Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus open resection for middle and lower rectal cancer: an NTCLES study

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been endorsed by clinical guidelines for colon cancer, but not for rectal cancer on account of unapproved oncologic equivalence with open surgery.

AIMS

We started this largest-to-date meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic proctectomy and open surgery between January 1990 and March 2020 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase Databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211718). The data of intraoperative, pathological, postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs and 93 NRCTs including 216,615 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 48,888 patients received laparoscopic surgery and 167,727 patients underwent open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery group showed faster recovery, less complications and decreased mortality within 30 days. The positive rate of circumferential margin (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.85, p < 0.0001) and distal margin (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.85 p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group, but the completeness of total mesorectal excision showed no significant difference. The 3-year and 5-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival were all improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, while the distal recurrence did not differ significantly between the two approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to oncological outcomes and long-term survival. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including faster recovery and less complications.

Impact of laparoscopic surgery on short-term and long-term outcomes in elderly obese patients with colon cancer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is reported to be useful in obese or elderly patients with colon cancer, who are at increased risk of postoperative complications because of comorbidities and physical decline. However, its usefulness is less clear in patients who are both elderly and obese and may be at high risk of complications.

Methods

Data for obese patients (body mass index ≥25) who underwent laparoscopic or open surgery for stage II or III colon cancer between January 2009 and December 2013 were collected by the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and relapse-free survival (RFS) were compared between patients who underwent open surgery and those who underwent laparoscopic surgery according to whether they were elderly (≥70 y) or nonelderly (<70 y).

Results

Data of 1549 patients (elderly, n = 598; nonelderly, n = 951) satisfied the selection criteria for analysis. Length of stay was shorter and surgical wound infection was less common in elderly obese patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery than in those underwent open surgery. There were no significant between-group differences in overall complications, anastomotic leakage, ileus/small bowel obstruction, or RFS. There were also no significant differences in RFS after laparoscopic surgery according to patient age.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery is safe in elderly obese patients with colon cancer and does not worsen their prognosis. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery between obese patients who were elderly and those who were nonelderly.

Synchronous triple primary gastrointestinal malignant tumors treated with laparoscopic surgery: A case report

Synchronous gastrointestinal multiple primary tumors including gastric, colonic, and rectal cancers are rare. Moreover, it was a challenge to find an appropriate procedure without negatively impacting the overall outcome. We described the case of a 63-year-old woman who presented with a 4 month history of upper abdominal pain, acid regurgitation, and anemia. Gastroscopy with biopsy suggested early cancer of gastric antrum. Abdominal contrast-enhanced computerized tomography and colonoscopy revealed ascending colon and rectum tumors. She had no family history of malignancy. Endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed for gastric cancer, and the pathological result presented that it was poorly differentiated and invaded into deep submucosa. The laparoscopy-assisted radical surgery combined with distal gastrectomy, right hemicolectomy, and anterior resection of rectum was performed for these three tumors via eight ports and a 7 cm midline upper-abdominal incision. No other perioperative complications were encountered except postoperative ileus. The patient was discharged on the 12th postoperative day. The pathological results revealed gastric cancer (T1N0M0), right colonic cancer (T3N1M0), and rectal cancer (T2N0M0), indicating complete surgical resection. We reported that our laparoscopic approach for synchronous triple primary gastrointestinal malignant tumors was feasible and minimally invasive.

Pelvimetric and Nutritional Factors Predicting Surgical Difficulty in Laparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer Following Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy

AIM

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) following preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is technically demanding. The present study is intended to evaluate predictive factors of surgical difficulty of LaTME following PCRT by using pelvimetric and nutritional factors.

METHOD

Consecutive LARC patients receiving LaTME after PCRT were included. Surgical difficulty was classified based upon intraoperative (operation time, blood loss, and conversion) and postoperative outcomes (postoperative hospital stay and morbidities). Pelvimetry was performed using preoperative T2-weighted MRI. Nutritional factors such as albumin-to-globulin ratio (AGR) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) were calculated. Multivariable logistic analysis was used to identify predictors of high surgical difficulty. A predictive nomogram was developed and validated internally.

