A comparative study on the short-term clinicopathologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery for transverse colon cancer

Clinical and survival outcomes of colectomy for transverse colon cancer in elderly patients

It remains controversial whether elderly patients with transverse colon cancer present worse prognoses. Our study utilized evidence from multi-center databases to evaluate the perioperative and oncology outcomes of radical resection of colon cancer in elderly and nonelderly patients. In this study, we analyzed 416 patients with transverse colon cancer who underwent radical surgery from January 2004 to May 2017, including 151 elderly (aged ≥ 65 years) and 265 nonelderly (aged < 65 years) patients. We retrospectively compared the perioperative and oncological outcomes between these 2 groups. The median follow-up in the elderly and nonelderly groups was 52 and 64 months, respectively. There were no significant differences in the overall survival (OS) (P = .300) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P = .380) between the elderly and nonelderly groups. However, the elderly group had longer hospital stays (P < .001), a higher complication rate (P = .027), and fewer lymph nodes harvested (P = .002). The N classification and differentiation were significantly associated with OS based on univariate analysis, and the N classification was an independent prognostic factor for OS based on multivariate analysis (P < .05). Similarly, the N classification and differentiation were significantly correlated with the DFS based on univariate analysis. However, multivariate analysis indicated that the N classification was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (P < .05). In conclusion, the survival and surgical outcomes in elderly patients were similar to nonelderly patients. The N classification was an independent factor for OS and DFS. Even though elderly patients with transverse colon cancer present a higher surgical risk than nonelderly patients, performing radical resection in elderly patients can be an appropriate choice for treatment.

Minimally invasive vs. open segmental resection of the splenic flexure for cancer: a nationwide study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CNN)

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the efficacy of minimally invasive (MI) segmental resection of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is not available, mostly due to the rarity of this tumor. This study aimed to determine the survival outcomes of MI and open treatment, and to investigate whether MI is noninferior to open procedure regarding short-term outcomes.

METHODS

This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all consecutive SFC segmental resections performed in 30 referral centers between 2006 and 2016. The primary endpoint assessing efficacy was the overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included cancer-specific mortality (CSM), recurrence rate (RR), short-term clinical outcomes (a composite of Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications and 30-day mortality), and pathological outcomes (a composite of lymph nodes removed ≧12, and proximal and distal free resection margins length ≧ 5 cm). For these composites, a 6% noninferiority margin was chosen based on clinical relevance estimate.

RESULTS

A total of 606 patients underwent either an open (208, 34.3%) or a MI (398, 65.7%) SFC segmental resection. At univariable analysis, OS and CSM were improved in the MI group (log-rank test p = 0.004 and Gray's tests p = 0.004, respectively), while recurrences were comparable (Gray's tests p = 0.434). Cox multivariable analysis did not support that OS and CSM were better in the MI group (p = 0.109 and p = 0.163, respectively). Successful pathological outcome, observed in 53.2% of open and 58.3% of MI resections, supported noninferiority (difference 5.1%; 1-sided 95%CI - 4.7% to ∞). Successful short-term clinical outcome was documented in 93.3% of Open and 93.0% of MI procedures, and supported noninferiority as well (difference - 0.3%; 1-sided 95%CI - 5.0% to ∞).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with SFC, the minimally invasive approach met the criterion for noninferiority for postoperative complications and pathological outcomes, and was found to provide results of OS, CSM, and RR comparable to those of open resection.

Laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with transverse colon cancer: short-term and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating the outcomes after laparoscopic resections of transverse colon cancers are scant. This manuscript aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic (Lap) and open procedures for transverse colon carcinomas.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent resection for a cancer located in the transverse colon between 2003 and 2019 were reviewed. Patients were categorized according to the surgical approach (Lap versus open) and groups were compared. Outcome measures were the short-term results, complications and functional recovery; moreover, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared overall and after propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, sex, ASA classification, BMI, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, use of postoperative chemotherapy, location of tumour, stage and grading, operation time, blood loss and complications.

RESULTS

Of 248 transverse resections reviewed, 146 (81 Lap and 65 open) were selected for data analysis. Blood loss, fluid intake and the incidence of wound infection were significantly lower and the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Lap group (P < 0.001). The operation time and incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or above) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Mean follow-up was of 75.4 months in the Lap group and 78.6 months in the open group. Regression analyses showed that OS was associated with the postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (hazard ratio 1.18 (95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.27); P < 0.001), BMI (hazard ratio 0.81 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 0.96); P = 0.017), operation time (hazard ratio 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.97 to 1.00; P = 0.010), and postoperative chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.27 (95 per cent c.i. 0.08 to 0.96); P = 0.042), while RFS was associated with the postoperative CEA level (hazard ratio 1.13 (95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 1.20); P < 0.001). PSM selected 42 patients for data comparison of long-term results, and showed no significant differences between groups (RFS: P = 0.530; OS: P = 0.561).

CONCLUSION

Lap and open resections for transverse colon cancer provided similar outcomes in terms of severe post-operative complication and long-term results.

Reduced port versus open right hemicolectomy for colorectal cancer: a retrospective comparison study of two centers

PURPOSE

The concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) in right-sided colorectal cancer is well known for open and laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of reduced port and open surgery for right-sided colorectal cancer.

METHODS

One hundred forty-one patients received elective surgery for right-sided colonic cancer between January 2015 and December 2019 and were included in a retrospective database.

RESULTS

We observed longer operation time in the RP-CME group (145 min vs. 119.43 min, p<0.01). Hospital stay (8 days vs. 14 days, p<0.01) and time to first intestinal passage (42 h. vs. 59 h, p<0.01) were significantly shorter in the reduced port group. Postoperative complications were more likely to be observed in the O-CME group (7.2% vs. 14.1%, p=0.28); anastomotic leakage rate was low in both groups (1.8% vs. 2.4%, p=1.00). Specimen scores (score 1= good: 93.8% vs. 91.7%, p=1.00) and average number of retrieved lymph nodes were comparable (24 vs. 23 p=0.69). In O-CME patients, we observed more advanced tumor stages (UICC III: 21.4% vs. 45.9%, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing reduced port to open surgery for right-sided colorectal cancer. We could demonstrate that this technique is feasible for oncological right hemicolectomy with observation of shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates compared to open surgery. The oncological outcome did not differ in the present study.

