Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resections in patients with symptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy for locally advanced colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy (COP) for locally advanced colon cancer has not been studied.

METHODS

We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) and COP. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023407029).

RESULTS

There are 10132 participants including 21 articles. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had less operation time (SMD 0.48; CI 0.32 to 0.65; I2 = 0%, P = .000), estimated blood loss (MD -1.23; CI -1.90 to -0.56; I2 = 95%, P < .0001), the median time to semi-liquid diet (SMD -0.43; CI -0.70 to -0.15; I2 = 0%, P = .002), time to the first flatus (SMD -0.97; CI -1.30 to -0.63; I2 = 7%, P < .0001), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.33; CI 0.24 to 0.46; I2 = 0%, P < .0001) in perioperative outcomes. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had fewer overall complications (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2 = 22.4%, P = .023), postoperative complications (RR 0.79; CI 0.69 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .001), and urinary retention (RR 0.63; CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .011) in perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the difference between the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive and open treatment of locally advanced colon cancer through meta-analysis. Minimally invasive proctectomy is better than COP in postoperative and perioperative outcomes. However, there is no difference in oncological outcomes. This also provides an evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, multi-center RCT research is also needed to draw more scientific and rigorous conclusions in the future.

Decreased Length of Stay After Laparoscopic Diaphragm Repair for Isolated Diaphragm Injury After Penetrating Trauma

BACKGROUND

Isolated diaphragm injury (IDI) occurs in up to 30% of penetrating left thoracoabdominal injuries. Laparoscopic abdominal procedures have demonstrated improved outcome including decreased postoperative pain and length of stay (LOS) compared to open surgery. However, there is a paucity of data on this topic for penetrating IDI. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and outcome of laparoscopic diaphragmatic repair versus open diaphragmatic repair (LDR vs ODR) of IDI.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients with IDI who underwent ODR versus LDR. A bivariate analysis using Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney test was performed to determine LOS among the two groups.

RESULTS

From 2039 diaphragm injuries, 368 patients had IDI; 281 patients (76.4%) underwent ODR and 87 (23.6%) underwent LDR. Compared to LDR, the ODR patients were older (median, 31 vs 25 years, P < .001) and had a higher injury severity score (mean, 11.2 vs 9.6, P = .03) but had similar rates of intensive care unit LOS, unplanned return to the operating room, ventilator days, and complications (P > .05). Patients undergoing ODR had a longer LOS (5 vs 4 days, P = .01), compared to LDR. There were no deaths in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma patients presenting with IDI undergoing ODR had a longer hospital LOS compared to patients undergoing LDR with no difference in complications or mortality. Therefore, we recommend when possible an LDR should be employed to decrease hospital LOS. Further research is needed to examine other benefits of laparoscopy such as postoperative pain, incisional hernia, and wound-related complications.

Simultaneous Colon and Liver Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases: A Single Center Experience

Background: The one-stage approach for colorectal cancer (CRC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) has demonstrated advantages, when feasible, in terms of oncological radicality and reduction in sanitary costs. The simultaneous laparoscopic approach to both colon cancer and liver metastases joins the advantages of mini-invasiveness to the one-stage approach. Methods: During the period from February 2011 to July 2017, a single surgeon performed 17 laparoscopic colorectal operations with simultaneous liver resection for CRC with SLM. Colorectal procedures included 9 rectal resections, 6 left colectomies, and 2 right colectomies. Associated hepatic resections included 1 left hepatectomy, 1 right posterior sectionectomy, 2 segmentectomies, and 13 wedge resections. We analyzed retrospectively the patient's short-term outcome and operative and oncologic results. Results: There was no conversion to open surgery. Six patients (35%) had minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I-II), whereas only 2 patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) and no mortality occurred. The median time of discharge was 8.6 (range 5-36) days. We obtained 94% of R0 resection margin on the liver specimen and 100% of negative distal and circumferential margin in case of rectal resection. An average of 20 lymphnodes were retrieved in the colorectal specimen. Conclusions: Simultaneous mini-invasive colorectal and liver resection is a challenging but feasible procedure. The advantages of treating primary cancer and metastases in the same recovery justify the morbidity rate, especially because the most of the complications are minor and no cases of mortality occurred. Further experience is needed to better understand how to reduce the morbidity rate.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour

BACKGROUND

Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

Primary tumor resection in stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer: what has changed?