RESULTS

Among 294 patients included, 36 (12.4%) patients were graded as high surgical difficulty. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that previous abdominal surgery (OR = 6.080, P = 0.001), tumor diameter (OR = 1.732, P = 0.003), intersphincteric resection (vs. low anterior resection, OR = 13.241, P < 0.001), interspinous distance (OR = 0.505, P = 0.009), and preoperative AGR (OR = 0.041, P = 0.024) were independently predictive of high surgical difficulty of LaTME after PCRT. Then, a predictive nomogram was built (C-index = 0.867).

CONCLUSION

Besides previous abdominal surgery, type of surgery (intersphincteric resection), tumor diameter, and interspinous distance, we found that preoperative AGR could be useful for the prediction of surgical difficulty of LaTME after PCRT. A predictive nomogram for surgical difficulty may aid in planning an appropriate approach for rectal cancer surgery after PCRT.

Similarities and differences between study designs in short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, case-matched, and cohort studies

AIM

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard in surgical research, and case-matched studies, such as studies with propensity score matching, are expected to serve as an alternative to RCT. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery for rectal cancer, but it remains unclear whether there are any differences in the findings obtained using these study designs. We aimed to examine similarities and differences between findings from different study designs regarding laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. RCT, case-matched studies, and cohort studies comparing laparoscopic low anterior resection and open low anterior resection for rectal cancer were included. In total, 8 short-term outcomes and 3 long-term outcomes were assessed. Meta-analysis was conducted stratified by study design using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included in this review. Findings did not differ between RCT and case-matched studies for most outcomes. However, the estimated treatment effect was largest in cohort studies, intermediate in case-matched studies, and smallest in RCT for overall postoperative complications and 3-year local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Findings from case-matched studies were similar to those from RCT in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. However, findings from case-matched studies were sometimes intermediate between those of RCT and unadjusted cohort studies, and case-matched studies and cohort studies have a potential to overestimate the treatment effect compared with RCT.

A Case with Rectal Cancer Relapses After Clinical Complete Remission Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Despite advancements in diagnosis and therapy, relapse of rectal cancer after clinical complete remission (cCR) remains a frequent event. The key factors influencing the treatment strategy for the management of patients achieving cCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (Neo-CRT) remain to be identified. We present the case of a 64-year-old man with rectal cancer. The patient was initially admitted to the hospital in September 2011 with a 3-month history of change in his stools. Following his re-hospitalization in November 2011, a biopsy specimen of the neoplasm suggested the presence of rectal adenocarcinoma; laboratory investigations also revealed elevated levels of carcinoembryonic antigens (CEA; carbohydrate antigen 199) in the serum. Subsequently, the patient received Neo-CRT, as well as symptomatic and supportive treatment. The level of serum CEA returned to normal, without signs of swollen lymph nodes in the pelvic cavity. The patient was diagnosed with rectal cancer based on the elevated level of serum CEA, colonoscopy, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. He relapsed 4 months after cCR following Neo-CRT and underwent laparoscopic Miles’ surgery in April 2013. The relapse may have been mainly attributed to residual tumor cells. This case report and literature review may contribute to the clinical recognition of treatment for patients with rectal cancer achieving cCR following Neo-CRT.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted synchronous bowel anastomoses for synchronous colorectal cancer: initial clinical experience

The primary aim of this study was to explore the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic-assisted synchronous bowel anastomoses (LSBA) for synchronous colorectal cancer (SCRC). All patients who underwent LSBA for SCRC were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed for clinical and pathological features, technical feasibility and short-term as well as long-term oncological outcomes. Between July 2008 and January 2012, a series of 11 consecutive SCRC patients underwent LSBA. Six patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy and anterior resection. Five patients had laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy and sigmoidectomy. There were no intraoperative complications that required open conversions. Mean operation time was 233 (range, 195–285) minutes, and mean estimated blood loss was 224 (range, 100–300) mL. The postoperative course of the patients was uneventful with the mean return to oral intake was 6.9 (range 5–12) days, and mean length of hospital stay was 12.6 (range 9–17) days. All surgical wounds showed good cosmetic outcome, and the mean incision length was 4.1 (range 3.5-5.0) cm. During a median follow-up period of 76 months, no local tumor recurrences were found. LSBA is a potentially feasible and safe procedure for SCRC when performed by an experienced surgeon. Further large clinical controlled trials are warranted to confirm the findings.

Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Laparoscopic versus Open Approach

Aims and background

To evaluate the oncologic safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Methods and study design

Patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 256) or open (n = 173) total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between June 2005 and June 2011 were included. Long-term survival operative data and postoperative recovery were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database.

Results

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of age, sex, tumor stage and preoperative comorbidities. Twelve patients were converted to open procedures. Differences were found in blood loss (55 ± 14.1 vs 152 ± 29.2 ml P <0.05), infection of incision (3.1% vs 12.7%, P <0.05) and postoperative stay (8.1 ± 3.0 vs 12.4 ± 6.3 days, P <0.05). Both groups were comparable regarding lymph node clearance specimen length and distal margin. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups by the life-table method. However, operative time in the laparoscopic group was longer than in the open group (168 ± 27.6 vs 141 ± 21.9 min, P <0.05).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer offers oncologic results similar to those obtained with the open procedure with a favorable short-term outcome. Continued use of the procedure in these patients is supported.

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.

Comparative study of short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted versus open rectal cancer resection during and after the learning curve period

Laparoscopic-assisted rectal resection (LAR) has been widely used to treat rectal cancer. However, it has a steep learning curve. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of the learning curve on the outcomes of LAR. All consecutive patients with rectal cancer undergoing LAR or open resection (OR) between 2010 and 2015 were included in this retrospective analysis. The learning curve was determined, and patients were divided into 2 phases: the learning curve and the expert period. The short-term perioperative data in the 2 phases and the long-term survival in the learning phase were compared between the LAR and OR groups. A total of 491 patients were included in this study. Inflection of the learning curve based on the operation time of LAR was at the 40th case. A total of 233 patients underwent surgery (112 LAR and 121 OR) during the learning period. In this period, LAR had a longer operation time, less blood loss, and a higher total cost (all P < .05). The 3-year overall survival rates between the LAR and OR groups were similar (69.74% vs 75%; P = .32). A total of 258 patients underwent surgery (169 LAR and 89 OR) during the expert period. Significant differences in total cost, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and recovery of bladder and bowel functions were identified in this period (all P < .05). LAR during the learning period has fewer benefits in terms of postoperative recovery than OR. However, the long-term outcomes are equivalent.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Single-Center Results of 587 Cases

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the short-term and long-term results of laparoscopic and open rectal resections.

METHODS

A total of 587 rectal cancer patients were included. The main measures were demographic data, duration of surgery, early postoperative results, pathologic data, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic data, morbidity rate, tumor location, and sphincter-preservation rates between the 2 groups. The duration of surgery (155 vs. 173 min, P<0.001), time to gas passage, defecation, and solid food intake and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than the open group (P<0.05). According to the univariate and multivariate analysis, laparoscopic surgery did not have an effect on local recurrence but had a favorable effect on survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has advantages over open surgery with respect to short-term and long-term clinical results and when performed in high-volume centers.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and high-quality Nonrandomized Studies in the last 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality published reports comparing laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Studies that compared LRR and ORR and were published within the last 5 years were identified. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) were evaluated based on the Jadad score, the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and modified Methodological Indices for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS). The mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to compare the operative time, blood loss, mortality, complications, harvested lymph nodes, hospital stay, distal resection margin, and circumferential resection margin. The risk ratio (RR) method was used to examine recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified and included 7 RCTs and 7 NRCTs and 4353 patients (2251 LRR, 2102 ORR). Although the operation time of the LRR group was obviously longer than that of the conventional surgery group (MD = 25.64, 95%CI = [5.17,46.10], P = 0.01), LRR was associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.52,0.87], P = 0.002), less blood loss (MD = -66.49, 95%CI = [-88.31, -44.66], P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (OR = -1.26,95%CI = [-2.45, -0.07],P = 0.004) and shorter bowel function recovery times (MD = -0.93, 95%CI = [-1.27,-0.58], P < 0.00001). Moreover, the difference in the DRM was statistically clear (MD = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02,0.27], P = 0.03). However, no significant differences between the LRR and ORR groups were observed in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, positive CRM, local and distal recurrence, or overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that there are no significant differences between LRR and ORR in terms of survival and pathological outcomes with the exception of the DRM. Moreover, this study suggests that LRR can be performed safely and elicits faster recovery times compared with conventional surgery.

