Comparison of conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted oncologic segmental colonic resection

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, specimen extraction: transanal or transabdominal?

BACKGROUND

Comparison of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in colorectal surgery remains controversial. Herein, we aimed to perform a retrospective analysis on surgical outcomes of NOSE and TASE at three hospitals in east of Iran.

METHOD

Consecutive locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery using either NOSE or TASE from 2011 to 2017 were recruited. These patients were followed-up till 2020. Data, including postoperative complications, long-term overall and recurrence-free survival were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

239 eligible patients were included in this study. 169 (70.71%) patients underwent NOSE, and 70 (29.29%) patients underwent TASE. Although this study has achieved similar outcomes in terms of overall and recurrence-free survival, metastasis, circumferential margin involvement as well as complications of intra-operative bleeding, obstruction, anastomosis-fail, rectovaginal-fistula in women and pelvic collection/abscess in both groups, we observed higher rates of locoregional recurrence, incontinency, stenosis and the close distal margins involvement in NOSE group and also obstructed defecation syndrome in TASE cases.

CONCLUSION

According to our findings, NOSE laparoscopic surgery showed significantly higher incontinency, impotency, stenosis and involvement of the close distal margins rates. Nevertheless, considering the similarity of long-term overall and recurrence-free survival, metastasis, circumferential margin involvement, NOSE procedure is still could be considered as a second choice for lower rectal adenocarcinoma patients.

Hand Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes from a Single Tertiary Referral Centre

The aim of this study was to report overall experience, perioperative and long-term survival results in a single tertiary referral center in Lithuania with hand assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for colorectal cancer. A prospectively maintained database included 467 patients who underwent HALS for left-sided colon and rectal cancer, from April 2006 to October 2016. All those operations were performed by three consultant surgeons and nine surgical residents, in all cases assisted by one of the same consultant surgeons. There were 230 (49.25%) females, with an average age of 64 ± 9.7 years (range, 26–91 years). The procedures performed included 170 (36.4%) anterior rectal resections with partial mesorectal excision, 160 (34.26%) sigmoid colectomies, 81 (17.35%) left hemicolectomies, 45 (9.64%) low anterior rectal resections with total mesorectal excision, and 11 (2.25%) other procedures. Stage I colorectal cancer was found in 140 (29.98%) patients, 139 (29.76%) stage II, 152 (32.55%) stage III and 36 (7.71%) stage IV. There were five conversions to open surgery (1.1%). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.9 ± 3.4 days (range, 1–30 days). In total, 33 (7.06%) patients developed postoperative complications. The most common complications were small bowel obstruction (n = 6), anastomotic leakage (n = 5), intraabdominal abscess (n = 4) and dysuria (n = 4). There were two postoperative deaths (0.43%). Overall, 5-year survival for all TNM stages was 85.7%, 93.2% for stage I, 88.5% for stage II and 76.3% for stage III. Hand assisted colorectal surgery for left-sided colon and rectal cancer in a single tertiary referral center was feasible and safe, having all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, with good perioperative parameters, adequate oncological quality and excellent survival.

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.

High Rates of Incisional Hernia After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy With Midline Extraction Site

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery aims at reducing wound complications and improving cosmetics, among other advantages. High rates of postoperative ventral hernia (POVH) are observed after laparoscopic-assisted colectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a 2011 to 2016 retrospective study of all patients at Rabin Medical Center, we examined POVH prevalence after right hemicolectomy for neoplasia and correlation to specimen extraction site. We also compared laparoscopic-assisted colectomy to hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy. Included were patients who had postoperative abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan as part of their routine oncological follow-up to 6 months postsurgery. Patients were excluded for conversion to laparotomy, and prior abdominal surgeries after right colectomy and before follow-up computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging scan. Demographic and surgical data were collected from patient electronic records, and scans reviewed for POVH by a designated radiologist.

RESULTS

Of 370 patients, 138 (mean age 70.09 y, 58 males) were included: 54 (39.1%) were diagnosed with POVH, 42/72 (58.3%) at midline extraction site, and 12/66 (18.8%) at off-midline extraction sites (P<0.0001). Surgical site infections and patients positive for tumor metastasis were associated with higher POVH rates. Most (74%) POVHs were identified within 18 months postsurgery (P<0.0001). Body mass index, age, sex, diabetes mellitus, smoking, tumor size, lymph nodes positive for metastasis, and hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy were not associated with POVH prevalence.

