Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Effect of laparoscopic versus open surgery on postoperative wound complications in patients with low rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of microinvasive and open operations on postoperative wound complications in low rectal carcinoma patients. Research on limited English has been conducted systematically in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The date up to the search was in August 2023. Following review of the classification and exclusion criteria for this research and the evaluation of its quality in the literature, there were a total of 266 related papers, which were reviewed for inclusion in the period from 2004 to 2017. A total of 1774 cases of low rectal cancer were enrolled. Of these 913 cases, the laparoscopic operation was performed on 913 cases, while 861 cases were operated on low rectal carcinoma. The overall sample was between 10 and 482. Five trials described the efficacy of laparoscopy have lower risk than open on postoperative wound infection in patients with low rectal cancer (OR, 0.72;95 % CI, 0.48,1.09 p = 0.12). Three studies results showed that the anastomotic leak was not significantly different between open and laparoscopy (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58,1.26 p = 0.44). Six surgical trials in low rectal cancer patients reported haemorrhage, and five cases of surgical time were reported, with laparoscopy having fewer bleeding compared with open surgery (MD, -188.89; 95% CI, -341.27, -36.51 p = 0.02). Compared with laparoscopy, the operation time was shorter for the open operation (MD, 33.06; 95% CI, 30.56, 35.57 p < 0.0001). Overall, there is no significant difference between laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of incidence of infection and anastomosis leak. However, the rate of haemorrhage in laparoscopy is lower，and operation time in open surgery is lower.

Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy Techniques: A Contemporary Analysis Exploring Trends, Similarities, and Differences to Open Surgery

Limited contemporary data has compared similarities and differences between total laparoscopic (LDP), hand-assisted (HALDP), and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in outcomes between these three approaches in a contemporary cohort. Methods: Patients undergoing elective LDP, HALDP, and ODP in the NSQIP dataset (2014−2019) were included. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were employed to compare postoperative outcomes. Results: Among 5636 patients, 33.9% underwent LDP, 13.1% HALDP, and 52.9% ODP. Compared with the LDP approach, surgical site infections were more frequent in HALDP and ODP approaches (1.2% vs. 2.6% vs. 2.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). After adjustment, the LDP approach was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of surgical site infection (OR 0.25, p = 0.03) when compared to ODP. There was no difference in the likelihood of surgical site infection when HALDP was compared to ODP (OR 0.59, p = 0.40). Unadjusted operative times were similar between approaches (LDP = 192 min, HALDP = 193 min, ODP = 191 min, p = 0.59). After adjustment, the LDP approach had a longer operative time (+10.3 min, p = 0.04) compared to ODP. There was no difference in the adjusted operative time between HALDP and ODP approaches (+5.4 min, p = 0.80). Conclusions: Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with improved surgical site infection rates and slightly longer operative times. There was no difference in surgical site infection rates between ODP and HALDP. Surgeon comfort and experience should decide the operative approach, but it is important to discuss the differences between these approaches with patients.

Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis

Significant advancements have been made over the last 30 years in the use of minimally invasive techniques for curative and restorative operations in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic approaches to subtotal colectomy (including in the urgent setting), total proctocolectomy, completion proctectomy, and pelvic pouch creation. Data show equivalent or improved short-term postoperative outcomes with minimally invasive techniques compared to open surgery, and equivalent or improved long-term bowel function, sexual function, and fertility. Overall, while minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible for properly selected UC patients, surgeons must remember to abide by the principles of high-quality proctectomy and pouch creation and convert to open if necessary.

Thirteen-year experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in colorectal patients

BACKGROUND

We report outcomes on 324 consecutive cases of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in colorectal patients over 13 years performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify all patients undergoing HALS colorectal procedures for benign or malignant indications from September 2004 to February 2018, at two major tertiary centres in Sydney, Australia.