Critical appraisal of laparoscopic vs open rectal cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and the impact of conversion in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS: An analysis was performed on a prospective database of 633 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Patients were compared in three groups: Open surgery (OP), laparoscopic surgery, and converted laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and survival analysis were compared.

RESULTS: Among 633 patients studied, 200 patients had successful laparoscopic resections with a conversion rate of 11.1% (25 out of 225). Factors predictive of survival on univariate analysis include the laparoscopic approach (P = 0.016), together with factors such as age, ASA status, stage of disease, tumor grade, presence of perineural invasion and vascular emboli, circumferential resection margin < 2 mm, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.148). Neither 5-year overall survival (70.5% vs 61.8%, P = 0.217) nor 5-year cancer free survival (64.3% vs 66.6%, P = 0.854) were significantly different between the laparoscopic group and the converted group.

CONCLUSION: LRR has equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to OP. Laparoscopic conversion does not confer a worse prognosis.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes Regarding Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

It is to disclose whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible or not in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, Science Direct, SpringerLink, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library databases for the eligible studies. Review Manager 5.2 was used to test the heterogeneity and to evaluate the overall test performance.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n=2973). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival, and overall survival were similar between both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Simultaneous laparoscopy-assisted resection for rectal and gastric cancer

Laparoscopy-assisted surgery for either rectal or gastric cancer has been increasingly performed. However, simultaneous laparoscopy-assisted resection for synchronous rectal and gastric cancer is rarely reported in the literature. In our study, 3 cases of patients who received simultaneous laparoscopy-assisted resection for synchronous rectal and gastric cancer were recorded. The results showed that all 3 patients recovered well, with only 253 minutes of mean operation time, 57 mL of intraoperative blood loss, 5 cm of assisted operation incision, 4 days to resume oral intake, 12 days' postoperative hospital stay, and no complication or mortality. No recurrence or metastasis was found within the follow-up period of 22 months. When performed by surgeons with plentiful experience in laparoscopic technology, simultaneous laparoscopy-assisted resection for synchronous rectal and gastric cancer is safe and feasible, with the benefits of minimal trauma, fast recovery, and better cosmetic results, compared with open surgery.

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.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Middle and Lower Rectal Cancer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer remain controversial because anatomical and complex surgical procedures specifically influence oncologic outcomes. This study analyzes the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer.

Methods

Patients (laparoscopic: n = 129, open: n = 152) who underwent curative resection for middle and lower rectal cancer from 2003 to 2008 participated in the study. The same surgical team performed all operations. The mean follow up time of all patients was 74.3 months.

Results

No statistical difference in local recurrence rate (7.8% vs. 7.2%; log-rank = 0.024; P = 0.876) and distant recurrence rate (20.9% vs.16.4%; log-rank = 0.699; P = 0.403) between laparoscopic and open groups were observed within 5 years. The 5-year overall survival rates of the laparoscopic and open groups were 72.9% and 75.7%, respectively; no significant statistical difference was observed between them (log-rank = 0.163; P = 0.686). The 5-year survival rates between groups were not different between stages: Stage I (92.6% vs. 86.7%; log-rank = 0.533; P = 0.465); stage II (75.8% vs. 80.5%; log-rank = 0.212; P = 0.645); and Stage III (63.8% vs. 69.1%, log-rank = 0272;P = 0.602). However, significant statistical difference amongst different stages were observed (log-rank = 1.802; P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic and open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer offer equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes. Laparoscopic surgery is feasible in these patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The safety of laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer treatment has remained controversial, especially regarding the long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible.

