Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery vs standard laparoscipic surgery for colorectal disease: A prospective randomized trial

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy and Laparoscopy-assisted Distal Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is considered to provide the benefits of laparoscopic surgery in various diseases. However, limited information is available regarding the feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (HALDG)-a subset of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery-as a gastric cancer treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of HALDG compared with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG). Consecutive patients who underwent HALDG (n=58) or LADG (n=90) for stage I gastric cancer between 2005 and 2016 were eligible. Operative time was significantly shorter and blood loss was significantly higher in HALDG than in LADG (P<0.001, both). Postoperative aminotransferase levels were significantly lower in HALDG than in LADG (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in perioperative complications, a number of analgesics, postoperative C-reactive protein levels, and 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates between the groups. This study suggests that HALDG is a safe and feasible approach and could become an effective option for stage I gastric cancer treatment.

Surgical outcomes of hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: Initial experience

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) combines better visualization of laparoscopic surgery with the advantages of open surgery. The aim of this study was to describe important technical considerations of HALS and to assess the feasibility of hybrid HALS pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

From May 2012 to August 2018, we retrospectively analyzed 11 patients who underwent PE for primary advanced rectal cancer (< 10 cm from the anal verge). Patients were divided into the open PE group (n = 5) and the hybrid HALS PE group (n = 6).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patient characteristics between the two groups, and all included patients were male. Tumor invasion to adjacent organs was mostly anterior invasion. In addition, four patients (66%) in the hybrid HALS PE group and two (40%) in the open PE group received neoadjuvant therapy (P = .3).

CONCLUSION

Compared to open surgery, hybrid HALS has the advantages of less bleeding and less invasion, and can achieve the same results in the short-term. It was a reasonable procedure which was easy and safe dissection of internal iliac vessels and dorsal vein complex. Thus, hybrid HALS may become a useful approach for PE.

"Peek port": avoiding conversion during laparoscopic colectomy-an update

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of a method to avoid conversion to laparotomy in patients considered for laparoscopic colectomy. Patients considered being at high risk for conversion to formal laparotomy were initially approached via a small midline incision ("peek port") with the laparoscopic equipment readily available but unopened. If intraperitoneal conditions were favorable, the procedure was performed using hand-assisted laparoscopy (HALS); if intraperitoneal conditions were unfavorable, the incision was extended to a formal laparotomy.

METHODS

Data from 664 patients from a single surgeon brought to the operating room with the intention of proceeding with laparoscopic colectomy (either via straight laparoscopy or HALS) were retrieved from a prospective database. Comparison of conversion rates between groups was performed using χ² analysis.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 361 men and 303 women with a mean age of 61 years. Inflammatory conditions accounted for 40% of the diagnoses and enteric fistulas were present in 12%. Of the 79 patients who underwent initial "peek port" exploration, 38 (48%) underwent immediate extension to formal laparotomy, whereas 41 (52%) underwent HALS colectomy, with one subsequent conversion from HALS to formal laparotomy. Of the 585 patients initially approached laparoscopically, 14 (2%) required conversion to laparotomy. Of the 626 patients from both groups who underwent laparoscopy, the overall conversion to laparotomy rate was 15/626 (2%).

DISCUSSION

The "peek port" approach to the patients with a potentially hostile abdomen allows for prompt assessment of intraperitoneal conditions and is associated with an overall low rate of conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy during colectomy. This technique may reduce expense and morbidity for patients who ultimately require laparotomy, while allowing some patients with complex disease to be managed laparoscopically who would not normally be considered for a minimally invasive procedure.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches to Colon Cancer

Colon cancer remains the most common abdominal visceral malignancy affecting both men and women in America. Open colectomy has been the standard of care for colon cancer patients the past 100 years; although highly effective, the major trauma associated with it has a significant morbidity rate and represents a large operation for patients to recover from. Minimally invasive colon surgery was developed as a new and alternative option, and surgeons aim to continue to make it simpler, more reproducible, and easier to teach and learn. We describe herein the current state of minimally invasive colorectal surgery for colon cancer and compare it with open surgery to offer insights to future directions.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer

