SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer

Beyond total mesorectal excision: The emerging role of minimally invasive surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer

Multivisceral resection and/or pelvic exenteration represents the only potential curative treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC); however, it poses significant technical challenges, which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. As complete histopathologic resection is the most important determinant of patient outcomes, LARC often requires an extended resection beyond the total mesorectal excision plane to obtain clear resection margins. In an era when laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery are becoming commonplace, the optimal approach to extensive pelvic interventions remains controversial. However, acceptance of the suitability of minimally invasive surgery is slowly gaining traction. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of evidence in the literature about minimally invasive approaches in multiple and extensive surgical resections, highlighting the need for research studies to explore, validate, and develop this issue. This editorial aims to provide a critical overview of the currently available applications and challenges of minimally invasive abdominopelvic surgery for LARC. Furthermore, we discuss recent developments in the field of robotic surgery for LARC, with a specific focus on new innovations and emerging frontiers.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series

BACKGROUND

Around 20% of rectal tumors are locally advanced with invasion into adjacent structures at presentation. These may require surgical resections beyond boundaries of total mesorectal excision (bTME) for radicality. Robotic bTME is under investigation. This study reports perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic bTME for locally advanced rectal cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected robotic bTME resections (July 2015-November 2020). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated.

RESULTS

One-hundred-sixty-eight patients (eight centres) were included. Median age and BMI were 60.0 (50.0-68.7) years and 24.0 (24.4-27.7) kg/m2. Female sex was prevalent (n = 95, 56.8%). Fifty patients (29.6%) were ASA III-IV. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was given to 125 (74.4%) patients. Median operative time was 314.0 (260.0-450.0) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 150.0 (27.5-500.0) ml. Conversion to laparotomy was seen in 4.8%. Postoperative complications occurred in 77 (45.8%) patients; 27.3% and 3.9% were Clavien-Dindo III and IV, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (n = 2). R0 rate was 92.9%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 72 (42.9%) patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 (10.0-65.7) months. Distant and local recurrences were seen in 35 (20.8%) and 15 patients (8.9%), respectively. Overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 91.7, 82.1, and 76.8%. Disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 84.0, 74.5, and 69.2%.

CONCLUSION

Robotic bTME is technically safe with relatively low conversion rate, good OS, and acceptable DFS in the hands of experienced surgeons in high volume centres. In selected cases robotic approach allows for high R0 rates during bTME.

Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open multivisceral resection for clinical T4b colorectal cancer: A multicentre retrospective cohort study in China

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is controversial for patients with clinical T4b colorectal cancer (CRC) who require multivisceral resection (MVR). This study aims to explore and compare the safety and long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for patients with clinical T4b CRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective cohort study based on a multicentre database. According to the operation method, the patients were divided into a laparoscopic MVR group and an open MVR group. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

From January 2010 to December 2021, a total of 289 patients in the laparoscopic MVR group and 349 patients in the open MVR group were included. After propensity score matching, patients were stratified into a laparoscopic MVR group (n = 163) and an open MVR group (n = 163). Compared with the open MVR group, the laparoscopic MVR group had less blood loss (100 vs. 200, p < 0.001), a shorter time to first flatus (3 vs. 4, P < 0.001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (10 vs. 12, P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of surgical site infection (2.5 % vs. 8.0 %, P = 0.043). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the two groups had similar overall survival (P = 0.283) and disease-free survival (P = 0.152).

CONCLUSION

Compared with open MVR, laparoscopic MVR had less blood loss, fewer surgical site infection complications, faster recovery and a shorter hospital stay. The long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic MVR was not inferior to that of open MVR.

Near-infrared fluorescence tattooing: a new approach for endoscopic marking of tumors in minimally invasive colorectal surgery using a persistent near-infrared marker

INTRODUCTION

Intraoperative accurate localization of tumors in the lower gastrointestinal tract is essential to ensure oncologic radicality. In minimally invasive colon surgery, tactile identification of tumors is challenging due to diminished or absent haptics. In clinical practice, preoperative endoscopic application of a blue dye (ink) to the tumor site has become the standard for marking and identification of tumors in the colon. However, this method has the major limitation that accidental intraperitoneal spillage of the dye can significantly complicate the identification of anatomical structures and surgical planes. In this work, we describe a new approach of NIR fluorescent tattooing using a near-infrared (NIR) fluorescent marker instead of a blue dye (ink) for endoscopic tattooing.

METHODS

AFS81x is a newly developed NIR fluorescent marker. In an experimental study with four domestic pigs, the newly developed NIR fluorescent marker (AFS81x) was used for endoscopic tattooing of the colon. 7-12 endoscopic submucosal injections of AFS81x were placed per animal in the colon. On day 0, day 1, and day 10 after endoscopic tattooing with AFS81x, the visualization of the fluorescent markings in the colon was evaluated during laparoscopic surgery by two surgeons and photographically documented.

RESULTS

The detection rate of the NIR fluorescent tattoos at day 0, day 1, and day 10 after endoscopic tattooing was 100%. Recognizability of anatomical structures during laparoscopy was not affected in any of the markings, as the markings were not visible in the white light channel of the laparoscope, but only in the NIR channel or in the overlay of the white light and the NIR channel of the laparoscope. The brightness, the sharpness, and size of the endoscopic tattoos did not change significantly on day 1 and day 10, but remained almost identical compared to day 0.

CONCLUSION

The new approach of endoscopic NIR fluorescence tattooing using the newly developed NIR fluorescence marker AFS81x enables stable marking of colonic sites over a long period of at least 10 days without compromising the recognizability of anatomical structures and surgical planes in any way.

Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Techniques

Colorectal surgery has witnessed a transformative shift with the advent of minimally invasive techniques, offering patients reduced postoperative discomfort, shorter hospital stays, and accelerated recovery compared to conventional open surgery. This comprehensive review aims to assess the current state of minimally invasive approaches in colorectal surgery, encompassing various techniques such as single-incision laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery. The article meticulously explores the benefits and drawbacks of each technique, delves into the established criteria for their application, delineates cautious circumstances, and analyzes the outcomes of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Additionally, the integration of virtual reality and augmented reality for surgical planning and training is discussed, shedding light on the future trajectory of this field. Surgeons and researchers striving to enhance patient care and surgical outcomes in colorectal surgery will find this review article an invaluable resource, presenting crucial components of minimally invasive colorectal surgery and paving the way for continued advancements in the field.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

A hyperosmolar ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (ASC-PEG) lavage solution ensures excellent bowel preparation before colonoscopy; however, no study has demonstrated the efficacy of this lavage solution before surgery. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of ASC-PEG to the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. Overall, 188 patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal resection for single colorectal adenocarcinomas were randomly assigned to undergo preparation with different PEG solutions between August 2017 and April 2020 at four hospitals in Japan. Participants received ASC-PEG (Group A) or PEG-ELS (Group B) preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the ratio of successful bowel preparations using the modified Aronchick scale, defined as "excellent" or "good."

RESULTS

After exclusion, 86 and 87 patients in Groups A and B, respectively, completed the study, and their data were analyzed. ASC-PEG was not inferior to PEG-ELS in terms of effective bowel preparation prior to laparoscopic colorectal resection (0.93 vs. 0.92; 95% confidence interval, - 0.078 to 0.099, p = 0.007). The total volume of cleansing solution intake was lower in Group A than in Group B (1757.0 vs. 1970.1 mL). Two and three severe postoperative adverse events occurred in Groups A and B, respectively. Patient tolerance of the two solutions was almost equal.

