Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: oncological results and clinical outcome of 225 patients

Transanal Inspection and Management of Low Colorectal Anastomosis Performed With a New Technique: the TICRANT Study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is one of the most serious complications after rectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

A prospective multicenter interventional study to assess a newly described technique of creating the colorectal and coloanal anastomosis. The primary outcome was to access the safety and efficacy of this technique in the reduction of anastomotic leak.

RESULT

Fifty-three patients with rectal cancer who underwent low or ultra-low anterior resection were included in the study. There were 35 males and 18 females, with a median age of 68 years (range = 49-89 years). The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm (range = 4-12 cm), and the median body mass index was 24 kg/m² (range = 20-35 kg/m²). Thirty patients underwent open, 16 laparoscopic, and 7 robotic surgeries. Multiple firing (2-charges) was required in 30 patients to obtain a complete rectal division. Forty-five patients had colorectal anastomosis, and 8 patients had coloanal anastomosis. The protective ileostomy was created in 40 patients at the time of initial surgery. There was no mortality in the first 30 days postoperatively, and only 10 (19%) patients developed complications. There were 3 anastomotic leakages (6%); 2 of them were subclinical with ileostomy created at initial operation and both were treated conservatively with transanal drainage and intravenous antibiotics. One patient required reoperation and ileostomy. The median length of hospital stay was 10 days (range = 4-20 days).

CONCLUSION

Our technique is a safe and efficient method of creation of colorectal anastomosis. It is also a universal method that can be used in open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries.

Have early postoperative complications from laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery improved over the past 20 years?

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been increasingly used since 1991 following the publication of the first case series. Since then, several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is challenging with associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine if the rates of early postoperative complications in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have improved over the past 20 years.

METHOD

A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases between August 1991 and August 2011 was conducted using the keywords laparoscopy, rectal cancer and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using linear regression ANOVA performed in GNUMERICS software.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included for analysis. Over the last 20 years there has been no significant change in the rate of any early postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, conversion, sexual, urinary or faecal dysfunction, wound infection, overall morbidity or mortality). However, in the last 3 years, the rate of positive resection margins has decreased significantly (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of a statistically significant change in early postoperative complications until 3 years ago. This may reflect the inherent morbidity associated with rectal surgery regardless of the approach used, the limitations of the current laparoscopic instrumentation or the relatively long learning curve. With increasing experience, a repeat analysis in the near future following the publication of ongoing randomized clinical trials might show improved outcomes.

[Outcomes following rectal and recto-sigmoid cancer resections: comparison of the laparoscopic and open techniques]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Surgical technique and experience are considered as significant determinants of the successful treatment of recto-sigmoid malignancies.

METHODS

Two hundred patients operated on between 2005 and 2009 were prospectively followed with an average of 39.8 months. Patients with rectosigmoid or rectal cancer were included, either with primary resection or resection after neoadjuvant therapy. The primary aim was to assess the average survival in the two groups; secondary outcomes were stage specific survival and the incidence of loco-regional recurrence and distant metastases. Intra- and postoperative complications, operating time, onco-pathological specimen quality and length of stay were also analysed.

RESULTS

During the follow-up comparable rates for 3-year survival and recurrence rates were found without statistical difference. Hospital stay in the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter and the mid-term survival rates were also better in the more advanced stages. Incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of laparoscopic rectal and recto-sigmoid resections were not inferior, and - in some aspects - they were even better compared to open procedures. Adding the properties of the minimally invasive technique (shorter recovery, reduced surgical stress reaction) this should be the preferred method of operative approach.

Long-term oncologic outcome after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrated favorable short- and mid-term results after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, long-term results from large series are lacking. The present study analyses long-term results of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery from a large-volume center.

METHODS

From January 1998 until March 2005, 225 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal resection due to carcinoma at the Medical Centre of the University of Regensburg. From 224 patients, a follow-up over 10 years was performed using the data of the Tumour Centre of the University of Regensburg. The data were analysed using oncological data (tumour recurrence) as well as overall survival. In addition, the effect of conversion to open resection on overall survival was analysed.

RESULTS

With a median of 10 years at follow-up, the overall and disease-free survival was 50.5 and 50.1 %, respectively. Local recurrence of all patients was 5.8 % and none of the converted patients was within this group. The median time interval for the development of local recurrence was 30 months. Six of the 13 patients with local recurrence (46.1 %) had received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy before surgery. Patients with a conversion to open surgery had primarily a significantly worse outcome than patients resected completely laparoscopically (p = 0.003). However, this difference was no longer apparent using a multivariant analysis (hazard ratio 1.221; p = 0.478).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall survival and local recurrence rate of patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer are comparable to open surgery. However, in our analysis, patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection had a higher survival rate compared with patients with abdominoperineal resection.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: outcomes in 513 patients