RESULTS

Median age was 64 years, 51% were female and median body mass index was 26. Colorectal cancer (55%), diverticular disease (13%) and polyp related conditions (13%) were common indications. Anterior resection (65%) and right hemicolectomy (18%) were most commonly performed. Median operative time was 244 min (190-300) and 75% of Gelport incisions were Pfannenstiel. Sixty-three percent of colorectal cancer patients had a T3 or T4 cancer. Median tumour size was 35 mm (25-45). Seven percent required conversion to open and 4% a re-operation in the early post-operative period. Thirty-six percent had a post-operative complication, and 11% were major complications. Follow-up extended to 12.8 years and there were 33 late deaths. Being in a high dependency unit or intensive care unit was significant for late mortality (odds ratio 2.8, 95% confidence interval 1.06-7.78, P = 0.037). Three percent developed an incisional hernia and 6% had small bowel obstruction at long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

HALS is an effective technique for both benign and malignant colorectal indications with the added advantage of tactile feedback and a lower rate of conversion to open.

A meta-analysis of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to explore the overall effect and safety of anterior laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery for patients with colorectal cancer based on eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially the difference in the postoperative incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched based on keywords to identify eligible studies before February 2018. Only RCTs were eligible. We analyzed the main outcomes using the relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, we analyzed a total of 24 studies with 4592 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 3865 patients in the open surgery group. The results indicated that compared with the open surgery, laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased estimated blood loss (SMD: -1.14, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.57), hospital stay (SMD: -1.12, 95%CI: -1.76 to -0.47), postoperative mortality (RR: 0.60, 95%CI: 0.41-0.86) and postoperative complication (RR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.72-0.95). However, the operative time (WMD: 40.46, 95%CI: 35.94-44.9) was statistically higher in the laparoscopic surgery group than the open surgery group, and there was no significant difference in the incidence of DVT between the 2 groups (RR: 0.96, 95%CI: 0.46-2.02).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery for patients with colorectal cancer. But the 2 surgeries showed no significant difference in the incidence of DVT.

Colorectal surgeons should be open to modern surgical technologies for challenging cases

Today, colorectal surgeons globally are practicing in an exciting era where surgical technologies are constantly emerging. Most of these cutting-edge technologies are readily available in Australia and New Zealand at present. Thus the 'modern surgeon' should always be defined by this open-minded attitude towards these new and emerging surgical technologies. This review article highlights current modalities that we have been using in our north-Brisbane public and private hospitals for cases predicted to be technically challenging using minimally invasive approaches for most of them. We examined the current evidence regarding the following modalities and critiqued their use in clinical practice: lighted ureteric stents, minimally invasive surgery approaches of laparoscopy and robotic surgery, pressure barrier insufflation devices, 3D camera systems, hand-assist device ports and indocyanine green dye fluorescence angiography. The objective of this review paper is to alert colorectal surgeons to new surgical technologies available to them, to encourage colorectal surgeons' familiarization with these many technologies, and to support evidence-based consideration for the clinical use of such. These technologies should be supplemental aides to the safe, oncologically adequate and efficient operation that they already routinely perform.

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.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and to explore the safety, feasibility of HALS for CRC surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on April 23, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first liquid diet, time to first soft diet, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, urinary complication, pulmonary infection, and mortality).

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2007 and 2017 with a total of 1962 patients with CRC were included in our meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, smaller length of incision, shorter hospital days and postoperative hospital days, less time to first flatus, less wound infection, and less postoperative complications. There was no difference in blood transfusion, lymph node harvested, time to first liquid or soft diet, time to first bowel movement, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, urinary complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that HALS in CRC surgery improves cosmesis and results in better postoperative recovery outcomes by reducing postoperative complications and hospital days. Furthermore, a large randomized control study is warranted to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of those 2 techniques for CRC treatment.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Standard Laparoscopic Colectomy: Are Outcomes and Operative Time Different?

BACKGROUND

HAL colectomy is a technique perceived to provide the benefits of laparoscopic surgery while improving tactile feedback and operative time. Published data are largely limited to small, single-institution studies.