Aim. The robotic technique has been established as an alternative approach to laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer. Methods. The cases of robot-assisted or laparoscopic colorectal resection were collected retrospectively between July 2015 and October 2017. We evaluated patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and pathologic examination. A multivariable linear regression model was used to assess short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes included time to passage of flatus and postoperative hospital stay. Results. A total of 284 patients were included in the study. There were 104 patients in the robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) group and 180 in the laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) group. The mean age was 60.5 ± 10.8 years, and 62.0% of the patients were male. We controlled for confounding factors, and then the multiple linear model regression indicated that the time to passage of flatus in the RCS group was 3.45 days shorter than the LCS group (coefficient = −3.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −5.19 to −1.71; P < .001). Additionally, the drainage of tube duration (coefficient = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.3 to 0.87; P < .001) and transfers to the intensive care unit (coefficient = 7.34, 95% CI = 3.17 to 11.5; P = .001) influenced the postoperative hospital stay. The total costs increased by 15501.48 CNY in the RCS group compared with the LCS group ( P = .008). Conclusions. The present study suggests that colorectal cancer robotic surgery was more beneficial to patients because of shorter postoperative recovery time of bowel function and shorter hospital stays.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Rectal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Long-term oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal adenocarcinoma compared to open surgery continue to be debated. We aimed to review our high-volume single-institution outcomes in MIS rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was completed of all consecutive adult patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated from January 2005 through December 2011. Stage IV or recurrent disease was excluded. Demographics and operative and pathologic details were reviewed and reported. Primary endpoints include survival and recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 324 patients were included and median follow-up was 54 months (IQR = 37.0, 78.8). The mean age was 58.2 ± 14.1 years. Tumors were in the upper rectum in 111 patients, mid-rectum in 113 patients, and lower rectum in 100 patients. Stage III disease was most common (49.4%). Overall conversion to open procedure rate was 13.9%. The circumferential radial margin was positive in only 1 patient (0.3%) and the mean lymph node yield was 24.7 ± 17.2. Cancer recurred in 42 patients (13%), 10 (2.5%) patients developed local recurrence, 32 (9.8%) developed distant metastasis, and 2 (0.6%) patients had both. The 5-year overall survival for stage 0, 1, 2, and 3 disease is 96, 91, 80, and 77%, respectively (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected rectal cancer patients treated with MIS, long-term outcomes of survival and recurrence appear to compare favorably to previously published series.

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal surgery in high-risk patients

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is associated with a steep learning curve and high conversion rate despite progress in equipment design and consistent practice. The robotic system has shown an advantage over the laparoscopic approach due to stable three-dimensional views, improved dexterity and better ergonomics. These factors make the robotic approach more favourable for rectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery in high-risk patients.

METHOD

A prospectively collected dataset for high-risk patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between May 2013 and November 2015 was analysed. Patients with any of the following characteristics were defined as high risk: a body mass index ≥30, male gender, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumour <8 cm from the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 184 high-risk patients were identified: 99 in the robotic group and 85 in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly higher sphincter preservation rate (86% vs 74%, P = 0.045), shorter operative time (240 vs 270 min, P = 0.013) and hospital stay (7 vs 9 days, P = 0.001), less blood loss (10 vs 100 ml, P < 0.001) and a smaller conversion rate to open surgery (0% vs 5%, P = 0.043) compared with the laparoscopic technique. Reoperation, anastomotic leak rate, 30-day mortality and oncological outcomes were comparable between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery in high-risk patients is associated with higher sphincter preservation, reduced blood loss, smaller conversion rates, and shorter operating time and hospital stay. However, further studies are required to evaluate this notion.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on March 31, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, conversion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and readmission), and 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine articles published between 2007 and 2016 with a total of 1307 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer length of incision. No differences were found for operative time, blood loss, transfusion, conversion, lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, readmission, or 5-year survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that HALS is similar to LAS for CRC surgery in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes except for the longer length of incision.

Laparoscopic surgical challenge for T4a colon cancer

For patients with T4a colon cancer, the risk of peritoneal dissemination after surgery remains unclear. Seven hundred and eleven patients with T3 or T4a colon cancer, 80 years of age or younger, underwent curative resection (open surgery in 512 and laparoscopic surgery in 199) at the four Jikei University hospitals between 2006 and 2012. Their risk factors for peritoneal dissemination after surgery were evaluated retrospectively. Number of lymph node metastases, postoperative liver metastases and postoperative peritoneal dissemination events in the T4a group were significantly greater than the number in the T3 group. Peritoneal dissemination after surgery developed in four patients (0.7%) in the T3 group and in six patients (5%) in the T4a group. Risk factors for peritoneal dissemination consisted of macroscopic type (P = 0.016), serosal invasion (P = 0.017) and number of lymph node metastases (P = 0.009) according to the Cox proportional hazards regression model. However, tumor diameter and surgical approach (laparoscopic vs open) were not significant factors for peritoneal dissemination. There were no significant differences between the postoperative relapse‐free survival rates for each surgical approach within the T3 or T4a group. Because of comparable postoperative peritoneal dissemination in T3 and T4a colon cancer by the surgical approach (laparoscopic or open), laparoscopic surgery for patients with T4a colon cancer seems justified.

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques

BACKGROUND

Recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP)-based evidence indicates that laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy results in improved outcomes compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy in the general population. Previous comparative studies demonstrated that the HAL technique offers distinct advantages for obese patients. The aim of this study was to perform comparative analyses of HAL and LAP colectomy and low anterior resection (LAR) in obese patients.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP public use file and targeted colectomy dataset, 2012-2014, were utilized for patients undergoing colectomy and LAR. Only obese patients (BMI > 30) and laparoscopic or hand-assisted operations were included. Patient, operation, and outcome variables were compared in two separate cohorts: colectomy and LAR. Bivariate analysis compared the approaches, followed by multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 9610 obese patients included, HAL and LAP colectomy were performed in 3126 and 3793 patients and LAR in 1431 and 1260 patients, respectively. In comparison to LAP colectomy, HAL colectomy patients had increased comorbidities including class 2 and 3 obesity. HAL colectomy was associated with higher overall morbidity (20 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), infectious complications (10.2 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (3.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.03), and ileus (11 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that overall morbidity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.44), infectious complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and ileus (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57) were each increased in the HAL colectomy cohort but not different for HAL and LAP LAR.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to LAP colectomy, the HAL technique is used more often in obese patients with an increased operative risk profile. While inherent bias and unmeasured variables limit the analysis, the available data indicate that the HAL technique is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Alternatively, HAL and LAP LAR are performed in obese patients with a similar risk profile and result in similar postoperative outcomes.

