A randomized pilot study on single-port versus conventional laparoscopic rectal surgery: effects on postoperative pain and the stress response to surgery

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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in colorectal cancer resections worldwide and in the UK. Initially conducted as an open procedure, this was replaced with the conventional multiport technique. Laparoscopic colectomy became the standard surgical technique in 1991. With innovation in surgical technology, single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has attracted more attention as the possible next step in colorectal resection. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes between SIL and conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed®, MEDLINE®, Embase®, Google Scholar™ and Cochrane Library databases were used to extract randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2021. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs were extracted with 1,370 patients (686 SIL, 684 CL). There was no significant difference between SIL and CL for operative time (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19 to 0.22, z=0.11, p=0.91), length of hospital stay (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.02, z=1.61, p=0.11) or overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.30, z=0.09, p=0.93). SIL had a shorter mean incision (SMD: -0.99, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.62, z=5.25, p<0.00001). Patients undergoing SIL had a higher conversion rate to CL or an open approach (OR: 3.10, 95% CI: 0.95 to 10.14, z=1.87, p=0.06) but this just missed statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

SIL can be considered a safe alternative to CL if performed by experienced surgeons.

Is single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) dependent on the location of the tumor?

BACKGROUND

We compared the surgical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).

METHODS

We performed single-incision gastric wedge resection on prospectively-enrolled 15 consecutive patients with gastric GIST between November 2020 and April 2022 in a single tertiary center. The early perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared to those of patients who underwent CLS. The indications did not differ from those for conventional laparoscopic procedures for gastric GIST.

RESULTS

In total, 30 patients were assigned to the SILS (n = 15) and CLS (n = 15) groups. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss and intraoperative blood transfusion between the SILS and CLS groups. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to multiple-port or open surgery in the SILS group. Proximally located tumors were more commonly treated with CLS than with SILS (P = 0.045). GISTs located in the greater curvature were more commonly treated with SILS than with CLS, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). The mean incision length in the SILS group was 4.1 cm shorter than that in the CLS group (3.2 ± 0.7 and 7.3 ± 5.2 cm, respectively, P = 0.01). The postoperative analgesic dose was significantly lower in the SILS than in the CLS group (0.4 ± 1.4 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively P = 0.01). Also, the duration of postoperative use of analgesic was shorter in SILS than in CLS (0.4 ± 0.7 and 2.0 ± 1.8, respectively, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the early postoperative complications between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is as safe, feasible, and effective for the treatment of gastric GIST as CLS with comparable postoperative complications, pain, and cosmesis. Moreover, SILS can be considered without being affected by the type or location of the tumor.

Comparison of robotic reduced-port and laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The reduced-port approach can overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery while maintaining its advantages. Here, we compared the effects of robotic reduced-port surgery and conventional laparoscopic approaches for left-sided colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2015 and December 2016, the clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of 17 patients undergoing robotic reduced-port surgery and 49 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer were compared.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in almost all outcome measures except for the distal resection margin, which was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.001). The between-group differences in reoperation, incisional hernia development, and overall and progression-free survival were nonsignificant; however, the total hospital cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (US$13779.6 ± US$3114.8 vs. US$8556.3 ± US$2056.7, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic reduced-port surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer is safe and effective but more expensive with no additional benefit compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This observation warrants further evaluation.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

Background

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery (SILS) is a new laparoscopic technique that has emerged in the past decade. Whether it has advantages over conventionl laparoscopy surgery (CLS) is inconclusive. This article aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer through high-quality literature text mining and meta-analysis.

Methods

Relevant articles were searched on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2012 to November 2021. All data was from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to increase the confidence of the analytical results.The main outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1609 patients. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the postoperative complications, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph nodes removed, readmission, reoperation, complication level I- II, complication level IIIa, complication level IIIb, prolonged Ileus, blood loss, infection, anastomotic leakage and operation time. The results showed that SILS group had a higher rate of intraoperative complications, but it had lower incision length and better cosmetic effects.

Conclusion

These results indicate that SILS did not have a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. On the contrary, SILS has higher intraoperative complications, which may be related to the more difficulty of SILS operation, but SILS still has better cosmetic effects, which is in line with the concept of surgical development. Therefore, the SILS needs to be selected in patients with higher cosmetic requirements and performed by more experienced surgeons.

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CSILS): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial

Background

In most previous studies, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was feasible and safe in the short term. However, long-term oncologic outcomes remain uncertain, as only a few studies contained long-term survival data. SILS for CRC is still in the early stages of research. Further studies, particularly large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials, are necessary to assess the value of SILS for CRC.