BACKGROUND

Few reports have demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic resection in patients with rectal cancer (RC). The objective of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic resection for RC, with an emphasis on perioperative variables and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective study was carried out between January 2005 and September 2010 and included 513 patients diagnosed with RC who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Patients with locally advanced RC (cT3/cT4 or N+) received neoadjuvant treatment. Adjuvant treatment was applied to patients with stage II/III disease or according to the neoadjuvant protocol. All patients were followed-up prospectively for the evaluation of complications and oncological outcome. Survival rate analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed on 389 patients, and the remaining 124 patients underwent abdominoperineal resection. Perioperative mortality occurred in only one patient (0.2 %), and 27 (5.3 %) intraoperative complications were recorded. The most common postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage (5.5 %). The conversion rate was 6.4 %. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 23.6 ± 13. The mean distance to the distal margin was 2.6 ± 1.9 (0-7) cm. Distal margin positivity was detected in 9 (1.7 %) patients. The circumferential margin was positive in 39 (7.6 %) cases. After a median follow-up period of 30 (1-78) months, recurrence occurred in a total of 59 patients (11.5 %). Local recurrence was detected in 16 patients (3.1 %), and both local and distant recurrence was found in 7 patients (1.4 %). Distant recurrence only was detected in 43 patients (8.4 %). The overall 5-year survival rate was 84 %, and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.4 %. The local recurrence-free survival rate was 98.4 % at 2 years, 95.7 % at 3 years, and 94.3 % at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results, together with the review of the literature, clearly demonstrate that laparoscopic resection for RC is a feasible method at specialized high-volume centers. The long-term outcomes are at least as good as those from open surgery as long as the principles of oncologic surgery are respected and faithfully performed.

Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted surgery (LAP) with those for open surgery (OS) when excising nonmetastatic rectal cancers.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospectively collected records of all patients (n = 1,009) undergoing OS or LAP from January 2000 to November 2008 at Kyungpook National University Hospital. We undertook propensity score analyses and compared outcomes for the OS and LAC groups in a 1:1 matched cohort. Covariates in the model for propensity scores included age, gender, preoperative tumor marker level, preoperative chemoradiation status, tumor height from the anal verge, and clinical tumor stage. Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the oncologic safety of LAP in patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancers.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in mortality, morbidity, and pathological quality in the propensity-matched cohort (n = 812). The combined 3-year local recurrence rate for all tumor stages was 3.8 % (95 % confidence intervals [95 % CI], 1.9-5.7 %) in the LAP group and 5.9 % (95 % CI, 3.9-8.3 %) in the OS group (P = .089 by log-rank test). The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 80.5 % (95 % CI, 76.6-84.4 %) in the LAP group and 82.9 % (95 % CI 79.2-86.6 %) in the OS group (P = .516 by log-rank test). Similar results were confirmed for the subgroup of patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal excision for rectal cancer is feasible and safe with acceptable oncologic outcomes. Further prospective multicenter trials are warranted before incorporating this technology into routine surgical care.

Different approaches for complete mobilization of the splenic flexure during laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer has already become the standard procedure in many hospitals. The splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is an important preparational step. Several methods are used for laparoscopic SFM; however, studies comparing different approaches are lacking. In the present study, three different approaches for SFM have been compared to each other.

METHODS

Between January 1998 and December 2010, 415 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic rectal resection at one center. Of these, 303 patients received complete splenic flexure mobilization. The SFM was performed using either a medial (SFM-M; n = 41), lateral (SFM-L; n = 214), or anterior (SFM-A; n = 48) approach.

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher rate of intraoperative complications in the SFM-L group as compared to the SFM-M or the SFM-A group (p = 0.038). Postoperative surgical complications occurred in 5 (10.6 %) patients of the SFM-A group compared to 38 patients (17.7 %) in the SFM-L group (p = 0.002) and 5 (12.1 %) patients in the SFM-M group (p = 0.037). SFM-L was also associated with a higher frequency of overall postoperative morbidity which was mainly due to wound infection rates (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The anterior approach for SFM in laparoscopic surgery seems to be associated with lower frequency of intra- and postoperative morbidity.

Current state of the art in laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: Update on the multi-centric international trials

Laparoscopic colectomy is now widely applied to cases of malignancy, supported by early data from several large randomized controlled trials. Long-term follow-up is now available from those trials, supporting equivalency of cancer-free and overall survival for open and laparoscopic resections. This promising data has inspired further exploration of other applications of laparoscopic techniques, including use of single incision laparoscopy. This article reviews recent reports of long-term data for colorectal cancer resection from four randomized, prospective international trials.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: review of published literature 2000-2009