Impact of surgeon laparoscopic training and case volume of laparoscopic surgery on conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery

AIM

The study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic volume and type of training influence conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHOD

An Institutional Review Board-approved prospective database was reviewed for patients who underwent colorectal resection, performed by six colorectal surgeons, for all diagnoses from 2009 to 2014. Surgeons were designated as laparoscopic- or open-trained based on formal laparoscopic colorectal surgery training, and were classified as low laparoscopic volume (LLV) (i.e. had performed < 100 laparoscopic procedures) or high laparoscopic volume (HLV) (i.e. had performed ≥ 100 laparoscopic procedures). Technique was laparoscopic, open or converted (pre-emptive or reactive). Conversion was compared among three groups: LLV, laparoscopic trained (group A); LLV, open trained (group B); and HLV, open trained (group C).

RESULTS

In total, 159/567 procedures were open and 408 laparoscopic procedures were attempted. Of the 408 laparoscopic procedures, 73 were converted. Among the 567 patients [mean age: 56 ± 17 years (44% male)], the overall conversion rate was 13% (73/567), including 75% pre-emptive and 25% reactive. Conversion rates for groups A, B and C were 17.9%, 42.6% and 14.3%, respectively. Significantly higher conversion was seen in group B compared with group C (P = 0.01), but not between group A and group C (P = 0.85) or between group B and group A (P = 0.11). Converted patients were older (P < 0.001), with lower rates of proctectomy (P = 0.007), higher rates of anastomosis (P < 0.001) and higher body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and surgeon factors, training type was not associated with conversion (P = 0.15). Compared with successful laparoscopy, converted patients had a significantly higher incidence of ileus (P < 0.001), length of stay (P = 0.002), time to flatus (OR = 3.21, P < 0.001) and time to solids (P < 0.001). Converted patients experienced increased morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Training is not associated with conversion. Rather, HLV surgeons, regardless of training, convert less frequently than do LLV surgeons.

Comparison of straight vs hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: an assessment from the NSQIP procedure-targeted cohort

BACKGROUND

The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent straight laparoscopic (LAP) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) surgery were compared using a recently released procedure-targeted database.

METHODS

The 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used and patients were classified into 2 groups according to the final surgical approach: LAP vs HALS. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 7,843 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 4,656 (59%) patients in LAP colectomy and 3,187 (41%) in HALS colectomy groups. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Mean operative time was slightly longer in LAP group (178 ± 86 vs 171 ± 84 minutes, P < .001). After covariate-adjustment analysis, the overall morbidity, superficial surgical site infection, and ileus rates remained slightly higher in HALS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both straight laparoscopic and hand-assisted approaches are used in colorectal surgery and may complement each other in challenging cases. Implementing the best approach to decrease postoperative complication rates and increase use of minimally invasive techniques may play a role in improving patient care and overall quality.

Is there anything we can modify among factors associated with morbidity following elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis is widely accepted, using either endolinear staplers or traditional linear staplers under direct vision through the extraction site to transect the rectum. The aim of this study was to assess modifiable factors affecting perioperative morbidity after elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis.

METHODS

Potential associations between perioperative morbidity and demographic, disease-related, and treatment-related factors were assessed on all consecutive patients included in a prospectively collected database undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis between 1992 and 2013. Rectal transection with a linear stapler under direct vision through the extraction site was considered compatible with laparoscopic technique.

RESULTS

There were two deaths out of 1059 patients (0.19 %). Conversion rate was 13.1 %, overall morbidity 28 %, and anastomotic leak 3.7 %. Independent factors associated with morbidity in an intent-to-treat analysis were ASA 3 (OR 1.53, p = 0.006), conversion (OR 1.71, p = 0.015), and rectal transection without endolinear stapling (traditional linear stapler: OR 1.75, p = 0.003; surgical knife: OR 2.09, p = 0.002). The same factors along with complicated diverticulitis (OR 1.56, p = 0.013) were independently associated with overall morbidity among laparoscopically completed cases. BMI ≥ 35 (OR 2.3, p = 0.017), complicated diverticulitis (OR 2.37, p = 0.002), and rectal transection with a traditional linear stapler (OR 2.19, p = 0.018) were independently associated with abdomino-pelvic infections, both in an intent-to-treat analysis and among laparoscopically completed cases. The number of endolinear stapler firings was not associated with morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Most factors associated with morbidity of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis cannot be easily modified. With the limitation of a retrospective analysis, modifiable factors to minimize morbidity are laparoscopic completion and endolinear stapling.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Approach in Colon Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study sought to compare outcomes of patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy with open and laparoscopic colectomy (LP).

STUDY DESIGN

The NSQIP databases were used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent elective colectomy during 2012-2013. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches.