Methods

This study is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that investigates the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for CRC. A total of 710 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to the SILS group or the CLS group at a 1:1 ratio using a central, dynamic, and stratified block randomization method. Patients with ages ranging from 18 to 85 years old, of both sexes, with CRC above the peritoneal reflection diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2M0 and a tumour size no larger than 5 cm will be considered for the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints include: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain assessment, pathological outcomes, early morbidity and mortality rate, cosmetic effects, quality of life, 3-year overall survival (OS), incidence of incisional hernia, 5-year DFS and 5-year OS. The first two follow-up visits will be scheduled at one month and three months postoperatively, then every three months for the first two years and every six months for the next three years.

Discussion

Currently, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS for CRC. This study is expected to provide clinical evidence of the oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to CLS for CRC to promote its widespread use.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 04527861 (registered on August 27, 2020).

Comparison of clinical outcomes of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for rectal cancer is technically challenging, and its clinical impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for rectal cancer compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 357 consecutive patients with stage I-III rectal cancer located in the rectosigmoid or upper rectum who underwent SILS or MPLS between January 2012 and December 2016, using propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 204 patients (n = 102 per group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in tumor location (p < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups. SILS was successful in 73.5% of cases, an additional port was required in 23.5%, and 2.9% were converted to open surgery. Compared to the MPLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operative time (192 vs. 211 min, p = 0.015) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (9 vs. 11 days, p = 0.038). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the SILS group (24) than in the MPLS group (27, p = 0.008). Postoperative recurrence did not differ between groups, either before or after matching. No significant differences in 3-year disease-free, 3-year local recurrence-free, or 5-year overall survival were found between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is safe, is feasible, and offers satisfactory oncological outcomes in selected patients with rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer.

Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program Combined With Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the perioperative management of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ERAS combined with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in CRC surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with CRC who underwent surgery between April 2018 and April 2020 in Ruijin Hospital(North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. The patients were divided into three groups: group A (n=138), patients who underwent traditional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with conventional perioperative management; group B (n=63), patients who underwent SILS; and group C (n=51), patients who underwent SILS with ERAS.

RESULTS

Overall, 252 participants were included in the retrospective study. The median operation time (min) in group B and group C was shorter than that in group A (group A 134.0 ± 42.5; group B 117 ± 38.9; group C 111.7 ± 35.4, p=0.004). The estimated surgical blood loss (ml) was lower in groups B and C than in group A (group A 165.1 ± 142.2; group B 122.0 ± 79.4; group C 105.2 ± 55.8, p=0.011). The length of surgical incision (cm) was shorter in groups B and C than in group A (group A 7.34 ± 1.05; group B 5.60 ± 0.80; group C 5.28 ± 0.52, p<0.001). The time before first flatus (hours) in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 61.85 ± 21.14; group B 58.30 ± 20.08; group C 42.06 ± 23.72; p<0.001). The days prior to the administration of free oral fluids in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 4.79 ± 1.28; group B 4.67 ± 1.11; group C 2.62 ± 0.64; p<0.001). The days of prior solid diet was less in group C than in groups A and B (group A 7.22 ± 3.87; group B 7.08 ± 3.18; group C 5.75 ± 1.70; p=0.027). The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was less in group C compared with that in groups A and B (group A 9.46 ± 4.84 days; group B 9.52 ± 7.45 days; group C 7.20 ± 2.37 days; p=0.023). The visual analog scale (VAS) scores on day 0, 1, and 2 in groups B and C were lower than those in group A (day 0, p<0.001; day 1, p<0.001; day 2, p=0.002), while the VAS score on day 3 showed no differences in the three groups (group A 1.29 ± 1.38; group B 0.98 ± 1.24; group C 0.75 ± 0.64, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that SILS combined with ERAS may be a feasible and safe procedure for CRC surgery because it provides favorable cosmetic results, early dietary resumption, shorter hospital stays, and appropriate control of postoperative pain without increases in complications or readmission rates compared to conventional perioperative care with SILS or conventional laparoscopic surgery(CLS) of CRC. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to enhance evidence-based medical evidence.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To date, well-designed randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare short-term outcomes of SILS for colorectal cancer with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

Between June 28, 2017, and June 29, 2019, a single-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital (North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine in Shanghai, China. In total, 200 patients diagnosed or suspected of colorectal cancer (cT_1-4aN_0-2M₀) were randomly assigned to either the SILS or CLS group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was early morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, pain intensity, postoperative recovery, pathologic outcomes, and long-term outcomes.

