results. Conversion to open surgery should be a part of a strategy as it does not seem to adversely affect perioperative and long-term outcomes. We consider laparoscopy, in expert hands, the last diagnostic tool and the first therapeutic approach for well-selected locally advanced colon cancers. Larger prospective studies are needed to widely assess this issue.

More is better: Lymph node harvesting in colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

We sought to determine if lymph node harvesting and survival for CRC were comparable between laparoscopic and open resections in a community hospital setting.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients at two community hospitals who underwent open or laparoscopic resection for CRC between January 2008 and September 2013 was performed.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-one patients had open and 110 had laparoscopic resections. There was no difference between open (17.85) and laparoscopic (18.91) approaches (p = 0.171) in the number of lymph nodes harvested. Patients who had more nodes removed tended toward improved survival, independent of stage (p = 0.052), an effect that was more pronounced in the open resection group (p = 0.031). There was no difference in survival between the open and laparoscopic groups overall (HR 1.52, p = 0.208).

DISCUSSION

No survival advantage was found between the open and laparoscopic resection groups, affirming that the choice of operative approach for CRC does not affect the quality of the oncologic procedure in a community hospital setting. Patients who had more lymph nodes removed tended toward improved survival. The explanation for this effect remains unclear.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

AIM: To evaluate the 5-year survival after laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer.

METHODS: This study enrolled 406 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for stages II and III rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2009 [laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR), n = 152; open rectal resection (ORR), n = 254]. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pathological outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 5-year survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Most of the clinical characteristics were similar except age (59 years vs 55 years, P = 0.033) between the LRR group and ORR group. The proportion of anterior resection was higher in the LRR group than that in the ORR group (81.6% vs 66.1%, P = 0.001). The LRR group had less estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, P < 0.001) and a lower rate of blood transfusion (4.6% vs 11.8%, P = 0.019) compared to the ORR group. The pathological outcomes of the two groups were comparable. The LRR group was associated with faster recovery of bowel function (2.8 d vs 3.7 d, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11.7 d vs 13.7 d, P < 0.001). The median follow-up time was 63 mo in the LRR group and 65 mo in the ORR group. As for the survival outcomes, the 5-year local recurrence rate (16.0% vs 16.4%, P = 0.753), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate (63.0% vs 63.1%, P = 0.589), and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (68.1% vs 63.5%, P = 0.682) were comparable between the LRR group and the ORR group. Stage by stage, there were also no statistical differences between the LRR group and the ORR group in terms of the 5-year local recurrence rate (stage II: 6.3% vs 8.7%, P = 0.623; stage III: 26.4% vs 23.2%, P = 0.747), 5-year DFS rate (stage II: 77.5% vs 77.6%, P = 0.462; stage III: 46.5% vs 50.9%, P = 0.738), and 5-year OS rate (stage II: 81.4% vs 74.3%, P = 0.242; stage III: 53.9% vs 54.1%, P = 0.459).

CONCLUSION: LRR for stages II and III rectal cancer can yield comparable long-term survival while achieving short-term benefits compared to open surgery.

Survival after laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer: a comparative, single-institution study

Background

Some recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer may provide a potential survival advantage when compared with open surgery. This study aimed to compare cancer-related survivals of patients who underwent laparoscopic or open resection of colon cancer in the same, high volume tertiary center.

Methods

Patients who had undergone elective open or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between January 2002 and December 2010 were analyzed. A clinical database was prospectively compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

A total of 460 resections were performed. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic (n = 227) and the open group (n = 233) apart from tumor stage: stage I tumors were more frequent in the laparoscopic group whereas stage II tumors were more frequent in the open group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group (20.0 ± 0.7 vs 14.2 ± 0.5, P < 0.01). The 5-year cancer-related survival for patients undergoing laparoscopic resection was significantly higher than that following open resections (83.1% vs 68.5%, P = 0.01). By performing a stage-to-stage comparison, we found that the improvement in survival in the laparoscopic group occurred mainly in patients with stage II tumors.

