Oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

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

Oral management strategies for radiotherapy of head and neck cancer

Radiotherapy, often with concomitant chemotherapy, has a significant role in the management of head and neck cancer, however, radiotherapy induces adverse events include oral mucositis, hyposalivation, loss of taste, dental caries, osteoradionecrosis, and trismus, all of which have an impact on patients' quality of life. Therefore, it is necessary to implement oral management strategies prior to the initiation of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. Since 2014, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) have enumerated the "Principles of Dental Evaluation and Management (DENT-A)" in the section on head and neck cancers, however, oral management was not explained in detail. Oral management has not been achieved a consensus protocol. The aim of this literature is to show that oral management strategy include removal infected teeth before the start of radiotherapy to prevent osteoradionecrosis, oral care for preventing severe oral mucositis to support patient complete radiotherapy during radiotherapy, and prevent of dental caries followed by osteoradionecrosis after radiotherapy.

Acquiring Advanced Laparoscopic Colectomy Skills - The Issues

Colorectal surgery has been revolutionised towards minimally invasive surgery with the emergence of enhanced recovery protocol after surgery initiatives. However, laparoscopic colectomy has yet to be widely adopted, due mainly to the steep learning curve. We aim to review and discuss the methods of overcoming these learning curves by accelerating the competency level of the trainees without compromising patient safety. To provide this mini review, we assessed 70 articles in PubMed that were found through a search comprised the keywords laparoscopic colectomy, minimal invasive colectomy, learning curve and surgical education. We found England's Laparoscopic Colorectal National Training Programme (LAPCO-NTP) England to be by far the most structured programme established for colorectal surgeons, which involves pre-clinical and clinical phases that end with an assessment. For budding colorectal trainees, learning may be accelerated by simulator-based training to achieve laparoscopic dexterity coupled with an in-theatre proctorship by field experts. Task-specific checklists and video recordings are essential adjuncts to gauge progress and performance. As competency is established, careful case selections with the proctor are essential to maintain motivation and ensure safe performances. A structured programme to establish competency is vital to help both the proctor and trainee gauge real-time progress and performance. However, training systems both inside and outside the operating theatre (OT) are equally useful to achieve the desired performance.

Effect of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer with N. O. S. E. on recovery and prognosis of patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) on the recovery and quality of life (QOL) of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned into two groups: the traditional laparoscopy group (L group, n = 46) and the laparoscopic transanal specimen extraction group (NL group, n = 46). General data, surgery-related indicators, postoperative recovery, and prognosis were compared and analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients in each group were enrolled in this study. The general data and surgery-related indicators were comparable between the two groups (all p > .05). There were no significant differences in the time of first flatus, bleeding, obstruction, constipation, and infectious complications between the two groups (all p > .05). The differences in the incidence of postoperative diarrhea, pain degree, and satisfaction on the aesthetics of the abdominal wall showed significant differences (χ² = 6.133, p = .013; χ² = 12.116, p = .017; χ² = 13.463, p = .004). The postoperative follow-up time was 3-53 months. There were no significant differences in the postoperative hospital stay, medical costs, hospital readmission rate, incidence of incisional hernia, overall survival, disease-free survival, and QOL between the two groups (all p > .05). Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery with NOSE for eligible patients with CRC was a feasible choice.

Conventional and/or laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: what is the current evidence?

Despite many years of experience with laparoscopic procedures in rectal cancer, the superiority of minimally invasive approaches has been questioned especially in recent years. This article is a short review of the current knowledge about laparoscopic approaches in comparison to conventional modalities in patients with rectal cancer. To present the current state of the knowledge, we focused on reports that were published in the last few years and compared them to multicenter trials and meta-analyses published last year. Our analysis mainly applied to the primary end-points of these trials. We also included expert opinions that have been published in the last several months.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Colorectal cancer outcomes in patients aged over 85 years

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of colorectal cancer is increasing in the elderly. We examined the treatment and outcomes in our institution of patients aged over 85 years with proven colorectal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

One hundred and five patients were identified and stratified by treatment received: curative surgery (CS), other treatments (OT) or best supportive care (BSC). Data on demographics, staging, treatment and survival was collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Forty two patients received CS, 36 OT and 27 BSC. While the treated groups (CS and OT) were similar in terms of age (p=0.35) and staging (p=0.16), BSC patients were significantly older and had higher stage disease (p<0.01). Survival was significantly poorer among BSC patients, at a mean of 9.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7-14.7) versus 41.6 months (95% CI 32.5-50.7) and OT 27.3 months (95% CI 20.4-34.1) for the CS and OT groups (p<0.001). There was no significant survival difference between CS and OT groups within 2 years of treatment (p=0.12). Thereafter, OT patients had a very similar 5-year survival to that of the BSC group, at 13% versus 43% in CS patients (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that, up to 2 years following treatment, the risks of resectional surgery for colorectal cancer may neutralise any benefit. However, those that survive beyond this period show improvements. The challenge of improving patient selection is most acute in the growing ageing population, and highlights the current focus on presenting all treatment options to 'a reasonable patient'.

Does chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine preoperative antisepsis reduce surgical site infection in cranial neurosurgery?