Results

In total, 193 participants (SILS, 97; CLS, 96) were analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. Among them, 48 underwent right hemicolectomy (SILS n = 23, 23.7% and MLS n = 25, 26%), 15 underwent left hemicolectomy (SILS n = 6, 6.2% and MLS n = 9, 9.4%), 1 underwent transverse colectomy (MLS n = 1, 1%), 57 underwent sigmoidectomy (SILS n = 32, 33% and MLS n = 25, 26%), and 72 underwent anterior resection (SILS n = 36, 37.1% and MLS n = 36, 37.5%). No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics. The intraoperative complication was comparable between the two groups [5 (5.2%) vs. 4 (4.2%); difference, 1%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 7.8%; p > 0.999) and so was postoperative complication rates [10 (10.3%) vs. 14 (14.6%); difference, -4.3%; 95% CI, -13.9% to 5.3%; p = 0.392]. The SILS group showed shorter incision length [median (IQR), 4 (3.5-5) vs. 6.6 (6-7.5), p < 0.001] and lower VAS scores on the first [median (IQR), 4 (3-5) vs. 4 (4-5), p = 0.002] and the second day [median (IQR), 2 (1.5-3) vs. 3 (2-4), p < 0.001] after surgery. No statistically significant difference was found in other measured outcomes.

Conclusions

Compared with CLS, SILS performed by experienced surgeons for selected colorectal cancer patients is non-inferior with good short-term safety and has the advantage of reducing postoperative pain.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03151733.

Three-Port with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction versus Conventional Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Rectal-Sigmoid Cancer: A Matched Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND

The conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery requires four or more ports to accomplish the laparoscopic dissection, and a mini-laparotomy to remove the specimen, which is a main cause of postoperative pain and incision complications, and compromise the cosmetic results. Reduced port surgery and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery hold the promise to overcome these drawbacks. This study planned to compare peri-operative outcomes of patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer undergoing three-port laparoscopic anterior resection with NOSE (three-port NOSE LAR) to those of patients receiving conventional LAR.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer underwent three-port NOSE LAR between December 2018 and October 2020. For comparison, 50 patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer underwent conventional LAR in the same period were matched. The peri-operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Operating time of three-port NOSE group was slightly longer than that of conventional group (135 min vs. 121 min, p = .147). The incision length of three-port NOSE group was shorter than that of conventional group (2.9 cm vs. 7.4 cm, p = .000). Complication rates in three-port NOSE group and conventional group were similar (12.0% vs. 20.0%, p = .524). The tumor size was smaller in three-port NOSE group than the conventional group (2.1 cm vs. 3.5 cm, p = .000). Pain score was lower in three-port NOSE group than the conventional group at postoperative day 1 (1.6 vs. 3.0, p = 0.045) and day 2 (0.2 vs. 2.1, p = .003). The BIQ score was significantly higher in the three-port NOSE group compared to the conventional group (42.9 ± 3.5 vs. 38.2 ± 2.5, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-port NOSE LAR for rectal-sigmoid cancer is feasible and provides similar peri-operative outcomes compared to conventional LAR. It reduces postoperative pain and produces better cosmesis.

Single-Incision vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: An Update of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Although the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery have been reported in several meta-analyses, the low quality of studies included in the meta-analyses limits the reliability of such a conclusion. In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of SILS in colorectal cancer has been on the rise. This update systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILS and CLS in the patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: Relevant data was searched on the CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until February 5th, 2021. All RCTs comparing SILS and CLS were included. The main outcomes were 30 days of mortality, postoperative complications, intraoperative complications, whereas secondary outcomes were the number of lymph nodes removed, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, abdominal incision length, reoperation, readmission, conversion to laparotomy, operation time and anastomotic leakage. Results: A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1,133 participants. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the 30 days mortality rate. The results showed that SILS group had a lower rate of postoperative complications (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.92), higher rate of intraoperative complications (RR = 2.26, 95%CI: 1.00-5.10), shorter length of abdominal incision (MD = -2.01, 95% CI:-2.42-1.61) (cm), longer operation time (MD = 11.90, 95% CI: 5.37-18.43) (minutes), shorter hospital stay (MD = -1.12, 95% CI: -1.89-0.34) (days) compared with CLS group. However, intraoperative blood loss (MD = -8.23, 95% CI: -16.75-0.29) (mL), number of lymph nodes removed (MD = -0.17, 95% CI: -0.79-0.45), conversion to laparotomy (RR=1.31, 95% CI: 0.48-3.60), reoperation (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.30-3.33) and readmission (RR =1.15, 95% CI: 0.12-10.83) and anastomotic leakage were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: These results indicate that SILS did not has a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. Surgeons and patients should carefully weigh the pros and cons of the two surgical procedures. Further RCTs are needed to prove long-term outcomes of SILS in colorectal cancer.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

PURPOSE

To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = -0.73, 95%CI: -1.37, -0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= -1.10, 95%CI: -1.45, -0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95, -2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes.