CONCLUSION

High rates of radiologically diagnosed POVH were found after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, with association to midline extraction site, surgical site infections, and positive tumor distant metastasis.

Construction of a preoperative scoring system to predict the difficulty level of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background

We attempted to examine the factors contributing to the difficulty in performance of colorectal ESD, with the aim of constructing a scoring system that could help in prediction of the difficulty level of the procedure.

Methods and materials

The data were analyzed from two viewpoints: to determine the factors contributing to 1) non-en bloc resection and the factors contributing to 2) a slow resection speed. Factors falling under these two categories contributing to difficulty in performance of ESD were extracted and used to construct a scoring system. The validity of this scoring system was evaluated by calculating the correlation between the score and the resection speed in a different dataset.

Results

Based on the results of our analysis, we assigned scores for various factors as follows: 4 points for EMR of a scarred lesion, 1 point for tumors with a diameter of ≥ 30 mm, 2 points for lesions located in the liver/splenic flexure, 1 point for lesions located in the transverse colon, 3 points for LST-NG-PD/depressed lesions, 1 point for protruded lesions and LST-NG-F lesions (range 0–10). In the validation study, the rank correlation coefficient between the score according to the scoring system and the resection speed was -0.130, representing a weak and negative correlation (P = 0.03). We defined the difficulty level depending on the sum of the scores: 0–2, low difficulty level; 3–5, intermediate difficulty level; ≥ 6, high difficulty level. The average resection speed was 12.6 mm²/min in the group with scores of 0–2, 8.1 mm²/min in the group with scores of 3–5, and 5.5 mm²/min in the group with scores of ≥ 6 (11.2 mm²/min in all lesions).

Conclusion

Our colorectal ESD scoring system would be useful for selection of operators with the appropriate skill level in the procedure for colorectal ESD cases.

Transanal versus transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective analysis from China

Introduction

Comparison of transanal specimen extraction (TSE) and transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in laparoscopic rectal surgery is still sparsely reported. Trauma, pain, scarring, and bad psychological suggestion have long been considered an inevitable outcome of surgery. For laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, whether TSE or TASE is beneficial in terms of technical platforms, indications, contraindications, technical requirements for aseptic operation, tumor-free operation, prevention and treatment of complications still has not reached a unified consensus and standards. Recently, comparison of TSE and TASE in laparoscopic rectal surgery has still been sparsely reported.

Aim

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the short-term outcomes of TSE and TASE in laparoscopic rectal surgery in a single institution in southern China.

Material and methods

Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery using either TSE or TASE were recruited. Data, including patient demographics, perioperative and postoperative variables, were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

Sixty-seven patients were included in this study. Thirty patients underwent TSE and 37 patients underwent TASE. The two groups were similar in demographics and tumor characteristics. Postoperative complications were similar in both groups, except that wound infection was lower for the TSE group (p = 0.122). The TSE group had a better cosmetic result with no abdominal incision and no differences in circumferential margins, distal resection margins or completeness of total mesorectal excision.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic TSE is recommended in the treatment of rectal cancer with similar oncologic outcomes compared with conventional TASE. It is mini-invasive surgery and has the advantage of better cosmetic results. There is a need for further randomized studies to refine the applicability of laparoscopic TSE in rectal cancer.

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.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

In recent years, the use of laparoscopic surgery has been expanded to include radical curative resection. In a previous study, 212 patients with primary colorectal cancer (stages I-III) underwent radical curative resection by hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (n=98) or conventional laparotomy (CL) (n=114) and were compared with respect to 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS). The study included 210/212 patients who were followed up to 5 years, including 96 patients who underwent HALS and 114 treated with CL. The two groups were matched for stage, clinical background, and postoperative management. Patient characteristics were compared and the 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS were determined. The 5-year follow-up rate was 97.6%. In stage I-III patients, 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS showed no significant differences between HALS and CL. The patients with stage I disease accounted for 41.7% (40/96) of the patients undergoing HALS, while stage I patients only accounted for 23.7% (27/114) of the patients undergoing CL, and the difference was significant (P=0.005). Stage II patients undergoing CL were older than those treated with HALS (P=0.017). However, there were no differences in the characteristics of stage III patients undergoing HALS or CL. In conclusion, HALS achieved a similar survival to CL in patients with stage I to III colorectal cancer. Compared with CL, HALS was performed more safely and achieved superior cosmetic results.

