Safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic low anterior resection for upper rectal cancer

Laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery: triumph of reason or necessity of evolution?

The role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery has evolved considerably since the early 2000s. Initial randomized trials, such as COLOR II and COREAN, indicated that laparoscopic approaches offered similar pathological outcomes with better postoperative recovery than open surgery. In contrast, trials like ACOSOG Z6051 and ALaCaRT suggested noninferiority could not be established. Variability in trial outcomes, focusing on either disease-free survival or pathological measures, initially hindered consensus. Long-term analyses have shown no significant difference in disease-free survival between laparoscopic and open approaches. Meta-analyses have reinforced the benefits of laparoscopic surgery, with reduced mortality and similar oncologic effectiveness to open surgery. However, new techniques like transanal TME (TaTME) and robotic approaches have introduced alternatives, though each presents unique challenges, from recurrence rates in TaTME to costs in robotics. While laparoscopy remains the preferred method due to accessibility and outcomes, robotic surgery is expected to gain traction in high-volume centers.

Impact of ileostomy on postoperative wound complications in patients after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

To prevent anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, a protective ileostomy is often used. However, the necessity of performing ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the benefit of ileostomy on wound infection after laparoscopic rectal cancer. The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were used to retrieve all related documents up to September 2023. Completion of the trial literature was submitted once the eligibility and exclusion criteria were met and the literature quality assessment was evaluated. This study compared the post-operative post-operative complications of an ileostomy with that of non-ileostomy in a laparoscope. We used Reman 5.3 to analyse meta-data. Controlled studies were evaluated with ROBINS-I. The meta-analyses included 525 studies, and 5 publications were chosen to statistically analyse the data according to the classification criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of postoperative wound infections among ostomate and nonostomate (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66, 4.84; p = 0.25). In 5 trials, the incidence of anastomotic leak was increased after surgery in nonostomate patients (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12, 0.57; p = 0.0009). Two studies reported no significant difference in the length of operation time when nonstomal compared to stomal operations in patients with rectal cancer (mean difference, 0.87; 95% CI, -2.99, 4.74; p = 0.66). No significant difference was found in the rate of wound infection and operation time after operation among the two groups, but the incidence of anastomosis leak increased after operation. Protective ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer was effective in reducing the risk of anastomotic leakage in patients, and we found no additional risk of infection. We cautiously conclude that protective ileostomy is active and necessary for patients with a high risk of anastomotic leakage after surgery, which needs to be further confirmed by high-quality studies with larger samples.

Stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles's procedure for low rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer after stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic Miles procedure or conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles procedure, as well as to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between September 2020 and September 2021, 51 low rectal cancer patients scheduled for Miles procedure at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College were randomly assigned to the single-port laparoscopic surgery group (SPLS) and the multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) group. The perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 25 patients underwent SPLS and 26 underwent MPLS. All patients completed the study, and there were no perioperative deaths in either group. Observation indicators such as intraoperative bleeding (39 mL vs. 41 mL), number of lymph nodes (20.12 ± 3.29 vs. 21.84 ± 3.74), average hospital stay (7.15 ± 1.52 vs. 7.64 ± 1.66), and time to flatulence (2.5d vs. 2.5d) showed no significant differences between the SPLS and MPLS groups (p > 0.05). However, the operation duration (180 min vs. 118 min) and perioperative complications showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in the SPLS group had significantly higher satisfaction scores than those in the MPLS group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with low rectal cancer requiring Miles surgery, stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery has comparable safety and efficacy to multi-port laparoscopic surgery.

Clinical outcomes of single incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis between well-experienced and novice surgeons

Background

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a recent advancement in minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, SILS is a technically challenging procedure for novice surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for CRC performed by novice surgeons compared with those performed by well-experienced surgeons.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 1004 consecutive patients with stage I-IV CRC who underwent SILS between May 2009 and December 2018, using propensity score-matched analysis.

Results

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 344 patients (n = 172 in each group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age (P = 0.034) and tumor location (P < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups, but operative time was longer in the Novice group (213 vs 171 min, P < 0.001). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the Novice group (23 vs 25, P = 0.040), and the number of patients with lymph node metastases was smaller in the Novice group (57 vs 86, P = 0.002). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 85.8% in the Novice group and 89.9% in the Experienced group (P = 0.512). Three-year overall survival rate was 92.2% in the Novice group and 90.0% in the Experienced group (P = 0.899).

Conclusion

SILS for CRC was safely performed by novice surgeons under the guidance of well-experienced surgeons, and could provide satisfactory oncological outcomes.

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.

The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

Background

Protective ileostomy is always applied to avoid clinically significant anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications for patients receiving laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether it is necessary to perform the ileostomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the efficacy of ileostomy on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were applied for systematic search of all relevant literature, updated to May 07, 2021. Studies compared patients with and without ileostomy for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. We applied Review Manager software to perform this meta-analysis. The quality of the non-randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the randomized studies were assessed using the Jadad scale.

