Meta-analysis of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted rectal resection (LARR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for carcinoma

Improving postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in an era of increasing laparoscopic resection

PURPOSE

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon cancer, but implementation in rectal cancer is different because of neo-adjuvant therapy and surgical differences. Laparoscopic resection may further improve outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of introducing ERAS on postoperative outcome after rectal cancer resection in an era of increasing laparoscopic resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2009 till 2015 were included in this observational cohort study. In 2010, ERAS was introduced and adherence to the protocol was registered. Open and laparoscopic resections were compared. With regression analysis, predictive factors for postoperative outcome and LOS were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 499 patients were included. The LOS decreased from 12.3 days in 2009 to 5.7 days in 2015 (p = 0.000). Surgical site infections were reduced from 24% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 (p = 0.013) and postoperative ileus from 39% in 2009 to 6% in 2015 (p = 0.000). Only postoperative ERAS items and laparoscopic surgery were associated with an improved postoperative outcome and shorter LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS proved to be feasible, safe, and contributed to improving short-term outcome in rectal cancer resections. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery may in part be explained by reaching better ERAS adherence rates. However, the laparoscopic approach was also associated with anastomotic leakage. Despite the potential of bias, this study provides an insight in effects of ERAS and laparoscopic surgery in a non-randomized real-time setting.

Comparison of Short-Term and Long-Term outcomes of Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy in Rectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and objective: The last randomized controlled trials ,the ACOSOG Z6051 1,2 and the ALaCaRT trial3, 4 could not show the non-inferiority of the laparoscopy in comparison to laparotomy for rectal cancer. In fact, the ten first years of practicing laparoscopy were years when surgeons developed their learning curve. Therefore, by excluding this learning bias, it is possible to end up with a more fair and correct comparison between the two techniques. It is henceforth relevant to pursue a new meta-analysis that compares the two techniques and excludes studies done during the earlier periods of laparoscopic rectal surgery. Results: Six randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1556 patients in the laparoscopy group and 1188 patients in the laparotomy group. Our meta-analysis was in favor of laparoscopy in a significant way for blood loss, first bowel movement and the number of harvested lymph nodes. It was non-significantly in favour of laparoscopy for 30-days mortality after surgery and length of hospital stay. It was significantly in favor of laparotomy for operative duration. No significant difference was found in anastomotic leakage) , reoperation within 30 days, number of positive CRMs and completeness of mesorectal excision between the two groups. No difference was found in recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival between laparoscopy group and laparotomy group. Conclusion: The comparison of the randomized controlled trials published before and after 2010, showed no significant difference in outcomes between the learning period and after. Keywords: Laparoscopy, laparotomy, long-term outcomes, meta-analysis, short-term outcomes, rectal cancer

Embryological Development and Topographic Anatomy of Pelvic Compartments-Surgical Relevance for Pelvic Lymphonodectomy

Background: The oncological outcome of surgery for the treatment of pelvic malignancies can be improved by performing pelvic lymphonodectomy. However, the extent and regions of lymph node harvest are debated and require profound knowledge of anatomy in order to avoid collateral damage. Methods: The embryological development and topographic anatomy of pelvic compartments in relation to pelvic lymphonodectomy for rectal, uterine, and prostate cancer are reviewed. Based on pre-dissected anatomical specimens, lymph node regions and drainage routes of the posterior and urogenital pelvic compartments are described in both genders. Anatomical landmarks are highlighted to identify structures at risk of injury during pelvic lymphonodectomy. Results: The ontogenesis of urogenital and anorectal compartments and their lymphatic supply are key factors for adequate lymphonodectomy, and have led to compartment-based surgical resection strategies. However, pelvic lymphonodectomy bears the risk of injury to somatic and autonomic nerves, vessels, and organs, depending on the regions and extent of surgery. Conclusion: Embryologically defined, compartment-based resection of pelvic malignancies and their lymphatic drainage routes are based on clearly delineated anatomical landmarks, which permit template-oriented pelvic lymphonodectomy. Comprehensive knowledge of pelvic anatomy, the exchange of surgical concepts between specialties, and minimally invasive techniques will optimize pelvic lymphonodectomy and reduce complications.

A comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision: trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved by employing open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LaTME) and robotic (RoTME) approaches but which of these has the best outcome? The aim of present study is to identify the most effective technique for rectal cancer by comparing all outcomes.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared at least two TME strategies were identified by literature search of electronic databases of articles published to June 2018. Network meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis was performed using a frequentist approach with random-effects meta-analysis. Data collection and analysis We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved publications were independently and blindly assessed by two authors.

RESULTS

Twenty-two RCTs with 4882 rectal cancer patients were included in this analysis. The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the cumulative Z-curve crossed either the traditional boundary or the trial sequential monitoring boundaries, suggesting that OpTME resulted in a more complete TME specimen than LaTME (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.08). Network meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in the other comparisons. Based on the P score of completeness of the TME specimen and circumferential resection margin positivity, the best technique was OpTME, followed by RoTME and then LaTME. However, this order was reversed when complications and mortality were considered. RoTME led to better lymph node harvest.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OpTME may give better pathological specimens, minimally invasive techniques may have advantages when considering lymph node harvest, complications and mortality. More RCTs are needed to determine which technique actually gives the best chance of survival.