Outcome following laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

Assessment of Risk Factors for Iatrogenic Genitourinary Injuries During a Proctectomy

BACKGROUND

It is critical to avoid iatrogenic injuries affecting genitourinary organs in order to prevent postoperative urinary or sexual dysfunction, which lead to lengthier recovery and possibly reoperation.

METHODS

Using the 2016-2019 American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Targeted Proctectomy Database, we collated 2577 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer who underwent a laparoscopic or open proctectomy. Univariate analysis was used to identify differences in perioperative factors and genitourinary injuries (GUIs) between operative approaches, and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for sustaining an intraoperative GUI.

RESULTS

The rates of preoperative comorbidities were significantly higher among patients who received an open operation. The proportion of GUIs was also significantly higher in this patient population. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that patients who underwent a laparoscopic proctectomy were associated with a 51.4% lower risk of sustaining a GUI. Furthermore, >10% body weight loss in the past 6 months and ASA class 3 status were independently associated with a higher risk of GUI regardless of operation type.

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo a laparoscopic proctectomy are associated with a lower risk of GUI. On the other hand, patients with >10% body weight loss and ASA class 3: Severe Systemic Disease were associated with a higher risk of GUI.

A novel stratification of mesenteric mass involvement as a predictor of challenging mesenteric lymph node dissection by minimally invasive approach for ileal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We classified the extent of mesenteric mass (MM) involvement that predicts challenging mesenteric lymph node dissection (mLND) by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for ileal neuroendocrine tumors (i-NETs).

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for i-NETs were retrospectively reviewed. MM involvement was classified as region-0: no MM; region-1: >2 cm from the origins of the ileocolic artery/vein; region-2: ≤2 cm from the origins; and region-3: more proximal superior mesenteric artery/vein. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the predictive value of MM regions for gross positive mesenteric margin (mR2) and/or conversion among the MIS cohort. The open surgery cohort was used as a reference for mR2 rates.

RESULTS

Of 108 patients, 83 patients (77%) underwent MIS. MMs in region-2 and region-3 were independent risk factors for mR2 and/or conversion (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.25 [1.17-16.4] and 8.51 × 10⁷ [11.0-], respectively, against regions-0 and 1]. mR2 rates of MIS and open surgery cohorts per region did not differ significantly (4% and 7% for regions-0 and 1; 17% and 25% for region-2; and 100% and 83% for region-3).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel stratification of MM regions was predictive of challenging mLND by MIS. Surgeons should have a low threshold for conversion for MMs in proximal regions.

Prospective evaluation of the quality of life of patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer depending on the surgical technique

PURPOSE

Monitoring of the quality of life of patients in addition to satisfactory survival indexes in order to choose an optimal treatment method is a trend in contemporary oncological surgery. The goal of the study was to prospectively evaluate the quality of life of patients treated for colorectal cancer depending on the type of surgical technique (open surgery (OS) vs. laparoscopic surgery (LS)).

METHODS

The quality of life was evaluated thrice in the study groups (on the day of admission to the ward (I), 6 months (II), and 18 months after the procedure (III)). The following questionnaires were used in this evaluation: QLQ-C30 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, QLQ-CR29 Quality of Life Questionnaire (module-colorectal cancer), and Acceptance of Illness Scale (AIS).

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients completed this prospective clinical cohort study (LS-32; OS-35). The QLQ-C30 questionnaire demonstrated improvement in functional scales among patients treated with LS technique (p < 0.05) as well as with regard to overall quality of life 6 months after surgery (p < 0,001), while at 18 months postsurgery, statistically significant differences were noted for physical function (p = 0.001) and overall quality of life (p < 0.0001). AIS scale analysis demonstrated that patients treated with laparoscopy were characterized by better acceptance of illness (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences between OS and LS groups were noted based on the QLQ-CR29 questionnaire with regard to the following scales: body image (p = 0.041) and body mass problem (p = 0.024)-patients treated with LS technique had better scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery gives patients a chance for better quality of life.