METHODS

The 2012-2013 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Data Use File was queried for patients undergoing elective SL or HAL colectomy. Patients underwent 1:1 propensity matching and had outcomes compared. An additional subgroup analysis was performed for patients undergoing segmental resections only.

RESULTS

13,949 patients were identified, of whom 6084 (43.6 %) underwent HAL colectomy. Patients undergoing HAL versus SL colectomy had higher rates of postoperative ileus (8.7 vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001), wound complication (8.8 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.006), and 30-day readmission (7.5 vs. 6.0 %, p = 0.002), without any differences in operative time (156 vs. 157 min, p = 0.713). Amongst segmental colectomies, HAL remained associated with higher rates of wound complications (8.6 vs. 6.5 %, p = 0.016), postoperative ileus (8.9 vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001), and 30-day readmission (7.1 vs. 5.9 %, p = 0.041) with no difference in operative time between HAL and SL (145 vs. 145 min, p = 0.334).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of HAL colectomy is associated with increased risk of wound complications, postoperative ileus, and readmissions. Importantly, this technique is not associated with any decrease in operative time.

Current application and prospects of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gastrointestinal tumors

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) refers to operations in which the surgeon inserts his/her non-dominant hand through a specific auxiliary device into the peritoneal cavity to assist the laparoscopic instruments. Because there is one hand to assist in the operation, HALS can reduce the difficulty of operation and shorten operative time. Previously, HALS is considered the transitional bridge from the traditional open surgery to laparoscopic surgery, but now, HLAS, together with total laparoscopic surgery and laparoscopic assisted surgery, is considered three forms of routine laparoscopic surgery. Along with the extensive use of laparoscopic surgery in gastrointestinal tumors, HALS, as a new method of laparoscopic surgery, has been gradually used in gastrointestinal tumors in recent years.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis

AIM

To evaluate the utility of hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy (HALS-RP) compared with the conventional open procedure (OPEN-RP).

METHODS

Fifty-one patients who underwent restorative total proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis between January 2008 and July 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-three patients in the HALS-RP group and twenty-four patients in the OPEN-RP group were compared. Four patients who had purely laparoscopic surgery were excluded. Restorative total proctocolectomy was performed with mucosectomy and a hand-sewn ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis. Preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative factors such as blood loss and operative time, postoperative complications, and postoperative course were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Patients in both groups were matched with regards to patient age, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no significant differences in extent of colitis, indications for surgery, preoperative comorbidities, and preoperative medications in the two groups. The median operative time for the HALS-RP group was 369 (320-420) min, slightly longer than the OPEN-RP group at 355 (318-421) min; this was not statistically significant. Blood loss was significantly less in HALS-RP [300 (230-402) mL] compared to OPEN-RP [512 (401-1162) mL, P = 0.003]. Anastomotic leakage was noted in 3 patients in the HALS-RP group and 2 patients in the OPEN-RP group (13% vs 8.3%, NS). The rates of other postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

HALS-RP can be performed with less blood loss and smaller skin incisions. This procedure is a feasible technique for total proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open colectomy: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted cohort

BACKGROUND

Perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent hand-assisted colorectal laparoscopic (HALS) vs open colectomy were compared using recently released procedure-targeted database.

METHODS

Review was conducted using the 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to final surgical approach: HALS vs open (planned). Groups were matched (1:1) based on age, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and wound classification. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for group comparison.

RESULTS

Of 7,303 patients, 1,740 patients were matched in each group. Open group had higher proportion of patients with preoperative dyspnea (P = .01), ascites (P = .01), weight loss (P < .001), smoking history (P = .04), and increased work relative value units (P < .001). After adjusting for difference in baseline comorbidities, overall morbidity, superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, ileus, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay were significantly higher in open group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted-data demonstrated several advantages of HALS compared with open colonic resection including shorter hospital stay and lower complication rate. Further adoption of HALS technique as a bridge to straight laparoscopy or tool in difficult cases can positively impact the short-term outcomes after colectomy when compared with open technique.