CONCLUSIONS

ASC-PEG is effective for preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer and is non-inferior to PEG-ELS.

Recommendations for Optimal Endoscopic Localization of Colorectal Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus of National Experts

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the standard of care for diagnosis and evaluation of colorectal cancers before surgery. However, varied practices and heterogenous documentation affects communication between endoscopists and operating surgeons, hampering surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop recommendations for the use of standardized localization and reporting practices for colorectal lesions identified during lower GI endoscopy.

DESIGN

A systematic review of existing endoscopy guidelines and thorough narrative review of the overall endoscopy literature were performed to identify existing practices recommended globally.

SETTING

An online Delphi process was used to establish consensus recommendations based on a literature review.

PATIENTS

Colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists from across Canada who had previously demonstrated leadership in endoscopy, managed large endoscopy programs, produced high-impact publications in the field of endoscopy, or participated in the development of endoscopy guidelines were selected to participate.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were colorectal lesion localization and documentation practice recommendations important to planning surgical or advanced endoscopic excisions.

RESULTS

A total of 129 of 197 statements achieved consensus after 3 rounds of voting by 23 experts from across Canada. There was more than 90% participation in each round. Recommendations varied according to lesion location in the cecum, colon, or rectum and whether the referral was planned for surgical or advanced endoscopic resection. Recommendations were provided for appropriate documentation, indications, location, and method of tattoo placement, in addition to photograph and real-time 3-dimensional scope configuration device use.

LIMITATIONS

Because of a paucity of evidence, recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion. There may be bias, as all representatives were based in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practices to optimize endoscopic lesion localization and communication are not addressed in previous guidelines. This consensus involving national experts in colorectal surgery and gastroenterology provides a framework for efficient and effective colorectal lesion localization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 .

RECOMENDACIONES PARA LA LOCALIZACIN ENDOSCPICA PTIMA DE LAS NEOPLASIAS COLORRECTALES UN CONSENSO DELPHI DE EXPERTOS NACIONALES

ANTECEDENTES:La colonoscopia es el estándar de atención para el diagnóstico y la evaluación de los cánceres colorrectales antes de la cirugía. Sin embargo, las prácticas variadas y la documentación heterogénea afectan la comunicación entre los endoscopistas y los cirujanos operadores, lo que dificulta la planificación quirúrgica.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar recomendaciones para el uso de prácticas estandarizadas de localización y notificación de lesiones colorrectales identificadas en la endoscopia gastrointestinal inferior.DISEÑO:Se realizó una revisión sistemática de las pautas de endoscopia existentes y una revisión narrativa exhaustiva de la literatura general sobre endoscopia para identificar las prácticas existentes recomendadas a nivel mundial. Se utilizó un proceso Delphi en línea para establecer recomendaciones de consenso basadas en la revisión de la literatura.PARTICIPANTES:Se seleccionaron para participar cirujanos colorrectales y gastroenterólogos de todo Canadá que previamente habían demostrado liderazgo en endoscopia, manejado grandes programas de endoscopia, producido publicaciones de alto impacto en el campo de la endoscopia o que habían participado en el desarrollo de pautas de endoscopia.RESULTADOS:Localización de lesiones colorrectales y recomendaciones prácticas de documentación importantes para planificar escisiones quirúrgicas o endoscópicas avanzadas.RESULTADOS:129 de 197 declaraciones lograron consenso después de tres rondas de votación de 23 expertos de todo Canadá. Hubo >90% de participación en cada ronda. Las recomendaciones variaron según la ubicación de la lesión en el ciego, colon o recto, y si se planificó la derivación para resección quirúrgica o endoscópica avanzada. Se proporcionaron recomendaciones para la documentación adecuada, las indicaciones, la ubicación y el método de colocación del tatuaje, además de la fotografía y el uso del dispositivo de configuración del alcance 3D en tiempo real.LIMITACIONES:Debido a la escasez de evidencia, las recomendaciones se basan principalmente en la opinión de expertos. Puede haber sesgo, ya que los representantes tenían su sede en Canadá.CONCLUSIONES:Las mejores prácticas para optimizar la localización y comunicación de lesiones endoscópicas no se abordan en las guías anteriores. Este consenso que involucra a expertos nacionales en cirugía colorrectal y gastroenterología proporciona un marco para la localización eficiente y efectiva de lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 . (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Is There a Role for Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To date, all meta-analyses on oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colorectal surgery have included results of both open and minimally invasive approaches. Mixing both procedures may lead to false conclusions. The aim of the study was to assess the available evidence of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications following minimally invasive elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library from 2000 to May 1, 2022. Comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were included. We reviewed the use of oral OA, MBP and combinations of these treatments. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Rob v2 and Robins-I tools.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies). Meta-analysis of the included studies showed that the combination of MBP + OA was associated with a significant reduction in SSI, AL and overall morbidity compared with the other options no preparation, MBP only and OA only.  CONCLUSION: Adding OA with MBP has a positive impact in reducing the incidence of SSI, AL and overall morbidity after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Therefore, the combination of OA and MBP should be encouraged in this selected group of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic and robotic multivisceral resection in colorectal cancer: A case series and systematic review

PURPOSE

Multivisceral resection (MVR) with open approach is the standard surgical treatment for locally advanced colorectal cancer. However, the medical literature concerning the practice of minimally invasive MVR in order to reduce postoperative complications and hospital stay has been growing exponentially over the last years. The present study aimed to examine our experience and to provide a systematic review about the results and complications of minimally invasive MVR.

METHODS

Data of patients that underwent minimally invasive MVR for locally advanced colorectal cancer from 2015 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The literature was searched for studies concerning minimally invasive MVR for colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 39 laparoscopic MVR were performed in our department. Complications occurred in 14 patients (35.9%) with major complications in five patients (18.82%) according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Conversion was required in one case (2.56%) with subsequent mortality (2.56%). Pathologic adjacent organs or structures invasion was observed in 30 patients (76.9%) and positive resection margin occurred in two cases (5.2%). Twenty-two studies including 1055 patients were identified after literature search. In these studies, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery were performed in 90.15% and 9.85% of the patients, respectively. R0 resection was established in 95% of cases, conversion rate varied between 0% and 41.7%, and postoperative mortality ranged between 0% and 7.7% in the included articles.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive approach may be a safe option for patients requiring MVR for locally advanced colorectal cancer, with equivalent oncological results and could result in better early postoperative outcomes to open approach. However, further studies on this topic are needed to confirm the results of the current study.

Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan

In recent years, robotic-assisted surgery has demonstrated remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for colorectal cancer. While there have been fewer studies investigating robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of colon cancer than rectal cancer, evidence regarding robotic-assisted colectomy has been accumulating due to increasing use of the procedure. Robotic-assisted colectomy generally requires a long operative time and involves high costs. However, as evidence is increasingly supportive of its higher accuracy and less invasive nature compared to laparoscopic colectomy, the procedure is anticipated to improve the ratio of conversion to laparotomy and accelerate postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has also been suggested for a specific level of effectiveness in manipulative procedures, such as intracorporeal anastomosis, and is increasingly indicated as a less problematic procedure compared to conventional laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. Although robotic-assisted colectomy has been widely adopted abroad, only a limited number of institutions have been using this procedure in Japan. Further accumulation of experience and studies investigating surgical outcomes using this approach are required in Japan.