Introduction Surgical site infection (SSI) is a significant cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Effective preoperative antisepsis is a recognised prophylactic, with commonly used agents including chlorhexidine (CHG) and povidone-iodine (PVI). However, there is emerging evidence to suggest an additional benefit when they are used in combination. Methods We analysed data from our prospective SSI database on patients undergoing clean cranial neurosurgery between October 2011 and April 2014. We compared the case-mix adjusted odds of developing a SSI in patients undergoing skin preparation with CGH or PVI alone or in combination. Results SSIs were detected in 2.6% of 1146 cases. Antisepsis with PVI alone was performed in 654 (57%) procedures, while 276 (24%) had CHG alone and 216 (19%) CHG and PVI together. SSIs were associated with longer operating time (p<0.001) and younger age (p=0.03). Surgery type (p<0.001) and length of operation (p<0.001) were significantly different between antisepsis groups. In a binary logistic regression model, CHG and PVI was associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of developing an SSI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.63) than either agent alone. There was no difference in SSI rates between CHG and PVI alone (AOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24-1.5). Conclusions Combination skin preparation with CHG and PVI significantly reduced SSI rates compared to CHG or PVI alone. A prospective, randomized study validating these findings is now warranted.

Minimally invasive surgery of rectal cancer: current evidence and options

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of colorectal cancer has become more popular in the past two decades. Laparoscopic colectomy has been accepted as an alternative standard approach in colon cancer, with comparable oncologic outcomes and several better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery. Unlike the treatment for colon cancer, however, the minimally invasive approach in rectal cancer has not been established. In this article, we summarize the current status of MIS for rectal cancer and explore the various technical options.

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach, but robotic-assisted surgery may overcome some limitations of laparoscopy in RC treatment. We compared the rate of positive circumferential margins between robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC in our institution.

METHODS

Mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma patients consecutively submitted to robotic surgery were compared to laparoscopic and open approach. From our prospective database, 59 patients underwent robotic-assisted rectal surgery from 2012 to 2015 (RTME group) were compared to our historical control group comprising 200 open TME (OTME group) and 41 laparoscopic TME (LTME group) approaches from July 2008 to February 2012. Primary endpoint was to compare the rate of involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) and the mean CRM between the three groups. Secondary endpoint was to compare the mean number of resected lymph nodes between the three groups.

RESULTS

CRM involvement was demonstrated in 20 patients (15.5%) in OTME, 4 (16%) in LTME and 9 (16.4%) in the RTME (p = 0.988). The mean CRM in OTME, LTME and RTME were respectively 0.6 cm (0-2.7), 0.7 cm (0-2.0) and 0.6 cm (0-2.0) (p = 0.960). Overall mean LN harvest was 14 (0-56); 16 (0-52) in OTME, 13 (1-56) in LTME and 10 (0-45) in RTME (p = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that robotic TME has the same oncological short-term results when compared to the open and laparoscopic technique, and it could be safely offered for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer.

Evidence-based treatment of patients with rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is a worldwide disease whose incidence has increased significantly. Evidence-based medicine is a category of medicine that optimizes decision making by using evidence from well-designed and conducted research. Evidence-based medicine can be used to formulate a reasonable treatment plan for newly diagnosed rectal cancer patients. The current review focuses on the application of evidence-based treatment on patients with rectal cancer. The relationship between perioperative blood transfusion and recurrence of rectal cancer after surgery, the selection between minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery and traditional laparotomy, choice of chemotherapy for patients with rectal cancer prior to surgery, selection between stapled and hand-sewn methods for colorectal anastomosis during rectal cancer resection, and selection between temporary ileostomy and colostomy during the surgery were addressed. Laparoscopy is considered to have more advantages but is time-consuming and has high medical costs. In addition, laparoscopic rectal cancer radical resection is preferred to open surgery. In radical resection surgery, use of a stapling device for anastomosis can reduce postoperative anastomotic fistula, although patients should be informed of possible anastomotic stenosis.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers

AIM

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Middle and Lower Rectal Cancer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer remain controversial because anatomical and complex surgical procedures specifically influence oncologic outcomes. This study analyzes the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer.

Methods

Patients (laparoscopic: n = 129, open: n = 152) who underwent curative resection for middle and lower rectal cancer from 2003 to 2008 participated in the study. The same surgical team performed all operations. The mean follow up time of all patients was 74.3 months.

Results

No statistical difference in local recurrence rate (7.8% vs. 7.2%; log-rank = 0.024; P = 0.876) and distant recurrence rate (20.9% vs.16.4%; log-rank = 0.699; P = 0.403) between laparoscopic and open groups were observed within 5 years. The 5-year overall survival rates of the laparoscopic and open groups were 72.9% and 75.7%, respectively; no significant statistical difference was observed between them (log-rank = 0.163; P = 0.686). The 5-year survival rates between groups were not different between stages: Stage I (92.6% vs. 86.7%; log-rank = 0.533; P = 0.465); stage II (75.8% vs. 80.5%; log-rank = 0.212; P = 0.645); and Stage III (63.8% vs. 69.1%, log-rank = 0272;P = 0.602). However, significant statistical difference amongst different stages were observed (log-rank = 1.802; P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic and open surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer offer equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes. Laparoscopic surgery is feasible in these patients.