What is the best surgical procedure of transverse colon cancer? An evidence map and minireview

Colorectal cancers comprise a large percentage of tumors worldwide, and transverse colon cancer (TCC) is defined as tumors located between hepatic and splenic flexures. Due to the anatomy and embryology complexity, and lack of large randomized controlled trials, it is a challenge to standardize TCC surgery. In this study, the current situation of transverse/extended colectomy, robotic/ laparoscopic/open surgery and complete mesocolic excision (CME) concept in TCC operations is discussed and a heatmap is conducted to show the evidence level and gap. In summary, transverse colectomy challenges the dogma of traditional extended colectomy, with similar oncological and prognostic outcomes. Compared with conventional open resection, laparoscopic and robotic surgery plays a more important role in both transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. The CME concept may contribute to the radical resection of TCC and adequate harvested lymph nodes. According to published studies, laparoscopic or robotic transverse colectomy based on the CME concept was the appropriate surgical procedure for TCC patients.

Laparoscopic versus open radical resection for transverse colon cancer: evidence from multi-center databases

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic approach is still a controversy for transverse colon cancer. Our investigation aimed to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open radical resection for transverse colon cancer based on evidence from multi-center databases.

METHODS

416 patients with transverse colon cancer undergoing radical surgery were analyzed including 181 laparoscopic resections and 235 open resections from January 2004 to May 2017 based on multi-center databases. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

No statistical differences regarding the baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups except the procedure type. Compared with open approach, laparoscopic approach was associated with statistically longer operation time (209.96 vs. 173.31 min, P = 0.002), significantly shorter time to soft food intake (4.73 vs. 6.01 days, P = 0.034), and shorter postoperative hospitalization (12.05 vs. 14.44 days, P = 0.001). In terms of oncologic outcomes, laparoscopic resection was correlated with statistically more lymph node retrieval (13.52 vs. 15.91, P = 0.002) and similar 5-year overall survival (91.2% vs. 89.1%, P = 0.356) and disease-free survival (89.6% vs. 86.0%, P = 0.873), compared with open resection.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with transverse colon cancer, laparoscopic approach can achieve several short-term advantages without decreasing long-term oncologic survival.

Application and outcomes of a standardized lymphadenectomy in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy requiring ligation of the middle colic artery

BACKGROUND

Complete mesocolic excision with central vessel ligation may be important for accurate staging and improving the prognosis of right-sided colon cancer. Although the procedure is often performed laparoscopically, approaching the middle colic artery (MCA) is technically demanding, especially when complete ligation of arteries at their roots is desired. We standardized our laparoscopic approach by establishing the dissection boundary along the superior mesenteric artery to achieve D3 lymphadenectomy in the region of the MCA. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, on the basis of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes, the feasibility and safety of our technique METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients with cancer located at the ascending colon and transverse colon who had laparoscopic right hemicolectomy requiring ligation of the MCA.

RESULTS

There were 41 patients (22 males, median age 71 years [range 49-86] years). The median operation time was 285 min, and blood loss volume was 40 mL. Conversion to open surgery was required in 1 case. Complications that were Clavien-Dindo grade III or above occurred in 3 patients (7.3%). There was no anastomotic leakage. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 46.

CONCLUSIONS

Our technique was shown to be a safe, feasible, and useful strategy for performance of right hemicolectomy requiring ligation of the MCA in cases of colon cancer. The technique facilitates maximal lymph node dissection. Having obtained favorable outcomes, we look forward to investigation into long-term outcomes.

Comparing the safety, efficacy, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy in transverse colon cancer: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In order to compare the safety, efficacy, and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic (LC) and open colectomy (OC) for transverse colon cancer (TCC) patients, the present systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was designed.

METHODS

This study was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic screening of the electronic databases was performed (Medline, Web of Science and Scopus). The validity of the pooled results was verified through the performance of trial sequential analysis (TSA). The level of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 studies and 2498 patients were included in our study. Pooled comparisons and TSA analyses reported a superiority of LC over OC in terms of postoperative complications (OR 0.64, p = 0.0003), blood loss (WMD - 86.84, p < 0.00001), time to first flatus (WMD - 0.94, p < 0.00001) and oral diet (WMD - 1.25, p < 0.00001), and LOS (WMD - 2.39, p < 0.00001). Moreover, OC displayed a lower operation duration (p < 0.00001). A higher rate of complete mesocolic excision (p = 0.001) was related to OC. Although inconclusive in TSA, the recurrence rate in LC group was lower. LC and OC were equivalent in terms of postoperative survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering several limitations of the eligible studies and the subsequent low level of evidence, further RCTs of a higher quality and methodological level are required to verify the findings of our meta-analysis.

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic versus open surgery in transverse and descending colon cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancer remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of this procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a single-institutional randomized controlled trial. Patients with transverse or descending colon cancer were randomly allocated to receive laparoscopic surgery (LAC) or conventional open surgery (OC). The primary endpoint was the overall complication rate between the two groups. The secondary endpoints were the length of the postoperative hospital stay, the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score (at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery), the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS), and the 5-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Between August 2008 and October 2012, a total of 66 patients were enrolled (33 in the LAC group and 33 in the OC group). The patient characteristics showed no significant differences between the two groups. The complication rates (≥ grade 3) were 6.1% in the LAC group and 12.1% in the OC group (p = 0.392). The length of postoperative stay was not significantly different between the two groups. Regarding the HRQOL, the physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, social functioning, mental health, and role component summary at 1 month after surgery and the social functioning and mental health at 6 months after surgery were better in the LAC group than in the OC group. The 5-year RFS and OS rates were similar between the LAC and OC groups (RFS 90.5% and 87.3%, respectively, p = 0.752; OS 93.3% and 100.0%, respectively, p = 0.543).

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancer are almost equal to those of open surgery. Laparoscopic resection is a better choice than open surgery for managing this cancer with regard to the short- and mid-term QOL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01861691 .

Laparoscopic Versus Open Transverse Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The survival benefits, oncological adequacy, effectiveness, and safety of laparoscopic transverse colectomy (LTC) were compared with that of open transverse colectomy (OTC) using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane library, and Google scholar databases were searched for the last 20 years. Meta-analyses were performed using both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival were estimated using the inverse variance hazard ratio method.

RESULTS

No survival benefits were detected between the two LTC and OTC cohorts. OTC showed shorter operative time by 38 min compared to LTC [mean difference (MD) = 38(15.23-60.77), p = 0.001]. However, LTC was associated with earlier postoperative recovery. The time to flatus and time to oral intake for LTC were MD = -1.12(-1.68 to -0.55, p = 0.001) and MD = -1.57(-2.38 to -0.76, p = 0.001), respectively. In addition, LTC was associated with a shorter hospital stay by 4.5 days [MD = -4.64(-7.52 to -1.75), p = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to OTC, LTC provides similar survival benefits, earlier postoperative recovery, and shorter hospital stay by 4.5 days.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy in Adults with Complicated Appendicitis: an Update of the Literature

AIMS

To review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendicectomy (OA) in complicated appendicitis in adult patients, eight years after the last literature review.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to search the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases and extract relevant data. Methodological and quality assessment was undertaken with outcome meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, type of study and year of study. Assessment of clinical and statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was conducted.