Conclusions

Our study shows a survival advantage for patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery for stage II colon cancer. This may be correlated with a higher number of harvested lymph nodes and thus a better stage stratification of these patients.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: An Update (with Special Reference to Indian Scenario)

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, being already declared as gold standard technique, laparoscopic surgery has advanced far and wide, touching almost every corner of the abdomen. This advancement has gradually expanded to colorectal surgery which is done for malignant diseases as well. However, laparoscopic colorectal surgery has not been accepted as quickly as was laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is because of its steep learning curve, concerns with oncological outcomes, lack of randomized control trials (RCTs) and initial reports on high port site recurrences which occurred after curative resections. But all these initial concerns have been overcome by doing a series of RCTs globally, in the past decade, that revealed that laparoscopic colorectal surgery for malignant disease offered short term benefits without compromising on oncological principles of radicality of resection, tumour resection margins and completeness of lymph node harvesting as compared to those of open surgery. Favourable post-operative results with respect to less blood loss, less pain, lesser surgical site infections, lesser requirement of analgesics, early return of bowel function and shorter hospital stay in patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections were obtained in studies done on individual series, including those done in India and more recently, in large trials. An update on recent studies done on laparoscopic colorectal surgery by reviewing many RCTs and individual series, including our experiences, was made, to support the advantages of this procedure which were obtained when it was carried out by skilled hands.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer and to identify independent predictors of survival.

BACKGROUND

Few randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer have reported long-term survival data.

METHODS

Data from the 3 randomized controlled trials comparing curative laparoscopic (n=136) and open surgery (n=142) for upper, mid, and low rectal cancer conducted at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, between September 1993 and August 2007 were pooled together for this analysis. Survival and disease status were updated to February 2012. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and independent predictors of survival were determined using the Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

The demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable. The median follow-up time of living patients was 124.5 months in the laparoscopic group and 136.6 months in the open group. At 10 years, there were no significant differences in locoregional recurrence (5.5% vs. 9.3%; P=0.296), cancer-specific survival (82.5% vs. 77.6%; P=0.443), and overall survival (63.0% vs. 61.1%; P=0.505) between the laparoscopic and open groups. There was a trend toward lower recurrence rate at 10 years in the laparoscopic group than in the open group among patients with stage III cancer (P=0.078). The Cox regression analysis showed that stage III cancer, lymphovascular permeation, and blood transfusion, but not the operative approach, were independent predictors of poorer cancer-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis with a follow-up of more than 10 years confirms the long-term oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Surgical outcome of laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer in obese patients: A comparative study with open colectomy

The aim of the present study was to assess the short-term outcome and survival time of 166 obese patients who received laparoscopic and open colectomy for colorectal cancer (CRC) between January 2007 and December 2012. All 166 patients included in the study had a BMI >28. Laparoscopic or open colectomy procedures were performed on 64 and 102 patients, respectively. The short-term outcome and post-operative survival rates were compared. The patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. Laparoscopic colectomy correlated with an increased duration of surgery compared with open colectomy (183 vs. 167 min, respectively; P<0.05) but intraoperative blood loss was decreased (168 vs. 188 ml, respectively; P<0.05). Hospitalization costs were slightly higher following the laparoscopic procedure compared with open surgery, but this was affordable for the majority of patients (¥56,484 vs. ¥56,161, respectively; P<0.05). The incidence of wound infection (17 vs. 31%; P<0.05) and abdominal abscess rates (6 vs. 18%; P<0.05) were reduced in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group. Pathological characteristics were identified to be similar and no significant differences were identified in overall (log-rank test; P=0.85) and disease-free (log-rank test; P=0.85) survival between the two types of surgery (log-rank test; P=0.76). The current retrospective study demonstrated an improved short-term outcome in laparoscopic colectomy for CRC patients with a BMI >28 compared with patients who underwent the open procedure. Laparoscopic colectomy is technically and oncologically safe and must be popularized in obese CRC patients.

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III colon cancer: results of a prospective multicenter study in Italy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is still debate about the practicality of performing laparoscopic colectomy instead of open colectomy for patients with curable cancer, although laparoscopic surgery is now being performed even for patients with advanced colon cancer. We compared the long-term results of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III carcinoma of the colon in a large series of patients followed up for at least 3 years.