Outreach training model for accredited colorectal specialists in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: feasibility and evaluation of challenges

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and safety of an outreach model of laparoscopic colorectal training of accredited specialists in advanced laparoscopic techniques and to explore the challenges of this model from the perspective of a National Training Programme (NTP) trainer.

METHOD

Prospective data were collected for unselected laparoscopic colorectal training procedures performed by five laparoscopic colorectal NTP trainees supervised by a single NTP trainer with an outreach model between 2009 and 2012. The operative and postoperative outcomes were compared with standard laparoscopic colorectal training procedures performed by six senior colorectal trainees under the supervision of the same NTP trainer within the same study period. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables and the Chi squared or Fisher's exact tests were applied for the analysis of categorical variables. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

During the study period 179 elective laparoscopic colorectal procedures were performed. This included 54 cases performed by NTP trainees and 125 cases performed by the supervised trainees. There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, pathology and procedure type between both groups. Seventy-eight per cent of the patients operated on by the NTP trainees had had no previous abdominal surgery, compared with 50% in the supervised trainees' group (P = 0.0005). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality or the operative and postoperative outcome between both groups. There were, however, difficulties in training an already established consultant in his or her own hospital and these were overcome by certain adjustments to the programme.

CONCLUSION

Outreach laparoscopic training of colorectal surgeons is a feasible and safe model of training accredited specialists and does not compromise patient care. The challenges encountered can be overcome with optimum training and preparation.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with open resection for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the long-term surgical outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer after open or hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

A case-matched controlled prospective analysis of 116 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for stage I to III mid and low rectal cancer from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Contemporary patients who underwent open rectal surgery were matched to the HALS group at the ratio of 1:1. The perioperative clinical outcomes, postoperative pathology, and survival outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Ninety patients in the open group and 85 in the HALS group received sphincter-preserving surgery. HALS resulted in less blood loss and wound infection, faster return to oral diet, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and longer operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Lymph node retrieval and involvement of circumferential and distal margins were similar for both procedures. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence, disease-free, or overall survival rates were statistically similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that HALS for mid and low rectal cancer is acceptable in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival results.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes

The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80%) and incomplete in 13 (20%) cases (p = 0.109). R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid-low RC after NCRT.

The effect of surgical approach on short-term oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Although evidence to support the use of laparoscopic and robotic approaches for the treatment of rectal cancer is limited, these approaches are being adopted broadly. We sought to investigate national practice patterns and compare short-term oncologic outcomes of different approaches for rectal cancer resections.

METHODS

The 2010 National Cancer Database was queried for operative cases of rectal cancer. Approach was classified as open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics and surgical margin status were evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes across approaches.

RESULTS

We identified 8,712 patients. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were more common in privately insured and wealthier patients at high-volume centers (P < .001). Open approaches were used for tumors with higher histologic grade and pathologic stage (P < .001). A minimally invasive approach was associated with fewer positive margins and shorter hospital stays. After propensity score matching, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a 2.0% lesser (P = .01) and robotic surgery with a 3.8% lesser (P = .004) incidence of positive margins compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

An open approach is often used in rectal cancers with higher pathologic stages. Matched patient analysis suggests minimally invasive approaches are associated with improved R0 resections.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Outcomes after 140 Patients

BACKGROUND

The anatomic difficulties that we have to deal with in open surgery for rectal cancer have not been overcome with the laparoscopic approach. In the search for a solution, a change of concept arose: approaching the rectum from below. The main objectives of this study were to show the potential advantages of the hybrid transabdominal-transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). This approach may improve quality of the mesorectal specimens. Second, proctectomy can be technically easier and more safely performed "down to up," which would result in shorter surgical times, lower conversion rates, and less morbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective series of hybrid taTME was conducted from October 2011 to November 2014.

RESULTS

During the study period, 140 procedures were performed. Mean operative time was 166 minutes. There were no conversions or intraoperative complications. Macroscopic quality assessment of the resected specimen was complete in 97.1% and nearly complete in 2.1%. Thirty-day morbidity was minor (Clavien-Dindo I + II) in 24.2% and major (Clavien-Dindo III + IV) in 10 %. No patient died within the first 30 days postsurgery (Clavien-Dindo V). The mean follow-up was 15 months, with a 2.3% local recurrence rate and a 7.6% rate of systemic recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathologic analysis showed a very good macroscopic quality of TME specimens, which is the most important prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Intraoperative outcomes regarding conversion, surgical times, and intraoperative complications are very satisfactory. Short-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes are as good as in other laparoscopic TME series.

Total mesorectal excision: open, laparoscopic or robotic

Goals Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Despite the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic TME (LTME) is a technically challenging procedure with a long learning curve. Robotic TME (RTME) has been advocated as an alternative to conventional LTME, but large studies supporting the efficacy or RTME are scarce. This work will review the current literature on minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer and discuss future directions in the field. Methods A review of recent large single and multicenter studies on minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was conducted. Results Based on two large randomized clinical studies (CLASICC (Green et al. 2013) and COLOR II (van der Pas et al. 2013)). LTME is safe and feasible for the treatment of rectal cancer. Compared to open surgery, LTME has been shown to result in superior postoperative outcomes and similar oncologic results. However, the conversion rate of LTME is around 17 %. The literature supporting RTME is more limited. Robotic rectal resection appears to have similar postoperative and oncologic outcomes compared to LTME. RTME results in higher costs and possibly lower conversion rates. A large randomized clinical trial (ROLARR) comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is underway. Conclusions Despite the technical challenges, current data supports the use of minimally invasive technique for rectal cancer surgery with superior short-term outcomes compared to an open approach. The use of robotic surgery is promising, but still limited and awaiting the conclusion of randomized clinical trials.