Comparing the short-term outcomes and cost between solo single-incision distal gastrectomy and conventional multiport totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

Single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) requires experienced camera operators for a stable image. Since it is difficult for skilled camera operators to participate in all SIDG, we began performing solo surgery using mechanical camera holders. We aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and cost between solo SIDG and conventional multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2016, a total of 938 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for EGC. Solo SIDG (n = 99) and MLDG patients (n = 198) were selected and 1:2 propensity score matching was done to compare the quality of operation and cost-effectiveness. All solo SIDG was performed by a surgeon using a camera holder, without any assistant.

Results

Mean operation time (120 ± 35.3 vs. 178 ± 53.4 minutes, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (24.6 ± 47.4 vs. 46.7 ± 66.5 mL, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the solo SIDG group. Hospital stay, use of analgesics, and postoperative inflammatory markers (WBC, CRP) were similar between the 2 groups. The early (<30 days) complication rate in solo SIDG and MLDG groups was 21.2% and 23.7%, respectively (P = 0.240); the late (≥30 days) complication rate was 7.1% and 11.1%, respectively (P = 0.672). The manpower cost of solo SIDG was significantly lower than that of MLDG (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that solo SIDG performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons is safe and feasible for EGC. Solo SIDG is expected to be a promising potential treatment for EGC.

Single-incision robotic colectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: A matched case control study

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and single incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are both advanced minimally invasive operative techniques. However, studies comparing these two surgical methods have not been published. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the short-term outcomes of SIRC with those of SILC.

METHODS

A total of 21 consecutive patients underwent SIRC and 136 consecutive patients underwent SILC in separate institutes between January 2013 and December 2019. We used retrospective cohort matching to analyze these patients.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, patients who underwent SIRC had a lower percentage of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades III-IV (5% vs. 19%, P = 0.11) compared with patients who underwent SILC. The SIRC group revealed a higher proportion of sigmoid colon lesions and anterior resections than the SILC group (61% vs. 45%, P = 0.16). After 1:4 cohort matching, 21 patients were enrolled in the SIRC group and 84 patients were enrolled in the SILC group. No statistically significant difference in terms of operative time (SIRC: 185 ± 46 min, SILC: 208 ± 53 min; P = 0.51), estimated blood loss (SIRC: 12 ± 22 ml, SILC: 85 ± 234 ml; P = 0.12), and complications (SIRC: 4.7%, SIRC: 7.1%; P = 0.31) was observed between these groups. Length of postoperative hospital stay (SIRC: 8.3 ± 1.7 days, SILC: 9.3 ± 6.5; P = 0.10) and number of harvested lymph nodes (SIRC: 21.3 ± 10.3, SILC: 21.3 ± 9.5; P = 0.77) were also similar between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, numbers of harvested lymph node is less in SIRC than SILC (SIRC: 18.1 ± 4.7 vs. SILC: 18.9 ± 8.1, P = 0.04) in anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

SIRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical and pathological outcomes for right- and left-side colectomy.

Systematic review of single-port vs. multi-port surgery for rectal cancer

The aim of the current systematic review was to compare the short-term clinical and oncological outcomes of single-port surgery (SPS) to multi-port surgery (MPS) for rectal cancer in MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to December 2018. A total of 5 clinical controlled studies composed one randomized pilot study and four non-randomized studies with a total of 461 patients were analyzed after a systematic review. A total of 125 patients (27.1%) underwent SPS and 336 patients (72.9%) underwent MPS for rectal cancer. The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower in the SPS group compared with the MPS group (0.8 vs. 5.4%, respectively). A total of 16.8% of patients in the SPS group required an additional port to complete the operation. The morbidity rate was lower in the SPS group compared with the MPS group (28.0 vs. 39.0%, respectively). The other short-term clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The R0 resection rate was 99.0% in the SPS group and 98.7% in the MPS group. The oncological clearance was satisfactory and similar in both groups. The current study concluded that SPS can be performed safely and provide satisfactory oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. However, further studies are required to determine the role of SPS in the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes.

Feasibility of Single-Incision Plus One Port Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a recently developed minimally invasive surgical technique. We aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic low anterior resection (S+1-LAR) with those of multi-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (M-LAR) for mid-to-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patient characteristics and surgical outcomes by assessing data collected from the medical records of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-to-low rectal cancer at the Gangneung Asan Hospital.