METHODS

The subjects of this prospective non-randomized multicentric study were 290 consecutive patients, who underwent open surgery (OS group; n = 164) or laparoscopic surgery (LS group; n = 126) between 1994 and 2005, at one of the four surgical centers. The same surgical techniques were used for the laparoscopic and open approaches to right and left colectomy. The distribution of TNM substages (III A, III B, IIIC) as well as the grading of carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) were similar in each arm of the study. The median follow-up periods were 76.9 and 58.0 months after OS and LS, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 10 (6.1 %) versus 9 (7.1 %) deaths unrelated to cancer, 15 (9.1 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of local recurrence, 7 (4.2 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of peritoneal carcinosis, and 37 (22.5 %) versus 14 (11.1 %) cases of metastases in the OS and LS groups, respectively. There was also one case of port-site recurrence after LS (0.8 %). The OS group had a significantly higher probability of local recurrence and metastases (p < 0.001) with a significant higher probability of cancer-related death (p = 0.001) than the LS group.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support that LS is safe and effective for advanced carcinoma of the colon. Although the LS group in this study had a significantly better long-term outcome than the OS group, further investigations are needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

Laparoscopic versus open intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: intermediate-term oncologic outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcome and intermediate oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open intersphincteric resection (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection has been proposed as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection for selected low rectal cancer cases, but the oncological adequacy of laparoscopic ISR has not been established.

METHODS

A total of 210 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent ISR between 1997 and 2009 in 2 institutions were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were classified into an open surgery (OS, n = 80) group and a laparoscopy (LAP, n = 130) group. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival.

RESULTS

The major complication rates were similar in the LAP and OS groups (5.4% vs 3.8%, respectively; P = 0.428). However, the LAP group had a shorter hospital stay and time to bowel movement compared with the OS group. In the LAP group, operating time was 16 minutes shorter (P = 0.230) and intraoperative blood loss was less (P = 0.002). Median follow-up was 34 months (interquartile range: 20.0-42.5 months). The local recurrence rates were similar in the 2 groups (LAP, 2.6% vs OS, 7.7%; P = 0.184). The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 82.1% (95% CI: 73.7-90.2%) in the LAP group and 77.0% (95% CI: 66.9%-86.9%) in the OS group (P = 0.523).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ISR can be performed safely and offers a minimally invasive sphincter-sparing alternative. The oncological adequacy of laparoscopic ISR requires long-term follow-up data, but the intermediate-term outcomes seem equivalent to those achieved with OS.

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.

Survival following laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the overall and disease specific survivals of patients who underwent laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer in a high volume tertiary center.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective resection for colorectal cancer (open resection, n = 1,197; laparoscopic resection, n = 814) from January 2000 to December 2009 were included. The operative details, postoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and survival data were collected prospectively. Comparison was made between patients who had laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

The age, gender, medical morbidity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists status were similar in the two groups. Laparoscopic resection was associated with significantly less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The operating mortality and morbidity were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The qualities of the specimens in terms of the distal resection margin and the number of lymph nodes examined were not inferior in the laparoscopic group. With the median follow-up of 40.3 months, the 5-year overall survival (74.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001) and disease specific survival (81.9% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.002) were significantly better in patients with non-disseminated disease in the laparoscopic group. The operative approach was an independent prognostic factor in the overall (risk ratio 1.36, 95% CI 1.093-1.700, p = 0.006) and disease specific (risk ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.005-1.738, p = 0.048) survivals in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer is associated with more favorable overall and disease specific survivals when compared with open resection in a high volume tertiary center.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancers: Current status

Laparoscopy was introduced more than 15 years ago into clinical practice. However, its role in colorectal surgery was not well established for want of better skills and technology. This coupled with high incidences of port site recurrences, prevented laparoscopic surgery from being incorporated into mainstream colorectal cancer surgery. A recent increase in the number of reports, retrospective analyses, randomized trials and multicentric trials has now provided sufficient data to support the role of laparoscopy in colorectal cancer surgery. We, thus, present a review of the published data on the feasibility, safety, short - and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancers. While the data available strongly favors the use of laparoscopic surgery in colonic cancer, larger well powered studies are required to prove or disprove its role in rectal cancer.