Role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer: A review

Despite established evidence on the advantages of laparoscopy in colon cancer resection, the use of laparoscopy for rectal cancer resection is still controversial. The initial concern was mainly regarding the feasibility of laparoscopy to achieve an adequate total mesorectal excision specimen. These concerns have been raised following early studies demonstrating higher rates of circumferential margins positivity following laparoscopic resection, as compared to open surgery. Similar to colon resection, patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are expected to benefit from a shorter length of hospital stay, less analgesic requirements, and a faster recovery of bowel function. In the past decade there have been an increasing number of large scale clinical trials investigating the oncological and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. In this review we summarize the current literature available on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short-term and pathological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature databases were searched for eligible studies published up to July 2013. The rates of postoperative complication, positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), and the number of lymph nodes harvested were evaluated.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs enrolling 953 patients were included. Compared to OS, LS had similar rate of postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 to 1.22], comparable rate of positive CRM (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02), and smaller number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference -0.8; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.5). LS also had significantly less blood loss, faster bowel movement recovery, and shorter postoperative hospitalization than those of OS.

CONCLUSION

LS is associated with favorable short-term benefits, similar postoperative complication rate, and comparable pathological outcomes for rectal cancer after NCRT compared to OS despite a slight difference in the number of lymph nodes. Additional high-quality studies are needed to validate long-term outcomes of LS following NCRT.

Factors affecting operating time in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer

Background

The objective of this study is to clarify the relationship between demographic and surgical factors and operating time, and thus operative difficulty, in patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer, since different studies have derived different results.

Methods

The records of patients with mid-low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection were retrospectively studied. Demographic data, tumor characteristics, and pelvimetry measurements were collected and analyzed with respect to operating time, using correlation coefficient analysis, principle component analysis, and linear regression.

Results

A total of 14 patients (10 males, 4 females; 65.50 ± 7.12 years of age) were included. Demographic and tumor characteristics not correlated with operating time. Body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.001); interacetabular distance (IA) (P = 0.001); anatomical transverse distance (IP) (P = 0.008); interischial distance (IS) (P = 0.002); intertuberous distance (IT) (P = 0.005); distance between the coccyx and symphysis (CoSy) (P = 0.013); and the angle of the lower border of the symphysis pubis, upper border of symphysis pubis, and sacral promontory (angle 5) (P = 0.004) were significantly associated with operating time. The equation was:

operatingtime=0.653×BMI+0.818×angle5-0.404×IA-0.380×IP-0.512×IS-0.405×IT-0.570×CoSy+330.8.

Conclusions

Transverse diameters of the pelvis, BMI, angle 5, and CoSy played the most important role in affecting operating time. The equation can be a very useful tool for preoperative assessment.

Laparoscopic and converted approaches to rectal cancer resection have superior long-term outcomes: a comparative study by operative approach

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes for rectal cancer resection by operative approach. Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic (LAP) and LAP converted to open (OPEN) rectal cancer resections have excellent patient and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified curative rectal cancer resections. Patients were stratified by operative approach: LAP, OPEN, or CONVERTED. Oncologic and clinical outcomes data was examined for each operative approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 294 patients were analyzed-116 LAP (39.5%), 153 OPEN (52.0%), and 25 (8.5%) CONVERTED. Groups were comparable in demographics. Mean distal margin, circumferential resection margin, and lymph nodes harvested were comparable. The median length of stay was 4 days (range 1-20) LAP, 6 days (range 3-13) CONVERTED, and 8 days (range 1-35) OPEN (p < 0.01). More OPEN had postoperative complications (p < 0.01)-complication rates were 43.8% OPEN, 32.0% CONVERTED, and 21.5 % LAP. Unplanned readmissions and reoperations were similar (21.6% OPEN, 16.0% CONVERTED, 12.1% LAP). Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 98.3%, and local recurrence rate was 2.0%. By approach, DFS was 100% CONVERTED, 93.1% LAP, and 87.6% OPEN (p = 0.31). Overall survival (OS) was 100 % CONVERTED, 99.1% LAP, and 97.4%. OPEN. Local recurrence was 0% CONVERTED, 2% OPEN, and 2.6% LAP. 3-year DFS for LAP and CONVERTED was superior to OPEN (p = 0.05), with comparable local recurrence (p = 0.07) and OS rates (0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

LAP and converted procedures have comparable or superior clinical and oncologic outcomes. More procedures should be approached through a LAP approach. If the procedure cannot be completed laparoscopically, outcomes are not compromised for converted patients.

Integration of open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer resection: oncologic and short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is increasingly used for rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is not attempted for some suitable patients because of concerns for conversion or technical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate oncologic and short-term outcomes for patients undergoing curative resection for rectal cancer via laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed to identify rectal cancer resections from 2005 to 2011. Patients who had primary rectal cancer within 15 cm of the anal verge were included in the study. Those with recurrent or metastatic disease were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic or open approaches preoperatively based on clinical criteria and imaging. All patients underwent a standard total mesorectal excision and followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. The oncologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by approach.