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic versus open surgery in transverse and descending colon cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancer remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of this procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a single-institutional randomized controlled trial. Patients with transverse or descending colon cancer were randomly allocated to receive laparoscopic surgery (LAC) or conventional open surgery (OC). The primary endpoint was the overall complication rate between the two groups. The secondary endpoints were the length of the postoperative hospital stay, the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score (at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery), the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS), and the 5-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Between August 2008 and October 2012, a total of 66 patients were enrolled (33 in the LAC group and 33 in the OC group). The patient characteristics showed no significant differences between the two groups. The complication rates (≥ grade 3) were 6.1% in the LAC group and 12.1% in the OC group (p = 0.392). The length of postoperative stay was not significantly different between the two groups. Regarding the HRQOL, the physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, social functioning, mental health, and role component summary at 1 month after surgery and the social functioning and mental health at 6 months after surgery were better in the LAC group than in the OC group. The 5-year RFS and OS rates were similar between the LAC and OC groups (RFS 90.5% and 87.3%, respectively, p = 0.752; OS 93.3% and 100.0%, respectively, p = 0.543).

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse and descending colon cancer are almost equal to those of open surgery. Laparoscopic resection is a better choice than open surgery for managing this cancer with regard to the short- and mid-term QOL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01861691 .

Prospective study of patient satisfaction and postoperative quality of life after laparoscopic colectomy in Japan

INTRODUCTION

This prospective cohort study was designed to compare the short-term and intermediate health-related quality of life of Japanese patients after laparoscopic colectomy (LC) or open colectomy (OC) for colonic cancer.

METHODS

Seventeen hospitals participated, and 240 colonic cancer patients with T3 or T4 invasion that were estimated as curatively resected were enrolled. Three patients were excluded as ineligible, one patient died suddenly before operation, and one patient was not registered based on the doctor's decision. Therefore, analysis was done on 235 patients who underwent either LC (n = 165) or OC (n = 70) in accordance with their stated preference. The major outcome scale end-point was health-related quality of life as assessed by the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (Japanese version 2.0). Accessory end-points were feeling of satisfaction 1 month after operation and recovery time needed to perform normal activities after operation. Observations were performed on enrollment, postoperative day 3, postoperative day 7, discharge day or postoperative month 1, and postoperative month 6.

RESULTS

Defecation condition, wound pain score, and abdominal pain score were better in the LC group than in the OC group on postoperative day 7 and in postoperative month 1. Recovery time to normal daily activity took 30 days in the LC group, whereas the OC group needed 44 days.

CONCLUSION

Patients' subjective responses indicated that LC was more beneficial than OC for patients with stage II or III colonic cancer. LC's superiority was seen particularly in the following indicators: (i) health-related quality of life during early postoperative days; (ii) recovery to normal daily activities; and (iii) defecation after surgery.

Laparoscopic colectomy for carcinoma of the colon in octogenarians

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer increases with age; most patients present with resectable disease. Since there is a high morbidity rate in the elderly, the laparoscopic approach, with its lower complication rate, appears to be the ideal choice for treatment of this patient group. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the short-term results of laparoscopic (LC) with open (OC) colectomies for carcinoma in patients 80 years of age or older.

METHODS

The study comprised 93 patients aged 80 years and over who underwent OC or LC between 2005 and 2008. Demographics and clinical data were compared.