RESULTS

Three randomised control trials (RCTs) (154LA vs 155OA) and 23 case-control trials were included (2034LA vs 2096OA). Methodological quality was low to average but with low statistical heterogeneity. Risk of publication bias was low, and meta-regression indicated shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) in more recent studies, Q = 7.1, P = 0.007. In the combined analysis LA had significantly less surgical site infections [OR = 0.30 (0.22,0.40); p < 0.00001] with reduced time to oral intake [WMD = -0.98 (-1.09,-0.86); P < 0.00001] and LOS [WMD = -3.49(-3.70,-3.29); p < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference in intra-abdominal abscess rates [OR = 1.11(0.85,1.45); p = 0.43]. Operative time was longer during LA [WMD = 10.51 (5.14,15.87); p = 0.0001] but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.13) in the RCT subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LA appears to have significant benefits with improved morbidity compared to OA in complicated appendicitis (level of evidence II).

A meta-analysis of short-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery on colorectal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to study the superiority and safety of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopy in rectal cancer is still not recommended as the treatment of choice by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Laparoscopic rectal surgery is more complex and technically demanding, especially for mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A computer-based online research of retrospective or prospective studies addressing laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery for colorectal carcinoma published in the last 11 years was performed in electronic database (Wangfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Medical Current Contents, Pubmed, Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cohrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Selective trials were analyzed by the Review Manager 5.2 software.

RESULTS

A total of 9 clinical trials, involving a total of 4747 patients, were identified. A meta-analysis showed that operating time was not significantly different between the 2 groups [WMD = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -55.68 to 56.60, P = .99], intraoperative blood loss in laparoscopic surgery group was less than conventional open surgery group (WMD = -64.66, 95% CI: -87.31 to 42.01, P < .01); No significant difference in the number of lymph node retrieved from postoperative pathologic specimens was found between the 2 groups (WMD = -0.75, 95% CI: -1.72 to 0.23, P = .14); Postoperative time to flatus in laparoscopic surgery group was earlier than that in open surgery significantly (WMD = -1.22, 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.91, P < .01). The cases of postoperative complications were significantly different between the 2 groups, which showed that the cases of laparoscopic surgery group were less than those of open surgery group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.52∼0.72, P < .01]; Moreover, hospital stay of laparoscopic surgery group was shorter than that of open surgery that showed significant difference (WMD = -2.38, 95% CI:-3.30 to -1.46, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery are superior than conventional open surgery that include more safety and feasibility, and is expected to be a standardization operation method for colorectal carcinoma.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for transverse and descending colon cancer: Short-term and long-term outcomes of a multicenter retrospective study of 1830 patients

INTRODUCTION

Previous randomized controlled trials demonstrated similar oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomies, except for cases involving transverse colon and splenic flexure colon cancer. The objective of this study was to confirm the oncological safety and advantages of the short-term results of laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancer in comparison with open surgery.

METHODS

The study data were retrospectively collected from the databases of 45 hospitals. Patients with transverse or descending colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic or open R0 resection were registered. The primary end-points were the 3-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates according to pathological stage. The secondary end-points were the short-term results, including blood loss, operative time, diet intake, hospital stay, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of the 1830 eligible patients, 872 underwent open colectomy and 958 underwent laparoscopic colectomy. The median follow-up period was 38.4 months. The conversion rate to open resection was 4.5%. The 3-year overall survival rate of the laparoscopic group was significantly higher than that of the open group for stage I patients (96.2% vs 99.2%; P = 0.04); it was also higher for stage II (94.0% vs 95.5%) and stage III (87.4% vs 90.2%) patients, but there were no significant differences. The 3-year relapse-free survival rate of the laparoscopic group was significantly higher than that of the open group for stage I patients; there were no differences between the open and laparoscopic groups among the stage II and III patients. In the multivariate analyses, laparoscopic resection was a significant factor in relapse-free survival. Laparoscopic patients had significantly lower blood loss and a significantly longer operative time than the open groups. Also, postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter and postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Although this retrospective study has limitations, we can conclude that laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancer is oncologically safe and yields better short-term results than open surgery.

Laparoscopic vs open approach for transverse colon cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Transverse colon malignancies have been excluded from all randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic against open colectomies, potentially due to the advanced laparoscopic skills required for dissecting around the middle colic vessels and the associated morbidity. Concerns have been expressed that the laparoscopic approach may compromise the oncological clearance in transverse colon cancer. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the laparoscopic (LPA) to the open (OPA) approach by performing a meta-analysis of long and short term outcomes.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases were interrogated. Selected studies were critically appraised and the short-term morbidity and long term oncological outcomes were meta-analyzed. Sensitivity analysis according to the quality of the study, type of procedure (laparoscopic vs laparoscopically assisted) and level of lymphadenectomy was performed. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were also investigated.

RESULTS

Eleven case control trials (1415 patients) were included in the study. There was no difference between the LPA and the OPA in overall survival [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.83 (0.56, 1.22); P = 0.34], disease free survival (p = 0.20), local recurrence (p = 0.81) or distant metastases (p = 0.24). LPA was found to have longer operative time [Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 45.00 (29.48, 60.52); P < 0.00001] with earlier establishment of oral intake [WMD = -1.68 (-1.84, -1.53); P < 0.00001] and shorter hospital stay [WMD = -2.94 (-4.27, -1.62); P = 0.0001]. No difference was found in relation to anastomotic leakage (p = 0.39), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.25), lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

LPA seems to be safe with equivalent oncological outcomes to OPA and better short term outcomes in selected patient populations. High quality Randomized control trials are required to further investigate the role of laparoscopy in transverse colon cancer.

An evidence-based medicine approach to the laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer

During the 1990s, laparoscopic resection was established as a treatment for gastrointestinal malignant tumors.　A number of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery with conventional open colorectal surgery for colon cancer have been conducted.　These trials have shown short-term benefits, and the vast majority demonstrated no significant difference in long-term outcomes.　Laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery is widely performed for the treatment of colon cancer, whereas laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery for rectal cancer is less commonly performed.　In recent years, there have been an increasing number of reports of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery for rectal cancer, where improving short-term outcomes was shown, but no definitive effect on long-term survival has been shown to date.　Randomized controlled trials focusing on long-term survival are currently ongoing.