RESULTS

The analysis included 81 patients. The preoperative assignments consisted of 62 laparoscopic (77%) and 19 open (23%) procedures. Nine laparoscopic procedures (14.5%) were converted to open procedures. After a median follow-up period of 25 months, all oncologic outcomes were comparable. Three patients (two laparoscopic, one open) had a positive circumferential margin (≤1 mm). The laparoscopic and open groups were similar in terms of their 3-year disease-free periods (93.6 vs. 88.2%; P = 0.450) and overall survival periods (93.5 vs. 90.9%; P = 0.766). The local recurrence rate was 2.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer can be attempted for most patients. Conversion to open procedure does not compromise clinical or oncologic outcomes. In practice, combining laparoscopic and open surgery optimizes resource use and results in at least equivalent outcomes.

Evolving treatment strategies for colorectal cancer: A critical review of current therapeutic options

Management of rectal cancer has markedly evolved over the last two decades. New technologies of staging have allowed a more precise definition of tumor extension. Refinements in surgical concepts and techniques have resulted in higher rates of sphincter preservation and better functional outcome for patients with this malignancy. Although, preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision has become the standard of care for locally advanced tumors, many controversial matters in management of rectal cancer still need to be defined. These include the feasibility of a non-surgical approach after a favorable response to neoadjuvant therapy, the ideal margins of surgical resection for sphincter preservation and the adequacy of minimally invasive techniques of tumor resection. In this article, after an extensive search in PubMed and Embase databases, we critically review the current strategies and the most debatable matters in treatment of rectal cancer.

Evaluation of short-term outcomes after laparoscopically assisted abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To investigate the feasibility, safety and short-term efficacy of laparoscopic techniques applied in the abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

The clinical data of 236 patients with APR from January 2010 to January 2012 were analysed retrospectively, including 100 patients underwent laparoscopically assisted APR (LAAPR group), 136 cases of open APR (OAPR group). The demographics, tumor and procedure-related parameters, perioperative results and short-term oncological outcomes were evaluated using t-test or χ(2) -test.

RESULTS

The demographic data of the two groups were comparable. Perioperative results were better after laparoscopic surgery, with less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.017), earlier return of bowel function (P < 0.05) and lower complication rates (P = 0.015). No significant differences were detected between the two groups in operation time, tumor size, specimen length, the distance of tumor from the anal verge, lymph nodes removed and the status of circumferential resection margin (P > 0.05). During the follow-up period of 17-38 months (average, 26 months), the overall survival rates were not significantly different between the two groups [82.5% (80/97) versus 82.7% (110/133), P > 0.05]. The differences in recurrence and metastasis between the two groups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopically assisted APR for low rectal cancer is safe and effective. It has the advantages of less bleeding, rapid postoperative recovery and fewer complications, without affecting the radical degree of the surgery. Further studies are needed to fully assess oncological outcomes in the future.

Short-term follow-up after laparoscopic versus conventional total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer in a large teaching hospital

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer remains controversial, and large randomized studies on oncologic outcome are lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the short-term results of laparoscopic resection versus conventional total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer (≤10 cm from the anal verge).

METHODS

The institutional colorectal surgery database was reviewed, and 166 consecutive patients operated for low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2011 were included in this analysis which focuses on the first 18 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty patients underwent conventional TME, whereas 86 patients underwent laparoscopic TME. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups. Conversion rate was 17 %. Laparoscopic rectal resection resulted in significantly less blood loss (200 versus 475 ml, p = <0.001) and a 3-day shorter hospital stay (median, 7 versus 10 days; p = 0.06). Oncologic results from resected specimens were comparable, although significantly more lymph nodes were harvested in laparoscopic resections (median, 13 versus 11; p = 0.005). Disease-free survival after curative resection was better in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.04), but this was no longer significant after correction for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of short-term results of laparoscopic versus conventional TME for low rectal cancer demonstrates that laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe, resulting in similar oncologic outcomes with less blood loss, a trend towards less postoperative complications and shorter duration of hospital stay. Further randomized studies are needed to attribute to the body of evidence of equivalence or even superiority of laparoscopic resections compared to conventional resections for distal rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a literature review and recommendations from the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie

BACKGROUND

Adoption of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer treatment has been slow owing to initial case study results suggesting high recurrence rates at port sites. The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer still raises a number of concerns, particularly with the technique's complexity, learning curve and longer duration. After exploring the scientific literature comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer with respect to oncologic efficacy and shortterm outcomes, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) made recommendations for surgical practice in Quebec.

METHODS

Scientific literature published from January 1995 to April 2012 was reviewed. Phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses were included.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized trials and 10 meta-analyses were retrieved. Analysis of the literature confirmed that for curative treatment of colorectal cancer, laparoscopy is not inferior to open surgery with respect to survival and recurrence rates. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including a shorter hospital stay, reduced analgesic use and faster recovery of intestinal function. However, this approach does require a longer operative time.