METHODS

We searched all of studies that compared the short- or long-term outcomes regarding laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgeries (the tumour distance from anal verge within 10 cm). The data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The combined outcome of the dichotomous variables was expressed as an estimation of the odds ratios and continuous variables were presented in the form of weighted mean differences with 95% credible intervals. Subgroup, publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n = 3,678). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery appear to be equivalent to open surgery for treatment of mid- low rectal cancer, with the more favourable short-term benefits, fewer complications, comparable pathological outcomes and long-term outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

Feasibility and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection following neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy: A systematic review

AIM: To study the feasibility and oncological outcomes following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) in patients who have received Neo-adjuvant long course chemo-radiotherapy (LCRT).

METHODS: A protocol driven systematic review of published literature was undertaken to assess the feasibility and oncological outcomes following LTME in patients receiving LCRT. The feasibility was assessed using peri-operative outcomes and short term results. The oncological outcomes were assessed using local recurrence, disease free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS: Only 8 studies-1 randomized controlled trial, 4 Case Matched/Controlled Studies and 3 Case Series were identified matching the search criteria. The conversion rate was low (1.2% to 28.1%), anastomotic leak rates were similar to open total mesorectal excision (0%-4.1% vs 0%-8.3%). Only 3 studies reported on local recurrence rates (5.2%-7.6%) at median 34 mo follow-up. A single study described disease free survival and overall survival at 3 years as 78.8% and 92.1% respectively.

CONCLUSION: LTME following LCRT is feasible in experienced hands, with acceptable short term surgical outcomes and with the usual benefits associated with minimally invasive procedures. The long term oncological outcomes of LTME after LCRT appear to be comparable to open procedures but need further investigation.

Laparoscopy-assisted combined resection for synchronous gastrointestinal multiple primary cancers

BACKGROUND

Synchronous gastrointestinal multiple primary cancers (SGMPC) is infrequent. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted combined resection for SGMPC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 16 cases of SGMPC underwent either open or laparoscopy-assisted combined resection in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from Jan. 2005 to Jan. 2014.

RESULTS

Sixteen cases contained synchronous colon cancers (n = 10), gastric and rectal cancer (n = 5), gastric and duodenal cancer (n = 1). Either laparoscopy-assisted or open procedure was performed. Compared with the open group, the laparoscopy group presented less blood loss (77.1 ± 46.3 ml vs. 145.0 ± 75.9 ml, P = 0.047) and shorter incision length (5.2 ± 0.7 cm vs. 16.4 ± 1.9 cm, P = 0.000), while no differences in operative time (228.3 ± 38.8 min vs. 188.8 ± 47.7 min, P > 0.05) and postoperative hospital stay (10.0 ± 3.4 days vs. 12.0 ± 4.8 days, P > 0.05). Two cases of postoperative complications occurred in the open group and one case of incision infection occurred in the laparoscopy one. Upon follow-up, 2 cases of open group (50.0%) and 8 cases of laparoscopy group (66.7%) were under status of disease free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy-assisted combined resection for SGMPC is feasible, safe and effective.

Current status of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer

Surgery for rectal cancer in complex and entails many challenges. While the laparoscopic approach in general and specific to colon cancer has been long proven to have short term benefits and to be oncologically safe, it is still a debatable topic for rectal cancer. The attempt to benefit rectal cancer patients with the known advantages of the laparoscopic approach while not compromising their oncologic outcome has led to the conduction of many studies during the past decade. Herein we describe our technique for laparoscopic proctectomy and assess the current literature dealing with short term outcomes, immediate oncologic measures (such as lymph node yield and specimen quality) and long term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. We also briefly evaluate the evolving issues of robotic assisted rectal cancer surgery and the current innovations and trends in the minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic transabdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: surgical feasibility and intermediate-term outcome

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, conventional intersphincteric resection requires a combined abdominal and perineal approach and a handsewn coloanal anastomosis procedure, which is difficult to accomplish via the perineal approach. A completely abdominal approach partial intersphincteric resection (APISR) with laparoscopy can simplify the anastomosis procedure. This study evaluated the intermediate-term oncological and functional results of laparoscopic versus open APISR for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 137 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent APISR from January 2006 to August 2013 were retrospectively evaluated. Patient groups were classified into as open surgery (OP, n = 48) group and laparoscopy (LAP, n = 89). The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival and the Wexner score for anal function.