Operative Method for Transverse Colon Carcinoma: Transverse Colectomy Versus Extended Colectomy

BACKGROUND

The type of surgery performed for primary transverse colon cancer varies based on tumor characteristics and surgeon perspective. The optimal oncological outcome following different surgical options has not been clearly established, and transverse colectomy has shown oncological equivalence only in small cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare long-term oncological outcomes after transverse colectomy versus extended resection for transverse colon cancer.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital.

METHOD

All patients treated for transverse colon cancer at the Samsung Medical Center between 1995 and 2013 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Oncological outcomes were compared between 2 groups of patients: a transverse colectomy group and an extended colectomy group (which included extended right hemicolectomy and left hemicolectomy).

RESULTS

A total of 1066 patients were included, of whom 750 (70.4%) underwent extended right hemicolectomy, 127 (11.9%) underwent transverse colectomy, and 189 (17.7%) underwent left hemicolectomy. According to univariate analysis, surgical approach, histological type, tumor morphology, cancer T and N stage, cancer size, and lymphovascular invasion were significant factors contributing to disease-free survival (DFS). However, as seen in multivariate analysis, only node-positive disease (HR = 2.035 (1.188-3.484)), tumors with ulcerative morphology (HR = 3.643 (1.132-11.725)), and the presence of vascular invasion (HR = 2.569 (1.455-4.538)) were significant factors for DFS. Further analysis with a propensity-matched cohort between the transverse and extended colectomy groups demonstrated no significant differences in DFS and overall survival.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited because it was performed at a single institution and it was retrospective in nature.

CONCLUSION

In terms of perioperative and oncological outcomes, transverse colectomy and extended colectomy did not differ despite a shorter specimen length and fewer lymph nodes harvested in the transverse colectomy group. Independent prognostic factors for DFS were node-positive disease, the presence of vascular invasion, and ulcerative morphology.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for transverse colon cancer: a retrospective multicenter study

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for transverse colon cancer.

Patients and methods

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent surgery for transverse colon cancer at six Hallym University-affiliated hospitals between January 2005 and June 2015. The perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes were compared between laparoscopic and open surgery.

Results

Of 226 patients with transverse colon cancer, 103 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 123 underwent open surgery. There were no differences in the patient characteristics between the two groups. Regarding perioperative outcomes, the operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (267.3 vs 172.7 minutes, P<0.001), but the time to soft food intake (6.0 vs 6.6 days, P=0.036) and the postoperative hospital stay (13.7 vs 15.7 days, P=0.018) were shorter in the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (20.3 vs 24.3, P<0.001). The 5-year overall survival (90.8% vs 88.6%, P=0.540) and disease-free survival (86.1% vs 78.9%, P=0.201) rates were similar in both groups.

Conclusion

The present study showed that laparoscopic surgery is associated with several perioperative benefits and similar oncologic outcomes to open surgery for the resection of transverse colon cancer. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery offers a safe alternative to open surgery in patients with transverse colon cancer.

A Study of 101 Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgeries: a Single Surgeon Experience. How Important Is the Learning Curve?

This study aims to document demographic and intraoperative variables and short-term postoperative outcomes in patients being operated by laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgeries and assessing the magnitude of impact of the learning curve on surgical results. This study included 101 patients with colonic or rectal pathology getting operated for laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgeries carried out by the same surgeon over 5 years (2008 to 2013). The patient data was retrospectively analyzed for pre-decided variables. Also, comparison was made between the surgeries performed during the learning curve of initial 30 cases with subsequent operations. Laparoscopic colorectal surgeries give satisfactory results in terms of intraoperative parameters like surgical duration, blood loss, and clinico-pathologic parameters like lymph nodal resection and distal and circumferential margins. Patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgeries fare better in short-term postoperative period while early long-term outcomes appear similar as compared to the standard open colorectal surgeries. The surgical outcomes, both intraoperative and early postoperative, improve significantly once the learning curve is negotiated. Laparoscopic Surgery can be safely used as an alternative to conventional open colorectal surgeries without compromising on oncological principles.

Meta-analysis of the risk of small bowel obstruction following open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

One of the potential advantages of laparoscopic compared with open colorectal surgery is a reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction events. Early reports support this proposal, but accumulated evidence is lacking.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials and observational studies by searching the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from 1990 to August 2015. The primary outcomes were early and late postoperative bowel obstruction following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Both ileus and bowel obstruction were defined as a postoperative bowel obstruction. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed, and a random-effects model was used to account for the heterogeneity among the studies.

Results

Twenty-four randomized clinical trials and 88 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis; 106 studies reported early outcome and 12 late outcome. Collectively, these studies reported on the outcomes of 148 392 patients, of whom 58 133 had laparoscopic surgery and 90 259 open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced rates of early (odds ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·54 to 0·72; P &lt; 0·001) and late (odds ratio 0·61, 0·41 to 0·92; P = 0·019) postoperative bowel obstruction. Weighted mean values for early postoperative bowel obstruction were 8 (95 per cent c.i. 6 to 10) and 5 (3 to 7) per cent for open and laparoscopic surgery respectively, and for late bowel obstruction were 4 (2 to 6) and 3 (1 to 5) per cent respectively.

Conclusion

The reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction demonstrates an advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal disease.

Laparoscopic Surgery for Transverse Colon Cancer: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Comparison with Conventional Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

Published studies on laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer are scarce. More studies are necessary to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

From April 1996 to December 2010, 102 consecutive patients with stage II or III disease who had undergone curative resection for transverse colon cancer were enrolled. Seventy-nine patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC), whereas 23 patients underwent conventional open colectomy (OC). Short- and long-term outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The OC group had a larger tumor size (7.6 ± 3.4 cm versus 5.2 ± 2.3 cm, P = .004) and more retrieved lymph nodes (26.4 ± 11.6 versus 17.5 ± 9.4, P = .002), without differences in resection margins. In the LAC group, return to diet was faster (4.5 ± 1.2 days versus 5.4 ± 1.8 days, P = .013), and postoperative hospital stay was shorter (12.1 ± 4.2 days versus 15.9 ± 4.8 days, P = .000). There were no differences in occurrence of intra- or postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival rate (OS) or disease-free survival rate (DFS) between the two groups (5-year OS, 90.4% versus 90.5%, P = .670; 5-year DFS, 84.2% versus 90.7%, P = .463).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer has better short-term outcomes compared with open surgery, with acceptable long-term outcomes. As in colorectal cancer of other sites, laparoscopic surgery can be a feasible alternative to conventional surgery for transverse colon cancer.