Comparative Study on Therapeutic Efficacy Between Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery and Conventional Laparotomy for Acute Obstructive Right-Sided Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aims to compare open colectomy and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in the management of acute obstructive right-sided colon cancer and to analyze and evaluate the feasibility and safety of HALS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy due to acute obstructive right-sided colon cancer were retrospectively well matched with 25 patients scheduled for a conventional laparotomy during the same time. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were assessed.

RESULTS

The HALS group had the advantage in the length of incision (5.8±0.7 cm) over the conventional group (16±2.3 cm) (P<.05), and the mean blood loss during the operations was significantly less in the HALS group (30±15.2 mL) than in the laparotomy group (90±29.4 mL) (P<.05). Moreover, the time of postoperative ambulation was earlier (2.5±0.8 days versus 3.2±0.9 days) (P<.05). Seven cases underwent intestinal decompression for severe intestinal dilatation and had a satisfactory result. The hand-assisted device can fairly meet the demands of a minimally invasive operation and can protect the abdominal incision and avoid infection. There was no intergroup difference in complication rate, although the conventional group had a higher rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, compared with conventional laparotomy for acute obstructive right-sided colon neoplasm, HALS is associated with less blood loss, shorter incision, and earlier ambulation. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy can be safely performed in patients with obstructing right-sided colonic carcinoma. If practiced more, it might be advocated as a bridge between the conventional open approach and traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for rectal cancer: Interim results from a single center

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has become widespread and the indications for such surgery have recently been extended to various conditions, including rectal cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy (CL) in patients with rectal cancer. Patients who underwent radical resection of stage I-III primary rectal cancer (n=111) were classified into those receiving HALS (n=57) and those receiving CL (n=54); the two groups were matched for stage and postoperative treatment. The 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS) were calculated and compared between the two groups. Intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative hospital stay and complications were also compared between the two groups. There were no significant differenceS in 3Y-RFS or 3Y-OS between the HALS and CL groups for patients with all-stage (I, II and III) rectal cancer. The mean (median) intraoperative blood loss was 344.0 (247.0) ML in the HALS group vs. 807.5 (555.5) ML in the CL group (P<0.001). The mean (median) postoperative hospital stay was 19.8 (17) and 25.5 (18.3) days, respectively (P=0.039). There were no significant differences in the operating time or the incidence of complications between the two groups. Based on these results, HALS was found to be comparable to CL regarding survival, while achieving less blood loss and a superior cosmetic outcome. However, longer follow-up is required to confirm these findings.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery using tissue fusion devices and open resection for treatment of rectosigmoid carcinoma

Modern tissue fusion devices used in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), a method of combining endoscopic surgery with tactile sensation, can minimize surgical trauma and hospitalization times beyond both conventional laparoscopy and open surgery. The outcomes of HALS using tissue fusion devices and conventional open surgery for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma were compared. A total of 78 (45 males, 33 females; mean age, 57.2±11.7 y) rectosigmoid carcinoma patients underwent HALS surgery (HALS group) and 78 age-matched, sex-matched, and tumor status-matched rectosigmoid carcinoma patients (control group) underwent open resection between June 2008 and June 2010. In the HALS and control groups, abdominal incision length, intraoperative blood loss, procedure time, postoperative abdominal drainage, time to first flatus (bowel function return), length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and pathology were assessed. Procedure times were similar in both groups (142.37±42.09 vs. 137.56±36.24 min). However, length of abdominal incision (5.14±0.47 vs. 13.17±2.41 cm), intraoperative blood loss (125.96±75.58 vs. 142.56±65.37 mL), need for postoperative analgesia, bowel function return (68.01±22.64 vs. 79.77±19.94 h), and postoperative hospital stay (6.47±1.73 vs. 7.73±1.71 d) were all significantly improved in the HALS group. At a median follow-up of 26 months, no significant differences in anastomotic recurrence were observed between groups (1 case/each group). Thus, the HALS approach for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma was found to be similarly safe and effective compared with open resection. Furthermore, HALS may improve postoperative recovery and reduce hospitalization times.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for colorectal cancer: Interim results from a single institution