RESULTS

The LAP group had longer operating time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay after surgery compared with the OP group. Median follow-up was 32.3 months. The local recurrence rates were similar in the two groups (LAP 3.2% vs. OP 6.1%; P = 0.652). The combined 3-year disease-free survival rate was 83.2% in the LAP group and 83.8% in the OP group (P = 0.857). Wexner scores were similar in the two groups (LAP 2.9 ± 4.5 vs. OP 3.1 ± 5.0). In the LAP group, 89.7% of patients had good continence compared with 91.4% in the OP group (P = 0.311).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic APISR can be performed safely and offers similar intermediate-term oncological and functional outcome compared with the open procedure. The oncological adequacy requires long-term follow-up data.

Laparoscopic surgery decreases the surgical risks associated with hyperlipidemia in rectal cancer: a retrospective analysis of 495 patients

BACKGROUND

Epidemiologic studies provide evidence for a link between disorders of lipid metabolism and the risk for colorectal cancer, hyperlipidemia is a common feature of rectal cancer patients. However, information about the effects of hyperlipidemia on rectal cancer surgery is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether hyperlipidemia affected short-term outcomes of rectal cancer surgery, and determine the preferable surgery method based on the comparison of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery.

METHODS

Clinical data of 495 rectal cancer patients who received traditional open or laparoscopic radical resection between March 2006 and December 2010 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Compared with normal blood lipid group (n=232), hyperlipidemia group (n=263) showed increased intraoperative bleeding (P<0.001), prolonged time for resuming food intake (P<0.001), peritoneal drainage (P<0.001), and hospital stay (P=0.019). However, there was no difference in operation time. Compared with those receiving open surgery, patients receiving laparoscopic surgery exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (P<0.001), less time for resuming food intake (P<0.001), peritoneal drainage (P<0.001), and hospital stay (P<0.001), whereas more operation time was needed (P<0.001). Among patients receiving laparoscopic surgery, no differences were shown on hospital stay, time for resuming food intake, and peritoneal drainage between hyperlipidemia group and normal blood lipid group, although more intraoperative bleeding was still presented in the hyperlipidemia group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hyperlipidemia has adverse effects on rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery can eliminate postoperative recovery retardation caused by hyperlipidemia.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: long-term results of a 18-year single-centre experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for middle-low rectal cancer is still under discussion because of the few long-term data. This study reports the results arising from a single-institution experience during a 18-year period.

METHODS

Data about 132 consecutive laparoscopic TME performed between January 1994 and January 2012 were analysed with Kaplan-Meier method and a uni- and multi-variate analysis was conducted to define independent survival predictors.

RESULTS

A total of 116 sphincter-preserving operations and 16 abdominoperineal resections were performed. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 0.8 and 18.2%, with a rate of anastomotic leakage of 13.8%. Average follow-up was 85.9 months (range 13-210). Actuarial local recurrence rate was 4.13% at 5 years (any pelvic recurrence developed after 3 years from surgery). Overall and disease-free survival was respectively 83 and 79.8% at 5 years, 71 and 73% at 10 years and then remained constant until 18 years. Survival was correlated only to tumour stage and the type of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic TME for extraperitoneal rectal cancer shows long-term oncologic outcomes similar to open rectal resections.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short-term and pathological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature databases were searched for eligible studies published up to July 2013. The rates of postoperative complication, positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), and the number of lymph nodes harvested were evaluated.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs enrolling 953 patients were included. Compared to OS, LS had similar rate of postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 to 1.22], comparable rate of positive CRM (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02), and smaller number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference -0.8; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.5). LS also had significantly less blood loss, faster bowel movement recovery, and shorter postoperative hospitalization than those of OS.