Colorectal surgery in a community hospital setting: have attitudes changed because of laparoscopy? A general surgeons' last 5 years experience review

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy is rapidly emerging as the preferred surgical approach to a number of different diseases because it permits a correct diagnosis and accurate treatment; however, it is not yet being applied in a widespread manner in the management of benign or malignant colorectal disease. The aim of this work is to illustrate retrospectively the results of our experience of laparoscopic colorectal surgery carried out in a community hospital over the last 5 years to document its feasibility, safety, and benefits when carried out by general surgeons in this setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2003 and December 2007 a total of 628 patients underwent a colorectal procedure. Among them, 328 (52.2%) were operated on with a laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

In 12 cases, we had to convert to the open approach. Major complications occurred in 3.6% whereas minor occurrences occurred in up to 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if limited by its retrospective design, our experience exhibits that the laparoscopic may well be a safe and effective approach to colon pathology in a community hospital setting. Such features make laparoscopy a challenging alternative to open surgery in the approach to colon disease and it can be proven to be cost-effective without undue risk, as long adequate laparoscopic training is undertaken by the surgeon and proper preparation observed.

Lymph node harvest in colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens: the impact of improved fixation and examination procedures

A review of 1050 pathology reports from colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens examined at the Department of Pathology, Sørlandet sykehus HF, Kristiansand, Norway during the period 1995-2006 revealed a poor performance of most doctors concerning lymph node harvest. A mean of 8.1 nodes per specimen (range 12.3-2.1) and a mean proportion of 22.3% of specimens with ≥12 lymph nodes (range 47.1-0%) were found. A small pilot study was undertaken in 2007 to evaluate the effect of prolonged formalin fixation and the use of a special lymph node fixative [glacial acetic acid, ethanol, water and formaldehyde (GEWF) solution] with regard to the number of retrieved nodes. This showed that one extra day formalin fixation and the use of GEWF solution considerably enhanced the detection of lymph nodes, particularly those of smaller size. Based on these findings, our routines concerning handling of colorectal cancer specimens were changed during 2007. After this time all specimens have been fixed in a mixture of GEWF solution and formalin for at least 48 h and the doctors have been encouraged to find as many lymph nodes as possible. In cases revealing <12 nodes after microscopical examination, the specimens have been re-examined and searched for additional nodes. A review of lymph node retrieval in 423 cases of colorectal cancer during the period 2008-2010 showed that the mean number of nodes per specimen had increased to 16.8 (range 29.0-13.3) and the proportion of specimens with ≥12 nodes to 78.0% (range 96.8-63.6%). Thus, these changes of routines which were easy to implement without significant extra costs have considerably improved lymph node harvest at our department. The use of a special lymph node fixative (e.g. GEWF solution) is highly recommended not only for detection of nodes in colorectal specimens, but also for retrieval of lymph nodes embedded in fat tissue generally.

Is there a role for a strict incision length criterion for determining conversions during laparoscopic colorectal resection?

PURPOSE

There's no consensus about what defines a conversion for laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection (LACR). This study's goal was to assess the utility of a strict incision length (IL) definition of conversion (incision > 7 cm) and compare it with results obtained when the surgeon determined (SD) if a LACR had been successfully completed.

METHODS

The demographic and perioperative data for 580 elective LACRs were reviewed. The short-term outcomes for each conversion definition were determined and compared.

RESULTS

Conversion rates were 22% using the IL definition and 16% via the SD method. Both methods detected significant differences between completed and converted groups regarding the following: incision size, hospital stay, time to flatus, bowel movement, and regular diet as well as rate of wound infection and ileus. The IL method alone detected significant differences in the rate of pulmonary complications and BMI between the completed and converted groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 methods yielded similar results for most parameters. The IL method better separated the patients in regard to 2 parameters. This method is objective and easy to apply; however, it may discriminate against obese patients whose extraction incisions are often longer. A conversion definition that considers BMI and IL is needed.

Randomized clinical trial comparing inflammatory and angiogenic response after open versus laparoscopic curative resection for colonic cancer

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that laparoscopy might confer an oncological advantage in patients undergoing surgery for colonic cancer. A decreased inflammatory and angiogenic response has been proposed. This study compared the local and systemic inflammatory and angiogenic responses after open and laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer.

METHODS

Some 122 patients with colonic cancer were randomized to open or laparoscopic colectomy. Levels of interleukin (IL) 6 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were measured in serum and peritoneal fluid at baseline, then at 4, 12, 24 and 48 h and on day 4 after surgery. Samples obtained on day 4 were tested in an in vitro angiogenesis assay, with measurement of number of capillaries per field and capillary length.