Hand-Assisted versus Straight-Laparoscopic versus Open Proctosigmoidectomy for Treatment of Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study of 100 Patients

To assess the efficacy of laparoscopic proctosigmoidectomy for cancer treatment, 25 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic resection during the study period (9/2006 - 7/2012) were matched to 25 straight-laparoscopic and 50 open-surgery cases. The patients who underwent hand-assisted resection had higher rates of preoperative cardiac disease and hypertension than did the straight-laparoscopy and open-surgery groups. Straight-laparoscopic surgery seems to provide faster convalescence compared with open surgery and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Clinical application of hand-assisted laparoscopy in transverse colectomy for middle transverse colon cancer

AIM: To assess the safety, feasibility and clinical application value of hand-assisted laparoscopy in transverse colectomy for middle transverse colon cancer.

METHODS: From April 2012 to April 2015, a total of 20 patients with middle transverse colon cancer underwent radical transverse colon resection at Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, of whom 11 underwent hand assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), and 9 underwent laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS). The clinical data of all the patients were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: All the 20 patients had successful surgery. There was no conversion to open surgery or no operative death. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HALS group than in the LAS group (153.6 min ± 28.1 min vs 190.6 min ± 35.0 min, P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss (121.8 mL ± 79.4 mL vs 116.1 mL ± 78.1 mL), number of lymph nodes harvested (15.4 ± 5.4 vs 17.6 ± 11.7), rate of postoperative complications (9.1% vs 11.1%), postoperative exhaust time (3.1 d ± 0.7 d vs 2.9 d ± 0.6 d), or postoperative hospital stay (7.4 d ± 0.7 d vs 7.8 d ± 1.1 d) (P > 0.05). The patients were followed for 2-38 months. In the HALS group, one patient developed intestinal obstruction at 1 mo and one patient developed liver metastases at 8 mo. In the LAS group, one patient died of extensive abdominal metastasis.

CONCLUSION: The hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is feasible and safe in the radical resection of middle transverse colon cancer. Due to a small number of patients included and short follow-up time in this study, further studies are required.

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.

Evolution of technique in performance of minimally invasive colectomies

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is commonly used in colorectal surgery and provides benefit in complex cases.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the minimally invasive surgical trends, patient characteristics, and operative variables unique to patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective medical chart review.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a tertiary care medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients included in the study were those who underwent pure laparoscopic colectomies, hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomies, and traditional open surgery for elective treatment of diverticular disease, colorectal cancer, IBD, and benign polyp disease.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes included patient characteristics and operative variables unique to patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and documentation of operative technique trends within an experienced colorectal group.

RESULTS

Diverticular disease characteristics specific to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery included the presence of dense inflammatory adhesions (p < 0.0001), diverticular fistulas (p < 0.0001), and unresolved phlegmon (p = 0.0003). Characteristics specific for colorectal cancer included intraoperative tumor bulk (p < 0.0001) and the inability to achieve appropriate surgical resection margins (p < 0.001). Similarly, variables identified for benign polyp disease included adhesions (p < 0.0001) and the ability to gain adequate exposure (p < 0.0001). Limited use of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was observed in patients with IBD.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective, observational study from a single center.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery provides benefit in surgical scenarios where dense inflammatory adhesions, diverticular fistulas, and intra-abdominal postdiverticulitis phlegmon are present. In addition, benefit is observed in patients with colorectal cancer where laparoscopic dissection of bulky tumor proves to be difficult and where the technical ability to obtain margins using pure laparoscopy is compromised. Although our practice has changed to favor pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery continues to play an important role in complex colorectal cases that otherwise would require open surgery (see video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A146).

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer remains a common and complex surgical problem. There is growing evidence that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can provide ideal care for patients with rectal cancer. This review examines the short- and long-term benefits to MIS for rectal cancer, as well as the current techniques available, and how wider adoption of these techniques may be performed.