Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients who underwent previous abdominal surgery

Comparative analysis of the oncologic outcomes and risk factors for open conversion in laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colon surgery is now commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) resection. The objective of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes between open conversion and laparoscopic surgery, and to identify risk factors for open conversion.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent curative resection for stage 0-III CRC at five Hallym University-affiliated hospitals between January 2011 and June 2021. The patients were divided into the conversion and laparoscopic groups according to whether laparoscopic surgery was completed.

RESULTS

Out of 2231 patients, laparoscopic surgery was completed in 2131 patients and 100 (4.5 %) converted to open surgery. The operation time (P = 0.028) and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.036) were longer in the conversion group than in the laparoscopic group. Overall (P = 0.022) and severe (Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥3) (P = 0.048) complications were more frequent in the conversion group than in the laparoscopic group. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was worse in the conversion group than in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.002). In the multivariable analysis, open conversion was not a prognostic factor for RFS (P = 0.082). Abdominal surgery history (P = 0.021), obstruction (P < 0.001), and T4 stage (P < 0.001) were independently associated with open conversion.

CONCLUSION

The conversion group had worse perioperative and oncologic outcomes. History of abdominal surgery, obstruction, and T4 stage were associated with open conversion. However, conversion itself was not associated with RFS.

Analyzing postoperative complications in colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review enhanced by artificial intelligence

Introduction

Colorectal cancer stands as a predominant cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Despite progressive strides in surgical methodologies, the specter of postoperative complications is very large, significantly impacting both morbidity and mortality rates. This review aims to meticulously examine existing scholarly works to gauge the prevalence, severity, and therapeutic approaches to postoperative complications arising from colorectal cancer surgeries.

Methods

Employing a systematic approach, this study reviewed 135 peer-reviewed publications from the period of 2000-2023. The corpus was organized into categories reflective of the postoperative complications discussed: anastomotic leakage, port-site metastases, small bowel adhesions and obstructions, thrombosis, ileus, postoperative infections, urinary dysfunctions, and cardiovascular dysfunctions. Advanced artificial intelligence tools were leveraged for in-depth literature searches and semantic analyses to pinpoint research lacunae.

Results

The analysis revealed that anastomotic leakage and postoperative infections garnered the majority of academic focus, representing 35% and 25% of the studies, respectively. Conversely, port-site metastases and cardiovascular dysfunctions were less frequently examined, accounting for merely 5% and 3% of the literature. The reviewed studies indicate a disparity in the reported prevalence rates of each complication, oscillating between 3% and 20%. Furthermore, the review identified a dearth of evidence-based management protocols, underscored by a pronounced heterogeneity in treatment guidelines.

Conclusions

The literature is replete with analyses on anastomotic leakage and postoperative infections; however, there exists a glaring scarcity of exhaustive research on other postoperative complications. This review emphasizes the pressing need for uniform treatment guidelines and spotlights areas in dire need of further research, aiming at the comprehensive enhancement of patient outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery.

Effect of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The effect of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) in laparoscopic surgery is well known and significantly adds to longer hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative ileus, and inadvertent enterotomies. However, little evidence exists in patients with PAS undergoing robotic-assisted (RA) rectal surgery.

METHODS

All patients undergoing RA surgery for rectal cancer were reviewed. Patients with PAS were divided into minor and major PAS groups, defined as surgery involving >1 quadrant. The primary outcome was the risk of conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 750 patients were included, 531 in the no-PAS (NPAS) group, 31 in the major PAS group, and 188 in the minor PAS group. Patients in the major PAS group had significantly longer hospital LOS (P < .001) and lower adherence to enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs; P = .004). The conversion rates to open surgery were similar: 3.4% in the NPAS group, 5.9% in the minor PAS group, and 9.7% in the major PAS group (P = .113). Estimated blood loss (EBL; P = .961), operative times (OTs; P = .062), complication rates (P = .162), 30-day readmission (P = .691), and 30-day mortality (P = .494) were similar. Of note, 53 patients underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA). On multivariate analysis, EBL >500 mL and LOA significantly influenced conversion to open surgery. EBL >500 mL, age >65 years, conversion to open surgery, and prolonged OT were risk factors for prolonged LOS, whereas adherence to ERPs was a protector.

CONCLUSION

PAS did not seem to affect the outcomes in RA rectal surgery. Given this finding, the robotic approach may ultimately provide patients with PAS with similar risk to patients without PAS.

Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score-matching analysis

Robotic surgery is widely used in gastrointestinal surgery. While the application of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery (PAS) remains controversial for the fear of intra-abdominal adhesions. This study was aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic colectomy for patients with PAS. The medical records of colon cancer patients who underwent robotic surgery at our hospital from June 2015 to August 2020 were extracted and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was implemented to minimize selection bias. We compared perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications between the patients with PAS or with no PAS (NPAS). A total of 79 patients (PAS group) and 348 patients (NPAS group) were included in our study. After PSM, 79 patients of PAS group and 79 patients of NPAS group were selected for further analysis. We did not find statistical difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, length of hospital stay and hospital costs between the two groups. No difference was noted in the incidence of postoperative complications, conversion to open surgery and mortality between the two groups. According to the results of multivariate analysis, PAS was not identified as risk factor for postoperative complications. Left hemicolectomy and perioperative transfusion were associated with postoperative complications. PAS did not negatively affect the outcomes of robotic colectomy. After individually preoperative assessment, robotic surgery could be performed feasibly and safely for colon cancer patients with PAS.

Effect of intracorporeal anastomosis on postoperative ileus after laparoscopic right colectomy

Purpose

Laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) remains the most widely adopted technique despite mounting evidence that intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) offers several advantages. This study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of ICA and ECA and to investigate the effect of ICA on postoperative ileus after LRC.

Methods

This retrospective study included 45 patients who underwent ICA and 63 who underwent ECA in LRC for right-sided colonic diseases between January 2015 and December 2019.

Results

There were no significant differences in total operation time, blood loss, total length of incisions, tolerance of diet, postoperative pain score on postoperative days 1 and 2, or length of hospital stays between the 2 groups. However, the ICA group had a significantly shorter time to first flatus passage (3.0 ± 0.9 days vs. 3.8 ± 1.9 days, P = 0.013). The rate of postoperative ileus was significantly higher in the ECA group (2.2% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference in the overall morbidity within 30 days after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the ECA technique (odds ratio [OR], 0.098; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.011-0.883, P = 0.038) and previous abdominal operation (OR, 5.269; 95% CI, 1.193-23.262; P = 0.028) were independent risk factors for postoperative ileus.

Conclusion

The postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent LRC with ICA or ECA were comparable, and ICA could reduce the incidence of postoperative ileus after LRC compared with ECA.

Preliminary Analysis of Safety and Feasibility of a Single-Hole Laparoscopic Myomectomy via an Abdominal Scar Approach

Purpose

This paper aims to explore the safety and feasibility of a single-hole laparoscopic myomectomy through an abdominal scar approach.

Method

The clinical data of seven patients who underwent the single-hole laparoscopic myomectomy via the abdominal scar approach from January to November 2021 in the Department of Gynecology, the Affiliated Changzhou No. 2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, were studied retrospectively. The duration of operation, the intraoperative blood loss, the decrease of postoperative hemoglobin, and the postoperative visual analogue score (0 points: no pain, 10 points: maximum pain) were recorded.

Results

All seven patients received the operation successfully, without changing to the conventional laparoscopic operation or open appendectomy. The average blood loss was 101.42 ± 7.89 ml, the average length of hospital stay was 5 ± 0.53 days, the average operation duration was 130 ± 26.86 min, and the 24-h pain score was 1.57 ± 0.53. The seven patients had no intraoperative or postoperative complications and no damage to the ureter or bladder. All patients could urinate spontaneously without urinary retention or urinary tract infection after catheter removal. No analgesic drugs were used after the operation.

Conclusion

The single-hole laparoscopic myomectomy via the abdominal scar approach is a more aesthetic and feasible option for eligible patients, but more cases and studies are needed for further confirmation.

Novel nomogram for predicting risk of early postoperative small bowel obstruction after right colectomy for cancer

Background

Early postoperative small bowel obstruction (EPSBO) is a common complication after colorectal cancer surgery. Few studies have specifically studied risk factors for early small bowel obstruction after right colectomy, especially in establishing predictive models. The purpose of the current study was to establish an effective nomogram to predict the incidence of EPSBO after right colectomy.

Methods

The current study retrospectively analyzed data from a total of 424 patients who underwent right colectomy in a local hospital from January 2014 to March 2021. A logistic regression model was used to identify potential risk factors for EPSBO after right colectomy. A nomogram was established by independent risk factors, and the prediction performance of the model was evaluated using an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and calibration chart.