Most current guidelines do not recommend primary tumor resection in stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer. Rapid chemotherapy development over the last decade has substantially changed the decision making. However, results of recently published trials and meta-analyses suggest that primary tumor resection may in fact be beneficial, principally in terms of prolonged survival. Additional factors, such as use of minimally invasive approach or protocols of enhanced recovery after surgery, affect clinical outcomes as well, but are often neglected when discussing the state of the art in this area. There are still no randomized studies determining the legitimacy of upfront surgery in asymptomatic patients. Also, quality of life also plays an important role in choosing appropriate treatment. Having said that, there is no data that would prove whether primary tumor resection has an advantage on that issue. With all the uncertainty, currently decision making in unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer is primarily up to clinicians' knowledge, common sense and patients' preferences.

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.

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.

Differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To identify differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. We also evaluated short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy and open surgery.

METHODS

A total of 100 consecutive stage IV patients undergoing open (n=61) or laparoscopic (n=39) major resection were analyzed. There were four cases (10%) of conversion to laparotomy in the laparoscopy group.

RESULTS

Pathological T4 tumors (56% vs 26%), primary colon cancers (74% vs 51%), and larger tumor diameter (6 vs 5 cm) were more commonly managed with open surgery. Right colectomy was more common in the open surgery group (39%) and low anterior resection was more common in the laparoscopy group (39%, P=0.002). Hepatic metastases in segments II, III, IVb, V, and VI were more frequently resected with laparoscopy (100%) than with open surgery (56%), although the difference was not statistically significant. In colon and rectal cancers, mean operative time and 30-day complication rates of laparoscopy and open surgery did not differ. In both cancers, mean time to soft diet and length of hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopy group. Mean time from surgery to chemotherapy commencement was significantly shorter with laparoscopy than with open surgery. In colon and rectal cancers, 2-year cancer-specific and progression-free survival rates were similar between the laparoscopy and open surgery groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, laparoscopy can be selected as an initial approach in patients with a primary tumor without adjacent organ invasion and patients without primary tumor-related symptoms. In selected stage IV patients, tumor factors such as primary rectal tumor, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or liver metastasis may not be absolute contraindications for a laparoscopic approach.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery in patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable metastasis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent primary tumor resection of colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis between January 2001 and December 2010.

RESULTS

Of 280 patients, 61 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 219 underwent open surgery. Regarding the short-term outcomes, the amount of blood loss was lower in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.014), although the operation was longer in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.003). The times to flatus (P < 0.001), liquid food intake (P < 0.001), and the duration of hospital stay (P < 0.001) were shorter in the laparoscopic group. The complication rate was lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P = 0.043). Although the overall survival was significantly better in the laparoscopic group in a univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the overall survival between the two groups in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.482).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery seems to be a safe and feasible option, with short-term benefit for primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis.

Palliative care and end-stage colorectal cancer management: The surgeon meets the oncologist

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasia in the Western countries, with considerable morbidity and mortality. Every fifth patient with CRC presents with metastatic disease, which is not curable with radical intent in roughly 80% of cases. Traditionally approached surgically, by resection of the primitive tumor or stoma, the management to incurable stage IV CRC patients has significantly changed over the last three decades and is nowadays multidisciplinary, with a pivotal role played by chemotherapy (CHT). This latter have allowed for a dramatic increase in survival, whereas the role of colonic and liver surgery is nowadays matter of debate. Although any generalization is difficult, two main situations are considered, asymptomatic (or minimally symptomatic) and severely symptomatic patients needing aggressive management, including emergency cases. In asymptomatic patients, new CHT regimens allow today long survival in selected patients, also exceeding two years. The role of colonic resection in this group has been challenged in recent years, as it is not clear whether the resection of primary CRC may imply a further increase in survival, thus justifying surgery-related morbidity/mortality in such a class of short-living patients. Secondary surgery of liver metastasis is gaining acceptance since, under new generation CHT regimens, an increasing amount of patients with distant metastasis initially considered non resectable become resectable, with a significant increase in long term survival. The management of CRC emergency patients still represents a major issue in Western countries, and is associated to high morbidity/mortality. Obstruction is traditionally approached surgically by colonic resection, stoma or internal by-pass, although nowadays CRC stenting is a feasible option. Nevertheless, CRC stent has peculiar contraindications and complications, and its long-term cost-effectiveness is questionable, especially in the light of recently increased survival. Perforation is associated with the highest mortality and remains mostly matter for surgeons, by abdominal lavage/drainage, colonic resection and/or stoma. Bleeding and other CRC-related symptoms (pain, tenesmus, etc.) may be managed by several mini-invasive approaches, including radiotherapy, laser therapy and other transanal procedures.