RESULTS

The LC group included 47, and the OC included 46 patients. No differences were found between the two groups with regard to mean age, comorbidities, and the extent of the resection. The operative time was shorter in the OC (121 vs. 157 min, P = 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the LC (7.6 vs. 8.8 days, P = 0.06). There were more postoperative complications in the OC (35.6%) than in the LC (30.4%), however the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

LC in the elderly is safe, with a shorter hospital stay, and carries a short-term benefit for selected patients and could be offered to all elderly patients.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancers: Current status

Laparoscopy was introduced more than 15 years ago into clinical practice. However, its role in colorectal surgery was not well established for want of better skills and technology. This coupled with high incidences of port site recurrences, prevented laparoscopic surgery from being incorporated into mainstream colorectal cancer surgery. A recent increase in the number of reports, retrospective analyses, randomized trials and multicentric trials has now provided sufficient data to support the role of laparoscopy in colorectal cancer surgery. We, thus, present a review of the published data on the feasibility, safety, short - and long-term outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancers. While the data available strongly favors the use of laparoscopic surgery in colonic cancer, larger well powered studies are required to prove or disprove its role in rectal cancer.

Comparison of short, long-term surgical outcomes and mid-term health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open resection for colorectal cancer: a case-matched control study

BACKGROUND

A multicenter randomized study is high quality, but it is also true that there are differences between institutions. The quality of treatment is consistent in a single center so comparisons in a retrospective study can be matched for many variables.

METHODS

This single-center study examined short-term and long-term outcomes for colorectal cancer in 258 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection (LC) and 258 matched open resection (OC) cases. The health-related qualities of life (HRQOL) at 1-2 years after the operations in 62 patients (35 LC and 27 OC) were compared by SF-36.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 5.0%. Mean follow-up periods in LC and OC were 62.3 and 62.1 months, respectively. Operation time was longer in LC than in OC, although the difference was not significant in the later period. Bleeding and postoperative stay were reduced in LC. The morbidity rate was 18.6% in LC and 26.4% in OC. The 5-year overall survival in LC and OC were 94.6% vs. 92.0% for stage I, 95.2% vs. 91.8% for stage II, and 80.9% vs. 79.1% for stage III, respectively. The corresponding 5-year disease-free survival were 94.0% vs. 88.4%, 92.1% vs. 84.0%, and 64.3% vs. 65.4%, respectively. Recurrence rates did not differ between groups. In the analysis of HRQOL scores, role physical, bodily pain, social functioning, role emotional, and physical component summary scores in LC were better than in OC.

CONCLUSIONS

In LC for colorectal cancer, short-term outcomes except operation time and mid-term HRQOL were better than in OC, and there were no adverse effects relating to long-term outcomes.

Case controlled study of the hospital stay and return to full activity following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery before and after the introduction of an enhanced recovery programme

AIM

The short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established and in particular within an enhanced recovery programme. Early return to activity is to be expected but has not been quantified widely. The aim of this study was to measure the hospital stay and return to full activity following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and compare this with a matched group of patients undergoing open colorectal resections before and after the introduction of an enhanced recovery programme.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of all laparoscopic colorectal operations performed between January 2003 and June 2007 on an intention to treat basis compared with a matched group of patients undergoing elective open colorectal surgery at the same institution.

RESULTS

The median hospital stay following 179 laparoscopic colorectal resections was 6 days whilst following 144 conventional open operations it was 8 days. Following the introduction of an enhanced recovery programme the hospital stay fell from 7 to 5 days and from 9 to 7 days for laparoscopic and open groups respectively. The median return to full activity from surgery for laparoscopic patients was 13 days in comparison to 56 days for patients undergoing open colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Following laparoscopic colorectal resection, patients can be expected to have a hospital stay of under a week and return to their usual activities as early as a week after discharge from hospital and < 2 weeks from surgery in comparison to patients undergoing open surgery who take 8 weeks or more to recover.

Impact of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study specifically examined right colonic cancer resection, a common operation for colorectal surgeons starting laparoscopic resection, to assess the impact of commencing laparoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 56 patients undergoing open (n = 34) and attempted laparoscopic (n = 22) elective right hemicolectomy for colorectal cancer between November 2003 and March 2007 were compared. Postoperative stay was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included analgesic requirements, bowel recovery, morbidity and mortality. Frequency of laparoscopic versus open surgery over time was also examined.