RESULTS

We sampled a total of 21,090 patients who underwent colectomy. Of these, 7480 (35.5 %) had open colectomy (OC), 8751 (41.5 %) had a laparoscopic colectomy, 2860 (13.6 %) had a HAL colectomy, and 1999 (9.5 %) had an open procedure converted from LC or HAL. Multivariate regression analysis revealed HAL colectomy had a similar mortality (AOR 0.53, P = 0.07) and a lower morbidity (AOR 0.37, P < 0.01) compared to OC. LC had lower mortality (AOR 0.58, P = 0.02) and morbidity (AOR 0.43, P < 0.01) compared to OC. Mortality of patients who underwent HAL was not significantly different from LC (AOR 0.90, P = 0.79); however, morbidity of such patients was significantly higher than for patients who underwent LC (AOR 1.29, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

HAL colectomy is a safe approach with significant advantages compared to open colectomy. Although the morbidity of patients who underwent HAL is higher than patients who underwent LC, the morbidity rate is still lower than OC.

A case-control study examining the benefits of laparoscopic colectomy using a totally intracorporeal technique for left-sided colon tumors

Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy with an extracorporeal anastomosis is associated with a higher conversion rate for left-sided colon tumors. We hypothesized that a totally intracorporeal laparoscopic colectomy (TILC) would minimize operative conversion and morbidity. We conducted a case-control study comparing TILC for left-sided and right-sided tumors with matching based on age and ASA status. TILC was performed for 105 colon tumors with an overall conversion rate of 6.5%, a complication rate of 22%, and median length of stay of 5 days. There were 35 patients undergoing TILC for left-sided colon tumors and 70 patients undergoing TILC for right-sided colon tumors. Operative conversion for left-sided TILC (6%) was similar (P=0.78) to right-sided TILC (7%). Complication rates for left-sided TILC (23%) were no different (P=0.87) compared with right-sided TILC (21%). Length of stay for left-sided TILC (5 d) was comparable (P=0.17) to right-sided TILC (5 d). Laparoscopic left colectomy can be successfully performed with equivalent results to laparoscopic right colectomy by using a totally intracorporeal technique.

A comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes and perioperative variables following conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2012, 2680 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer were analyzed. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for potential baseline confounders between groups including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical T and N categories, pathologic T and N categories, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and the status of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. After matching, we analyzed 278 patients in each group (n = 556).

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 36.2 and 37.4 months in the HALS group and the conventional LAP group, respectively. Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.531). The 5-year overall survival rate was 88.8 % in the HALS group and 91.2 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.329). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.0 % in the HALS group and 79.7 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.591).

CONCLUSIONS

HALS is considered a safe and feasible approach for rectal cancer treatment that enables the preservation of the advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with open resection for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the long-term surgical outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer after open or hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

A case-matched controlled prospective analysis of 116 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for stage I to III mid and low rectal cancer from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Contemporary patients who underwent open rectal surgery were matched to the HALS group at the ratio of 1:1. The perioperative clinical outcomes, postoperative pathology, and survival outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Ninety patients in the open group and 85 in the HALS group received sphincter-preserving surgery. HALS resulted in less blood loss and wound infection, faster return to oral diet, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and longer operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Lymph node retrieval and involvement of circumferential and distal margins were similar for both procedures. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence, disease-free, or overall survival rates were statistically similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that HALS for mid and low rectal cancer is acceptable in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival results.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery using tissue fusion devices and open resection for treatment of rectosigmoid carcinoma

Modern tissue fusion devices used in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), a method of combining endoscopic surgery with tactile sensation, can minimize surgical trauma and hospitalization times beyond both conventional laparoscopy and open surgery. The outcomes of HALS using tissue fusion devices and conventional open surgery for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma were compared. A total of 78 (45 males, 33 females; mean age, 57.2±11.7 y) rectosigmoid carcinoma patients underwent HALS surgery (HALS group) and 78 age-matched, sex-matched, and tumor status-matched rectosigmoid carcinoma patients (control group) underwent open resection between June 2008 and June 2010. In the HALS and control groups, abdominal incision length, intraoperative blood loss, procedure time, postoperative abdominal drainage, time to first flatus (bowel function return), length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and pathology were assessed. Procedure times were similar in both groups (142.37±42.09 vs. 137.56±36.24 min). However, length of abdominal incision (5.14±0.47 vs. 13.17±2.41 cm), intraoperative blood loss (125.96±75.58 vs. 142.56±65.37 mL), need for postoperative analgesia, bowel function return (68.01±22.64 vs. 79.77±19.94 h), and postoperative hospital stay (6.47±1.73 vs. 7.73±1.71 d) were all significantly improved in the HALS group. At a median follow-up of 26 months, no significant differences in anastomotic recurrence were observed between groups (1 case/each group). Thus, the HALS approach for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma was found to be similarly safe and effective compared with open resection. Furthermore, HALS may improve postoperative recovery and reduce hospitalization times.

The role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in a right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and standard laparoscopic surgery (SLS) and assess the role of HALS in the management of right-sided colon cancer.

Methods

The study group included 53 patients who underwent HALS and 45 patients who underwent SLS for right-sided colon cancer between April 2002 and December 2008.