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for locally advanced T4 colonic cancer: meta-analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the early postoperative and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for T4 cancer compared with open surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for any relevant clinical study comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy as treatment for T4 colonic cancer. The risk ratio (RR) with 95 per cent c.i. was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference (m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence interval for continuous variables. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was implemented for assessing quality of evidence (QoE).

RESULTS

Twenty-four observational studies (21 retrospective and 3 prospective cohort studies) were included, analysing a total of 18 123 patients: 9024 received laparoscopic colectomy and 9099 underwent open surgery. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower rates of mortality (RR 0.48, 95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.56; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE moderate) and complications (RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76; P < 0.001; I2 = 20 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) compared with an open procedure. No differences in R0 resection rate (RR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.12; I2 = 37 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) and recurrence rate (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.14; P = 0.81; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE very low) were found.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy for T4 colonic cancer is safe, and is associated with better clinical outcomes than open surgery and similar oncological outcomes.

Organ Manifestation and Systematic Organ Screening at the Onset of Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are often associated with the involvement of various organs. However, data regarding organ manifestation and organ spread are rare. To close this knowledge gap, this cross-sectional study was initiated to evaluate the extent of solid organ manifestations in newly diagnosed IRD patients, and to present a structured systematic organ screening algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 84 patients (63 women, 21 men) with newly diagnosed IRD. None of the patients received any rheumatic therapy. All patients underwent a standardised organ screening programme encompassing a basic screening (including lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tract) and an additional systematic screening (nose and throat, central and peripheral nervous system) on the basis of clinical, laboratory, and immunological findings.

RESULTS

Represented were patients with connective tissue diseases (CTD) (72.6%), small-vessel vasculitis (16.7%), and myositis (10.7%). In total, 39 participants (46.5%) had one or more organ manifestation(s) (one organ, 29.7%; two organs, 10.7%; ≥three organs, 6.0%). The most frequently involved organs were the lungs (34.5%), heart (11.9%), and kidneys (8.3%). Lastly, a diagnostic algorithm for organ manifestation was applied.

CONCLUSION

One-half of the patients presented with a solid organ involvement at initial diagnosis of IRD. Thus, in contrast to what has been described in the literature, organ manifestations were already present in a high proportion of patients at the time of diagnosis of IRD rather than after several years of disease. Therefore, in IRD patients, systematic organ screening is essential for treatment decisions.

Tattooing or Metallic Clip Placement? A Review of the Outcome Surrounding Preoperative Localization Methods in Minimally Invasive Anterior Resection Performed at a Single Center

BACKGROUND

For minimally invasive colorectal surgery, preoperative localization is a typical procedure. We here aimed to analyze compared 2 different localization methods in terms of short-term outcomes, like the operative outcome and postoperative complication rates based on real-world data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis study conducted at a medical center. We enrolled patients who were presented with colonic tumor between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, and they had undergone laparoscopic anterior resection in a single institution. Data included patient characteristics, operative outcome, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The preoperative localization group had a better resection margin (4 vs. 3 cm; P<0.001) and fewer procedures of intraoperative colonoscopy (4.67% vs. 18.22%; P=0.002). Lymph node harvest occurred more in patients with endoscopic tattooing procedures than with metallic clip procedures (25 vs. 20; P=0.031). No significant difference was found regarding postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative localization in a laparoscopic anterior resection led to better surgical planning and resection margin. The metallic clip placement was helpful in the preoperative localization and setting. The endoscopic tattooing method had a larger lymph node harvest and with fewer intraoperative colonoscopy.

Application of robots in general surgery

Background: Application of robotic surgery in the field of general surgery has been increasing. This paper is an overview of the current uses and future perspectives of robotic surgery in four major divisions—endocrine, upper gastrointestinal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HBP), and colorectal surgery.Current Concepts: In endocrine surgery, cosmetic advantage is the highest priority when selecting a surgical approach for thyroidectomy. Currently, the transaxillary route is the most common approach. The introduction of the single-port system could maximize the advantages of this technique. In upper gastrointestinal surgery, the use of robots has the advantage of better retrieval of lymph nodes, less bleeding, earlier discharge, and less complications than the laparoscopic approach. However, a more prospective comparative trial is required to confirm those findings. In the HBP field, the indications of robotic surgery have expanded, starting with cholecystectomy to more challenging procedures, such as donor hepatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Meticulous dissection using robots could provide benefits to patients. In colorectal surgery, robotic surgery is an excellent technical tool for minimally invasive surgeries for rectal cancers, especially in male patients with narrow, deep pelvises. However, further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on rectal cancers.Discussion and Conclusion: Robots are used to provide optimal surgical outcomes. Investigating new technologies and innovative surgical procedures is the highly important for a surgeon in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Surgical clinical trials with non-inferiority design: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

Background

Wide-spread concerns have been raised about possible bias in published surgical non-inferiority trials. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the existence of bias, and provided recommendations for future non-inferiority trials.

Methods

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched (last update on 27 April 2020) to include published phase II and phase III non-inferiority surgical trials. We collected general information and parameters associated with trial design. The association between extracted factors and establishment of non-inferiority was then analyzed.

Results

A total of 347 trials were included in this study. Only 13 (3.7%) trials reported the pre-specified non-inferiority margin in registration, and 99 (28.5%) trials justified margin selection in ultimate trial publications. A significant association was found between industry funding and increased odds of achieving non-inferiority [odds ratio (OR): 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06 to 1.30, P=0.001]. Moreover, trials which had been presented in conferences were less likely to claim non-inferiority (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.035).

Conclusions

Our study was the first quantitative analysis revealing the presence of biases in findings of existing surgical non-inferiority trials, which could possibly mislead surgeons’ clinical decision making. We suggest improving reporting of detailed study design especially funding sources as well as margin justification for future trials. We also encourage conference presentation of ongoing trials prior to the ultimate publication.

Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to clarify the current role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer, highlighting short- and long-term outcomes from the latest trials and studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from previous trials has been conflicting, with some failing to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection of rectal cancer compared to an open approach and others demonstrating similar clinical outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery was thought to be a promising solution to the challenges faced by laparoscopic surgery, and even though the only randomized controlled trial to date comparing these two techniques did not show superiority of robot-assisted surgery over laparoscopy, more recent retrospective data suggests a statistically significant higher negative circumferential resection margin rate, decreased frequency of conversion to open, and less sexual and urinary complications. Minimally invasive surgery techniques for resection of rectal cancer, particularly robot-assisted, offer clear short-term peri-operative benefits over an open approach; however, current data has yet to display non-inferiority in terms of oncological outcomes.