The present study aimed to compare the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy (CL) at a single institution in Japan. Of the 212 patients with stage I/II/III colorectal cancer who received a curative resection, 98 patients underwent HALS and 114 patients underwent CL. The clinical background and post-operative management did not differ between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the 3-year relapse-free and 3-year overall survival rates between the HALS and CL groups for the patients in any stage. Blood loss during surgery was 250.1 and 135.5 ml (mean and median; the same hereafter) in stage I patients receiving HALS versus 608.2 and 315.5 ml in stage I CL patients (P=0.006), while it was 277.6 and 146 ml in stage II patients receiving HALS versus 548.6 and 347 ml in stage II CL patients (P=0.004). Post-operative hospital stay was recorded at 16.8 and 15 days in stage III patients receiving HALS versus 23.1 and 21 days in stage III CL patients (P=0.001). There were no significant differences in the operating time or complications between the two groups. These results indicate that the survival rate was comparable for HALS and CL, while HALS caused less surgical stress and achieved a better cosmetic outcome. The results of the final analysis of this cohort are awaited.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.

Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann procedure for the emergency treatment of diverticulitis: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach has been proposed to reduce the high morbidity and mortality associated with the Hartmann procedure for the emergency treatment of diverticulitis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to determine whether a laparoscopic Hartmann procedure reduces early morbidity or mortality for patients undergoing an emergency operation for diverticulitis.

DESIGN

This is a comparative effectiveness study. A subset of the entire American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program patient sample matched on propensity for undergoing their procedure with the laparoscopic approach were used to compare postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open groups.

SETTING

This study uses data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant User Files from 2005 through 2009.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent an emergency laparoscopic or open partial colectomy with end colostomy for colonic diverticulitis were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were 30-day mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

Included in the analysis were 1186 patients undergoing emergency partial colectomy with end colostomy for diverticulitis. Among the entire cohort, the laparoscopic group had fewer overall complications (26% vs 41.7%, p = 0.008) and shorter mean length of hospitalization (8.9 vs 11.6 days, p = 0.0008). Operative times were not significantly different between groups. When controlling for potential confounders, a laparoscopic approach was not associated with a decrease in morbidity or mortality. In comparison with a propensity-match cohort, the laparoscopic approach did not reduce postoperative morbidity or mortality.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by its retrospective nature and the absence of pertinent variables such as postoperative pain indices, time for return of bowel function, and rates of readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach to the Hartmann procedure for the emergency treatment of complicated diverticulitis does not significantly decrease postoperative morbidity or mortality in comparison with the open technique.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus total laparoscopic right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer is associated with definite short-term benefits, and is increasingly practised worldwide. The limitations of a pure laparoscopic approach include a relative lack of tactile feedback and long procedural time. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was introduced in an attempt to facilitate operation by improving the tactile sensation. To date, there is no consensus as to which approach is better. Herein we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with total laparoscopic colectomy (TLC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer.

METHODS

Adult patients with carcinoma of the caecum and ascending colon were recruited and randomized to undergo either HALC or TLC. Measured outcomes included operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative morbidities, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, disease recurrence and patient survival.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (HALC=30, TLC=30) were recruited. The two groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, body mass index and final histopathological staging. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of operating time, conversion rate, operative blood loss, pain score and length of hospital stay. With a median follow-up of 27 to 33 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83%vs 80%, P=0.923).

CONCLUSION

HALC is safe and feasible, but it does not show any significant benefits over TLC in terms of operating time and conversion rate. Routine use of the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique in right hemicolectomy is therefore not recommended.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.

Early multi-institution experience with single-incision laparoscopic colectomy

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy represents a potential advance in minimally invasive surgical approaches to colorectal disease. Although widely promoted, outcome data are virtually absent. A group of highly experienced laparoscopic attending colorectal surgeons convened to standardize technique and prospectively record operative details and outcomes.