Results

The patients in each group were similar in age, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, body mass index, and history of previous abdominal surgeries. Eight patients in the HALS group and no patient in the SLS group exhibited signs of tumor invasion into adjacent structures. No differences were noted in the time to return of normal bowel function, time to toleration of diet, lengths of hospital stay and narcotic usage, and rate of postoperative complications. The median incision length was longer in the HALS group (HALS: 7.0 cm vs. SLS: 4.8 cm, P < 0.001). The HALS group had a significantly higher pathologic TNM stage and significantly larger tumor size (HALS: 6.0 cm vs. SLS: 3.3 cm, P < 0.001). The 5-year overall, disease-free, and cancer-specific survival rates of the HALS and the SLS groups were 87.3%, 75.2%, and 93.9% and 86.4%, 78.0%, and 90.7%, respectively (P = 0.826, P = 0.574, and P = 0.826).

Conclusion

Although patients in the HALS group had more advanced disease and underwent more complex procedures than those in the SLS group, the short-term benefits and the oncologic outcomes between the two groups were comparable. HALS can, therefore, be considered an alternative to SLS for bulky and fixed right-sided colon cancer.

Clinical outcomes of 103 hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries for left-sided colon and rectal cancer: single institutional review

Purpose

The laparoscopic colectomy is avoided principally because of its technical difficulty, steep learning curve, and increased operative time. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative technique that addresses these problems while preserving the short-term benefits of a laparoscopic colectomy. Our study was aimed to describe the characteristics of patients admitted due to left-sided colon and rectal cancer for HALS.

Methods

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients who underwent HALS at the Institute of Oncology, Vilnius University, from July 1, 2009, to October 1, 2012.

Results

One hundred-three HALS colorectal resections were performed. The patients' mean age was 64 ± 13.4 years. There were 46 male and 57 female patients. The body mass index was 27.3 ± 5.8 kg/m². Forty-three patients (41.8%) had experienced prior abdominal surgery. The mean HALS time was 105 minutes (range, 55-85 minutes). The conversion rate was 2.7% (3/103). The median of return of gastrointestinal function was 2.5 days (range, 2.2-4.5 days). The median length of hospital stay was 9 days. The postoperative complication and mortality rates were 10.7% and 0.97%, respectively. Four incisional hernias (3.9%) were seen at a mean follow-up of 7.0 ± 3.4 months. None of the patients had a trocar or a hand-port site recurrence.

Conclusion

A HALS colorectal resection is a safe and effective technique, and it provides all the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

HandPort Laparoscopic Surgery-Review and Current Status

HandPort laparoscopic surgery is a hybrid operation that allows the surgeon to introduce his nondominant hand into abdominal cavity through the port while maintaining pneumoperitoneum. It also helps to gain experience and expertise to learn advanced laparoscopic procedures. The common surgeries where HandPort is useful are laparoscopic splenectomy, colectomies, and donor nephrectomies. HandPort facilitates dissection and extraction of specimens. Hand in abdomen restores tactile sensation which is lacking in laparoscopic procedures. It reduces operative time, increases technical expertise of surgeon, and decreases blood loss. This article reviews the current status of HandPort laparoscopic surgery, the various HandPort devices, and their use.

Does nasogastric tube decompression get used less often with laparoscopic and hand-assisted compared with open colectomy?

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is associated with well-known benefits, one of which is earlier return of bowel function. Since the laparoscopic approach to colon resections was introduced in the early 1990s, it has become the standard of care. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is a surgical approach in which dissection is facilitated by the surgeon's hand within the abdominal cavity during laparoscopy. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative ileus and the need for nasogastric tube (NGT) decompression in patients undergoing elective colon resections.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Following institutional review board approval, we performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Included were patients who underwent elective left-sided large bowel resections between 2009 and 2012. Exclusion criteria were urgent operation, stoma creation, ASA IV classification, NGT left in place at the end of surgery, and postoperative anastomotic leakage. Patients were divided into three groups: laparoscopic surgery, HALS, and open surgery. We evaluated the incidence of postoperative ileus and the use of nasogastric decompression in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 243 patients were included in this study; 73 patients underwent open surgery, 89 patients underwent HALS, and 81 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. The proportion of patients who needed postoperative nasogastric decompression was significantly reduced in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery (3.7%) or HALS (4.5%) compared with those who underwent open resection (17.8%). The time from surgery to first flatus and first bowel movement, the time to tolerate solid diet, and the total length of postoperative hospital stay also were all significantly reduced in the laparoscopic and HALS groups compared with the open surgery group. There were no significant differences in any of these measures between the laparoscopic group and the hand-assisted group.

CONCLUSIONS

Like laparoscopy, HALS is associated with less postoperative ileus and necessitates less NGT decompression than does open surgery.

The evolving role of laparoscopy in colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A PubMed search of the biomedical literature was carried out to systematically review the role of laparoscopy in colonic diverticular disease. All original reports comparing elective laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and open colon resection for diverticular disease of the colon, as well as original reports evaluating outcomes after laparoscopic lavage for acute diverticulitis, were considered. Of the 21 articles chosen for final review, nine evaluated laparoscopic versus open elective resection, six compared hand-assisted colon resection versus conventional laparoscopic resection, and six considered laparoscopic lavage. Five were randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Elective laparoscopic colon resection for diverticular disease is associated with increased operative time, decreased postoperative pain, fewer postoperative complications, less paralytic ileus, and shorter hospital stay compared to open colectomy. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage appears to be a safe and effective therapy for selected patients with complicated diverticulitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease is associated with decreased postoperative morbidity compared to open colectomy, leading to shorter hospital stay and fewer costs. Laparoscopic lavage has an increasing but poorly defined role in complicated diverticulitis.

