A case-matched comparison of the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS & METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Chylous ascites in colorectal surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chylous ascites is a rare complication in colorectal surgery with limited evidence.

AIM

To systematically review all available evidence to describe the incidence, clinical presentation, risk factors and management strategies.

METHODS

The systematic review was performed through PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane and cross-checked up to November 2020. The data collated included: Demographics, indications (benign vs malignant), site of disease, surgical approach, extent of lymphadenectomy, day to and method of diagnosis of chylous ascites and management strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies were included in the final analysis (426 cases). Patient age ranged from 31 to 89 years. All except one case were performed for malignancy. Of the 426 cases, 195 were right-colonic, 121 left-colonic, 103 pelvic surgeries and 7 others. The majority were diagnosed during the same inpatient stay by recognition of typical drain appearance and increased volume. Three cases were diagnosed during outpatient visits with increased abdominal distention and subsequently underwent paracentesis. Most cases were managed successfully non-operatively (fasting with prolonged drainage, total parenteral nutrition, somatostatin analogues or a combination of these). Only three cases required surgical intervention after failing conservative management and subsequently resolved completely. Risk factors identified include: Right-colonic surgery/ tumour location, extent of lymphadenectomy and number of lymph nodes harvested.

CONCLUSION

Chylous ascites after colorectal surgery is a relatively rare complication. Whilst the majority of cases resolved without surgical intervention, preventative measures should be undertaken such as meticulous dissection and clipping of lymphatics during lymphadenectomy to prevent morbidity.

Laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: Economic and clinical outcomes in the Brazilian healthcare

Laparoscopic surgery has become the preferred surgical approach of several colorectal conditions. However, the economic results of this are quite controversial. The degree of adoption of laparoscopic technology, as well as the aptitude of the surgeons, can have an influence not only in the clinical outcomes but also in the total procedure cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgeries, compared to open procedures in Brazil.All patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries between January 2012 and December 2013 were eligible to the retrospective cohort. The considered follow-up period was within 30 days from the index procedure. The outcomes evaluated were the length of stay, blood transfusion, intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, use of antibiotics, the development of anastomotic leakage, readmission, and the total hospital costs including re-admissions.Two hundred eighty patients, who met the eligibility criteria, were included in the analysis. Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter length of stay in comparison with the open group (6.02 ± 3.86 vs 9.86 ± 16.27, P < .001). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. The total costs were similar between the 2 groups, in the multivariate analysis (generalized linear model ratio of means 1.20, P = .074). The cost predictors were the cancer diagnosis and age.Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents a 17% decrease in the duration of the hospital stay without increasing the total hospitalization costs. The factors associated with increased hospital costs were age and the diagnosis of cancer.

Influence of Surgical Procedures on Serum Paraoxonase-1-Related Variables and Markers of Inflammation in Hospitalized Patients

Purpose: Surgical stress is a phenomenon not completely understood from the biochemical point of view, although it produces alterations in the oxidative balance and inflammatory status. The present study aimed to investigate the alterations of the circulating levels of paraoxonase-1 (PON1)-related variables and markers of inflammation in hospitalized patients who underwent surgery. Methods: We recruited 285 hospitalized patients. Of those, 115 were hospitalized due to a surgical intervention and 170 for reasons other than surgery. The control group consisted of 128 healthy volunteers. A blood sample was obtained for the measurement of serum PON1-related variables, and C-reactive protein (CRP), chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2), and procalcitonin concentrations. Results: Hospitalized patients had lower serum PON1 activities [paraoxonase: 215.6 (168.6 - 277.8) vs. 298.7 (229.7 - 382.6) U/L, p < 0.001; lactonase: 3.0 (2.3 - 3.7) vs. 5.7 (4.6 - 6.5) U/L, p < 0.001], and higher CCL2, CRP and procalcitonin concentrations than the healthy individuals. The days elapsed following surgery and the duration of the procedure itself inversely correlated with PON1-related variables, and directly correlated with CRP concentrations. Patients that were operated on by laparotomy had higher PON1 activity than patients operated on by laparoscopy. Local and regional anesthesia was associated with higher PON1 activities and lower CRP concentrations. Conclusion: These results show a decrease in PON1 activities and an increase in acute phase response in hospitalized patients undergoing surgery and support the hypothesis that these phenomena are related to post-surgical metabolic alterations.

The adipofasciocutaneous gluteal fold perforator flap a versatile alternative choice for covering perineal defects

AIM

Perineal defects following the resection of anorectal malignancies are a reconstructive challenge. Flaps based on the rectus abdominis muscle have several drawbacks. Regional perforator flaps may be a suitable alternative. We present our experience of using the gluteal fold flap (GFF) for reconstructing perineal and pelvic defects.

METHODS

We used a retrospective chart review and follow-up examinations focusing on epidemiological, oncological (procedure and outcome), and therapy-related data. This included postoperative complications and their management, length of hospital stay, and time to heal.