CONCLUSION

Considering the evidence, the CEPO recommends that laparoscopic resection be considered an option for the curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer; that decisions regarding surgical approach take into consideration surgeon experience, tumour stage, potential contraindications and patient expectations; and that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer be performed only by appropriately trained surgeons who perform a sufficient volume annually to maintain competence.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopically assisted surgery for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer remains unclear, and little is known about its effect on sphincter preservation. We compared short-term outcomes of laparoscopically assisted and open surgeries following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study enrolled 137 patients with mid-low rectal cancer who underwent curative resection, 51 by laparoscopically assisted (Lap group) and 86 by conventional open (Open group) surgeries, following neoadjuvant CRT from July 2007 to July 2012. The clinical and surgical findings of the two groups of patients were prospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Three patients (5.9%) in the Lap group were converted to an open procedure. The mean operating times were similar in both groups. The Lap group had a significantly higher rate of sphincter preservation (62.7% versus 41.9%, P = 0.018) and significantly lower mean blood loss than the Open group. Mean times to first flatus, start of a normal diet, and overall postoperative hospitalization were longer for open surgery. The complication rate (11.8% versus 31.4%, P = 0.009) was significantly lower in the Lap group. Mean distal resection margin, involvement of the circumferential resection margin (2.0% versus 3.5%, P = 1.000), and mean lymph nodes harvested (12 versus 11; P = 0.242) were equivalent in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopically assisted surgery following neoadjuvant CRT is safe for patients with rectal cancer and provides favorable short-term benefits but without compromising oncologic outcomes. This sphincter-preserving procedure may be a treatment of choice for patients with lower rectal cancer.

Influence of conversion on the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer compared with primarily open resection

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of conversion on perioperative and short- and long-term oncologic outcomes in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer and to compare these with those for an open control group.

METHODS

The data of 276 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer between 2006 and 2010 at a single institution were prospectively collected. Of the 276 patients, 114 underwent primarily open surgery, and 162 underwent laparoscopic surgery (on an intention-to-treat basis). Of the 162 laparoscopic patients, 38 (23.5%) underwent conversion to open surgery. The three groups of patients were compared: the conversion surgery group, the open surgery group, and the completed laparoscopy surgery group.

RESULTS

The converted patients had more wound infections (18.4 vs 4.8%, p = 0.009), but the wound infection rate in the primarily open group also was significantly higher than in the laparoscopic resection group (p = 0.007). No further differences in perioperative morbidity, including anastomotic leakage, were found. The perioperative 30-day mortality rate was comparable between all the groups (0.6 vs 2.6 vs 2.6%, nonsignificant difference). The oncologic parameters such as number of harvested lymph nodes and rate of R0 resection were equal in all the groups. The completed laparoscopy group had a shorter hospital stay [12 vs 16 days in the primarily open group (p = 0.02) vs 15 days in the converted group (p = 0.03)]. The rates for survival, local recurrence (4.5 vs 3 vs 3%), and metachronous metastasis (10.1 vs 9.3 vs 9%) did not differ significantly between the three groups after a period of 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic rectal resection has no negative effect on perioperative or long-term oncologic outcome.

Does conversion affect short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy for colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) for cancer has been associated with adverse short-term and oncologic outcomes. However, most studies have had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative outcomes and survival among patients undergoing LCR for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive LCRs for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer was reviewed. Patients who required conversion (CONV group) were compared with those who had completed laparoscopic resection (LAP group). Only patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up period were included in the oncologic analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 10.9%. The most common reason for conversion was a locally advanced tumor (48.4%). Conversion was associated with a significantly longer operative time and a greater blood loss. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay between the CONV and LAP patients. During a median follow-up period of 120 months (range, 60-180 months), the CONV group had a significantly worse 5-year overall survival (OS) (79.4 vs 87.4%; p = 0.016) and disease-free survival (DFS) (65.4 vs 79.6%; p = 0.013). Univariate analysis showed that conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, pT4 cancer, stage 3 disease, and adjuvant chemotherapy were significant risk factors for OS and DFS. On multivariate analysis, pT4 cancer and a lymph node ratio (LNR) of 0.25 or greater were the only independent predictors of DFS and OS, whereas a LNR of 0.01 to 0.24 showed a trend that did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery per se is not associated with worse early postoperative outcomes and does not adversely affect long-term survival per se.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer is a safe and established alternative to traditional open colectomy. The potential advantages of shorter length of stay, faster recovery and fewer operative complications are well documented. The last 5 years has seen an increase in the number of laparoscopic colorectal operations as more surgeons learn this technique. Short and medium term results have been encouraging with respect to oncological outcomes. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remains a contentious issue. The increased complexity of operating within the confines of the pelvis and the greater risk of oncological compromise, have led to some surgeons urging caution. We present the challenges associated with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and explain that appropriate patient selection, surgical planning and laparoscopic experience are the key to successful outcomes.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision compared to open surgery

AIM: To investigate the short-term outcome of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with mid and low rectal cancers.

METHODS: A consecutive series of 138 patients with middle and low rectal cancer were randomly assigned to either the laparoscopic TME (LTME) group or the open TME (OTME) group between September 2008 and July 2011 at the Department of Colorectal Cancer of Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University and pathological data, as well as surgical technique were reviewed retrospectively. Short-term clinical and oncological outcome were compared in these two groups. Patients were followed in the outpatient clinic 2 wk after the surgery and then every 3 mo in the first year if no adjuvant chemoradiation was indicated. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 13.0 software.

RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were treated with LTME and 71 patients were treated with OTME (sex ratio 1.3:1 vs 1.29:1, age 58.4 ± 13.6 years vs 59.6 ± 9.4 years, respectively). The resection was considered curative in all cases. The sphincter-preserving rate was 65.7% (44/67) vs 60.6% (43/71), P = 0.046; mean blood loss was 86.9 ± 37.6 mL vs 119.1 ± 32.7 mL, P = 0.018; postoperative analgesia was 2.1 ± 0.6 d vs 3.9 ± 1.8 d, P = 0.008; duration of urinary drainage was 4.7 ± 1.8 d vs 6.9 ± 3.4 d, P = 0.016, respectively. The conversion rate was 2.99%. The complication rate, circumferential margin involvement, distal margins and lymph node yield were similar for both procedures. No port site recurrence, anastomotic recurrence or mortality was observed during a median follow-up period of 21 mo (range: 9-56 mo).

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TME is safe and feasible, with an oncological adequacy comparable to the open approach. Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the present results.

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: Where do we stand?

Large comparative studies and multiple prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) have reported equivalence in short and long-term outcomes between the open and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical treatment of colon cancer which has heralded widespread acceptance for laparoscopic resection of colon cancer. In contrast, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of rectal cancer has been welcomed with significantly less enthusiasm. While it is likely that patients with rectal cancer will experience the same benefits of early recovery and decreased postoperative pain from the laparoscopic approach, whether the same oncologic clearance, specifically an adequate TME can be obtained is of concern. The aim of the current study is to review the current level of evidence in the literature on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery with regard to short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes. The data from 8 RCTs, 3 meta-analyses, and 2 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was reviewed. Current data suggests that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection may benefit patients with reduced blood loss, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospital length of stay. Concerns that laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery compromises short-term oncologic outcomes including number of lymph nodes retrieved and circumferential resection margin and jeopardizes long-term oncologic outcomes has not conclusively been refuted by the available literature. Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is feasible but whether or not it compromises short-term or long-term results still needs to be further studied.

What is the established contribution of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer?

The results of laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer have been evaluated in several randomized trials. Still, the validity of this approach remains controversial because of concerns regarding its oncological safety. In this review, oncological results of laparoscopic rectal resection were similar to those of laparotomy, with no observed survival difference. Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy seemed to be associated with worse oncological results and an increased post-operative morbidity including nervous sequelae. Intra-operative blood loss was significantly reduced with the laparoscopic approach, but post-operative morbidity was not different. Post-operative pain and length of hospital stay were decreased by the laparoscopic approach, and short-term quality of life was improved. There was no demonstration of significant reduction in late morbidity such as incisional hernia and bowel adhesions.

Complete mesocolic excision in colon cancer surgery: a comparison between open and laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vessel ligation (CVL) as performed in Erlangen offers the best long-term outcome for colon cancer. The aim of this study was to assess specimens after laparoscopic vs open CME-CVL macroscopically and morphometrically in patients with left and right colon cancers.

METHOD

All specimens were freshly photographed. Precise tumour morphometry and grading of the surgical plane were performed as described by pathologists in Leeds, UK.

RESULTS

Thirty-four specimens from right-sided cancers were divided into 18 transverse colon cancers (nine laparoscopic vs nine open) and 16 caecum-ascending colon cancers (seven laparoscopic vs nine open) and 56 specimens from left-sided cancers (33 laparoscopic vs 23 open). There was no difference between laparoscopically and open acquired left- and right-sided specimens. Specimens of transverse colon displayed differences in length of central ligation to tumour (open 11.67 cm vs laparoscopic 8.72 cm, P = 0.049), length of central ligation to bowel wall (open 9.11 cm vs laparoscopic 6.5 cm, P = 0.015) and lymph node clearance (open 46.33 vs laparoscopic 39.33, P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy seems to offer specimens of similar quality after CME-CVL surgery for colon cancer to the open approach. Issues of completeness of excision from laparoscopy are raised for tumours located in the transverse colon.

Robotic-Assisted Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Lithotomy Position: Technique and Early Outcomes

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection (E-APR) has been advocated as a superior procedure to achieve negative circumferential resection margins (CRMs) for sphincter-invading rectal cancers. An open total mesorectal excision is performed followed by perineal dissection with resection of the levators in the prone position. We describe a novel minimally invasive robotic approach carried out in the lithotomy position. Using the robotic arms to dissect the rectum and divide the levator fibers at their origin, the dissection is carried out in the ischiorectal space as distally as possible. From May to July 2011, six cases of robotic E-APR for rectal cancer were performed. The mean age was 54.5 years old. Mean operating time was 335 minutes. Mean estimated blood loss was 250 mL. There were no conversions to the open approach. A cylindrical specimen was obtained in all patients without perforation. All CRMs were negative. Mean hospital stay was 5 days. Two patients developed perineal wound infections and one developed a small bowel obstruction postoperatively. Robotic-assisted E-APR performed in the lithotomy position is safe and feasible. Future studies are needed to define the benefits of this technique.