Short-term Outcomes of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery vs. Open Surgery on Right Colon Cancer: A Case-Controlled Study

Purpose

This study was designed to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes by comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for right colon cancer.

Methods

Sixteen patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (HAL-RHC group) and 33 patients who underwent a conventional open right hemicolectomy (open group) during the same period were enrolled in this study with a case-controlled design.

Results

The operation time was 217 minutes in the HAL-RHC group and 213 minutes in the open group (P = 0.389). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar between the two groups (31 in the HAL-RHC group and 36 in the open group, P = 0.737). Also, there were no significant difference in the incidence of immediate postoperative leukocytosis, the administration of additional pain killers, and the postoperative recovery parameters. First flatus was shown on postoperative days 3.5 in the HAL-RHC group and 3.4 in the open group (P = 0.486). Drinking water and soft diet were started on postoperative days 4.8 and 5.9, respectively, in the HAL-RHC group and similarly 4.6 and 5.6 in the open group (P = 0.402 and P = 0.551). The duration of hospital stay was shorter in the HAL-RHC group than in the open group (10.3 days vs. 13.5 days, P = 0.048). No significant difference in the complication rates was shown between the two groups, and no postoperative mortality was encountered in either group.

Conclusion

The patients with right colon cancer in the HAL-RHC group had similar pathologic and postoperative recovery parameters to those of the patients in the open group. The patients in the HAL-RHC group had shorter hospital stays than those in the open group. Therefore, hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer is feasible.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for obese patients: decreased conversions with the hand-assisted technique

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery benefits obese patients but technical difficulties associated with suboptimal exposure and access in these subjects may prompt conversion to open surgery. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) confers advantages over standard laparoscopy (LAP) by facilitating tactile feedback, assisted dissection, and retraction. These benefits could be particularly valuable in obese patients, allowing completion of difficult laparoscopic procedures in this subgroup. Our aim was to compare intra-operative and post-operative outcomes of HALS and LAP approaches in obese patients undergoing colorectal resection at our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective study of a prospectively maintained laparoscopic colorectal surgery database was performed. HALS and LAP cases performed in obese patients (body mass index (BMI) >30) were identified and compared for the following outcomes: operative time, intra-operative complications, rate of conversion to open, blood loss, length of stay, post-operative morbidity, and mortality. Outcomes for the converted patients were included on an intention-to-treat basis for all primary analyses. A secondary analysis of nonconverted and converted cases was also performed.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year period, 496 obese patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection; 86 HALS and 410 LAP cases. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, BMI, and indications for surgery. Conversion to open surgery was less often necessary in HALS compared to LAP cases (3.5 % vs. 12.7 %, p = 0.014). The LAP group had a significantly smaller incision length for specimen extraction (HALS (7.0 ± 1.3 cm) vs. LAP (5.7 ± 2.1 cm), p < 0.001). Length of stay, operative time, morbidity, and mortality rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In obese patients who require colectomy, the HALS approach increases the likelihood of a successful minimally invasive operation. At the cost of a clinically negligible increase in incision length, HALS may save a high-risk group conversion to formal laparotomy and the adverse outcomes related to this.

Feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery as compared to open surgery for sigmoid colon cancer: a case-controlled study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes by comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open surgery for sigmoid colon cancer.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection (HAL-AR group) and 52 patients who underwent a conventional open anterior resection during the same period were enrolled (open group) in this study with a case-controlled design.

RESULTS

Pathologic parameters were similar between the two groups. The incidences of immediate postoperative leukocytosis were 38.5% in the HAL-AR group and 69.2% in the open group (P = 0.009). There were no significant differences between the two groups as to leukocyte count, hemoglobin, and hematocrits (P = 0.758, P = 0.383, and P = 0.285, respectively). Of the postoperative recovery indicators, first flatus, sips of water and soft diet started on postoperative days 3, 5, 7 in the HALS group and on days 4, 5, 6 in the open group showed statistical significance (P = 0.021, P = 0.259, and P = 0.174, respectively). Administration of additional pain killers was needed for 1.2 days in the HAL-AR group and 2.4 days in the open group (P = 0.002). No significant differences in the durations of hospital stay and the rates of postoperative complications were noted, and no postoperative mortality was encountered in either group.

CONCLUSION

The patients with sigmoid colon cancer who underwent a HAL-AR had a lower incidence of postoperative leukocytosis, less administration of pain killers, and faster first flatus than those who underwent open surgery. Clinical outcomes for patients' recovery and pathology status were similar between the two groups. Therefore, a HAL-AR for sigmoid colon cancer is feasible and has the same benefit as minimally invasive surgery.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.