RESULTS

Resections attempted laparoscopically increased from 9.1% to 75% in the first and last quarters of the study period, respectively (P = 0.0002). Uptake of 'enhanced recovery' was mainly in the laparoscopic group. Conversion was required in two of 22 patients. Attempted laparoscopic cases had a shorter median postoperative stay (6 vs 10 days; P < 0.0001), duration of parenteral or epidural analgesia (48 vs 72 h; P < 0.0001) and time to first bowel action (3 vs 4 days; P = 0.001) compared with open cases. Demography, tumour characteristics, morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups. Multivariate analysis identified decreased age, attempted laparoscopic surgery, use of enhanced recovery and absence of complications as independently shortening postoperative stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery, even early in a surgeon's experience, suggest this is the preferred mode for elective right colon cancer resection.

Prospective Evaluation of Health-Related Quality of Life in a Homogeneous Mediterranean Group of Colorectal Cancer Patients

This study was designed to prospectively evaluate health-related quality of life in a homogeneous Mediterranean group of colorectal cancer patients. Ninety-five colorectal cancer patients were preoperatively assessed and followed-up with by skilled investigators using the Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire. Overall, patients showed deterioration in all domains, except for pain, when baseline values were compared with 3 and 6 months postoperatively ( P = 0.0001). A significant improvement of all Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire domains was noted between 6 and 12 months ( P = 0.0001). Scores for general health, pain, emotional well-being, and role limitations due to emotional problems at 1 year were shown better than preoperative ( P < 0.001). Improved scores in role limitations due to physical health and emotional problems were found at baseline and at 1 year, when laparoscopic were compared with open resections ( P < 0.05). Patients that received chemotherapy proved to be more vulnerable regarding their energy, social functioning, and role limitations at 3 months ( P < 0.05), whereas older patients had diminished physical functioning at 3 and 6 and 12 months ( P < 0.05) postoperatively. Greek colorectal cancer patients remain fragile up to 6 months after surgery, with significant improvements at 1 year, whereas certain aspects of health-related quality of life at 1 year may be even better than before surgery

Long-term outcomes for laparoscopic versus open resection of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Skepticism prevails over the role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Long-term data on the safety and efficacy of this technique remain scarce. A nonrandomized, prospective comparison of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery (LS) with open surgery (OS) was undertaken to evaluate long-term survival.

METHODS

A total of 233 patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer underwent either a laparoscopic (n = 116) or an open (n = 117) potentially curative resection. Almost all patients between July 1996 and December 2002 were randomized within two consecutive trials; however, prior to this, a significant proportion of patients received open surgery. The primary endpoints were overall survival, disease-free survival, and cumulative disease recurrence. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 40 months for the LS group and 58 months for the OS group. No statistically significant difference was found between the LS and OS groups regarding overall survival (P = 0.603 for colon cancer and P = 0.841 for rectal cancer), disease-free survival (P = 0.684 for colon cancer and P = 0.625 for rectal cancer), and overall recurrence (P = 0.383 for colon cancer and P = 0.166 for rectal cancer). Cumulative recurrence rate in colon cancer favors OS (P = 0.018). In rectal cancer, this did not differ between the two treatment modalities (P = 0.965). Tumor resection margins and lymph node harvest were similar in the two surgery groups. Perioperative mortality in the LS group was also no different from the OS group (P = 0.644 for 30-day mortality and P = 0.692 for in-hospital mortality).

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival data support LS as a safe, effective alternative to conventional surgery for treating potentially curative colorectal cancer. However, the higher cumulative recurrence associated with LS in the colonic cancer group needs further research into its underlying cause.

Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study examined one surgeon's practice to determine the place of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Some 365 patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer resection (219 colonic, 146 rectal) were studied prospectively. Early (1994-1997; 104 patients), middle (1998-2001; 112) and late (2002-2005; 149) cohorts were analysed with respect to suitability for laparoscopic surgery, conversion and outcome.