RESULTS

From April 2015 to April 2019, 52 patients underwent S+1-LAR (n=28) or M-LAR (n=24) for mid-to-low rectal cancer at Gangneung Asan Hospital. There were no significant between-group differences in clinical characteristics. The mean postoperative 1-day pain score was significantly lower in the S+1-LAR group. Surgical outcomes and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

S+1-LAR is a feasible and safe technique and is comparable with M-LAR in terms of surgical outcomes of patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer.

Protective effect of dexmedetomidine infusion combined with epidural blockade on postoperative complications after surgery: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives

This prospective, randomized, controlled study aimed to explore the efficacy of dexmedetomidine combined with epidural blockade on postoperative recovery of elderly patients after radical resection for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Ninety-six elderly patients who underwent radical resection for colorectal cancer were randomly divided into the following four groups: dexmedetomidine, epidural blockade (ropivacaine), combined (dexmedetomidine + epidural blockade), and control (0.9% saline). The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Ramsay scores at 48 hours, and time to first activity, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication rates at 3 months were assessed.

Results

Twelve hours after surgery, Ramsay scores were higher in the combined compared with the control and epidural blockade groups. Twenty-four hours after surgery, MMSE scores were higher in the combined compared with the other groups. The combined group showed the lowest VAS scores except at 48 hours. Time to first activity and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the combined compared with the other groups. There was no difference in total postoperative complication rates among the groups.

Conclusions

A combination of intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion and epidural blockade could mitigate pain after surgery, improve cognitive dysfunction in early surgery, and facilitate recovery.

Trans-stomal single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal is an efficacious and efficient procedure: a case-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Hartman's reversal remains challenging and is associated with a widely variable success rate. In a previous study, we reported that laparoscopy may lower the mortality and morbidity rates of the procedure. The aim of the current study was to assess the operative results of single-port laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (SP-HR) as compared to the more standard, multi-port laparoscopic variant (MP-HR).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, non-randomized, case-controlled study of 44 consecutive patients who had SP-HR (Group A) compared to 44 patients who had MP-HR (Group B). The study was conducted in a high-volume colorectal unit in a 1200-bed university affiliated hospital, The Poissy-Saint Germain Medical Complex, France.

RESULTS

Preoperative patients' characteristics (sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, prior surgery, comorbidities, colonic disease) were comparable in both groups. The conversion rate was 13.6% and 4.5% in Group A and in Group B, respectively (p = 0.084) and consisted of placement of any additional ports. Conversion to open surgery did not occur in any patient in either group (p = 1). Mean operative time was shorter in Group A than in in Group B, (105 vs. 155 min; p = 0.0133). The mortality rate was 2.2% in Group A and 0% in Group B (p = 0.3145). The overall morbidity rate was 11.4% in Group A and 18.2% in Group B (p = 0.5344). The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group than in Group B (4.8 vs. 6.8 days; p = 0.0102).

CONCLUSIONS

The SP-HR technique was found to be safe and efficient. It compares favorably with MP-HR. Moreover, indirect cost savings could be induced by the reduction in the length of hospital stay.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

Short- and long-term outcomes of totally robotic versus robotic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: a mono-institution retrospective study

Purpose

By comparing short- and long-term outcomes following totally robotic radical distal gastrectomy (TRDG) and robotic-assisted radical distal gastrectomy (RADG), we aimed to assess in which modus operandi patients will benefit more.

Methods

From January 2015 to May 2019, we included 332 patients undergone RADG (237) and TRDG (95). Based on the propensity score matching (PSM), inclusion and exclusion criteria, 246 patients were finally included in the propensity score-matched cohort including RADG group (164) and TRDG group (82). We then compared the short- and long-term outcomes following both groups.

Results

Propensity score-matched cohort revealed no significant differences in both groups. Intra-abdominal bleeding, time to pass flatus, postoperative activity time, length of incision hospital stays, and stress response were significantly less in TRDG group than in RADG group. We observed 30 complications in RADG group while 13 complications in TRDG group. There were no significant differences in TRDG group and RADG group in terms of operation time, time for anastomosis, proximal resection, distal resection margin, number of lymph node resection, and total hospitalization cost. Both 3-year overall survival and 3-year disease-free survival were comparable in both groups.

Conclusions

TRDG is a safe and feasible modus operandi profiting from short- and long-term outcomes compared with RADG. As surgeons improving their professional skills, TRDG could serve as the standard procedure for distal locally advanced gastric cancer with D2 lymphadenectomy.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

Background

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

Methods

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

Results

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

Conclusions

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Clinical outcomes and inflammatory response to single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) colorectal surgery: a single-blinded randomized controlled pilot study

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) surgery is expanding, but its benefits, efficacy and safety compared with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery remain unclear. This pilot study examined clinical outcomes and biochemical markers of inflammation for colorectal resections by SIL and CL in a randomized controlled pilot trial.