Midterm outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

In this study, the authors examine midterm survival and recurrence after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective review of a prospective database for rectal cancer surgeries performed at the authors' institution, with follow-up data obtained through chart review. In all, 74 patients in this study had open surgery, and 93 had laparoscopic surgery. The 5-year overall survival was 73.6% ± 12.0% in the open group and 80.0% ± 12.8% in the laparoscopic group (P = .159). Disease-free survival at 5 years was better in the laparoscopic group (71.0% ± 13.4%) than in the open group (50.3% ± 12.7%), with a P value of .01. Laparoscopic surgery remained an independent predictor of disease-free survival in the multivariate analysis. Results of prospective randomized trials are awaited, and the authors expect that the laparoscopic approach will be shown to be a safe and effective option for the management of rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare LTME and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) as the primary treatment for patients with middle and low rectal cancer with regard to short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches up to October 30, 2011 were performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated by LTME versus OTME. Fixed and random effects models were used. Review Manager version 5.1 software was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Four RCTs enrolling 624 participants (LTME group, 308 cases; OTME group, 316 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. LTME for rectal cancer was associated with a significantly longer operative time but significantly less intraoperative blood loss and earlier time to pass first flatus. We found no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, overall morbidity, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups. Time to resume liquid diet, time to resume normal diet, and length of hospital stay, although not significantly different between the two groups, did suggest a positive trend toward LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be concluded that LTME is a safe and effective alternative to OTME and is justifiable under the setting of clinical trials. Additional RCTs that compare LTME and OTME and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of LTME are required to determine the advantages of LTME over OTME.

Laparoscopic proctectomy: oncologic considerations

The role of laparoscopic proctectomy in rectal cancer has not clearly been defined. Publications on long-term outcomes after laparoscopic proctectomy is lacking and there is a wide variation of practice patterns of rectal cancer management. Current data supports the feasibility of laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer but due to surgeon, patient and tumor related factors open technique may be favored. Current series suggest that laparoscopic proctectomy can be performed with similar oncologic adequacy with regards to, circumferential resection margin, distal margin, local recurrence and quality of life. Ongoing trials will provide evidence clarifying the role of laparoscopic proctectomy in rectal cancer. Until then, high-level laparoscopic skills and meticulous preoperative evaluation of both patient and tumor can identify appropriate candidates.

Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

Laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer were compared by analysing a total of 26 end points which included intraoperative and postoperative recovery, short-term morbidity and mortality, late morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHOD

We searched for published randomized clinical trials, presenting a comparison between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer using the following electronic databases: PubMed, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis incorporating a total of 1544 patients, having laparoscopic (N = 841) and open rectal resection (N = 703) for cancer. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a statistically significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss and in the number of blood transfusions, earlier resuming solid diet, return of bowel function and a shorter duration of hospital stay. We also found a significant advantage for laparoscopy in the reduction of post-operative abdominal bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and late morbidity. No differences were found in terms of intra-operative and late oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis indicates that laparoscopy benefits patients with shorter hospital stay, earlier return of bowel function, reduced blood loss and number of blood transfusions and lower rates of abdominal postoperative bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and other late morbidities.

Shifting concepts in rectal cancer management: a review of contemporary primary rectal cancer treatment strategies

The management of rectal cancer has transformed over the last 3 decades and continues to evolve. Some of these changes parallel progress made with other cancers: refinement of surgical technique to improve organ preservation, selective use of neoadjuvant (and adjuvant) therapy, and emergence of criteria suggesting a role for individually tailored therapy. Other changes are driven by fairly unique issues including functional considerations, rectal anatomic features, and surgical technical issues. Further complexity is due to the variety of staging modalities (each with its own limitations), neoadjuvant treatment alternatives, and competing strategies for sequencing multimodal treatment even for nonmetastatic disease. Importantly, observations of tumor response made in the era of neoadjuvant therapy are reshaping some traditionally held concepts about tumor behavior. Frameworks for prioritizing and integrating complex data can help to formulate treatment plans for patients.

Multivariate evaluation of the technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although the laparoscopic approach is accepted for the treatment of colon cancer, its value for low rectal cancer is unknown. We sought to evaluate the technical feasibility of laparoscopic low anterior resection (Lap-AR) by determining short-term clinical outcomes and identifying the corresponding predictive factors.

METHODS

A retrospective single-institution study was carried out on 82 patients in whom Lap-AR had been attempted for rectal cancer during the period spanning April 2001 to December 2009. Patient characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative morbidities and mortalities were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median operative time and the intraoperative blood loss were 300 minutes and 72.5 g, respectively. Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 11.0% and 0%, respectively. Complications included wound infection (6.1%, n=5), anastomotic leakage (1.2%, n=1), ileus (1.2%, n=1), and pneumonia (2.4%, n=2). A multivariate analysis indicated that the important risk factor associated with an operative time of >300 minutes was the T factor, and the risk factor associated with intraoperative blood loss was a body mass index (BMI) of >25 kg/m(2).

CONCLUSIONS

Lap-AR is a technically feasible, safe, and effective method for treating patients with rectal cancer. A BMI>25 kg/m(2) and the T factor related to operative blood loss and operative time, respectively. Assessment of high BMI and, in particular, advanced tumor depth, should alert surgeons to the increased technical difficulty of Lap-AR.