Results

A total of 45 patients (10.6%) developed early small bowel obstruction after right colectomy. Male sex, history of abdominal surgery, open surgery, long operative time, anastomotic leakage, and preoperative albumin were closely related to EPSBO. Analysis of postoperative rehabilitation indices showed that EPSBO remarkably slowed the postoperative rehabilitation speed of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that male sex, open surgery, operative time, and anastomotic leakage were independent risk factors (P < 0.05), and the operation time had the greatest impact on EPSBO. On the basis of multivariate logistic regression, a nomogram was constructed, which showed moderate accuracy in predicting EPSBO, with a C-statistic of 0.716. The calibration chart showed good consistency between the predicted probability and ideal probability.

Conclusion

The current study constructed a nomogram based on the clinical data of patients who underwent right colectomy, which had moderate predictability and could provide reference value for clinicians to evaluate the risk of EPSBO.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Following Prior Upper Abdominal Surgery (Pancreatectomy and Prior Surgery)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous abdominal surgery can be a risk factor for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures. Today, distal pancreatectomy is increasingly performed laparoscopically. This study investigates the consequences of prior upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone LDP from April 1997 to January 2020 were included. Based on the history and type of PUAS, these were categorized into three groups: minimally invasive (I), open (II), and no PUAS (III). To reduce possible confounding factors, the groups were matched in 1:2:4 fashion based on age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology grade.

RESULTS

After matching, 30, 60, and 120 patients were included in the minimally invasive, open and no PUAS groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of intraoperative outcomes. Postoperative morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were similar. Open PUAS was associated with higher Comprehensive Complication Index (33.7 vs 20.9 vs 26.2, p = 0.03) and greater proportion of patients with ≥ 2 complications (16.7 vs 0 vs 6.7%, p = 0.02) compared with minimally invasive and no PUAS. Male sex, overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2), diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasia, and open PUAS were risk factors for severe morbidity in the univariable analysis. Only open PUAS was statistically significant in the multivariable model.

CONCLUSIONS

PUAS does not impair the feasibility and safety of LDP as its perioperative outcomes are largely comparable to those in patients without PUAS. However, open PUAS increases the burden and severity of postoperative complications.

Impact of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score matching study

Background

The application of minimally invasive surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and a history of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) remains controversial. This retrospective study with propensity score matching (PSM) investigated the impact of PAS on robotic-assisted rectal surgery outcomes in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

Methods

In total, 203 patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative CCRT and robotic-assisted rectal surgery between May 2013 and December 2019 were enrolled. Patients were categorized into PAS and non-PAS groups based on the PAS history. The PSM caliper matching method with 1-to-3 matches was used to match PAS patients with non-PAS.

Results

Of the 203 enrolled patients, 35 were PAS patients and 168 were non-PAS patients. After PSM, 32 PAS patients and 96 non-PAS patients were included for analysis. No significant between-group differences were noted in the perioperative outcomes, including median console time (165 min (PAS) vs. 175 min (non-PAS), P = 0.4542) and median operation time (275 min (PAS) vs. 290 min (non-PAS), P = 0.5943) after PSM. Postoperative recovery and overall complication rates were also similar (all P > 0.05). Moreover, the between-group differences in pathological or short-term oncological outcomes were also nonsignificant (all P > 0.05). No 30-day postoperative deaths were observed in either group.

Conclusion

The current results indicate that robotic-assisted surgery is safe and feasible for PAS patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing preoperative CCRT. However, future prospective randomized clinical trials are required to verify these findings.

Conversions related to adhesions in abdominal surgery. Robotic versus laparoscopic approach: A multicentre experience

BACKGROUND

An advantage of robotic surgery over laparoscopy is the lower rate of unplanned conversion. One of the implicated reasons for conversion is adhesions from previous abdominal surgeries (PASs).

METHODS

A comparative analysis of 98 patients with history of open PAS treated by laparoscopic or robotic surgery was performed. Primary endpoint was the rate of conversion to open surgery related to adhesiolysis. Secondary endpoints were short-term outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Conversion rate specifically related to adhesiolysis was significantly lower in robotic group (13 for laparoscopic group vs. 2 for robotic group; p = 0.046). Conversions occurred during adhesiolysis were significantly related to severity of adhesions expressed by peritoneal adhesion index (PAI) score (p < 0.001), number of abdominal areas involved by adhesions (p < 0.001) and severity of PAI into the target area of surgical intervention (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Benefits of robotic surgery are more noticeable in performing procedures with increasing technical difficulties.

Surgical complications in colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic sciences have allowed early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Colorectal cancer is one of the most commonly reported cancers, particularly in elderly patients.