METHOD

Fifty patients undergoing elective colorectal resection were randomized to either SIL or CL. Primary outcomes were operating time and length of stay (LoS); secondary outcomes included combined length of scars, pain scores, complications, Quality of Life EQ5D-VAS and the inflammatory markers interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8 and C-reactive protein (CRP) at baseline, 2, 6, 24 and 72 h.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age, gender, body mass index, indications and site of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade or incidence of previous surgery between the groups. Except for one conversion from SIL to open surgery, surgery was completed as intended. No difference between SIL and CL was found for operating time [median 130 (72-220) vs 130 (90-317) min, respectively, P = 0.528], LoS [median 4 (3-8) vs 4 (2-19)days, P = 0.888] and time to first flatus [2 (1-4) vs 2 (1-5) days, P = 0.374]. The combined length of scars was significantly shorter for SIL [4 (2-18) vs 7 (5-8) cm, P < 0.001]; in each group, four postoperative complications occurred (16%). Postoperative pain scores were similar [mean 7.67 (interquartile range 4) vs 7.25 (interquartile range 3.75), P = 0.835] to day 3. EQ5D-VAS was no different for both groups at discharge [72.5 (40-90) vs 70 (30-100), P = 0.673] but slightly higher for CL at 3 months [79 (45-100) vs 90 (50-100), P = 0.033].The IL-6, IL-8 and CRP levels between both groups showed similar peaks and no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIL colorectal surgery by experienced laparoscopic surgeons appears to be safe and equivalent to CL, with no discernible difference in its effect on the physiological response to surgical trauma.

Systematic review of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer

Objectives

To explore whether single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has the better short-term clinical and pathological outcomes than conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature investigation of MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), and Wanfang databases for relevant researches was performed. Fixed effects and random effects models were used to calculate the corresponding outcomes. Standardized mean difference and risk ratio were calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables separately.

Results

Nine clinical controlled trials were composed of two randomized clinical trials and seven non-randomized clinical trials with a total of 829 patients. Two hundred ninety-nine (36.1%) patients underwent SILS, and 530 (63.9%) patients underwent CLS. The meta-analysis showed that SILS had more lymph node resection (SMD − 0.25, 95% CI − 0.50 to − 0.002) and less defecation time (SMD − 0.46, 95% CI − 0.75 to − 0.17), exhaust time (SMD − 0.46, 95% CI − 0.75 to − 0.18), and hospital stay (SMD − 0.30, 95% CI − 0.45 to − 0.15 than CLS. SILS was also accompanied with shorter incision length (SMD − 2.46, 95% CI − 4.02 to − 0.90), less pain score (SMD − 0.56, 95% CI − 0.91 to − 0.21), and lower complication rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.91). Blood loss, operative time, distal margin, conversion rate, anastomotic fistula, readmission, local recurrence, and distant metastasis showed no statistical differences in two groups. In all subgroup analysis, SILS also had advantages of incision length, operative time, defecation time, exhaust time, and hospitalization time than CLS.

Conclusion

SILS could be a more safe and reliable surgical technique than CLS for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer. However, further high-quality studies between these two techniques need to be further developed.

C-reactive protein in predicting major postoperative complications are there differences in open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery? Substudy from a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In search of improvement of patient assessment in the postoperative phase, C-reactive protein (CRP) is increasingly being studied as an early marker for postoperative complications following major abdominal surgery. Several studies reported an attenuated immune response in minimally invasive surgery, which might affect interpretation of postoperative CRP levels. The aim of the present study was to compare the value of CRP as a predictor for major postoperative complications in patients undergoing open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-trial) was performed, including all patients with non-metastasized colorectal cancer. In the LAFA trial, patients were randomized to open or laparoscopic segmental colectomy. In a subgroup of 79 patients of the LAFA trial, postoperative assessment of CRP levels was conducted routinely preoperatively and 1, 2, 24 and 72 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were randomized to the open group and 42 patients to the laparoscopic group. Major complications occurred in 19% of laparoscopic procedures and 13.5% of open procedures (p = 0.776). CRP levels rise following surgical procedures. In uncomplicated cases, the rise in CRP levels was significantly lower at 24 and 72 h following laparoscopic resection in comparison to open resection. No differences in CRP levels were observed when comparing open and laparoscopic resection in patients with major complications.