Outcome of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Transverse Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection for transverse colon cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 278 patients with transverse colon cancer from a single institution were included. All patients underwent curative surgery, 156 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (LR), and 122 patients underwent open resection (OR). The short- and long-term results were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between two groups. Conversions were required in eight (5.1 %) patients. LR group was associated with significantly longer median operating time (180 vs. 140 min; P < 0.001). Median estimated blood loss was significantly less in LR group (90 vs. 100 ml; P = 0.001). Time to first flatus and oral intake was significantly earlier in LR group. Perioperative mortality and morbidity rate were not significantly different between two groups. Tumor size, number of lymph nodes harvested, length of proximal, and distal resection margin were comparable between two groups. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in LR group (9 vs. 10d; P < 0.001). Five-year disease-free survival and overall survival rate were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for transverse colon cancer is associated with better short-term outcomes and equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes.

Comparison of long-term follow up of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for transverse colon cancer

Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) was a landmark study demonstrating that laparoscopic-assisted colectomy had oncologic outcomes similar to those of open colectomy for colon cancer, but transverse colon cancers (TCCs) were excluded from that study. Oncologic results of a laparoscopic resection for TCC are unknown. This single-institution retrospective 3:1 case-matched review examined patients treated for TCC from January 1, 1996, to April 15, 2009. Laparoscopic colectomy (LC) and open colectomy (OC; extended right, extended left, and total abdominal) cases completed for Stage I to III adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon (hepatic flexure, transverse colon, and splenic flexure) were analyzed. Patients were matched for age, tumor location, and stage. Primary endpoints were overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary endpoints were length of stay and pathologic parameters. One hundred and twenty-three OC cases were matched with 41 LC cases. There were four conversions (9.7%) in the LC group. Length of stay was reduced by 28% in the LC group (P = 0.02). Complication rate and severity were similar between the two groups (29% vs 24%; P = 0.68). Lymph node harvest was higher in the LC group than in the OC group (23.3 vs 18.6; P = 0.03). All pathologic margins were clear, and no local recurrence was found in either group. Five-year overall survival (61% vs 59%; P = 0.39) and disease-free survival (88% vs 82%; P = 0.23) were similar in the two groups. Short-term recovery was faster and lymph node harvest was improved in the LC group. Thus, laparoscopic management of TCC is a safe and feasible procedure.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for transverse colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous large randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic (LR) and open resection (OR) for colon cancer have not specifically analyzed the outcomes in patients with transverse colon cancer. The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LR transverse colon cancer resection and to compare our findings with the results available in the literature.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing LR or OR for histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were included in this study: 66 LR and 57 OR. Median operating time was similar in the two groups. Median blood loss was higher in the OR group, even though the difference was not statistically significant. The rate of conversion from LR to OR was 16.7 %. Return of bowel function occurred significantly earlier in the LR group. The incidence and severity of 30-day postoperative complications and mortality rates were similar in the two groups. The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LR group. There was a trend toward a greater number of lymph nodes harvested in the OR group than in the LR group, although the difference was not statistically significant. The time to first flatus and bowel movement was significantly earlier in the LR group. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar in the LR and OR groups (86.4 vs. 88.6 %, p = 0.770 and 80.4 vs. 77.3 %, p = 0.516, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LR of transverse colon cancer is feasible and safe, with similar early short-term outcomes when compared to OR. Larger prospective comparative studies with long-term follow-up are needed to assess the oncological equivalence of the two approaches.

Cranially approached radical lymph node dissection around the middle colic vessels in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic lymph node (LN) dissection around the middle colic vessels is technically demanding, thus raising controversy regarding the role of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer. We herein describe a cranial approach method to perform radical LN dissection around the middle colic vessels. The key characteristic of this approach is early division of middle colic vessels prior to mobilization of the colon.

METHODS

From April 2010 to September 2013, 27 patients with colon cancer received laparoscopic LN dissection around the middle colic vessels using this cranial approach. Their surgical and short-term outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

The mean number of harvested LNs was 29 (range, 6-50). The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 274 min (range, 160-362 min) and 42 mL (range, 3-247 mL), respectively. There were no serious intraoperative complications or conversions to open surgery. There were two patients with stage 0, 7 with stage I, 12 with stage II, and 6 with stage III. No recurrent case was observed with a median follow-up period of 30 months (range, 9-48 months).

CONCLUSIONS

We consider this approach feasible and useful for radical LN dissection around the middle colic vessels during laparoscopic colon cancer surgery.

Early rehabilitation after surgery program versus conventional care during perioperative period in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted total gastrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of early rehabilitation after surgery program (ERAS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted total gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a study where 47 patients who are undergoing lap assisted total gastrectomy are selected. Twenty-two (n = 22) patients received enhanced recovery programme (ERAS) management and rest twenty-five (n = 25) conventional management during the perioperative period. The length of postoperative hospital stay, time to passage of first flatus, intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmission rate and 30 day mortality is compared. Serum levels of C-reactive protein pre-operatively and also on post-op day 1 and 3 are compared.

RESULTS

Postoperative hospital stay is shorter in ERAS group (78 ± 26 h) when compared to conventional group (140 ± 28 h). ERAS group passed flatus earlier than conventional group (37 ± 9 h vs. 74 ± 16 h). There is no significant difference in complications between the two groups. Serum levels of CRP are significantly low in ERAS group in comparison to conventional group. [d1 (52.40 ± 10.43) g/L vs. (73.07 ± 19.32) g/L, d3 (126.10 ± 18.62) g/L vs. (160.72 ± 26.18) g/L)].

CONCLUSION

ERAS in lap-assisted total gastrectomy is safe, feasible and efficient and it can ameliorate post-operative stress and accelerate postoperative rehabilitation in patients with gastric cancer. Short term follow up results are encouraging but we need long term studies to know its long term benefits.