Results

We collected a total of 1203 references, and seven studies were included using the research methods. The clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in ileostomy group (27/567, 4.76%) than that in non-ileostomy group (54/525, 10.29%) (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.73, P for overall effect = 0.0009, P for heterogeneity = 0.18, I² = 32%). However, the postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time showed no significant difference between the ileostomy and non-ileostomy groups.

Conclusion

The results demonstrated that protective ileostomy could decrease the clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate for patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, ileostomy has no effect on postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time. The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02432-x.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: results of a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colon cancer (CC), as practiced in real-world settings, especially in relation to disease stage, have not been established. We examined, retrospectively, both short- and long-term outcomes of SILC versus those of multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) performed for CC in a propensity-score-matched cohort.

METHODS

The study involved 263 patient pairs matched 1:1 from among 691 patients who, between January 2008 and May 2014, underwent either SILC or MPLC for a primary solitary CC at our hospital. Short-term and long-term operative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Operation time was the only surgical outcome that varied significantly between the two groups (p = 0.0004). Overall 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the SILC group was 93.7 (95% CI 89.6-96.2)%, and CSS per pathological stage (I, II and III) was 98.5 (90.0-99.8)%, 96.0 (88.2-98.7)%, and 88.3 (79.6-93.6)%, respectively, whereas overall 5-year CSS in the MPLC group was 93.3 (89.4-95.9)%, and CSS per pathological stage was 100%, 95.4 (88.3-98.3)%, and 84.1 (74.1-90.8)% (p = 0.5278, 0.2679, 0.7666, and 0.9073), respectively. Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in the SILC group was 94.0 (90.2-96.4)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological stage was 98.6 (90.4-99.8)%, 90.1 (81.4-95.0)%, and 79.0 (69.4-86.2)%, respectively, whereas overall 3-year DFS in the MPLC group was 93.2 (89.4-95.7)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological disease stage was 100%, 94.5 (87.4-97.7)% and 75.5 (64.7-83.8)% (p = 0.2829, 0.7401, 0.4335 and 0.8518), respectively. Thus, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Incisional hernia occurred in 21 (8.0%) SILC group patients and 17 (6.5%) MPLC group patients, without a significant between-group difference (p = 0.6139).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that perioperative and oncological outcomes of SILC performed for CC are comparable to those of MPLC performed for CC.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The current meta-analysis combining mid and low rectal cancer with no meta-analysis only for low rectal cancer was seen. This meta-analysis was to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) vs. laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the web-based databases; China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Jadad scale and non-RCTs (NRCs) were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

Ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 NRCs) involving 772 patients were included. Among them, 378 patients underwent TaTME and 394 patients underwent LaTME. Compared with the LaTME group, the conversion rate was low (risk ratio [RR], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.54; P < 0.001), the circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was low (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27–0.86; P = 0.010), and the hospital stay was short (mean difference, −1.72; 95% CI, −2.89 to −0.55; P = 0.004) in the TaTME group. No significant differences were seen in the mesorectal resection quality, CRM distance, distal resection margin (DRM) involvement, DRM distance, local R1 resection, intraoperative complications, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, severe morbidity, mortality, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, harvested lymph nodes, and local recurrence rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The TaTME is a promising surgical technique and is fully a safe and efficacious option in managing low rectal cancer.

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.

Role of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical resection for rectal cancer usually requires a proctectomy with respective lymphadenectomy (total mesorectal excision). This has traditionally been performed transabdominally through an open incision. Over the last thirty years, minimally invasive surgery platforms have rapidly evolved with the goal to accomplish the same quality rectal resection through a less invasive approach. There are currently three resective modalities that complement the traditional open operation: (1) Laparoscopic surgery; (2) Robotic surgery; and (3) Transanal total mesorectal excision. In addition, there are several platforms to carry out transluminal local excisions (without lymphadenectomy). Evidence on the various modalities is of mixed to moderate quality. It is unreasonable to expect a randomized comparison of all options in a single trial. This review aims at reviewing in detail the various techniques in regard to intra-/perioperative benchmarks, recovery and complications, oncological and functional outcomes.

Comparison of short-term efficacy of transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The transanal total mesorectal excision(TaTME) of rectal malignancies is largely referred to as treatment of mid to low, especially low rectal cancer. This study was to compare the short-term efficacy of TaTME and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical surgery at the General Surgery of Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019 was performed. The general information, perioperative results and pathological results of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients were included in the study, 32 in the TaTME group and 32 in the LaTME group. The clinical characteristics of the two groups was comparable (P > 0.05). The operation time in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (212.59 ± 28.71min vs 187.66 ± 27.15min, P = 0.001), no significant differences were seen in the conversion rate, intraoperative complications, morbidity, serious morbidity, anastomotic leak, unplanned reoperation and hospital stay(P > 0.05). The circumferential resection margin (CRM) distance in the TaTME group was longer than that in the LaTME group (6.81 ± 2.99 mm vs 5.21 ± 3.06 mm, P = 0.039). The inter-group difference in terms of harvested lymph nodes, mesorectum integrity, CRM involvement, DRM distance, R1 resection, complete remission, pathological T stage, pathological N stage and pathological TNM stage was not significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME is a promising surgical technique and maybe offers a safe and feasible alternative to LaTME in managing low rectal cancer.

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.

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.