Usefulness of Endoscopic Tattooing Before Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Clinical Complete Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer for Providing a Safe Distal Surgical Margin

Background: Endoscopic tattooing of colorectal tumors enables tumor localization and determination of appropriate surgical margins. It becomes very difficult to detect the distal surgical margins (DSMs) of rectal tumors in patients who obtain clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. In this study, our aim is to examine the benefits of endoscopic tattooing of the tumor before neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in accurate localization of the previous tumor and in providing appropriate DSMs in cases with cCR. Patients and Methods: The patients who were diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer, received neoadjuvant therapy and subsequently achieved cCR, and underwent surgery between January 2015 and October 2020 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they were endoscopically tattooed before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Results: A total of 49 cases were included in the study. Significantly better DSMs were observed especially in female gender in the tattooed group. DSMs were found to be closer to the resection margins in the nontattooed group. It was found that endoscopic tattooing had a significant effect on the DSM in the regression analysis (P = .06, R² = 0.47). It was determined that laparoscopy or open surgery alone did not differ in terms of DSMs but open surgery together with tattooing was found to be strongly effective in providing larger DSMs. Conclusion: In locally advanced rectal cancer, endoscopic tattooing of the distal margin of the tumor before neoadjuvant therapy is a reliable and effective method for obtaining a safe DSM and not leaving the residual tumor at the lower end of anastomosis, especially in cases of cCR.

Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Programs of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery reduces morbidity and shorten recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resections for cancer. Patients presenting with more advanced disease such as T4 cancers are frequently excluded from undergoing ERAS programs due to the difficulty in applying established protocols. The primary aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of applying a validated ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal resection for T4 colon and rectal cancer and to evaluate the short-term outcome.

Methods

Single-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer undergoing surgery between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated following the institutional fast track protocol without exclusion. Short-term postoperative outcomes were compared to those of a control group treated with conventional care and that underwent surgical resection for T4 colorectal cancer at the same institution from January 2010 to October 2016. Data from both groups were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.

Results

Eighty-two patients were diagnosed with T4 cancer, 49 patients were included in the ERAS cohort and 33 in the historical conventional care cohort. Both, the mean time of tolerance to solid food diet and postoperative length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the control group (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001 and 6.93 ± 3.76 vs 9.50 ± 4.83; p = 0.0084 respectively). No differences in perioperative complications were observed.

Conclusions

Results from this cohort study from a single-center registry support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their length of stay and time of tolerance to solid food diet, without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes.

Effect of endoscopic surgical skill qualification system for laparoscopic multivisceral resection: Japanese multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopic multivisceral resection (Lap-MVR) has been reported by several experienced high-volume centers. The Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) was established in Japan to improve the skill of laparoscopic surgeons and further develop surgical teams. We examined the safety and feasibility of Lap-MVR in general hospitals, and evaluated the effects of the Japanese ESSQS for this approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 131 patients who underwent MVR between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were divided into the laparoscopic surgery group (LAC group, n = 98) and the open surgery group (OPEN group, n = 33). The clinicopathological and surgical features were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the OPEN group, BMI was significantly higher (21.9 vs 19.3 kg/m², p = 0.012) and blood loss was lower (55 vs 380 ml, p < 0.001) in the LAC group. Operation time, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay were similar between the groups. ESSQS-qualified surgeons tended to select the laparoscopic approach for MVR (p < 0.001). In the LAC group, ESSQS-qualified surgeons had superior results to those without ESSQS qualifications in terms of blood loss (63 vs 137 ml, p = 0.042) and higher R0 resection rate (0% vs 2.0%, p = 0.040), despite having more cases of locally advanced tumor. In addition, there were no conversions to open surgery among ESSQS-qualified surgeons, and three conversions among surgeons without ESSQS qualifications (0% vs 15.0%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed blood loss (odds ratio 1.821; 95% CI 1.324-7.654; p = 0.010) as an independent predictor of postoperative complications. Laparoscopic approach was not a predictive factor.

CONCLUSIONS

The present multicenter study confirmed the feasibility and safety of Lap-MVR even in general hospitals, and revealed superior results for ESSQS-qualified surgeons.

Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND

The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC.

METHODS

A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS.

CONCLUSION(S)

Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

Application of nano-carbon and titanium clip combined labeling in robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon cancer surgery

Background

Robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon tumor surgery requires precise tumor localization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nano-carbon and titanium clip combination labeling methods in robot-assisted transverse colon tumor surgery.

Methods

From January 2018 to January 2019, the clinical data of 16 patients who come from FuZhou, China underwent preoperative nano-carbon and titanium clip combined with robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon cancer surgery were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Of the 16 patients, no signs of abdominal pain, fever, or diarrhea were observed after colonoscopy. Two titanium clips were seen on all of the 16 patients' abdominal plain films. Nano-carbon staining sites were observed during the operation, and no staining disappeared or abdominal cavity contamination. All patients underwent R₀ resection. The average number of lymph nodes harvsted was 18.23 ± 5.04 (range, 9–32). The average time to locate the lesion under the laparoscopic was 3.03 ± 1.26 min (range, 1–6 min), and the average operation time was 321.43 ± 49.23 min (range, 240–400 min). All were consistent with the surgical plan, and there was no intraoperative change of surgical procedure or conversion to open surgery.

Conclusion

Preoperative colonoscopy combined with nano-carbon and titanium clip is safe and effective in robot-assisted transverse colon cancer surgery. A At the same time, the labeling method shows potential in shortening the operation time, ensuring sufficient safety margin and reducing complications.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

In recent years, minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer has seen remarkable improvement. For the laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer, earlier postoperative recovery and reduced hospital stays can be expected compared to those for open surgery. Also, no increase in perioperative morbidity and mortality has been shown. Furthermore, long-term oncological outcomes comparable to open surgery have been obtained. Although laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has shown good short-term postoperative outcomes, recent randomized controlled trials could not demonstrate non-inferiority to open surgery with respect to oncological safety. Further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on colon and rectal cancer and the appropriate indications for transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy with multivisceral resection for surgical T4b colon cancer: Comparison with open colectomy

AIM

In response to the rising use of laparoscopic surgery, recent studies have shown that laparoscopic multivisceral resections for locally advanced colon cancer are safe, feasible, and provide acceptable oncological outcomes. However, the usefulness of laparoscopic multivisceral resection remains controversial. Here, we aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open multivisceral resection approaches for treating locally advanced colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on 1315 consecutive patients admitted to the National Hospital Organization, Osaka National Hospital, for surgical treatment of colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2017. We assessed invasiveness in terms of operating times, blood loss, and complications. Oncological outcomes included 5-year survival rates and recurrences.

RESULTS

We included 85 patients that underwent a colectomy with a multivisceral resection for locally advanced colon cancer; of these, 38 were treated with a laparoscopic approach and 47 were treated with an open approach. Compared to the open surgery group, the laparoscopic group had significantly less blood loss (median volume: 25 vs 140 mL, P <0.001), a lower complication rate (10.5% vs 29.8%, P = 0.036), and shorter hospital stays (12 vs 15 days, P = 0.028). After excluding patients with stage Ⅳ colon cancer, the groups showed similar pathologic outcomes and no significant differences in 5-year disease-free survival (73.9% vs 67.4%; P = 0.664) or 5-year overall survival (75.8% vs 67.7%; P = 0.695).

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic approach for locally advanced colon cancer could be less invasive than an open approach without affecting oncological outcomes in selected patients.