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the role of laparoscopic surgical resection of transverse colon tumours

OBJECTIVES

A meta-analysis of published literature comparing outcomes after laparoscopic resection (LR) with open resection (OR) for transverse colon tumours.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2013. The text words "minimally invasive", "keyhole surgery" and "transverse colon" were used in combination with the medical subject headings "laparoscopy" and "colon cancer". Outcome variables were chosen based upon whether the included articles reported results. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Six comparatives involving 444 patients were analysed. Of them 245 patients were in the LR group and 199 in the OR group. There was a significant increase in operative time in the LR group compared with the OR group [random effects model: SMD = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.01, -0.30), z = -3.60, p < 0.001] but there was significant heterogeneity amongst trials (Q = 15.51, df = 5, p = 0.008, I(2) = 68). There was less blood loss in the LR group [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.70, 95% CI (0.47, 0.93), z = 6.01, p < 0.001] and patients returned to oral diet earlier [random effects model: SMD = 0.78, 95% CI (0.40, 1.16), z = 4.01, p < 0.001] and had a reduced time to functioning bowel [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.86, 95% CI (0.60, 1.11), z = 6.63, p < 0.001]. No difference was seen for overall morbidity (p = 0.76) or mortality (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

LR of transverse colon tumours is a safe and effective technique. Although there is an increase in operating time, operative and clinical outcomes of intraoperative blood loss and faster recovery are seen with laparoscopic procedures.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for advanced transverse colon cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic surgery for advanced transverse colon cancer (TCC) remains controversial, especially in terms of long-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 157 consecutive patients who underwent curable resections for advanced TCC between January 2002 and June 2011 (laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC), n = 74; open colectomy (OC), n = 83). Short-term outcomes and oncologic long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared to the OC group, patients in the LAC group had less blood loss (LAC vs. OC, 79.6 ± 70.3 vs. 158.4 ± 89.3 ml, p < 0.001), faster return of bowel function (2.6 ± 0.7 vs. 3.8 ± 0.8 days, p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (10.3 ± 3.7 vs. 12.6 ± 6.0 days, p = 0.007). Conversions were required in four (5.4%) patients. Rates of short-term complication, mortality, and long-term complication were comparable between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 54 (26-106) months in the LAC group and 58 (29-113) months in the OC group (p = 0.407). There were no statistical differences in the rates of 5-year overall survival (73.6 vs. 71.1%, p = 0.397) and 5-year disease-free survival (70.5 vs. 66.7%, p = 0.501) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for advanced TCC yield short-term benefits while achieving equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes.

Evidence based medicine and surgical approaches for colon cancer: Evidences, benefits and limitations of the laparoscopic vs open resection

AIM: To report a meta-analysis of the studies that compared the laparoscopic with the open approach for colon cancer resection.

METHODS: Forty-seven manuscripts were reviewed, 33 of which employed for meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. The results were differentiated according to the study design (prospective randomized trials vs case-control series) and according to the tumor’s location. Outcome measures included: (1) short-term results (operating times, blood losses, bowel function recovery, post-operative pain, return to the oral intake, complications and hospital stay); (2) oncological adequateness (number of nodes harvested in the surgical specimens); and (3) long-term results (including the survivals’ rates and incidence of incisional hernias) and (4) costs.

RESULTS: Meta-analysis of trials provided evidences in support of the laparoscopic procedures for a several short-term outcomes including: a lower blood loss, an earlier recovery of the bowel function, an earlier return to the oral intake, a shorter hospital stay and a lower morbidity rate. Opposite the operating time has been confirmed shorter in open surgery. The same trend has been reported investigating case-control series and cancer by sites, even though there are some concerns regarding the power of the studies in this latter field due to the small number of trials and the small sample of patients enrolled. The two approaches were comparable regarding the mean number of nodes harvested and long-term results, even though these variables were documented reviewing the literature but were not computable for meta-analysis. The analysis of the costs documented lower costs for the open surgery, however just few studies investigated the incidence of post-operative hernias.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy is superior for the majority of short-term results. Future studies should better differentiate these approaches on the basis of tumors’ location and the post-operative hernias.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer

The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery versus open surgery for colorectal cancer and investigate the oncological safety and potential advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. The medical records from a total of 160 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer between January 2009 and January 2013 at The Second Hospital of Dalian Medical University (Dalian, China) were retrospectively analyzed. The patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted surgery showed significant advantages due to the minimally invasive nature of the surgery compared with those who underwent open surgery, namely, less blood loss (P=0.002), shorter time to flatus (P<0.001), bowel movement (P=0.009) and liquid diet intake (P=0.015), earlier ambulation time (P=0.006), smaller length of incision (P<0.001) and a shorter post-operative hospital stay (P=0.007). However, laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer resulted in a longer operative time (P=0.015) and higher surgery expenditure (P=0.003) and total hospitalization costs (P<0.001) compared with open surgery. There were no statistically significant differences between the intraoperative and post-operative complications. There were no differences in the local recurrence (P=0.699) or distant metastasis (P=0.699) rates. In addition, no differences were found in overall survival (P=0.894) and disease-free survival (P=0.701). These findings indicated that laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer had the clear advantages of a minimally invasive surgery and relative disadvantages, including a longer surgery time and higher cost, and exhibited similar rates of recurrence and survival compared with open surgery.

Comparative study of oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic vs. open surgery in transverse colon cancer

Purpose

Laparoscopic resection for transverse colon cancer is a technically challenging procedure that has been excluded from various large randomized controlled trials of which the long-term outcomes still need to be verified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes for transverse colon cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy (LAC) or open colectomy (OC).

Methods

This retrospective review included patients with transverse colon cancer who received a colectomy between January 2006 and December 2010. Short-term and five-year oncologic outcomes were compared between these groups.

Results

A total of 131 patients were analyzed in the final study (LAC, 84 patients; OC, 47 patients). There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, tumor location, operative procedure, or blood loss between groups, but the mean operative time in LAC was significantly longer (LAC, 246.8 minutes vs. OC, 213.8 minutes; P = 0.03). Hospital stay was much shorter for LAC than OC (9.1 days vs. 14.5 days, P < 0.01). Postoperative complication rates were not statistically different between the two groups. In terms of long-term oncologic data, the 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival were not statistically different between both groups, and subgroup analysis according to cancer stage also revealed no differences.

Conclusion

LAC for transverse colon cancer is feasible and safe with comparable short- and long-term outcomes.

Fast-track rehabilitation vs conventional care in laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy: a meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the fast-track rehabilitation protocol and laparoscopic surgery (LFT) vs conventional care strategies and laparoscopic surgery (LCC).

METHODS

Studies and relevant literature comparing the effects of LFT and LCC for colorectal malignancy were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE. The complications and re-admission after approximately 1 mo were assessed.

RESULTS

Six recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis, which related to 655 enrolled patients. These studies demonstrated that compared with LCC, LFT has fewer complications and a similar incidence of re-admission after approximately 1 mo. LFT had a pooled RR of 0.60 (95%CI: 0.46-0.79, P < 0.001) compared with a pooled RR of 0.69 (95%CI: 0.34-1.40, P > 0.5) for LCC.

CONCLUSION

LFT for colorectal malignancy is safe and efficacious. Larger prospective RCTs should be conducted to further compare the efficacy and safety of this approach.