METHODS

Open and laparoscopic surgeries are used for the removal of the tumor, along with chemotherapy, depending on the stage of cancer. However, colorectal cancer surgery is associated with a great number of complications, that affect the efficacy of the surgery and overall health and survival of the patient.

RESULTS

Prevalence of these complications have shown discrepancies depending on the condition of the patient and disease and surgical skills of the surgeon. Preoperative evaluation, intraoperative care and postoperative measures can reduce the incidence of these complications.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights some frequently reported complications associated with colorectal cancer surgery, their risk factors and subsequent therapeutic measures to treat them.

Safety and feasibility of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection: a matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative outcomes of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCRR) have not been extensively reported.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LCRR from 2010 to 2018 in an expert center were retrieved from a prospectively collected database and compared to 2:1 matched sample. Matching was based on demographics, surgical indication [colorectal cancer (CRC) or benign condition], and type of resection (right-sided resection or left-sided resection or proctectomy).

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients underwent repeat LCRR with a median time of 36 months between the primary and the repeat LCRR. They were 12 (52%) men with a mean age of 64.9 years (31-87) and a median BMI of 21.4 kg/m² (17.7-34). Indication for repeat LCRR was CRC, dysplasia, anastomotic stricture, and inflammatory bowel disease in 11 (48%), 5 (22%), 4 (17%), and 3 (13%) patients, respectively. A right-sided resection, a left-sided resection, and proctectomy were reported in 11 (48%), 8 (35%), and 4 (17%) patients, respectively. Median blood loss reached 211 mL (range 0-2000 mL). Thirteen (57%) patients required conversion to laparotomy including 12 for intense adhesions. The median length of hospital stay was 7.5 days (5-20). Two (9%) major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) were reported: 1 (4%) anastomotic fistula and 1 (4%) postoperative hemorrhage, without mortality. Among patients who underwent repeat LCRR for CRC, histopathological examination showed R0 resection in all patients, with at least 12 lymph nodes harvested in ten (91%) patients. After matched case-control analysis that compared to primary LCRR, conversion rate (p = 0.03), operative time (p = 0.03), and intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.0016) were significantly increased in repeat LCRR, without impact on postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat LCRR seems to be feasible and safe in expert hands without compromising the oncologic outcomes. Intense postoperative adhesions and misidentification of blood supply might lead to conversion to laparotomy. Real benefits of laparoscopic approach for repeat LCRR should be assessed in further studies.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery in Patients With Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Single-center Experience and Literature Review

To present the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in colorectal cancer patients with a previous history of abdominal surgery. Data of a total of 121 patients with primary colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups as those with previous abdominal surgery (PAS, n=34) and those without (non-PAS, n=87). Gastric and colonic surgeries were the most common procedures in the major PAS group, whereas gynecologic and obstetric surgeries and appendectomy were the most common procedures in the minor PAS group. However, there were statistically significant differences in the overall complication rates, wound complications, and anastomotic leaks, although there were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative ileus, pneumonia, port site herniation, and postoperative bleeding between the groups. Our study results suggest that laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be safely performed in patients with colorectal cancer who underwent abdominal surgery previously.

Does previous abdominal surgery affect the course and outcomes of laparoscopic bariatric surgery?

BACKGROUND

Global experiences in general surgery suggest that previous abdominal surgery may negatively influence different aspects of perioperative care. As the incidence of bariatric procedures has recently increased, it is essential to assess such correlations in bariatric surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether previous abdominal surgery influences the course and outcomes of laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

SETTING

Seven referral bariatric centers in Poland.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 2413 patients; 1706 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) matched the inclusion criteria. Patients with no history of abdominal surgery were included as group 1, while those who had undergone at least 1 abdominal surgery were included as group 2.

RESULTS

Group 2 had a significantly prolonged median operation time for RYGB (P = .012), and the longest operation time was observed in patients who had previously undergone surgeries in both the upper and lower abdomen (P = .002). Such a correlation was not found in SG cases (P = .396). Groups 1 and 2 had similar rates of intraoperative adverse events and postoperative complications (P = .562 and P = .466, respectively). Group 2 had a longer median duration of hospitalization than group 1 (P = .034), while the readmission rate was similar between groups (P = .079). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the influence of the long-term effects of bariatric treatment on weight loss (percentage of follow-up was 55%).

CONCLUSIONS

Previous abdominal surgery prolongs the operative time of RYGB and the duration of postoperative hospitalization, but does not affect the long-term outcomes of bariatric treatment.

Laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon cancer after multiple operations including urinary diversion with Indiana pouch: A case report

A 73-year-old man with lower abdominal pain was diagnosed at our hospital with sigmoid colon cancer. He had previously undergone radical cystectomy with Indiana pouch construction and gastrectomy to treat bladder cancer and gastric cancer, respectively. We performed a laparoscopic Hartmann's operation with Japanese D3 lymph node dissection. We observed severe adhesion in the abdominal cavity; adhesions between the urostomy and sigmoid colon were particularly severe. The tumor had invaded to the distal rectum, which had adhered to the pubic bone and the previously reconstructed urinary pouch. By performing careful and persistent laparoscopic dissection, we completed the operation without damaging the urostomy and with no remnant tumor tissue (R0). The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was doing well with no evidence of cancer recurrence 1 year after surgery.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeries for Patients With Colorectal Cancer Who Have Had a Previous Abdominal Surgery

PURPOSE

The impact of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on surgical outcomes from laparoscopic and robot surgeries is inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PAS on perioperative outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.

METHODS

From March 2007 to February 2014, a total of 612 and 238 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, respectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups: those who did not have a PAS (NPAS), those who had a major PAS, and those who had a minor PAS. We further divided the patients so that our final groups for analysis were: patients with NPAS (n = 478), major PAS (n = 19), and minor PAS (n = 115) in the laparoscopy group, and patients with NPAS (n = 202) and minor PAS (n = 36) in the robotic surgery group.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopy group, no differences in the conversion rates between the 3 groups were noted (NPAS = 1.0% vs. major PAS = 0% vs. minor PAS = 1.7%, P = 0.701). In the robotic surgery group, the conversion rate did not differ between the NPAS group and the minor PAS group (1.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.390). Among the groups, neither the operation time, blood loss, days to soft diet, length of hospital stay, nor complication rate were affected by PAS.

CONCLUSION

PAS did not jeopardize the perioperative outcomes for either laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgeries. Therefore, PAS should not be regarded as an absolute contraindication for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries.

Laparoscopic Repair of Incisional Hernia Following Liver Transplantation-Early Experience of a Single Institution in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Ventral incisional hernia (VIH) is not uncommon following liver transplantation. Open repair was traditionally adopted for its management. Laparoscopic repair of VIH has been performed successfully in nontransplant patients with evidence of reduced recurrence rates and hospital stay. However, the application of VIH in post-transplantation patients has not been well established. Herein, we provide our initial experience with laparoscopic repair of post-transplantation VIH.

METHODS

From March 2015 to March 2016, 18 cases of post-transplantation VIH were subjected to laparoscopic repair (laparoscopy group). A historical control group of 17 patients who underwent conventional open repair (open group) from January 2013 to January 2015 were identified for comparison. The demographics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among basic demographics between the 2 groups. No conversion was recorded in the laparoscopy group. Recurrence of VIH up to the end of the study period was not noted. In the laparoscopy group, the minor complications were lower (16.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035), the length of hospital stay was shorter (3 d vs 7 d, P = .007), but the median operative time was longer (137.5 min vs 106 min; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair of post-transplantation VIH is a safe and feasible procedure with shorter length of hospital stay.

Prognostic impact of the length of the longitudinal resection margin in colon cancer

AIM

Although several guidelines recommend a longitudinal resection margin (LRM) of at least 5 cm, the impact of the LRM on survival is still unknown. The study assessed the prognostic significance of the LRM in patients with colon cancer.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed 1343 primary colon cancer patients without distant metastasis who underwent curative resection between January 2004 and December 2012. Patients were classified into three groups: LRM < 3 cm (n = 186), LRM ≥ 3 and <5 cm (n = 376) and LRM ≥5 cm (n = 781). Clinicopathological characteristics and the oncological outcome in the three groups were compared.

RESULTS

The median LRM length was 5.0 cm (range 0.5-26.0 cm). With increasing LRM, the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) tended to increase (19.5 ± 12.0, 22.1 ± 12.8 and 30.0 ± 16.2; P < 0.001). After a median follow-up period of 45 (1-128) months, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) (89.2%, 89.0% and 87.0%; P = 0.629) and 5-year overall survival (OS) (89.0%, 92.1% and 91.8%; P = 0.679) were not significantly different between the three groups. When confounders were adjusted, LRM was not significantly associated with either DFS or OS, but the number of retrieved LNs (< 12) was an independent risk factor for both DFS (hazard ratio 1.748, 95% confidence interval 1.048-2.917) and OS (hazard ratio 1.929, 95% confidence interval 1.046-3.559).

CONCLUSION

LRM was not associated with oncological outcome, but care should be taken to obtain an adequate number of LNs for better survival.