Robotic-assisted resection for beyond TME rectal cancer: a novel classification and analysis from a specialized center

Locally advanced rectal cancer often requires an extended resection beyond the total mesorectal excision plane (bTME) to obtain clear resection margins. We classified three types of bTME rectal cancer following local disease diffusion: radial (adjacent pelvic organs), lateral (pelvic lateral lymph nodes) and longitudinal (below 3.5 cm from the anal verge, submitted to intersphincteric resection). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the application of robotic surgery to the three types of bTME regarding the short and long-term oncological outcomes. Secondary aim was to identify survival prognostic factors for bTME rectal cancers. A total of 137 patients who underwent robotic-assisted bTME procedures between 2008 and 2018 were extracted from a prospectively collected database. Patient-related, operative and pathological factors were assessed. Morbidity was moderately high with 66% of patients reporting postoperative complications. Median follow up was 47 months (IQR, 31.5-66.5). Local recurrence rate was 15.3% with a statistical difference between the three types of bTME (p = 0.041). Disease progression/distant metastasis rate was 33.6%. Overall survival was significantly different (p = 0.023) with 1- and 3-years rates of: 77.8% and 55.0% (radial; n = 19); 96.6% and 84.8% (lateral; n = 30); 97.7% and 86.9% (longitudinal; n = 88). No statistical difference was observed for disease-free survival (p = 0.897). Local recurrence-free survival was significantly different between the groups (p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis showed that (y)pT (p = 0.028; HR (95% CI) 5.133 (1.192-22.097)), (y)pN (p = 0.014; HR (95% CI) 2.835 (1.240-6.482)) and type of bTME were associated to OS whilst (y)pT (p = 0.072) and type of bTME were not associated to LRFS.

Oncological outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for pathological T4 colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSES

Whether laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is safe and effective for patients with locally advanced T4 colon cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of LC and open colectomy (OC) for patients with pathological (p) T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 151 consecutive patients with pT4M0 colon cancer who underwent curative surgery between 2010 and 2017 using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 100 patients (n = 50 in each group). Median follow-up was 43.5 months. The conversion rate to laparotomy in this study was 5.5% for the entire patient cohort and 6.0% for the matched cohort. Compared to the OC group, the LC group showed reductions in estimated blood loss and length of postsurgical stay. Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II and all-grade complication rates were significantly lower in the LC group than in the OC group. R0 resection was achieved in all patients with LC. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of overall, cancer-specific, recurrence-free survival, or incidence of local recurrence among the entire patient cohort and matched cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes were similar between the LC and OC groups. LC offers a safe, feasible option for patients with pT4 colon cancer.

Long-term Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic Anterior Resections for Cancer with Natural Orifice Versus Conventional Specimen Extraction: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Although the short-term advantages of natural orifice specimen extraction are widely recognized, controversy exists concerning oncologic safety after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the impact of natural orifice specimen extraction on local recurrence and long-term survival of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.

DESIGN

This is a propensity score-matched comparative study.

SETTING

This study presents a single-center experience.

PATIENTS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who underwent curative laparoscopic anterior resection for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I to III sigmoid or upper rectal cancer in 2011 to 2014, based on prospectively collected data.

INTERVENTIONS

Oncologic outcomes were compared between patients undergoing natural orifice or conventional specimen extraction by minilaparotomy. Patients were matched 1:1 according to propensity scores calculated by logistic regression analysis with the following covariates: American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, tumor diameter, age, sex, BMI, and T stage. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to determine the impact on oncologic outcome.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were local recurrence and disease-free survival rates at 5 years.

RESULTS

Of 392 eligible patients, 188 were matched (94 undergoing natural orifice specimen extraction and 94 undergoing conventional extraction by minilaparotomy). Median follow-up was 50.3 months. The cumulative local recurrence risk at 5 years was 2.3% and 3.5% (p = 0.632), whereas 5-year disease-free survival for all tumor stages combined was 87.3% and 82.0% (p = 0.383) in laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional extraction groups. T3 and T4 stages were the only variables independently associated with disease-free survival.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited because it focused on a single center, was a retrospective analysis, contained no long-term anorectal function testing, and had a small sample size.

CONCLUSION

Long-term oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection with natural orifice specimen extraction for sigmoid and upper rectal cancer do not differ from those undergoing conventional extraction. Thus, natural orifice specimen extraction could be a viable alternative to reduce abdominal wall insult in laparoscopic colorectal operations for malignancy in selected patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B241. RESULTADOS ONCOLÓGICOS A LARGO PLAZO DE RESECCIONES ANTERIORES LAPAROSCÓPICAS PARA CÁNCER A TRAVÉS DE ORIFICIO NATURAL FRENTE A EXTRACCIÓN CONVENCIONAL DEL ESPÉCIMEN: UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES: Si bien las ventajas a corto plazo de la extracción de especímenes por orificio natural son ampliamente reconocidas, existe controversia con respecto a la seguridad oncológica después de la cirugía laparoscópica para el cáncer colorrectal.Investigar el impacto de la extracción de especímenes por orificio natural en la recurrencia local y la supervivencia a largo plazo de pacientes sometidos a cirugía de cáncer colorrectal.Estudio comparativo con emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.Experiencia en un centro único.Analizamos retrospectivamente los registros de pacientes que se sometieron a resección anterior laparoscópica curativa para cáncer sigmoideo o rectal superior AJCC en estadio I-III en 2011-2014, con base en datos recolectados prospectivamente.Los resultados oncológicos se compararon entre pacientes sometidos a extracción por orificio natural o convencional mediante minilaparotomía de especímenes. Los pacientes fueron emparejados 1:1 de acuerdo con los puntajes de propensión calculados por análisis de regresión logística con las siguientes covariables: estadio AJCC, diámetro del tumor, edad, sexo, índice de masa corporal y estadio T. Se realizó un análisis de regresión de riesgos proporcionales de Cox para determinar el impacto en el resultado oncológico.Recurrencia local y tasas de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a los 5 años.De 392 pacientes elegibles, 188 fueron emparejados (94 sometidos a extracción de espécimen por orificio natural y 94 a extracción convencional por minilaparotomía). La mediana de seguimiento fue de 50.3 meses. El riesgo cumulativo de recurrencia local a 5 años fue de 2.3% y 3.5% (p = 0.632), mientras que la supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años para todas las etapas tumorales combinadas fue de 87.3% y 82.0% (p = 0.383) en los grupos de resección anterior laparoscópica con extracción de espécimen por orificio natural y extracción convencional, respectivamente. Las etapas T3 y T4 fueron las únicas variables asociadas independientemente con la supervivencia libre de enfermedad.Centro único, análisis retrospectivo, ausencia de pruebas de función anorrectal a largo plazo y tamaño de muestra pequeño.Los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo de los pacientes sometidos a resección anterior laparoscópica con extracción de espécimen por orificio natural para cáncer sigmoideo y rectal superior no difieren de los de aquellos sometidos a extracción convencional. Por lo tanto, la extracción de especímenes por orificio natural podría ser una alternativa viable para reducir el insulto a la pared abdominal en operaciones colorrectales laparoscópicas por malignidad en pacientes selectos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B241.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Complete Mesocolon Excision in Right Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic complete mesocolon excision (LCME) for right colonic cancer improves oncological outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes after LCME and open total mesocolon excision (OCME) for right-sided colonic cancers.

METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases and manual searches up to January 31, 2019, were performed. Random-effects meta-analysis model was used. Review Manager Version 5.3 was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

After screening 1334 articles, 10 articles with a total of 2778 patients were eligible for inclusion. Compared to OCME, LCME improves results in terms of overall morbidity (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.80, p = 0.0001), blood loss (MD = 56.56, 95% CI 19.05 to 94.06, p = 0.003), hospital stay (MD = 2.18 day, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.83, p = 0.009), and local (OR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.12, p = 0.03) and distant recurrence (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.23-2.16, p = 0.0008). There was no significant difference regarding mortality, anastomosis leakage, number of harvested lymph nodes, and 3-year disease-free survival. Open approach was significantly better than laparoscopy in terms of operative time (MD = - 34.76 min, 95% CI - 46.01 to - 23.50, p < 0.00001) and chyle leakage (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that LCME in right colon cancer surgery is superior to OCME in terms of overall morbidity, blood loss, hospital stay, and local and distant recurrence with a moderate grade of recommendation due to the retrospective nature of the included studies.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic approach to colonic obstruction for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

We speculated that a laparoscopic approach to emergent/urgent partial colectomy for colonic obstruction would be associated with less morbidity and shorter length of stay with similar mortality to open colectomy. We compared the outcomes of laparoscopic and open approaches to emergent/urgent partial colectomy for colonic obstruction from colonic cancer using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database for the period of 2012-2017.

METHODS

Multivariate analysis compared NSQIP data points following laparoscopic, laparoscopic converted to open, and open colectomy for emergent/urgent colectomy for colonic obstruction from colon cancer from 2012 to 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 1293 patients who underwent emergent colectomy for colon obstruction from colon cancer during 2012-2017 were identified within the NSQIP database. Laparoscopic approach was used for colonic obstruction in 19.3% of operations with a conversion rate of 28.5%. A laparoscopic approach to obstructing colonic cancers was associated with lower morbidity (50% vs. 61.8%, AOR: 0.67, P = 0.01) and shorter hospitalization length (10 days vs. 13 days, mean difference: 3 days, P < 0.01) compared with an open approach. However, the mean operation duration was longer in laparoscopic operations than open operations (159 min vs. 137 min, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic approach to malignant colonic obstruction is associated with decreased morbidity. This suggests that efforts should be directed towards increasing the utilization of laparoscopic approaches for the surgical treatment of colonic obstruction.

MagnetoSuture: Tetherless Manipulation of Suture Needles

This paper demonstrates the feasibility of ligation and tissue penetration for surgical suturing tasks using magnetically actuated suture needles. Manipulation of suture needles in minimally invasive surgery involves using articulated manual/robotic tools for needle steering and controlling needle-tissue or thread-tissue interactions. The large footprints of conventional articulated surgical tools significantly increase surgical invasiveness, potentially leading to longer recovery times, tissue damage, scarring, or associated infections. Aiming to address these issues, we investigate the feasibility of using magnetic fields to tetherlessly steer suture needles. The primary challenge of such a concept is to provide sufficient force for tissue penetration and ligation. In this work, we demonstrate proof-of-concept capabilities using the MagnetoSuture™ system, performing tissue penetration and ligation tasks using ex vivo tissues, customized NdFeB suture needles with attached threads, and remote-controlled magnetic fields. To evaluate the system performance, we conducted experiments demonstrating tetherless recreation of a purse string suture pattern, ligation of an excised segment of a rat intestine, and penetration of rat intestines.

Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced colon cancer: a single-center analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

PURPOSE

We evaluated the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic multivisceral resection (MVR) in selected patients with locally advanced colon cancer (LACC).

METHODS

We compared the clinical backgrounds, and short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic vs. those who underwent open MVR for LACC en bloc at our hospital.

RESULTS

Between January, 2004 and December, 2015, 140 patients underwent MVR of the primary tumor en bloc via laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic group; LG, n = 69) or open surgery (open group; OG, n = 71). Laparoscopic surgery was selected mainly for tumors that invaded the bladder and abdominal wall. The LG patients had smaller tumors (60 vs. 80 mm, p < 0.001), less blood loss (30 vs. 181 g, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (12 vs. 19 days, p < 0.001) than the OG patients. Open conversion was required for two patients. Postoperative complications and R0 resection were comparable between the groups. Local recurrence occurred in two LG patients and two OG patients. The 5-year cancer-specific survival, disease-free survival, and local disease-free survival of patients with pT4b disease were not significantly different between the LG and OG groups (90.3% vs. 75.2%, 71.2% vs. 67.6%, and 97.1% vs. 94.2%).

CONCLUSION

Although the LG included patients with lower risk, the short- and long-term outcomes were equivalent to those of the OG, which included patients with higher risk.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Advanced or Recurrent Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer is often used to secure negative resection margins. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic PE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical records of 24 patients (9, open; 15, laparoscopic) who underwent total or posterior PE for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer between July 2012 and April 2016 at Osaka National Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Operative factors were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The R0 resection rate was 100% in the laparoscopic group and 89% in the open group. The operative time and the incidence of postoperative complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The laparoscopic group showed less intraoperative blood loss (P=0.019), a lower C-reactive protein elevation on postoperative day 7 (P=0.025), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P=0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PE is a safe and feasible procedure to reduce postoperative stress.

Sarcopenia defined by muscle quality rather than quantity predicts complications following laparoscopic right hemicolectomy

PURPOSE

While sarcopenia has prognostic value in elective colorectal surgery for predicting peri-operative morbidity and mortality, its role in elective laparoscopic surgery is poorly defined.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for adenocarcinoma between January 2010 and December 2016. Univariate analysis compared the robustness of total psoas index (TPI) with Hounsfield unit average calculation (HUAC) calculated from pre-operative CT imaging in predicting post-operative complications. Multivariate analysis compared these measures with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and Charlson scores in predicting post-operative complications.

RESULTS

Of the 580 patients identified, 185 met the inclusion criteria (91 males and 94 females, with a median age of 68). Using TPI and HUAC, 46 and 44 patients respectively were identified as sarcopenic, including 18 patients that were identified by both measures. HUAC-defined sarcopenia was significantly associated with pre-operative comorbidities, peri-operative mortality, and a greater incidence of respiratory, cardiac, and serious post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3). Those with HUAC-defined sarcopenia aged > 75 were at particular risk of morbidity (OR 5.52, p = 0.002). No such relationships were found with TPI-defined sarcopenia. Only HUAC remained predictive of post-operative complications on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Sarcopenia is a novel methodology for stratifying surgical risk in elective colorectal cancer surgery. HUAC has a high prognostic accuracy for the prediction of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery compared with TPI, ASA grade, and Charlson score.

Multicenter phase III randomized trial comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy for colon cancer surgery in patients older than 75 years: the CELL study, a Fédération de Recherche en Chirurgie (FRENCH) trial

Background

Several multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopy and conventional open surgery for colon cancer have demonstrated that laparoscopic approach achieved the same oncological results while improving significantly early postoperative outcomes. These trials included few elderly patients, with a median age not exceeding 71 years. However, colon cancer is a disease of the elderly. More than 65% of patients operated on for colon cancer belong to this age group, and this proportion may become more pronounced in the coming years. In current practice, laparoscopy is underused in this population.