RESULTS

Forty-six of 135 patients undergoing open resection were suitable for laparoscopic surgery but randomized to open surgery. The proportion of attempted laparoscopic resections (35.6, 65.2 and 80.6 per cent in early, middle and late cohorts) and patients thought suitable for laparoscopic resection (37.5, 87.5 and 94.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.001) increased over time. Independent predictors of conversion were rectal cancer surgery (odds ratio (OR) 3.12 versus colonic surgery) and body mass index 28 kg/m(2) or more (OR 3.87). Conversion was necessary in all five patients with a threatened margin predicted by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. After exclusion of these patients the conversion rate in the late cohort was 8.7 per cent. During the same period, inclusion of 20 patients who were suitable for laparoscopic surgery but underwent open resection meant that 135 (90.6 per cent) of 149 patients were actually suitable for laparoscopic resection.

CONCLUSION

With experience, laparoscopic surgery is feasible in around 90 per cent of elective colorectal cancer resections.

Meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies of the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic resection remains to be established as the procedure of first choice for operable colorectal cancer. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review of non-randomized comparative studies of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Published work in English was searched for relevant articles published by the end of 2003. The MOOSE statement was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed by two investigators using the MINORS tool and the analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). One thousand two hundred and twenty abstracts were reviewed and 398 articles examined in detail. Out of 108 articles reporting the results of relevant studies, 75 were reports of 64 non-randomized comparative studies. Fifteen studies were excluded. Analysis of the outcomes of 6438 resections showed that the conversion rate was 13.3% with a statistically significant difference between studies with more than 50 versus those with 50 or less attempted resections (11.7 vs 16.5%; P<0.001). Laparoscopic resection took 27.6% (41 min) longer to carry out than open resection. There was no significant difference between the two groups in early mortality rates (1.2 vs 1.1%; P=0.787) or likelihood of re-operation (2.3 vs 1.5%; P=0.319). Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower morbidity rate (24.05 vs 30.80%, odds ratio (95% confidence interval)=0.77 (0.63-0.95); P=0.014, n=4111, random-effects model). Time until passage of first flatus, passage of a bowel motion, tolerating oral fluids and a solid diet was 1.2-1.6 days (26 to 37%) shorter, measurements of pain and narcotic analgesic requirements were 16-35% lower and hospital stay was 3.5 days (18.8%) shorter following laparoscopic resection compared with open resection. The two approaches were 99% similar in terms of adequacy of oncological clearance. Meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies favours laparoscopic over open resection for colorectal cancer. The results were remarkably similar to those of a contemporaneous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published by the end of 2002.

A prospective case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcomes of open versus laparoscopic colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs associated with laparoscopic resection within an elective colorectal practice.

METHOD

Over a 12-month period data were prospectively collected on patients undergoing elective colorectal resection under the care of a single consultant surgeon. Thirty patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection were case-matched by type of resection, disease process, and, where appropriate, cancer stage to patients having open surgery. A cost analysis was carried out incorporating cost of surgical bed stay, theater time, and specific equipment costs.

RESULTS

In the 30 patients having laparoscopic resection, a conversion rate of 13% was observed. Surgery was performed for colorectal cancer in 83% of patients, and 53% of resections were rectal. No significant differences were found in age (65 versus 69 years, p = 0.415), BMI (27.4 versus 26.1, p = 0.527), POSSUM physiology score (16 versus 16.5, p = 0.102), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (2 versus 2, p = 0.171), or length of theater time (160 min versus 160 min, p = 0.233) between the laparoscopic and open patients. Hospital stay was reduced in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 9 days, p < 0.001). Average cost of surgical equipment used for a laparoscopic resection was greater than for open surgery (912.39 versus 276.41 pounds, p = 0.001). Cost of hospital stay was significantly less (1259.75 versus 2267.55 pounds, p < 0.001). Cost of operating room time was similar for the two groups (2066.63 versus 1945.07 pounds, p = 0.152). Overall no significant cost difference could be found between open and laparoscopic resection (4560.9 versus 4348.45 pounds, p = 0.976). More postoperative complications were seen in the open resection group (14 versus 4, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative equipment costs are greater for laparoscopic resection than for open surgery. However, benefits can be seen in terms of quicker recovery and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery is a financially viable alternative to open resection in selected patients.