CONCLUSION

In patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course, CRP levels were lower following minimally invasive resection, possibly due to decreased operative trauma. No differences in CRP were observed stratified for surgical technique in patients with major complications. These results suggest that CRP may be applied as a marker for major postoperative complications in both open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Future research should aim to assess the role of standardized postoperative CRP measurements.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Prospective Evidence

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) has been established as an alternative to open surgery for colorectal diseases (CRDs); simultaneously, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is gaining popularity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of SILS with CLS for CRDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized and prospective studies. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Outcome measures included surgical parameters, postsurgical recovery, pain, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate, comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) according to data type.

RESULTS

A total of nine prospective (three randomized and six non-randomized) researches published from 2011 to 2015 were identified. The overall pooled results showed compared to CLS, SILS was associated with fewer blood transfusions, shorter incision length, and slighter postoperative pain, but more extra ports. All the other parameters were comparable. Randomized evidence supported SILS was associated with less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but longer operative time. For only colectomy cases, SILS was associated with more conversions to open surgery. SILS was associated with longer surgical time for Easterners, but not for Westerners. The detected differences were clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results based on randomized and prospective evidence provide convincing support for the clinical similarity that SILS is basically as applicable, effective, and safe as CLS when dealing with colorectal lesions, but not for superiority.

Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results

Background

The laparoscopic approach has become increasingly incorporated into the development of new surgical procedures. An ever-increasing number of surgeons desire methods that minimize surgical trauma and provide improved cosmetic outcomes. Since 2014, we have performed two-port laparoscopic surgery using a transumbilical multichannel glove port and a 12-mm port. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term surgical results of two-port laparoscopic anterior resection (TPLAR) with those of conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for rectal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2014 and May 2014, a total of 27 patients underwent TPLAR and 30 patients underwent CLAR for the treatment of rectal cancer. The short-term surgical results of these two groups of patients were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The differences in operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, complication rate, distal resection margin, number of harvested lymph nodes, duration until ambulation, duration until first flatus, length of postoperative hospital stay, and overall hospital costs between the two groups were not significant. The median (range) length of the abdominal incisions of the TPLAR patients was shorter than the length of the CLAR patients (5.1 (4.5–16.3) cm vs 8.2 (7.0–10.0) cm, respectively; p < 0.001). The respective median (range) postoperative pain scores were lower in the TPLAR than in the CLAR patients at 24 h (4 (1–6) h vs 5 (2–8) h; p = 0.045), 48 h (3 (1–4) h vs 4 (range 1–8) h; P = 0.004) and 72 h (1 (0–3) h vs 2 (1–5) h; p = 0.010). The median overall score on the satisfaction-with-abdominal-incision questionnaire of the TPLAR patients was significantly higher (better) than the score of the CLAR patients.

Conclusions

TPLAR for rectal cancer is safe and feasible, with short-term perioperative and oncological outcomes similar to those of CLAR. TPLAR provides less postoperative pain and better cosmetic outcomes.

Assessment of treatment options for rectosigmoid cancer: single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

The advantages of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) for rectosigmoid cancer treatment have been disputed. This study evaluated the outcomes of RPLS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for rectosigmoid cancer.

METHODS

Data from 211 patients who underwent a selective sigmoidectomy or anterior resection from August 2011 to June 2014 at a single institution were collected and analyzed via propensity score matching. Operative outcomes, inflammatory responses, pain intensity, oncologic outcomes, quality of life, and cosmetic results were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After matching, 96 patients (48 CLS and 48 RPLS) were evaluated. Sixteen RPLS cases underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and 32 underwent single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1). Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the RPLS and the CLS groups. Morbidity, pathologic outcomes, and 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were also comparable between the 2 groups. Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group had a shorter total incision length (p < 0.001); shorter time to liquid diet (p = 0.027), ambulation (p = 0.026), and discharge (p < 0.001); and lower visual analogue scale scores during mobilization at postoperative days 3-5 (p < 0.05). The total operation times, C-reactive protein levels at 24 h and 96 h, and interleukin-6 levels at 24 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the SILS + 1 group than those in the CLS and SILS groups (p < 0.05). Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group showed better social functioning at 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.011). The SILS and SILS + 1 groups showed similar cosmetic results, and both groups showed better results than the CLS group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPLS for rectosigmoid cancer is feasible, with short-term safety and long-term oncological safety comparable to that of CLS. Better cosmesis and accelerated recovery can be expected. SILS + 1 is a better choice than CLS or SILS for rectosigmoid cancer because it minimizes invasiveness and reduces technical difficulties.

Pre-analytical variables of circulating cell-free nucleosomes containing 5-methylcytosine DNA or histone modification H3K9Me3

AIM

To evaluate pre-analytical variables of circulating cell-free nucleosomes containing 5-methylcytosine DNA (5mC) or histone modification H3K9Me3 (H3K9Me3).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six studies were designed to assess the possible influence of pre-analytical variables. Study 1: influence of stasis and contamination with white-cells and platelets. Study 2: influence of within-day variations. Study 3: influence of day-to-day variation. Study 4: influence of temperature during handling and storage, and of neoplastic disease. Study 5: influence of colonoscopy. Study 6: influence of the surgical trauma. 5mC and H3K9Me3 measurements were performed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.