Total abdominal colectomy for refractory ulcerative colitis. Surgical treatment in evolution

INTRODUCTION

Total abdominal colectomy is the procedure of choice for debilitated patients with acute, medical refractory ulcerative colitis in our practice. A laparoscopic approach has been previously shown to be safe and effective, and has become our preferred strategy. This study illustrates the laparoscopic evolution towards a truly minimally invasive approach comparing three phases of a single colorectal surgeon experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In May 2010 single incision laparoscopy was introduced in our practice and has become our preferred approach. Ten consecutive ulcerative colitis patients were case matched and compared with 10 previous laparoscopic-assisted (Feb 2003-Jan 2007) and 10 hand-assisted (Feb 2006-Apr 2010) total abdominal colectomies. Patient, disease and surgery-related factors were analyzed and short-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Given the study design, there were no differences in demographics, smoking history, disease duration and severity, nutritional and inflammatory parameters, and indication for surgery between groups. Single incision patients were more likely to have received immunosuppressive therapy within 30 days of the surgery (p = 0.016). In the single incision group we noticed significantly shorter duration of surgery (p < 0.001) and faster resumption of solid diet (p = 0.019) compared to the other groups. Other short-term outcomes did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Single incision laparoscopy offers a safe alternative to other laparoscopic approaches. Despite the higher technical complexity, the duration of surgery is shorter with faster resumption of oral intake. Studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up will be required to confirm the benefits of this approach.

Alternative specimen extraction techniques after laparoscopic emergency colectomy in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Omitting the extraction site incision potentially further decreases the abdominal wall trauma in laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to report the results of alternative specimen extraction techniques after laparoscopic emergency colectomy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Ten consecutive patients with IBD underwent (sub)acute emergency colectomy for refractory disease from October 2009 until December 2010. The specimen was retrieved via the stoma site in three and transrectally in seven patients. Patient data were prospectively collected. In case of later completion proctectomy and pouch procedure, adhesions were systematically scored.

RESULTS

The extraction techniques were all feasible. Median operative time was 219 (interquartile range (IQR), 197-232) min. The pain scores and morphine requirement in patients decreased quickly after surgery. No infectious complications occurred. In five patients, a completion proctectomy was performed at a median time of 7 (IQR, 3.8-9.3) months after colectomy. All patients showed absence of any adhesions in the pelvis. In two patients, limited adhesions of the cut side of the mesentery were present.

CONCLUSIONS

Specimen extraction via the rectum or stoma site is a safe, alternative way to extract the specimen after laparoscopic colectomy. No infectious complications were observed postoperatively and no pelvic adhesions were found during completion proctectomy.

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: past, present, and future

A rapid progression from conventional open surgery to minimally invasive approaches in the surgical management of colorectal cancer has occurred over the last 2 decades. Initial concerns that this new approach was oncologically inferior to open surgery were ultimately refuted when several prospective randomized trials concluded that laparoscopic colectomy could achieve similar oncologic outcomes to open surgery. On the contrary, level 1 data has not yet matured regarding the oncologic safety of minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer. We review the published literature pertaining to the evolution of minimally invasive techniques used to treat colorectal cancer surgery, including barriers to adoption, and the prospects for future advances related to innovative techniques.

Advantages of the hand-assisted versus the open approach to elective colectomies

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy has been introduced as an alternative to standard laparoscopy. However, to date, it has not been established whether intraabdominal placement of a hand abrogates the benefits of minimally invasive techniques. The authors hypothesized that the hand-assisted approach confers advantages of minimal access surgery over traditional open colectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing elective open (OC) and hand-assisted (HALC) colon resections were retrospectively reviewed. Open colectomies performed by the laparoscopic surgeons were excluded. Outcome measures included patient demographics, operative time, perioperative complications, operative and total hospital charges, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis was performed with a p value less than 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

The study identified and reviewed 323 consecutive elective OCs and 66 consecutive elective HALCs. Of these, 228 OCs (70.6%) and 52 HALCs (78.8%) were left-sided. The two groups were similar in age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The mean operative time was longer in the HALC group (202 vs 160 min; p<0.05). No major intraoperative complications occurred in either group, and no conversions from HALC to OC were performed. Postoperatively, 14 OC patients (3.8%) required blood transfusion versus no HALC patients. The rate of wound infections also was higher in the OC group (3.4%, n=11) than in the HALC group (1.5%, n=1) (p=0.04). All seven mortalities (2.3%) occurred in the OC group. The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the HALC group (5.3 vs 8.4 days; p<0.001). The total hospital charges were significantly lower in the HALC group ($24,132 vs $33,150; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy is a safe alternative to traditional open colonic resection. In this series, it was associated with decreased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Despite longer operative times, the use of the hand-assisted techniques significantly reduced the hospital stay and decreased the total hospital charges. Overall, in the elective setting, hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy appears to be advantageous over the traditional open colectomy.

Hand assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colon disease has been shown to have advantages over the open approach in the perioperative period in terms of shorter hospital stay, decreased analgesic use and a more rapid return of bowel function but provides these benefits at the expense of increased technical difficulty and operative time. Hand assisted surgery which a is a hybrid of open surgery and laparoscopic surgery may offer patients the perioperative advantages of minimally invasive surgery without the technical difficulty and increased operative time associated with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review compares the benefits and harms of laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic surgery for colon disease.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the perioperative outcomes of hand assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery in adult patients requiring colorectal resections.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched EMBASE (1980- Feb 2010), Medline (1966- Feb 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2010 issue 1), references of included studies, relevant review articles and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which adult patients were allocated to either receive hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery or conventional laparoscopic colorectal resection for benign or malignant colorectal disease. Studies were not restricted by language of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reports of potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full text, and two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of these studies. Data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis of perioperative outcome measures was carried out using a random effects model. 