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic-assisted right-hemicolectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy versus open surgery for colon carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the applicability, safety, short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of right-sided colon carcinomas with D3 lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

Between June 2003 and September 2010, 324 patients with right-sided colon carcinoma underwent surgical treatment in the same hospital, 177 cases were treated by laparoscopic surgery (LRH group) and 147 cases by open surgery (ORH group). We performed a retrospective analysis of the differences between the two groups in terms of the clinical data.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in the demographic data; however, the recovery time was significantly shorter in the LRH group, the number of overall lymph nodes harvested and principle lymph nodes harvested in the LRH group was significantly higher than in the ORH group, the incidence of postoperative complications was 12.99 % in the LRH group and 22.45 % in the ORH group (P < 0.05), and the recurrence rate in the LRH group was lower than that in the ORH group, although the difference was not significant (15.25 vs 19.73 %). The cumulative overall survival for all stages at 1, 3 and 5 years in the LRH group (97.18, 83.73 and 70.37 %) were not significantly different compared to those in the ORH group (94.56, 77.84 and 66.97 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy for colon carcinomas is safe and effective, while it is also superior to open surgery regarding the short-term outcomes, and the long-term outcomes are similar to those of open surgery.

Short- and long-term results of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer

PURPOSES

We investigated the feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer (TCC) by examining the results of this procedure, and comparing the short- and long-term outcomes with those for right-sided and sigmoid colon cancer (OSCC).

METHODS

The subjects consisted of 117 patients with TCC. Their complications, forms of recurrence and disease-free and 5-year survival rates were compared to those of 564 patients with OSCC.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences in the patient background. The average length of the operation in the TCC group was 215 min and that in the OSCC group was 184 min (p < 0.05). There were also no significant between-group differences in the average blood loss, which was 83.9 and 70.5 g, respectively. No significant difference was observed between groups by stage in terms of the disease-free survival rates, which were 94.4 and 79.1 % for stage II and III in the TCC group, and 92.4 and 78.8 % for stage II and III in the OSCC group. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was low, and the five-year survival rate was favorable. As favorable results of laparoscopic colectomy (LAC) for TCC were also obtained at other sites in a multicenter randomized controlled trial, LAC is expected to become a standard therapy for TCC.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancers in a community setting

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility, safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancers in a community hospital setting were evaluated.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with transverse or descending colon cancers who underwent laparoscopic surgery at our hospital were included in this retrospective analysis (group A). Their outcomes were compared with those of 71 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer at other tumor sites (group B).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and morbidity rate. Extended lymphadenectomy was performed more frequently and the number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in group B than in group A. However, no recurrence developed in group A, while recurrence occurred in four patients from group B. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were 100% for group A and 93.5% for group B. The 3-year overall survival rates were 100% for group A and 91.6% for group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancers can be performed safely with oncological validity in a community hospital setting, provided there is careful selection of the patients and adequate lymphadenectomy considering the clinical stage of their disease.

The effects of inpatient exercise therapy on the length of hospital stay in stages I-III colon cancer patients: randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the effects of a postsurgical, inpatient exercise program on postoperative recovery in operable colon cancer patients

METHODS

We conducted the randomized controlled trial with two arms: postoperative exercise vs. usual care. Patients with stages I-III colon cancer who underwent colectomy between January and December 2011 from the Colorectal Cancer Clinic, were recruited for the study. Subjects in the intervention group participated in the postoperative inpatient exercise program consisted of twice daily exercise, including stretching, core, balance, and low-intensity resistance exercises. The usual care group was not prescribed a structured exercise program. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were time to flatus, time to first liquid diet, anthropometric measurements, and physical function measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 31 (86.1 %) patients completed the trial, with adherence to exercise interventions at 84.5 %. The mean length of hospital stay was 7.82 ± 1.07 days in the exercise group compared with 9.86 ± 2.66 days in usual care (mean difference, 2.03 days; 95 % confidence interval (CI), -3.47 to -0.60 days; p = 0.005) in per-protocol analysis. The mean time to flatus was 52.18 ± 21.55 h in the exercise group compared with 71.86 ± 29.2 h in the usual care group (mean difference, 19.69 h; 95 % CI, -38.33 to -1.04 h; p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-to-moderate-intensity postsurgical exercise reduces length of hospital stay and improves bowel motility after colectomy procedure in patients with stages I-III colon cancer.

Laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon carcinoma: a surgical challenge but oncologically feasible

AIM

The aim of the study was to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer and to compare the clinicopathological outcome with that of conventional open surgery.

METHOD

From March 1998 to December 2009, 1253 patients with colorectal tumours were operated on, 564 laparoscopically. There were 154 cases of transverse colon cancer, 86 of which were included in the study. Details were collected on age, sex, body mass index (BMI), operation time, blood loss, time to first flatus, time to resume a liquid diet, postoperative length of hospital stay, complications, TNM stage, tumour size, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, number of nodes harvested and surgical procedure. Laparoscopic and open surgical removal was compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between laparoscopic and conventional groups in age, sex, BMI, operation time or postoperative length of hospital stay. The mean blood loss during the operations was significantly less in the laparoscopic group (105.9 ± 140.9 ml vs 305.7 ± 325.3 ml; P = 0.05). The time to the first flatus was shorter (2.1 ± 0.3 days vs 3.8 ± 3.0 days; P = 0.043) and diet was started earlier (3.1 ± 1.4 days vs 3.4 ± 1.5 days) in the laparoscopic group. No significant differences in tumour size, proximal resection margin or number of lymph nodes were observed. The mean distal resection margin was not statistically different (10.3 ± 4.5 cm vs 8.8 ± 4.9 cm). At a mean follow up of 33 ± 2.3 months, nonport-site metastases occurred in eight patients and locoregional recurrence occurred in three, with no significant difference between the groups. The 3-year cumulative overall survival rate was 78%, and the disease-free survival rate was 69%.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the outcome of laparoscopic and open surgery for transverse colon cancer, including the cancer-specific outcome.

Complete mesocolic excision in colon cancer surgery: a comparison between open and laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vessel ligation (CVL) as performed in Erlangen offers the best long-term outcome for colon cancer. The aim of this study was to assess specimens after laparoscopic vs open CME-CVL macroscopically and morphometrically in patients with left and right colon cancers.

METHOD

All specimens were freshly photographed. Precise tumour morphometry and grading of the surgical plane were performed as described by pathologists in Leeds, UK.