CONCLUSION

LS is associated with favorable short-term benefits, similar postoperative complication rate, and comparable pathological outcomes for rectal cancer after NCRT compared to OS despite a slight difference in the number of lymph nodes. Additional high-quality studies are needed to validate long-term outcomes of LS following NCRT.

Laparoscopic rectal resection versus open rectal resection with minilaparotomy for invasive rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The minilaparotomy approach is technically feasible for the resection of rectal cancer in selected patients with rapid postoperative recovery and small incision. The study aimed to compare the clinical and oncological outcomes of minilaparotomy and laparoscopic approaches in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The 122 included patients with rectal cancer were assigned to either minilaparotomy group (n=65) or laparoscopic group (n=57) which ran from January 2005 to January 2008. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, postoperative and long-term complications, pathological results and survival rates were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The demographic data of the two groups were similar. The time to normal diet (P=0.024) and the hospital stay (P=0.043) were less in the laparoscopic group than that in the minilaparotomy group. Compared with the minilaparotomy group, the mean operation time was significantly longer [low anterior resection (LAR), P=0.030; abdominoperineal resection (APR), P=0.048] and the direct costs higher for laparoscopic group (P<0.001). The morbidity and mortality were comparable between the two groups. Local recurrence was similar (5.3% laparoscopic, 1.5% minilaparotomy, P=0.520). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were also similar (overall survival is 87.1% in laparoscopic group, and 82.5%in minilaparotomy group, P=0.425; disease-free survival is 74.2% in the laparoscopic group, and 71.4% in mini- laparotomy group, P=0.633).

CONCLUSIONS

The minilaparotomy approach was similarly safe and oncologically equivalent to laparoscopic approach for patients with rectal cancer. At the expense of a longer operative time and higher cost, laparoscopic surgery was associated with faster postoperative recovery.

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.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma with transabdominal levator transection

BACKGROUND

The extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPR) is a new surgical technique for patients with low advanced rectal cancer. This technique requires an extra excision of the levator muscles to avoid the surgical waist caused by the conventional abdominoperineal resection, with the patient's position changed to a prone jackknife position and using a myocutaneous flap to repair the pelvic defect. To simplify this operation, we applied a laparoscopic technique to perform controlled transabdominal transection of the levator muscles under direct visualization without a position change and pelvic floor reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (HADM).

METHODS

In our department from 2010-2011, six patients with rectal adenocarcinoma within 3 cm of the anal verge underwent laparoscopic ELAPR with transabdominal levator transection, with no position change during the perineal operation. In three patients, pelvic reconstruction was performed with HADM.

RESULTS

All procedures were successfully performed without any intraoperative complications, laparoscopy-associated morbidity, or conversion to the open approach. The mean operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 186.7 min and 101.7 ml. All specimens had a cylindrical shape with levator muscles attached to the mesorectum and negative circumferential margins. No complications were seen with the use of HADM.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic transabdominal transection of the levator muscles without position change and with pelvic floor reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix mesh is feasible. With the transection of the levator muscles under laparoscopic surveillance, the procedure of the extralevator abdominoperineal resection, which is aggressively invasive and operatively complicated, is simplified and has an advantage of minimal invasiveness.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare LTME and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) as the primary treatment for patients with middle and low rectal cancer with regard to short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches up to October 30, 2011 were performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated by LTME versus OTME. Fixed and random effects models were used. Review Manager version 5.1 software was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Four RCTs enrolling 624 participants (LTME group, 308 cases; OTME group, 316 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. LTME for rectal cancer was associated with a significantly longer operative time but significantly less intraoperative blood loss and earlier time to pass first flatus. We found no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, overall morbidity, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups. Time to resume liquid diet, time to resume normal diet, and length of hospital stay, although not significantly different between the two groups, did suggest a positive trend toward LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be concluded that LTME is a safe and effective alternative to OTME and is justifiable under the setting of clinical trials. Additional RCTs that compare LTME and OTME and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of LTME are required to determine the advantages of LTME over OTME.