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised controlled studies met the inclusion criteria (n=189). One study focused exclusively on malignant pathology, the second study focused mostly on benign pathology and the third trial had a mixed variety of pathology with approximately a third representing malignant pathology. Conversion rates were significantly decreased in patients undergoing hand assisted surgery but there was no statistically significant difference in operative time or complication rates when comparing hand assisted surgery to conventional laparoscopy.  All studies were associated with methodological limitations.   

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited number of trials performed, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in conversion rates among the hand assisted group. There was no difference in operating time or perioperative complication rates.  Additional adequately powered and methodologically sound trials are needed to determine if there is a clinically important difference in perioperative outcomes.  Due to significant costs associated with the use of hand-assist devices, economic analyses are also warranted. 

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus the open approach in curative resection of rectal cancer

This prospective, randomized study compared the outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open surgery for the resection of rectal cancer. The main outcome measures were procedure time, blood loss, post-operative pain, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, morbidity and functional recovery. Patients in each group were similar with regard to general status, procedure types and the histopathological features of tumours. Procedure times were significantly longer with HALS versus open surgery. Analgesic requirements, surgical blood loss, time to first passing flatus, time to first oral fluids and post-operative hospital stay length were all significantly shorter in the HALS group. At a median follow-up of 16.3 months, local recurrence of tumour was not observed in either group. In this study, the HALS approach for curative resection of rectal cancer was safe and effective and may offer several potential advantages to patients in their post-operative recovery.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: the optimization of instrumentation toward standardization

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is increasingly used for complex and extensive colorectal diseases, such as a restorative proctocolectomy (RP) for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the optimal instrumentation for this procedure has yet to be determined. This study reviewed the optimization of the instrumentation employed for HALS-RP and evaluated their impact in standardizing HALS-RP for UC.

METHODS

Sixty-six cases with HALS-RP for UC were reviewed. Cases were divided into subgroups according to (1) hand-access devices and (2) vascular control devices, and their intraoperative/postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

All groups had comparable backgrounds. (1) The hand-access devices employed were first LapDisc (n = 14), then HandPort (n = 25), and recently GelPort (n = 27). The surgical time was shortest in GelPort group in comparison to the other two groups. (2) Laparosonic coagulating shears (LCS) with clips were used for vascular control in the first 29 patients, and the bipolar vessel sealing system (LigaSure) was employed in the 37 subsequent patients. The surgical time was shorter and blood loss was less in the LigaSure group. No differences were seen in postoperative outcomes, including the complication rate and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The new instrumentation contributed to improved outcome of HALS-RP. HALS-RP can become a more comfortable and standardized procedure for UC with the adoption of evolving technologies.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery: feasibility, short-term, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an established alternative to laparoscopic-assisted surgery, but limited data exist regarding its applicability for colorectal cancer (CRC). We report short-term outcomes in a large series of CRC patients who underwent HALS between 2004 and 2009.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify all CRC patients. Patients with colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) were considered separately. Three patients with synchronous CC and RC were excluded. Data are frequency (%) or median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2009, 323 CRC patients underwent a HALS procedure. Median age was 65 (53-73) years, 39% were women, and the median BMI was 27 (24-31) kg/m(2). Diagnoses included 194 colon cancers (CC, 56.7% stage I/II), 129 rectal cancers (RC, 62.7% stage I/II). Operative time was less for CC than RC (157 vs 204 min; P < .0001). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in similar proportions of CC and RC cases (14% vs 10%; P = .38); lymph nodes retrieval was also similar (18 vs 18; P = .45). Overall duration of stay was 5 (4-7) days. At 30 days, postoperative complications occurred in similar proportions of CC and RC patients (28% vs 30%; P = .72). There was 1 mortality (0.5%). For the subgroup with 3 year follow-up, (73 CC and 45 RC patients), the overall survival was 80% and 88% (CC and RC, respectively), and disease free survival 79% and 85%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Colon and rectal cancer can be resected safely using HALS techniques. Conversion rates are low, complication rates expected, durations of hospital stay shorter, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved is high.

Comparison and short-term outcomes between hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for anterior resections of left-sided colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been introduced as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. This study compared the efficacies and short-term clinical outcomes between hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection (HAL-AR) and conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CL-AR) for treating left-sided colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 248 patients who underwent anterior resection for colon cancer (118 HAL-AR and 128 CL-AR) between May 2000 and December 2006. The collected data included the perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the HAL-AR and CL-AR groups, except for the operation time and the size of the primary tumor. The operation time of the HAL-AR group was significantly shorter than that of the CL-AR group (p = 0.004), and the size of the primary tumor in the HAL-AR group was significantly larger than that of the CL-AR group (p = 0.019). The operating time of the HAL-AR group reached an earlier mean plateau than did that of the CL-AR group. Before and after reaching the plateau, there were no differences in the perioperative results between the two groups. The operating time for the HAL-AR group was significantly shorter than that of the CL-AR group after reaching a plateau (p = 0.012). The short-term outcomes for both groups were similar in terms of survival and recurrence (p = 0.996 and p = 0.476, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection has a shorter operative time than does CL-AR and is more successful than CL-AR for resecting larger tumors, while both procedures result in similar short-term oncologic outcomes. Hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is thought be a comparable operative technique for anterior resection of left-sided colon cancer.