METHODS

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy was performed by 10 experienced attending colorectal surgeons with minimal or no prior single-incision laparoscopic colectomy experience. Surgeon rating of ergonomics and 15 components of operation conduct was compared with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic colectomy. Patient demographics, operative details, and outcome data were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine single-incision laparoscopic colectomies were performed (25 right colectomies, 5 ileocolic resections, 8 sigmoidectomies, and 1 low anterior resection). Underlying pathology included polyps (12), cancer (15), Crohn's disease (5), and diverticulitis (7). Patients were highly selected with a mean body mass index of 25.6 (range, 16-40). Two conversions to open resection occurred, 1 because of fistula and 1 because of adhesions, in patients with a mean body mass index of 34. An additional port was required in 3 patients. Mean incision length was 4.2 cm (range, 2.5-8) and operative time was 120 minutes (range, 68-210). Complications included 1 wound infection and 2 anastomotic bleeds requiring transfusion. Average length of stay was 4.4 days (range, 2-8). Mean lymph node harvest was 19 (range, 12-39). Exposure, instrument conflict, ergonomics, ease of instrumentation, and camera operation were rated significantly more difficult with single-incision laparoscopic colectomy than with multiple-port laparoscopic colectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary data demonstrate that single-incision laparoscopic colectomy can be performed safely in selected patients by experienced surgeons. The benefits of single-incision compared with multiple-port laparoscopic colectomy are not immediately evident. Despite the advanced skills of the faculty, a learning curve of undetermined length still exists in which specific components of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy are more difficult than multiple-port laparoscopic colectomy, and areas of focus remain that require advances to make single-incision laparoscopic colectomy equivalent to multiple-port laparoscopic colectomy. The multi-institutional registry will enable further analysis of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery: initial experience of a single surgeon

BACKGROUND/AIM

As totally laparoscopic colorectal surgery is considered challenging and technically demanding with a long steep learning curve, we adopted hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery as a bridge to totally laparoscopic assisted colorectal surgery. This prospective study aims to highlight the initial experience of a single surgeon with this technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective analysis of the first 25 cases of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal resections which were performed by a single surgeon over a 15-month period. There were 15 males and 10 females with a mean age of 55.5 (range 20-82) years.

RESULTS

The indication in majority of cases was cancer (76%). The procedures consisted of 18 (72%) various colectomies and 7 (28%) anterior resections. The operative time ranged between 110-400 (mean 180) min. There was one conversion (4%) and the mean operative blood loss was 80 (range 60-165) ml. The number of lymph nodes retrieved in the cancer cases was 5-31 (mean 15) nodes. The mean length of hospital stay was five (range 3-10) days. The total number of short-term complications was six (24%) and there was one death due to anastomatic leak and multiorgan failure. Long-term complications after a maximum follow up of 30 months were two incisional hernias at the hand port site, but none of the patients developed adhesive small bowel obstruction or late anastomotic stricture. Currently all our colorectal procedures are conducted laparoscopically.

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal procedures are easy to learn as a good bridge to master totally laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Controversy of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Laparoscopically assisted colorectal procedures are time-consuming and technically demanding and hence have a long steep learning curve. In the technical demand, surgeons need to handle a long mobile organ, the colon, and have to operate on multiple abdominal quadrants, most of the time with the need to secure multiple mesenteric vessels. Therefore, a new surgical innovation called hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in the mid 1990s as a useful alternative to totally laparoscopic procedures. This hybrid operation allows the surgeon to introduce the non-dominant hand into the abdominal cavity through a special hand port while maintaining the pneumoperitoneum. A hand in the abdomen can restore the tactile sensation which is usually lacking in laparoscopic procedures. It also improves the eye-to-hand coordination, allows the hand to be used for blunt dissection or retraction and also permits rapid control of unexpected bleeding. All of those factors can contribute tremendously to reducing the operative time. Moreover, this procedure is also considered as a hybrid procedure that combines the advantages of both minimally invasive and conventional open surgery. Nevertheless, the exact role of HALS in colorectal surgery has not been well defined during the advanced totally laparoscopic procedures. This article reviews the current status of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery as a minimally invasive procedure in the era of laparoscopic surgery.

Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the da Vinci S HD robotic system in mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma, with the aim to identify areas of potential advantage for the robot in this procedure.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of 44 consecutive cases of robot-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma performed between August 2005 and February 2010. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and complications were evaluated and compared with similar published reports and relevant literature.

RESULTS

There were 28 (63.6%) men and 16 (36.4%) women, with a mean age of 63 years. The majority of patients were either overweight or obese and 88.7% of lesions were in the mid or low rectum. We performed 36 low anterior resections (6 intersphincteric) and 8 abdominoperineal resections with a median blood loss of 150 mL (range, 50-1000), a median operative time of 347 minutes (range, 155-510), and a median length of stay of 5 days (range, 3-36). The median lymph node yield was 14 (range, 5-45) and the circumferential resection margin was negative in all patients. We had 1 distal margin positivity (2.7%), 2 anastomotic leaks (5.6%), 1 death (2.7%), and 2 conversions (4.5%) to the open approach. No robot-associated morbidity occurred in this series.

CONCLUSIONS

This series compares favorably with similar published reports with regard to the safety and feasibility of robotic assistance in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. The lower conversion rates reported for robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy require validation in large randomized trials.

Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with smaller surgical incisions than those of traditional midline laparotomy. However, most colorectal resections and all hand-assisted procedures require an incision either for specimen retrieval or insertion of the hand-assist device. The ideal site of this incision has not been evaluated with respect to the incidence of incisional hernia. This study compares the rates of incisional hernia associated with a standard midline laparotomy, a midline incision of reduced length, and a Pfannenstiel incision.

METHODS

From March 2004 to July 2007, 512 consecutive patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into three groups depending on the type of incision (open, midline, and Pfannenstiel). Demographic variables, rate of incisional hernia, and risk factors for hernia were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

There were 142, 231, and 139 patients in the open, midline, and Pfannenstiel groups, respectively. All three groups were comparable with respect to age, gender, steroid use, diabetes, number of patients with malignancy, and duration of follow-up. The Pfannenstiel group had a higher mean BMI (p = 0.015) and the open group had a higher rate of wound infection (28.2%) compared to the other groups. Incidence of incisional hernia was similar for the open and midline groups (19.7 and 16%, p = 0.36). At a mean follow-up of 17.5 months, not a single patient with a Pfannenstiel incision developed an incisional hernia (p < 0.001). BMI (p = 0.019), follow-up (p < 0.001), and Pfannenstiel incision (p < 0.001) were found to be predictors (protectors) of incisional hernia on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

A Pfannenstiel incision is associated with the lowest rate of incisional hernia and should be the incision of choice for hand assistance and specimen extraction in minimally invasive colorectal resections wherever applicable.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery: feasibility, short-term, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an established alternative to laparoscopic-assisted surgery, but limited data exist regarding its applicability for colorectal cancer (CRC). We report short-term outcomes in a large series of CRC patients who underwent HALS between 2004 and 2009.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify all CRC patients. Patients with colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) were considered separately. Three patients with synchronous CC and RC were excluded. Data are frequency (%) or median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2009, 323 CRC patients underwent a HALS procedure. Median age was 65 (53-73) years, 39% were women, and the median BMI was 27 (24-31) kg/m(2). Diagnoses included 194 colon cancers (CC, 56.7% stage I/II), 129 rectal cancers (RC, 62.7% stage I/II). Operative time was less for CC than RC (157 vs 204 min; P < .0001). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in similar proportions of CC and RC cases (14% vs 10%; P = .38); lymph nodes retrieval was also similar (18 vs 18; P = .45). Overall duration of stay was 5 (4-7) days. At 30 days, postoperative complications occurred in similar proportions of CC and RC patients (28% vs 30%; P = .72). There was 1 mortality (0.5%). For the subgroup with 3 year follow-up, (73 CC and 45 RC patients), the overall survival was 80% and 88% (CC and RC, respectively), and disease free survival 79% and 85%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Colon and rectal cancer can be resected safely using HALS techniques. Conversion rates are low, complication rates expected, durations of hospital stay shorter, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved is high.