RESULTS

Thirty-four specimens from right-sided cancers were divided into 18 transverse colon cancers (nine laparoscopic vs nine open) and 16 caecum-ascending colon cancers (seven laparoscopic vs nine open) and 56 specimens from left-sided cancers (33 laparoscopic vs 23 open). There was no difference between laparoscopically and open acquired left- and right-sided specimens. Specimens of transverse colon displayed differences in length of central ligation to tumour (open 11.67 cm vs laparoscopic 8.72 cm, P = 0.049), length of central ligation to bowel wall (open 9.11 cm vs laparoscopic 6.5 cm, P = 0.015) and lymph node clearance (open 46.33 vs laparoscopic 39.33, P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy seems to offer specimens of similar quality after CME-CVL surgery for colon cancer to the open approach. Issues of completeness of excision from laparoscopy are raised for tumours located in the transverse colon.

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes comparison

BACKGROUND

Despite the theoretical advantages of laparoscopic surgery, it is still not considered the standard treatment for colorectal cancer patients because of criticism concerning oncologic stability. This study aimed at examining the short- and long-term follow-up results of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colorectal cancer and at investigating clinical outcomes, oncologic safety, and any potential advantages of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a database containing the information about patients who underwent surgery for stage I-III colorectal cancer from January 2004 to January 2012 at our institution.

RESULTS

The patients who underwent the laparoscopic-assisted procedure showed a significantly faster recovery than those who underwent open surgery, namely, less time to first passing flatus (P=.041), time of first bowel motion (P=.04), time to resume normal diet (P=.043), and time to walk independently (P=.031). Laparoscopic colorectal surgery caused less pain for patients, leading to lower need of analgesic (P=.002) and less hospital recovery time (P=.034), compared with patients who underwent open surgery. No differences were found in 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that the laparoscopic approach was as safe as the open alternative. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery has been shown to be a favorable surgical option with better short-term outcomes and similar long-term oncological control compared with open resection.

Prognostic factors for survival after curative resection of Dukes' B colonic cancer

AIM

Data on the prognostic factors for survival in patients with locally advanced, node-negative colon cancer are limited. This study aimed to determine which factors might predict survival in patients with Dukes' B (T3 or T4, N0) colon cancer.

METHOD

One hundred and eighty (93 male; median age 75 [range, 38-96] years) consecutive patients who had resection of a primary Dukes' B (on final histopathological analysis) colonic cancer between 1998 and 2003 were studied. No patient received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariate Cox regression modelling was used to assess the prognostic value of variables. Median follow up was 85 (60-125) months.

RESULTS

Thirteen (7%) patients had a perforation at presentation. The median distance from tumour to the nearest longitudinal resection margin was 6 (0.3-27) cm. One hundred and twenty-four (69%) patients had a lymph node yield of 12 or more nodes. Actual 5-year survival was 59%. On multivariate regression analysis, tumour perforation (perforation vs no perforation, 5-year survival, 23%vs 61%; hazard ratio (HR), 3.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-8.4; P = 0.002), tumour-to-margin distance (< 5 cm vs ≥ 5 cm, 48%vs 65%; HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7; P = 0.039) and older age (≥ 75 years vs < 75 years, 45%vs 72%; HR, 3; 95% CI, 1.8-5; P < 0.001) were independent significant variables.

CONCLUSION

A lymph node yield of 12 or more nodes is not a significant prognostic factor for survival after resection of Dukes' B colonic cancer. Patients with tumour perforation or limited resection have worse prognosis.

Curative resection of transverse colon cancer via minilaparotomy

Minilaparotomy has been reported to be a minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopically assisted surgery. We retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of minilaparotomy for the resection of transverse colon cancer, which has generally been considered difficult to resect laparoscopically. Patients for whom curative resection was attempted for transverse colon cancer (n = 21) or sigmoid colon cancer (n = 81) via minilaparotomy (skin incision, < or = 7cm) were analyzed. The 2 groups did not significantly differ in terms of success rate of minilaparotomy (90.5% versus 97.5%), age, sex, pathologic stage, body mass index, operative time (mean, 133.5 minutes versus 122.5 minutes), blood loss (119.7 mL versus 92.4 mL), number of lymph nodes harvested, incidence of postoperative complications (9.5% versus 12.3%), postoperative length of stay, and 5-year disease-free survival rate (86.6% versus 79.6%). Minilaparotomy is feasible, safe, and favorable in terms of early oncologic outcome in patients with transverse colon cancer as well as those with sigmoid colon cancer.

Fast-track rehabilitation program vs conventional care after colorectal resection: A randomized clinical trial

AIM: To compare the fast-track rehabilitation program and conventional care for patients after resection of colorectal cancer.

METHODS: One hundred and six consecutive patients who underwent fast-track rehabilitation program were encouraged to have early oral feeding and movement for early discharge, while 104 consecutive patients underwent conventional care after resection of colorectal cancer. Their gastrointestinal functions, postoperative complications and hospital stay time were recorded.

RESULTS: The restoration time of gastrointestinal functions in the patients was significantly faster after fast-track rehabilitation program than after conventional care (2.1 d vs 3.2 d, P < 0.01). The percentage of patients who developed complications was significantly lower 30 d after fast-track rehabilitation program than after conventional care (13.2% vs 26.9%, P < 0.05). Also, the percentage of patients who had general complications was significantly lower 30 d after fast-track rehabilitation program than after conventional care (6.6% vs 15.4%, P < 0.05). The postoperative hospital stay time of the patients was shorter after fast-track rehabilitation program than after conventional care (5 d vs 7 d, P < 0.01). No significant difference was observed in the re-admission rate 30 d after fast-track rehabilitation program and conventional care (3.8% vs 8.7%).

CONCLUSION: The fast-track rehabilitation program can significantly decrease the complications and shorten the time of postoperative hospital stay of patients after resection colorectal cancer.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer (TCC) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of laparoscopic resection of TCC.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of TCC (group A) were compared with 39 patients undergoing open resection of TCC (group B) and 200 patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of ascending or descending colon cancer (group C).

RESULTS

Mean operating time was longer (224 vs. 157 min), and mean estimated blood loss was lower (40 vs. 79 ml) in group A than in group B, but these were similar in groups A and C. The rates of conversion to open surgery were similar in groups A and C (1.9% vs. 1.0%). Tumor stage was more advanced in group B than in group A. All patients in groups A and B underwent pathologic R0 resection. The rates of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between groups (9.4% vs. 7.7% vs. 5.0%). Time to flatus (1.7 vs. 2.5 days), time to liquid diet (2.4 vs. 5.3 days), and hospital stay (12 vs. 15 days) were significantly shorter in group A than in group B, but similar in groups A and C.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for TCC can be performed safely with similar short-term postoperative outcomes seen for colon cancer at other sites. Laparoscopic resection may be associated with faster gastrointestinal recovery and shorter length of hospital stay, compared with open surgery.