Methods

The CELL (Colectomy for cancer in the Elderly by Laparoscopy or Laparotomy) trial is a multicenter, open-label randomized, 2-arm phase III superiority trial. Patients aged 75 years or older with uncomplicated colonic adenocarcinoma or endoscopically unresectable colonic polyp will be randomized to either colectomy by laparoscopy or laparotomy. The primary endpoint of the study is overall postoperative morbidity, defined as any complication classification occurring up to 30 days after surgery. The secondary endpoints are: 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality, 30-day readmission rate, quality of surgical resection, health-related quality of life and evolution of geriatric assessment. A 35 to 20% overall postoperative morbidity rate reduction is expected for patients operated on by laparoscopy compared with those who underwent surgery by laparotomy. With a two-sided α risk of 5% and a power of 80% (β = 0.20), 276 patients will be required in total.

Discussion

To date, no dedicated randomized controlled trial has been conducted to evaluate morbidity after colon cancer surgery by laparoscopy or laparotomy in the elderly and the benefits of laparoscopy is still debated in this context. Thus, a prospective multicenter randomized trial evaluating postoperative outcomes specifically in elderly patients operated on for colon cancer by laparoscopy or laparotomy with curative intent is warranted. If significant, such a study might change the current surgical practices and allow a significant improvement in the surgical management of this population, which will be the vast majority of patients treated for colon cancer in the coming years.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03033719 (January 27, 2017).

Lesion Retrieval, Specimen Handling, and Endoscopic Marking in Colonoscopy

Retrieval of lesions after endoscopic polypectomy enables histopathologic analysis and guides future surgical management and endoscopic surveillance intervals. Various techniques and devices have been described with distinct advantages and disadvantages to accomplish retrieval. Appropriate histopathologic analysis depends on lesion handling and preparation. How lesions are handled further depends on size, endoscopic appearance, and removal technique. Endoscopic marking or tattooing is a well-described process that uses dye mediums to leave longstanding marks in the colon. Techniques, dye mediums, and locations within the colon influence tattoo approach.

Clinical Outcome of Single-port Surgery in Patients With Pathologic T4 Colon Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of single-port surgery (SPS), compared with those of multiport surgery (MPS) in patients with pathologic T4 colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 188 patients with proven pathologic T4 colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery from January 2008 to December 2014 were enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into the SPS group (n=94) and the MPS group (n=94). The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The median operative time was significantly shorter in the SPS group than in the MPS group (P=0.045). Postoperative complications did not differ between the groups. The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SPS group than in the MPS group (P<0.001). Oncological resection rates were similar between groups. The 3-year relapse-free survival rates, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival rates, and the 5-year overall survival rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS is safe and feasible in patients with pathologic T4 colon cancer.

Endoscopic tattooing of colorectal neoplasms removed by laparoscopy: a proposal for selective marking

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Preoperative endoscopic tattooing is an effective procedure to identify small intraoperative neoplasms. However, there are no defined criteria with regard to the indications for endoscopic tattooing of these lesions at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this study was to establish endoscopic criteria that allow the selection of patients who will need a tattoo during the diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

An ambispective study of patients undergoing laparoscopy due to a colorectal neoplasia who underwent endoscopic tattooing during the period from 2007-2013 and 2016-2017. According to the endoscopic description of the neoplasms, the classification was polypoid lesions, neoplasms occupying < 50% or ≥ 50% of the intestinal lumen and stenosing neoplasias.

RESULTS

Tattooing of the lesion was performed in 120 patients and the same lesions were identified during surgery in 114 (95%) cases. Most of the neoplasias described as polypoids and neoplasias that occupied < 50% of the intestinal lumen were not visualized during surgery and therefore required a tattoo (33 of 42 and 18 of 26 respectively, p = 0.0001, X2). On the other hand, stenosing lesions or neoplasias occupying ≥ 50% of the intestinal lumen were mostly identified during surgery (15 of 15 and 36 of 37 respectively, p = 0.0001, X2) without the need for a tattoo. Overall, the identification of neoplasms according to established criteria was 98%.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that it is possible to establish endoscopic criteria that allow a successful selective tattooing during diagnostic endoscopy.

Clinical Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery for T4 Colon Cancer Compared with Open Surgery: A Single Center's Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer remains controversial according to many colorectal cancer guidelines. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent T4 colon cancer resection by laparoscopy versus open surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent T4 colon cancer resection either by laparoscopy or by open surgery between January 2012 and January 2017 were included and used to perform a retrospective cohort analysis. Demographics, patient characteristics, short-term outcomes, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared between two groups. Multivariate analyses were used to define prognostic factors of overall survival.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Intraoperative blood loss (127.3 versus 226.1 mL, P = .001) and hospital stay (11.6 versus 14.8 days, P = .001) were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group. Operative time, bowel movement, time to soft diet, and lymph nodes harvested did not significantly differ between the two groups. R0 resection achieved 100% in both the groups. Similarly, the overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate in stage II and stage III disease showed no significant differences. Multivariate analyses showed that intraoperative blood loss was a significantly independent factor related to a poor prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that laparoscopy for T4 colon cancer can be safely performed with superior short-term outcomes, such as less intraoperative blood loss and shorter time of hospital stay compared with open surgery, and with similar long-term oncological outcomes. Therefore, laparoscopic procedure could be a viable option in selected patients.

Uptake of elective laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer in Canada from 2004/05 to 2014/15: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence from randomized controlled trials published since 2004 shows that elective laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer improves short-term postoperative outcomes with equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open colectomy. The objective of this study was to examine the uptake of elective laparoscopic colectomy in Canada and compare its use among Canadian provinces.

METHODS

In this descriptive analysis, we identified from hospital discharge abstracts all patients in the Canadian provinces (except Quebec) who underwent elective colectomy for colon cancer between 2004/05 and 2014/15. We compared temporal changes in the proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy or open colectomy among provinces using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 63 504 patients who underwent elective colectomy between 2004/05 and 2014/15, 19 691 (31.0%) underwent laparoscopic colectomy. The annual proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy increased from 9.2% in 2004/05 to 51.5% in 2014/15 (mean annual percent increase 4.2%). There were significant differences between provinces in the overall proportion of patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (p < 0.001), ranging from 7.6% in Newfoundland and Labrador to 36.9% in Ontario. By 2014/15, most colectomy procedures were performed laparoscopically in 3 provinces; British Columbia (60.2%), Ontario (59.4%) and Alberta (53.1%). In addition to year and province, urban residence, younger age, female sex, fewer medical comorbidities, high surgeon volume, high hospital volume and right-sided tumours were significantly associated with increased likelihood of laparoscopic colectomy.

INTERPRETATION

Although the use of laparoscopic colectomy increased rapidly between 2004/05 and 2014/15 in Canada, substantial interprovincial variation exists. Further knowledge-translation strategies are needed to ensure equal access to laparoscopic colectomy for all Canadians.

Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches have produces relevant advancements in the pre/intra/postoperative outcomes. The conventional laparoscopic approach presents similar oncological results in comparison to laparotomic approaches. Despite these evidences, a considerable part of the colorectal operations are still being performed in an open way. This is in part because traditional laparoscopy may have some hurdles and a long learning curve to reach mastery. The robotic technology may help in increasing the MIS penetrance in colorectal surgery. The use of the R3 can potentially increase the number of surgical options available.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, after a long robotic colorectal experience connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our results regarding a subset of colorectal patients who underwent robotic right colonic resections performed, all by a single surgeon (P.C.G.), using the R3 according to our standardized technique.