RESULTS

Stasis, white-cell and platelet contamination, within-day variations, varying storage time before centrifugation, colonoscopy, and surgical trauma had no significant influence on levels of 5mC or H3K9Me3. Day-to-day variations of 12.7% and 11.5% (intra-individual) and 98.1% and 60.8% (inter-individual) were shown for 5mC and H3K9Me3, respectively. Levels of 5mC or H3K9Me3 were significantly higher in samples stored at room temperature until centrifugation compared to samples stored on ice. Patients with cancer had significantly lower levels of 5mC or H3K9Me3 compared to levels in healthy individuals.

CONCLUSION

Levels of 5mC or H3K9Me3 appear stable in most pre-analytical settings if blood samples are stored at room temperature until centrifugation.

Comparison between the perioperative results of single-access and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has low rates of morbidity and mortality and achieves comparable pathologic outcomes. With improved instruments and surgical techniques, many surgeons have recently begun using single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) to minimize scars and pain. Since 2011, most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown comparable pathologic outcomes to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SALS is said to be superior to CLS in reducing complications, producing less discomfort, and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the technical feasibility and early postoperative outcomes of these approaches.

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2014, 78 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled in the study. Anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections were performed. Data collected included technical feasibility and outcomes of operation, such as morbidity, mortality, severity of pain, analgesic usage, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

SALS was performed on 35 patients, and CLS was performed in 36 cases. Demographic data, including age, sex, BMI, ASA classification and clinical staging, were similar between the groups. Operative time, blood loss, and conversion rate were similar (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, the only significant difference between the groups was pain score, which was significantly lower in the SALS group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had the same intraoperative, pathologic, and early postoperative results. However, SALS patients had slightly better pain scores in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a preliminary report

BACKGROUND

Currently, the majority cases of the novel down-to-up transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) were performed in a hybrid approach with conventional laparoscopic assistance because of less operative difficulty. However, although cases are limited, the successes of TaTME in a pure approach (without laparoscopic assistance) indicate that the costly and less mini-invasive hybrid TaTME could be potentially avoided.

METHODS

In the present single institutional, prospective study, we attempted to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of this approach in rectal cancer by evaluating the short-term results of our first 20 TaTME cases. For the majority of cases, we adopted a strategy that laparoscopic assistance was not introduced unless it was required during the planned pure TaTME procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (12 males and 8 females) were analyzed in this study, including 11 cases (55 %) of pure TaTME and 9 cases (45 %) of hybrid TaTME. Overall, the median operative time was 200 min (range 70-420), along with a median estimated blood loss of 50 ml (range 20-800). Morbidity rate was 20 % (one urethral injury, two urinary retentions, one anastomotic hemorrhage and one mild anastomotic leak). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 12 (range 1-20). All specimens were intact in mesorectum without positive distal and circumferential resection margins. Among the 15 patients who were preoperatively scheduled to undertake pure TaTME, four patients (26.7 %) required converting to laparoscopic assistance. Moreover, among these 15 patients, the results of the comparative analysis between female and male subgroups favor the former, suggesting easier operation in them.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary study demonstrates that TaTME in rectal cancer is safe and feasible. The strategy of not introducing laparoscopic assistance unless it is required while performing the planned pTaTME should be cautiously explored. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are warranted.

Transanal total mesorectal excision assisted by single-port laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

We have combined the minimally invasive single-port laparoscopic surgery and the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer with the goal to standardize the approach and improve the quality of rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

By using two single-port platforms, selected patients were first operated by TaTME, and then a single-port laparoscopic surgery was introduced to assist and complete the abdominal portion. Short-term outcomes including perioperative outcome and pathologic results of these patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between July 2014 and March 2015, six patients with low rectal cancer (five males and one female) at a median age of 68 years were successfully operated in a median time of 360 min (range 310-420). The median estimated blood loss was 150 ml (range 50-800). In one patient, the spleen was removed because of a lesion identified preoperatively. Their postoperative recovery was uneventful except one acute myocardial infarction on postoperative day 3. Pathologic specimens showed negative margins and a complete excision of the mesorectum in all cases. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 11.5 (range 4-12). At a median follow-up of 4 months (range 3-9), after ileostomy closure, none of the patients suffered from fecal incontinence.

CONCLUSION

TaTME assisted by abdominal single-port may be safely achieved in selected rectal cancer patients.