RESULTS

The serum IL-6 level was lower in the laparoscopic group at 4 h (mean(s.d.) 124(110) versus 244(326) pg/dl after open colectomy; P = 0·027). The serum VEGF concentration was also lower in the laparoscopic group at 48 h and day 4 (430(435) versus 650(686) pg/dl; P = 0·001). Overall, local IL-6 and VEGF levels were significantly higher than serum levels but there were no differences between groups. In vitro, postoperative serum and peritoneal fluid samples were potently angiogenic but there were no differences between open surgery and laparoscopy. Rates of tumour recurrence and survival were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in postoperative serum levels of IL-6 and VEGF after open and laparoscopic surgery in patients with colonic cancer, the angiogenic response is comparable in both surgical approaches.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN55624793 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, traditional laparoscopic anterior resection has been used for rectal cancer, offering good functional results compared with open resection and resulting in better early postoperative outcomes. Few studies investigating the role of robot-assisted tumor-specific rectal surgery (RTSRS) have been carried out to show its feasibility. The aim of the study was to verify on a multicentric basis the perioperative and oncologic outcome of RTSRS.

METHODS

One hundred forty-three consecutive patients undergoing RTSR in three centers were reviewed. Pathologic data, and postoperative and oncologic outcome measures were prospectively collected and analyzed by an independent researcher.

RESULTS

A total of 112 restorative surgeries and 31 abdominoperineal resections were carried out. Conversion rate was 4.9%, mean blood loss was 283 ml, and mean operative time was 297 min. The number of harvested nodes (14.1 +/- 6.5) and margin status compared favorably with those of open series (mean distal margin 2.9 +/- 1.8 cm; negative radial margin in 142 cases). The 3-year overall survival rate was 97%, and no isolated local recurrences were found at mean follow-up of 17.4 months.

CONCLUSION

RTSRS is a safe and feasible procedure that may facilitate mesorectal excision. Randomized clinical trials and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate a possible influence of RTSRS on patient survival.

The inflammatory response in transgastric surgery: gastric content leak leads to localized inflammatory response and higher adhesive disease

Background

Risk of gastric spillage during transgastric surgery is a potential complication of NOTES procedures. The aim of this study was to determine risk outcomes from gastric spillage in a rat survival model by measuring local and systemic inflammatory markers, adhesive disease, and morbidity.

Methods

We performed a minilaparotomy with needle aspiration of 2 ml of gastric contents mixed with 2 ml of sterile saline (study group, SG) or 4 ml of sterile saline (control group, CG) injected into the peritoneal cavity of 60 male rats. Inflammatory markers (TNFα, IL-6, and IL-10) were analyzed at 1, 3, 6, and 24 h postoperatively by obtaining plasma levels and peritoneal washings. At necropsy, the peritoneal cavity was examined grossly for adhesions.

Results

Adhesions were seen more frequently in the SG versus the CG (100% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.014). There was a significant difference in the peritoneal TNFα levels in the SG compared with the CG, which peaked 1 h after surgery (p < 0.02). Both peritoneal IL-6 and IL-10 levels were higher in the SG versus the CG, which peaked 3 h after surgery (p < 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively). All peritoneal inflammatory markers returned to undetectable levels at 24 h for both groups. Plasma cytokines were undetectable at all time intervals.

Conclusion

The inflammatory response was found to be a localized and not systemic event, with plasma cytokine levels remaining normal while peritoneal washings revealed a brisk, short-lived localized inflammatory response. There was a significantly higher rate of adhesive disease in the SG compared with the CG; this, however did not translate into a difference in apparent clinical outcome. We conclude that gastric leakage in this NOTES rodent model induces a localized inflammatory response, followed by mild to moderate adhesive disease. This may be important in human NOTES.

The perioperative period is an underutilized window of therapeutic opportunity in patients with colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we address the underlying mechanisms by which surgery augments metastases outgrowth and how these insights can be used to develop perioperative therapeutic strategies for prevention of tumor recurrence.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical removal of the primary tumor provides the best chance of long-term disease-free survival for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Unfortunately, a significant part of CRC patients will develop metastases, even after successful resection of the primary tumor. Paradoxically, it is now becoming clear that surgery itself contributes to development of both local recurrences and distant metastases.

METHODS

Data for this review were identified by searches of PubMed and references from relevant articles using the search terms "surgery," "CRC," and "metastases."

