A propensity score-matching analysis comparing the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with Stage I/II colon and upper rectal cancers

Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Single Specialized Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754.RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE LA RESECCIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO ESPECIALIZADOANTECEDENTES:Estudios aleatorizados han validado la proctectomía laparoscópica para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto igual a la proctectomía abierta, pero la mayoría de esos estudios han incluido resecciones con preservación del esfínter junto con resección abdominoperineal.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo entre la resección abdominoperineal abierta y mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:Servicio único especializado en cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto primario entre 2000 y 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 452 pacientes, 372 en el grupo abierto y 80 en el grupo mínimamente invasivo, con una mediana de seguimiento de 74 meses. Hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en términos de tratamiento con radiación neoadyuvante (67,5% del grupo abierto versus 81,3% del grupo mínimamente invasivo, p = 0,01), tiempo operatorio (media de 200 minutos versus 287 minutos, p < 0,0001) y la duración media de la estancia (9,5 días frente a 6,6 días, p < 0,0001). Las tasas generales de complicaciones fueron similares entre los grupos (34,5% versus 27,5%, p = 0,177). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos (21,7 versus 22,2 ganglios, p = 0,7), márgenes radiales circunferenciales (1,48 cm y 1,37 cm, p = 0,4), ni en la tasa de márgenes radiales afectados (10,8 cm). % versus 6,3%, p = 0,37). La supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% en el grupo abierto frente al 80% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,344), mientras que la tasa de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años en el grupo abierto fue del 63,2% frente al 77,6% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,09).LIMITACIONES:Experiencia en una institución de referencia única.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien ambos tienen resultados perioperatorios similares, el enfoque mínimamente invasivo, beneficia a los pacientes con estadía más corta y menor riesgo de infecciones de la herida quirúrgica. Ambos enfoques, producen una calidad técnica oncológica similar en términos de ganglios linfáticos extraídos y estado de los márgenes, y tienen resultados oncológicos comparables a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Laparoscopic vs. Open Surgery for Stage II/III Colon Cancer Patients With Body Mass Index >25 kg/m2

AIM

To compare long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery for patients with colorectal cancer and body mass index over 25 kg/m² Patients and Methods: This multicentre, retrospective study analysed clinical records and identified 178 patients with body mass index over 25 kg/m² who underwent surgery for colon and rectosigmoid cancer between 2000 and 2016. After applying propensity score matching, 96 patients were finally included. The primary outcome was the 3-year recurrence-free survival rate, and the secondary outcomes were short-term results during and after surgery.

RESULTS

The 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were similar for the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. The laparoscopic surgery group had longer operative times but less blood loss and shorter periods of hospital stay. There were no differences in incidence of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and open surgeries had similar long-term outcomes for obese patients. Laparoscopic surgery is an effective option for this population.

Laparoscopic surgery in patients diagnosed with clinical N2 colon cancer

PURPOSE

The benefits of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer have been well established. Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated similar oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. However, whether or not laparoscopic surgery is acceptable in patients with clinical N2 colon cancer is unclear. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for clinical N2 colon cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed a prospective database and identified 262 consecutive patients with clinical N2 colon cancer who underwent either laparoscopic or open primary resection between 2000 and 2016. After propensity-score matching, 162 patients were analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was the 3-year recurrence-free survival rate, and the secondary outcome of interest was the postoperative complication rate.

RESULTS

The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate did not differ markedly between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups (77.4% vs. 76.5%, p = 0.620). In addition, the incidence of postoperative complications did not differ markedly between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups (16.6% vs. 24.0%, p = 0.317).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that laparoscopic surgery is safe and effective for clinical N2 colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection can be considered in patients diagnosed with clinical N2 colon cancer.

A novel physical colonoscopy simulator based on analysis of data from computed tomography colonography

Purpose

Laparoscopic surgery is now practiced widely because of its lower postoperative morbidity. As flexible endoscopy during laparoscopic surgery minimizes surgical trauma further, training in endoscopy will become more important for surgeons. Thus, we designed a physical simulator, the Noda–Kitada–Suzuki (NKS) model, which could provide the more realistic insertion of a colonoscope.

Methods

We designed a colonoscopy simulator, based on information from computed tomography colonography scans of the anatomy and kinetic properties of the colon and rectum.

Results

The transparent skeleton body of the NKS model provides instant visual feedback to the operator and the trainer. Our novel colonoscopy simulator replicates the realistic and reproducible insertion of a colonoscope from the rectum to cecum, providing authentic views of the Houston’s valves, the flexures, and mucosal folds. This was verified through an objective questionnaire, with 14 of 16 colonoscopists preferring the NKS model over the previous CM15 model for training purposes. Moreover, the Modified Colonoscopy Simulator Realism Questionnaire analysis confirmed that the NKS model was significantly more realistic than the CM15 for 7 (21.2%) of the 33 items when assessed by 12 colonoscopists.

Conclusion

The NKS model provides a realistic training platform and may improve the quality of training in colonoscopy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00595-017-1517-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.