We reviewed seven reports of laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) alone for rectal cancer and 18 reports of laparoscopic surgery, including LAR. We examined the length of surgery, blood loss during surgery, conversion rate to open surgery, incidence of anastomotic leakage, morbidity, mortality, and local recurrence, and the 5-year overall survival rates. The values were as follows (range): length of surgery, 107-540 min vs 23-780 min; blood loss, 0-600 ml vs 0-1800 ml; conversion to open surgery, 0%-14.0% vs 1.0%-21.9%; anastomotic leakage, 0%-23.0% vs 3.0%-17.0%; morbidity, 6.1%-38.6% vs 5.8%-40.0%; mortality, 0%-2.0% vs 05-5.8%; and local recurrence, 1.4%-6.8% vs 0.95%-20.8%, respectively, in the LAR alone vs laparoscopic surgery groups. The 5-year overall survival rates of patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease were 92%-98%, 79%-81%, 67%-89%, and 0%-15%, respectively, in the LAR alone group versus 85.4%-100%, 61.7%-94.4%, 53.7%-78%, and 0%-44.6%, respectively, in the laparoscopic surgery group. Thus, we demonstrated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Clinical impact of lymph node status in rectal cancer

Lymph node status at the time of diagnosis remains one of the principal indicators of prognosis in patients with rectal cancer. Involvement of loco-regional lymph nodes is relevant to surgical and clinical oncologists and continues to impact significantly upon local and systemic management strategies, in both neo-adjuvant and adjuvant settings. In this review, the clinical impact of lymph node status in the surgical management of rectal cancer is considered, with particular reference to the significance of lymphadenectomy and the potential implications for rectal tumours amenable to trans-anal excision. Current standards of care are reviewed and the extent to which the determination of lymph node status influences oncological decisions regarding neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapies are discussed with areas of controversy highlighted.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline.

METHODS

An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.

Can adequate lymphadenectomy be obtained by laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer? Results of a case-control study in 200 patients

AIM

The aim of this study is to compare pathological findings in rectal cancer specimens obtained by laparoscopy or laparotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bowel length, distal and circumferential margins, and number of total and positive nodes harvested were prospectively recorded in specimens obtained from 100 consecutive patients who had a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for cancer. These data were compared with those extracted from a well-matched group of 100 patients who had an open procedure.

RESULTS

The mean length of the specimens was 31.04 cm in the case group and 29.45 cm in the control group (not significant (NS)). All distal margins in both groups were negative. The circumferential margin was positive in four cases in the case group and nine cases in the control group (NS). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 13.76 nodes/patient in the case group and 12.74 nodes/patient in the control group (NS). The mean number of involved lymph nodes was 1.18 node/case in the case group and 1.96 node/case in group 2 (NS).

CONCLUSION

There is no difference between laparoscopic or open approaches concerning specimen's length, distal margin, circumferential margin, and total and positive lymph nodes. Laparoscopic rectal resection is not only technically feasible but it seems also oncologically safe.

Laparoscopic TME in rectal cancer--electronic supplementary: op-video

Background

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has been proved in various studies. The minimal invasive procedure is feasible and safe which was demonstrated in many studies. However, the results of prospective, randomized studies providing valuable evidence are still not available. Compared to conventional surgery, the laparoscopic technique has short-term advantages including less pain, shorter duration of postoperative ileus, less fatigue, better pulmonary function, and less blood loss (Leung et al., Lancet 363:1187–1192, 2004; Braga et al., Dis Colon Rectum 48:217–223, 2005; Jayne et al., J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068, 2007; Agha et al., Surg Endosc 22:2229–2237, 2008).

Methods

The autonomic nerve sparing TME technique is the gold standard in rectal cancer resection even in conventional or laparoscopic procedure. With regard of the oncological dimension, the laparoscopic TME technique is not different compared to the open procedure. However, a standardized laparoscopic step-by-step procedure may simplify the operation and can reduce operation time.

Results

There are no studies available which compare different types of TME procedures. Most surgeons start the operation left laterally mobilizing the sigmoid colon first. In the laparoscopic technique, we recommend the medial to lateral approach starting the operation at the right side of the rectum and sigmoid colon. A nerve sparing TME technique can be performed easier, and the identification of the left ureter may be simplified. After multiple workshops and extensive discussion with national and international experts, we developed a standardized laparoscopic “10 step TME procedure.” Reviewing the results of laparoscopic TME the studies do not allow firm conclusions as to the questions of whether the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic TME is equal or superior to open TME (Breukink et al. 2006). Actually, we are waiting for large prospective randomized studies comparing laparoscopic TME with the traditional open procedure (Bonjer et al., Dan Med Bull 56:89–91, 2009).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic TME appears to have clinically measurable short-term advantages in patients with primary resectable rectal cancer based on evidence mainly from nonrandomized studies (Breukink et al. 5). In nearly all published studies, the efficacy and technical feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer could be demonstrated regarding perioperative morbidity and oncological outcome. A standardized laparoscopic TME technique can be strongly recommended.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00423-009-0556-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.