RESULTS

Surgical trauma and concomitant wound-healing processes induce local and systemic changes, including impairment of tissue integrity and production of inflammatory mediators and angiogenic factors. This can lead to immune suppression and enhanced growth or adhesion of tumor cells, all of which increase the chance of exfoliated tumor cells developing into secondary malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Because surgery remains the appropriate and necessary means of treatment for most CRC patients, new adjuvant therapeutic strategies that prevent tumor recurrence after surgery need to be explored since the perioperative therapeutic window of opportunity offers promising means of improving patient outcome but is unfortunately underutilized.

Laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on short-term outcome and survival

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) is an oncologically safe procedure. The impact of conversion to open surgery on outcomes has not been fully elucidated. The aim of the study is to compare short- and long-term outcomes of converted (CR) and not converted (NCR) patients undergoing LRR.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a prospective database of LRR performed between 1999 and 2008. Statistical analysis employed the chi-squared or Wilcoxon test and Kaplan-Meier estimation.

RESULTS

Of 173 patients undergoing LRR, 26 (15%) required conversion. No differences in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and T and N stages were observed between CR and NCR patients. Conversion was associated with higher body mass index (BMI) (27.3 versus 24.9 kg/m(2), P < 0.001) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV (26.9% versus 4.8%, P < 0.001), and resulted in longer operative time (342 versus 285 min, P = 0.006) and increased intraoperative complication rate (31% versus 5%, P < 0.001). No differences were observed in postoperative outcome between CR and NCR patients. After a mean follow-up of 46 and 36 months, 5-year disease-free survival was 55.7% in CR group and 79.2% in NCR group (P = 0.007). After exclusion of stage IV patients from the analysis, 5-year disease-free survival was 71.1% in CR group and 85.3% in NCR group (P = 0.17), while the overall recurrence rate was 26.3% in CR patients and 11.4% in NCR patients (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that conversion to open surgery does not affect postoperative outcome, but could have a negative impact on long-term overall recurrence rate. LRR should be performed by experienced surgeons in selected patients.

Conversion of laparoscopic colon resection does not affect survival in colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and open resections of colon cancer are considered oncologically equivalent treatment methods. Conversion of laparoscopic procedures, however, was associated with decreased survival in colon cancer patients in the only prior study examining this question. We conducted this study to evaluate the effect of conversion on survival.

METHODS

A series of consecutive patients treated with laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer (n = 174) in the period 1998-2003 was evaluated retrospectively. Median follow-up was 51 months with a minimum of 3 years.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between laparoscopically completed and converted groups (22/143, 15.4% versus 8/31, 25.8%; OR 1.9, p = 0.164). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis did not show any survival difference between the two groups (p = 0.266).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest there is no survival difference in patients requiring conversion of laparoscopic resection indicated for colorectal cancer. Further examination of this question is warranted to determine whether laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer should be offered to all patients, including those at high risk for conversion.

Implantación de la cirugía laparoscópica de colon en un servicio de cirugía general

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the viability, safety and short-term results of laparoscopic colon surgery during the first few years after its introduction in our department.

METHOD

Between January 2002 and December 2005, laparoscopic surgery was performed in patients with surgical indication for benign colon disease. After 2003, patients with malignant disease were also included. A database was created and demographic data, surgical indication, technique, conversion rate, morbidity and postoperative length of stay were recorded. All patients were operated on by the same team of three surgeons.

RESULTS

Ninety consecutive patients, with a mean age of 59.2 years (20-88) underwent laparoscopic surgery. Of these, 53 were men (59%). In total, 32 patients had previously undergone one or more open laparotomies (35.5%). Surgery was indicated for benign disease in 60 patients (66%). Distribution was left colon in 79 patients and right colon in 11 patients. The most frequent technique was sigmoidectomy (67.7%). The conversion rate was 12.2%. Operating time was 199 min. (120-340) and length of postoperative stay was 7.5 days (4-57). Morbidity was 18.8% and mortality was 1.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery of the colon is safe and reproducible. Our short-term results are similar to those of previous studies. We believe that prior experience of laparoscopic surgery is important and that a stable surgical team minimizes the effect of the learning curve.

Impact of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer on operative outcomes and survival

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic and open resections for colorectal cancer. Comparison of colectomy in 2 consecutive periods (period 1: January 1996-May 2000; period 2: June 2000-December 2004), with laparoscopic surgery being a surgical option in period 2, was also performed.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Prospective data of 1134 patients (448 in period 1; 656 in period 2) who underwent elective resection for colon and upper rectal cancer (above 12 cm from anal verge) were analyzed.