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

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been introduced as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. This study compared the efficacies and short-term clinical outcomes between hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection (HAL-AR) and conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CL-AR) for treating left-sided colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 248 patients who underwent anterior resection for colon cancer (118 HAL-AR and 128 CL-AR) between May 2000 and December 2006. The collected data included the perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the HAL-AR and CL-AR groups, except for the operation time and the size of the primary tumor. The operation time of the HAL-AR group was significantly shorter than that of the CL-AR group (p = 0.004), and the size of the primary tumor in the HAL-AR group was significantly larger than that of the CL-AR group (p = 0.019). The operating time of the HAL-AR group reached an earlier mean plateau than did that of the CL-AR group. Before and after reaching the plateau, there were no differences in the perioperative results between the two groups. The operating time for the HAL-AR group was significantly shorter than that of the CL-AR group after reaching a plateau (p = 0.012). The short-term outcomes for both groups were similar in terms of survival and recurrence (p = 0.996 and p = 0.476, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection has a shorter operative time than does CL-AR and is more successful than CL-AR for resecting larger tumors, while both procedures result in similar short-term oncologic outcomes. Hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is thought be a comparable operative technique for anterior resection of left-sided colon cancer.

Longterm complications of hand-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) requires a larger incision compared with standard laparoscopic surgery (SLS). Whether this leads to more longterm complications, such as incisional hernia (IH) and small bowel obstruction (SBO), has not been studied to date. This study compares the rates of SBO and IH after HALS and SLS in patients undergoing operations for colon and rectal diseases.

STUDY DESIGN

From a colorectal database, 536 consecutive patients were identified who underwent bowel resection using HALS (n = 266) and SLS (n = 270) between 2001 to 2006. All medical records were reviewed, and all subjects were contacted by telephone for accurate followup. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests, where appropriate.

RESULTS

Median followup was 27 months (range 1 to 72 months). Overall conversion rate was 2.2% (SLS, n = 4; HALS, n = 8). Median incision size in HALS (75 mm; range 60 to 140 mm) was larger than SLS (45 mm; range 30 to 130 mm; p < 0.01). Despite the larger wound, the incidence of IH was similar between both approaches (HALS, n = 16 [6.0%] versus SLS, n = 13 [4.8%]; p < 0.54). Rate of SBO was also comparable (HALS, n = 11 [4.1%] versus SLS, n = 20 [7.4%]; p = 0.11). Wound infections occurred similarly between both groups (HALS, n = 18 [6.8%]; SLS, n = 13 [4.8%]; p = 0.33). Converted patients had a higher rate of IH compared with nonconverted ones (25% versus 5%; p = 0.02), although the rate of SBO was similar (8.3% versus 5.7%; p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

HALS does not lead to more longterm complications of IH and SBO when compared with SLS for resections of the colon and rectum.

Hand-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of benefits of laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted colectomies (LAC) over open procedures in gastrointestinal surgery has continued to accumulate. With its wide implementation, technical difficulties and limitations of LAC have become clear. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in an attempt to facilitate the transition from open techniques to minimally invasive procedures. Continuing debate exists about which approach is to be preferred, HALS or LAC. Several studies have compared these two techniques in colorectal surgery, but no single study provided evidence which procedure is superior. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out comparing HALS with LAC colorectal resection.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Embase Cochrane) and cross-reference search. The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Minimal outcome criteria for inclusion were operating time, conversion rate, hospital stay, and morbidity.

RESULTS

Out of 468 studies a total of 13 studies were selected for comprehensive review. Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 non-RCTs, comprising 1017 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Because of possible clinical heterogeneity two groups of procedures were created: segmental colectomies and total (procto)colectomies. In the segmental colectomy group significant differences in favor of the HALS group were seen in operating time (WMD 19 min) and conversion rate (OR of 0.3 conversions). In the total (procto)colectomy group a significant difference in favor of the HALS group was seen in operating time (WMD 61 min).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that HALS provides a more efficient segmental colectomy regarding operating time and conversion rate, particularly accounting for diverticulitis. A significant operating time advantage exists for HALS total (procto)colectomy. HALS must therefore be considered a valuable addition to the laparoscopic armamentarium to avoid conversion and speed up complicated colectomies.