RESULTS

Twenty-two GFFs (unilateral n = 8; bilateral n = 7) were performed in 15 patients (nine women and six men; anal squamous cell carcinoma n = 8; rectal adenocarcinoma n = 7; mean age 65.5 + 8.2 years) with a mean follow-up time of 1 year. Of the cases, 73.3% were a recurrent disease. Microscopic tumor resection was achieved in all but one case (93.3%). Seven cases had no complications (46.7%). Surgical complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system (grades I n = 2; II n = 2; IIIb n = 4). These were mainly wound healing disorders that did not affect mobilization or discharge. The time to discharge was 22 + 9.9 days. The oncological outcomes were as follows: 53.3% of the patients had no evidence of disease, 20% had metastatic disease, 20% had local recurrent disease, and one patient (6.7%) died of other causes.

CONCLUSIONS

The GFF is a robust, reliable flap suitable for perineal and pelvic reconstruction. It can be raised quickly and easily, has an acceptable complication rate and donor site morbidity, and does not affect the abdominal wall.

Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs.

Results

Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.

Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in less post-operative pain, faster recovery, shorter length of stay and reduced morbidity compared with open procedures. Less or minimally invasive techniques have been developed to further minimise surgical trauma and to decrease the size and number of incisions. This study describes the safety and feasibility of using an umbilical multi-instrument access (MIA) port (Olympus TriPort+) device with the placement of just one 12-mm suprapubic trocar in laparoscopic (double-port) abdominoperineal resections (APRs) in rectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 20 patients undergoing double-port APRs for rectal cancer between June 2011 and August 2013. Preoperative data were gathered in a prospective database, and post-operative data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

The 20 patients (30% female) had a median age of 67 years (range 46-80 years), and their median body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/m2 (range 20-31 kg/m2). An additional third trocar was placed in 2 patients. No laparoscopic procedures were converted to an open procedure. Median operating time was 195 min (range 115-306 min). A radical resection (R0 resection) was achieved in all patients, with a median of 14 lymph nodes harvested. Median length of stay was 8 days (range 5-43 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic APR using a MIA trocar is a feasible and safe procedure. A MIA port might be of benefit as an extra option in the toolbox of the laparoscopic surgeon to further minimise surgical trauma.

The feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

METHODS

The data on 77 patients, who underwent extended pelvic surgery between February 2008 and June 2014, were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided, based on their treatment history, into an open surgery (OS) group (n = 41) and a laparoscopic surgery (LS) group (n = 36).

RESULTS

The operative time in the LS group was significantly longer than that in the OS group (766 vs. 561 min; p < 0.001). In contrast, the LS group was associated with a significantly lower volume of intraoperative blood loss (195 vs. 923 ml; p < 0.001), fluid balance (5.38 vs. 8.23 ml/kg/h; p < 0.001) and rate of complications (40.0 vs. 68.3 %; p = 0.035), and a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay. The postoperative levels of colloid osmotic pressure and albumin were significantly higher in the LS group.

CONCLUSION

The operative time of the LS group was longer than that of the OS group; however, the LS group experienced less blood loss and fewer complications. Moreover, LS was associated with a reduction in intraoperative infusions and a reduced fluid balance, which maintained homeostasis.

Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy around the left renal vein (16a2lat) by tunneling under the pancreas for advanced Siewert type II adenocarcinoma

The para-aortic lymph nodes around the left renal vein (16a2lat) are now considered important to target in the treatment of advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. We describe a laparoscopic approach for resecting these nodes. This new tunneling approach starts from the ligament of Treitz and then enters the retroperitoneal space. The left renal vein and left adrenal vein are dissected to identify the anatomy of the 16a2lat area. After this dissection, the 16a2lat nodes are retrieved through the suprapancreatic area. Six patients with advanced type II junctional cancer underwent laparoscopic 16a2lat lymph node dissection. The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 479 (390-750) min and 250 (130-500) ml, respectively. The median hospital stay was 22 (17-54) days and there were no deaths or serious complications. Although this series was relatively small, our technique proved effective and feasible.

Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers

AIM

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using the intended stoma site as the multichannel port

We describe a novel minimally invasive procedure: dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using a SILS port, and report our experience of using this to treat ten patients with lower rectal cancer. A SILS port was placed in the left lower quadrant at the intended colostomy site. A 5-mm trocar was inserted at the umbilicus at the subsequent drain site. Via a standard laparoscopic medial-to-lateral approach, the inferior mesenteric artery and vein were ligated and total mesorectal excision was performed. Via a perineal approach, the specimen was retrieved from the perineal wound, and a sigmoid colostomy was created at the site of the SILS port. Ten consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer at clinical stage T3 or lower underwent the procedure at our institution. The procedure was completed successfully in all patients, without any intraoperative problems and all postoperative outcomes were satisfactory. Thus, dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection can be performed safely and feasibly in selected patients.