METHODS

The operative outcome and survival were compared between patients who underwent laparoscopic and open resection in period 2. The outcomes of colorectal resections in the 2 periods were also compared.

RESULTS

During period 2, the operative mortality rates of patients with laparoscopic (n = 401) and open resection (n = 255) were 0.8% and 3.7%, respectively (P = 0.022), and the morbidity rates were 21.7% and 15.7%, respectively (P = 0.068). The patients who underwent laparoscopic resection had significantly earlier return of bowel function, earlier resumption of diet, and shorter hospital stay. The 3-year overall survivals in those with nondisseminated disease were 74.4% and 78.8% for open and laparoscopic resection, respectively (P = 0.046). The operative morality rates were 4.4% and 2.6% in period 1 and period 2, respectively (P = 0.132). The 3-year overall survivals for patients with nondisseminated disease were 69.7% and 76.1% for period 1 and period 2, respectively (P = 0.019). The overall survivals in patients who underwent open resection in the 2 periods were similar (P = 0.284).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term favorable outcome of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer was confirmed and improvement of survival was observed with the practice of laparoscopic resection.

What is a meant when a laparoscopic surgical procedure is described as “safe”?

BACKGROUND

The literature on laparoscopic surgery contains many studies concluding that a procedure is "safe." This study aimed to review systematically articles from the past 10 years that judged a laparoscopic technique for colon resection and anastomosis to be "safe."

METHODS

The authors searched the Medline database from January 1995 to August 2005 using the search terms "laparoscopic," "colon," and "safe," selecting studies of laparoscopic colon resection or laparoscopic techniques of colonic anastomosis. They calculated exact 95% confidence intervals around estimates of the risk for death reported in the studies to determine the upper limit of the possible risk for death in a study reporting no deaths.

RESULTS

Of 135 studies matching the search criteria, 41 (30%) described operations involving laparoscopic colonic resection or anastomosis. These studies enrolled a mean number of 233 subjects. There were 26 retrospective studies, 12 prospective studies, 2 randomized control trials, and 1 case report. The estimated upper 95% confidence limits for studies reporting mortality ranged from 1.66% to 97.5%. Of the studies that reported mortality and concluded that laparoscopic colon surgery is "safe," 77.8% could not exclude a mortality rate higher than 5%.

CONCLUSION

Many studies concluding that laparoscopic colon surgery is "safe" could not exclude a high risk of operative mortality. The term "safe" is not a useful descriptor of the relative safety of laparoscopic surgical procedures, and statements about the safety of a surgical procedure should be justified with precise estimates and confidence intervals of the risk for adverse events.

Anterior resection of rectal cancer through a one hand-size incision with or without laparoscopy: proposal of one hand-size incision surgery (OHaSIS)

BACKGROUND

One hand-size incision surgery (OHaSIS) is a surgery that is carried out through one hand-size incision with or without laparoscopy. Safety, feasibility and recovery advantage of the anterior resection of rectal cancer by the OHaSIS were studied.

STUDY DESIGN

Nineteen consecutive patients with rectal cancer, consisting of seven rectosigmoid, six upper rectal, and six lower rectal cancers, were treated with anterior resection, including seven high, six low, three super-low, and three partial intersphincteric resections, through a suprapubic longitudinal one hand-size incision. The initial 11 patients were treated in combination with laparoscopy and the following eight patients were treated without laparoscopy.

RESULTS

All anterior resections with mesorectal excision were completed in a safe manner with acceptable operative time (average 245 min), blood loss (average 280 g), and postoperative complications without any elongation of the initial incision. When compared with 12 previous high and low anterior resections by conventional open surgery (OS), the 13 high and low anterior resections by the OHaSIS showed equivalent operative time, blood loss, anastomotic procedures of single stapling, lymph node numbers dissected, surgical margin of the anal side of the tumor, and complications. Moreover, analysis of perioperative parameters for surgical invasiveness, including a body temperature >37 degrees C, days of bed rest, and days of use of parenteral narcotics, revealed a recovery advantage in the OHaSIS group compared with that in the OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that anterior resection for patients with rectal cancer by the OHaSIS is safe, feasible, and less invasive than conventional OS, and has sufficient operative performance. Although the survival benefit and recurrence rate by this approach must be ensured in a future trial, we would like to propose the new concept of OHaSIS for treating rectal cancer.