RESULTS

Out of all the robotic colorectal operations performed, this sub-sample sample included 33 patients: 21 males and 12 females. The age range was between 51 and 95 years old. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was between 21.6 to 43.1. The conversion rate to laparoscopy or to open surgery has been 0%. No intraoperative complications have been registered. The postoperative complications rates are reported in this manuscript. The perfusion check of the anastomosis by Near-infrared ICG (Indocyanine Green) enhanced fluorescence has been used. In 11.2% of the sample, the site of the anastomosis has been changed after ICG-Test. Moreover, when the ICG perfusion test has been performed no leakage occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This subset of patients suggests the potential role of R3 and the benefits correlated to robotic surgery. In fact, the laparoscopic approach uses mostly a medial to lateral mobilization. Indeed, during laparoscopic surgery an early right colon mobilization may create problems in the surgical field visualization. In robotic surgery, R3 can lift upwards the cecum/ascending colon/hepatic flexure exposing, in doing so, the anatomical structures. Hence, we can use also the same approach of the open surgery (where the first step is usually the mobilization of the ascending colon mesentery). In other words, the R3 offers more operative options in terms of surgical pathways maintaining at the same time good perioperative outcomes. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced left colon cancer

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic multivisceral resection (S-MVR) for locally advanced left colon cancer. S-MVR is a challenging technique and to the best of our knowledge this is the first report of S-MVR for left colon cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs. A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent laparoscopic multivisceral resection for locally advanced left colon cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs from January 2008 to December 2014. Short-term and long-term outcomes were analyzed between groups of patients who underwent S-MVR and multi-port laparoscopic multivisceral resection (M-MVR) retrospectively. A total of 14 patients underwent S-MVR and 15 patients underwent M-MVR. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of operative factors and postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the S-MVR group compared with the M-MVR group (P=0.048). Three-year overall survival was 61.9% in the S-MVR group (n=14). In patients with stage II (P=0.600) and III (P=0714) disease the three-year overall and disease-free survival was 81.8 and 58.3% in the S-MVR group and 80.0 and 70% in the M-MVR groups over a median follow-up of 34 months. In conclusion, S-MVR for locally advanced left colon cancer is safe and feasible in selected patients.

Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Enhanced Recovery

INTRODUCTION

In the modern era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery and enhanced recovery pathways, the value of preoperative bowel preparation remains debated. In this review, we evaluate evidence regarding the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic bowel preparation to make recommendations for their application in contemporary practice.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database through December 2017 for relevant randomized controlled trials, Cochrane Reviews, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database studies, and other reviews pertaining to MBP and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery and conducted a narrative review.

RESULTS

The combination of MBP and oral antibiotics reduces the incidence of surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and postoperative sepsis. MBP improves laparoscopic surgical viewing and facilitates intraoperative manipulation of the bowel in minimally invasive surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on existing data, we recommend that preoperative care includes MBP and oral antibiotics in elective minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Reevaluation of laparoscopic surgery's value in pathological T4 colon cancer with comparison to open surgery: A retrospective and propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

In spite of the unique advantages of minimally invasive treatment, laparoscopic surgery is not recommended in T4 colon cancer patients with the concern of technical feasibility and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. We used the database of our center to reevaluate laparoscopic surgery's value in T4 colon cancer and compared with open surgery in both short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and propensity score-matched study of pathological T4 colon cancer patients who received laparoscopic surgery or open surgery from March 2011 to August 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 411 pathological T4 colon cancer patients were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in 86 patients in laparoscopic group and 86 patients in open group. Our study showed longer operation time, less blood loss and less length of postsurgical stay compared with open surgeries (167 ± 56 min vs. 111 ± 50.1 min, P < 0.001; 72 ± 61.5 mL vs. 113 ± 113.9 mL, P = 0.004; 7.3 ± 2.1 days vs. 7.9 ± 2.1 days, P = 0.046, respectively). 7 (8.2%) patients underwent conversions to open surgery. 5-years of DFS and OS showed no statistic difference between the two groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.4%, 77.5% and 73.2% for laparoscopic surgery and 95.2%, 82.7% and 73.9% for open surgery (P = 0.618). The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.5%, 77.2% and 61.7% for laparoscopic surgery and 91.7%, 75.3% and 66.8% for open surgery (P = 0.903).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates that there is no statistic difference in short- and long-oncologic outcomes in our center and it is a reliable evidence to support the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer patients. Still, considering the lack of randomized controlled trails, conducting large prospective multi-center population-based studies is not only required, but also pressing.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Multivisceral Resection for Clinically Suspected T4 Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has become widespread recently. However, the safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for primary advanced colorectal cancer need extensive investigation. We analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic multivisceral resection for primary colon cancer with suspected invasion of other organs at a single institution.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2014, 118 patients underwent laparoscopic multivisceral resection for primary colon cancer invading or adhering to adjacent organs or structures; their short- and long-term outcomes were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The median operating time was 254 min (range 130-1051 min), and median blood loss was 48 ml (range 0-2777 ml). The overall conversion rate was 6.8%. The postoperative complication rate was 17.8%. The number of patients with R0 and R1 resection was 112 (94.9%) and 6 (5.1%), respectively. At a median follow-up period of 32 months (range 0-157 months), the local recurrence rate in patients who underwent R0 resection was 1.8%, while for R1 resection it was 66.7%. In multivariate analysis, R1 resection and LN metastases were found to be predictors of poor prognosis. The cancer-specific 5-year survival was 87% when R0 resection was achieved; within these, the 5-year survival rates for patients with stages II, III, and IV disease were 94, 81, and 40%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic en bloc multivisceral resection for clinically suspected T4 colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure for precisely selected patients, attaining satisfactory oncological outcomes when R0 resection is achieved.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the right colon surgery, there is a growing literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). With this paper we aim to systematically revise and meta-analyze the latest comparative studies on these two minimally invasive procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2017 in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases was performed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss, conversion to open surgery, harvested lymph node anastomotic leak, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, time to first flatus, non-surgical complications, wound infections, hospital stay, and incisional hernia and costs. A subgroup analysis was performed on those series presenting only extracorporeal anastomosis in both arms.

RESULTS

After screening 355 articles, 11 articles with a total of 8257 patients were eligible for inclusion. Operative time was found to be significantly shorter for the laparoscopic procedures in the pooled analysis (SMD - 0.99 95% CI - 1.4 to - 0.6, p < 0.001). Conversion to open surgery was more common during laparoscopic procedures than during the robotic ones (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6, p = 0.02). No significant differences in mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18-1.23, p = 0.124) and postoperative complications (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.9-1.2, p = 0.5) were found between LRC versus RRC. The pooled mean time to first flatus was higher in the laparoscopic group (SMD 0.85 days; 95% CI 0.16-1.54, p = 0.016). Hospital costs were significantly higher in RRCs (SMD - 0.52; 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.04, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

RRC can be regarded as a feasible and safe technique. Its superiority in terms of postoperative recovery must be confirmed by further large prospective series comparing RRC and LRC performed with the same anastomotic technique. RRC seemed to be associated with higher costs than LRC.