Laparoscopy for colorectal cancer

The laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resection has been evolved from an experimental procedure with oncological concerns to routine daily practice within a period of two decades. Numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic resection results in faster recovery with similar oncological outcome compared to an open approach, both for colon and rectal cancer. Besides improved cosmesis, other long-term advantages seem to be less adhesion related small bowel obstruction and reduced incisional hernia rate. Adequate patient selection and surgical experience are of crucial importance. Experience can be gradually expanded step by step, by increasing the complexity of the procedure. A decision to convert should be made early in the procedure, because the outcome after a reactive conversion is worse than initial open resection or strategic conversion. The additive value of new techniques such as robotic surgery has to be proven in randomized studies including a cost-effectiveness assessment.

Palliative resection of the primary tumour in patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of the early outcome after laparoscopic and open colectomy

AIM

Resection of the primary tumour in patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer may be performed to avoid future tumour-related complications whilst on systemic treatment. We compared the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open colectomy in this patient group.

METHOD

PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched in the English literature for studies between January 2000 and October 2012 dealing with laparoscopic resection of the primary tumour in Stage IV disease. Single-arm laparoscopic studies were systematically reviewed. Prospective and retrospective studies were included for meta-analysis. End-points include safety, complications, mortality and cancer specific outcome including 5-year and median survival.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 1165 patients undergoing palliative laparoscopic colectomy for Stage IV colorectal cancer were included. Five studies were comparative studies of laparoscopic and open colectomy. The former took longer (pooled mean difference (MD) = 41.52, 95% CI = 11.47-71.56, Z = 2.71, P = 0.007), but resulted in a shorter length of stay (pooled MD = -2.41, 95% CI = -3.84 to -0.99, Z = 3.32, P = 0.0009), with fewer postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.32-0.87, Z = 2.51, P = 0.01) and lower estimated blood loss (pooled MD = -47.71, 95% CI = -80.00 to -15.42, Z = 2.90, P = 0.004). Median survival ranged between 11.4 and 30.1 months.

CONCLUSION

Palliative colectomy performed laparoscopically is associated with a better perioperative outcome than open colectomy. Survival is dependent on the response to systemic chemotherapy.

The Role of Surgery for Asymptomatic Primary Tumors in Unresectable Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

There are still debates regarding the appropriate primary treatment policy for asymptomatic primary colorectal lesions in cases of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. Even though there are patients with asymptomatic primary tumors when starting chemotherapy, those patients may still undergo surgery due to complications related to primary tumors in the middle of chemotherapy; therefore, controversy exists regarding surgical resection of primary colorectal lesions in cases where symptoms are absent when making a diagnosis. Thus, based on the published literature, we discuss opinions that prefer first-line surgery for primary tumors as well as opinions favoring first-line chemotherapy for treating unresectable synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer. Although the upfront chemotherapy including targeted agents is suggested as an effective treatment in recent years, the first line surgery has been a preferred treatment for decades. The first line surgery is beneficial to prolong the survival duration given the retrospective analysis of randomized trial data. So far, no prospective comparison study has only focused on the first-line treatment modality; thus, future clinical studies focusing on the survival duration and the quality of life should be performed as soon as possible. Furthermore, at this point, multidisciplinary team approaches would be helpful in finding the appropriate therapy. Regardless of symptoms, the performance status and the tumor burden should be taken into consideration as well. In case of surgical resection, minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery, is recommended.

The Role of Surgery for Asymptomatic Primary Tumors in Unresectable Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

There are still debates regarding the appropriate primary treatment policy for asymptomatic primary colorectal lesions in cases of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. Even though there are patients with asymptomatic primary tumors when starting chemotherapy, those patients may still undergo surgery due to complications related to primary tumors in the middle of chemotherapy; therefore, controversy exists regarding surgical resection of primary colorectal lesions in cases where symptoms are absent when making a diagnosis. Thus, based on the published literature, we discuss opinions that prefer first-line surgery for primary tumors as well as opinions favoring first-line chemotherapy for treating unresectable synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer. Although the upfront chemotherapy including targeted agents is suggested as an effective treatment in recent years, the first line surgery has been a preferred treatment for decades. The first line surgery is beneficial to prolong the survival duration given the retrospective analysis of randomized trial data. So far, no prospective comparison study has only focused on the first-line treatment modality; thus, future clinical studies focusing on the survival duration and the quality of life should be performed as soon as possible. Furthermore, at this point, multidisciplinary team approaches would be helpful in finding the appropriate therapy. Regardless of symptoms, the performance status and the tumor burden should be taken into consideration as well. In case of surgical resection, minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery, is recommended.