The influence of an enhanced recovery programme on clinical outcomes, costs and quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Optimizing peri-operative care using an enhanced recovery programme improves short-term outcomes following colonic resection. This study compared a prospective group of patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme, with a prospectively studied historic cohort receiving conventional care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty patients underwent elective resection within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). This incorporated pre-operative counselling, epidural analgesia, early feeding and mobilization. Clinical outcomes were compared with 86 prospectively studied historic control patients receiving conventional care (CC). All patients completed EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR38 and health economics questionnaires up to three months after surgery.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical data were similar in both groups. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly reduced in the ERP, with patients staying 49% as long as those in the CC group including convalescent hospital stay (95% CI 39% to 61%P < 0.001). There were no differences in the number of complications, readmissions or re-operations. There were no significant differences in quality of life or health economic outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing colorectal resection within an ERP stay in hospital half as long as those receiving conventional care, with no increased morbidity, deterioration in quality of life or increased cost.

Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer may improve short-term outcome without compromising long-term survival or disease control. Recent evidence suggests that the difference between laparoscopic and open surgery may be less significant when perioperative care is optimized within an enhanced recovery programme. This study compared short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer within such a programme.

METHODS

Between January 2002 and March 2004, 62 patients were randomized on a 2 : 1 basis to receive laparoscopic (n = 43) or open (n = 19) surgery. All were entered into an enhanced recovery programme. Length of hospital stay was the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes of functional recovery, quality of life and cost were assessed for 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Demographics of the two groups were similar. Length of hospital stay after laparoscopic resection was 32 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 7 to 51) per cent shorter than for open resection (P = 0.018). Combined hospital, convalescent and readmission stay was 37 (95 per cent c.i. 10 to 56) per cent shorter (P = 0.012). The relative risk of complications, quality of life results and cost data were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite perioperative optimization of open surgery for colorectal cancer, short-term outcomes were better following laparoscopic surgery. There was no deterioration in quality of life or increased cost associated with the laparoscopic approach.

LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN COLORECTAL SURGERY IN EVERYDAY PRACTICE: RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Most studies available on laparoscopic colorectal surgery focus on highly selected patient groups. The aim of the present study was to review short- and long-term outcome of everyday patients treated in a general surgery department.

METHODS

Retrospective review was carried out of a prospective database of all consecutive patients having undergone primary laparoscopic (LAP) or open colorectal surgery between March 1993 and December 1997. Follow-up data were completed via questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients underwent LAP resection and 215 patients underwent open surgery. Follow up was complete in 95% with a median of 59 months (range, 1-107 months) and 53 months (range, 1-104 months), respectively. There were 28 conversions (15%) in the LAP group and these remained in the LAP group in an intention-to-treat analysis. The LAP operations lasted significantly longer for all types of resections (205 vs 150 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (8 vs 13 days, P < 0.001). Recovery of intestinal function was faster in the LAP group, but only after left-sided procedures (3 vs 4 days, P < 0.01). However, preoperative patient selection (more emergency operations and patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score in the open group) had a major influence on these elements and favours the LAP group. Surprisingly, the overall surgical complication rate (including long-term complications such as wound hernia) was 20% in both groups with rates of individual complications also being comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite a patient selection favourable to the laparoscopy group, only little advantage in postoperative outcome could be shown for the minimally invasive over the open approach in the everyday patient.

Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in cancer patients: long-term complications, quality of life, and survival

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate long-term complications, quality of life, and survival rate in a series of colorectal cancer patients randomized to laparoscopic or open surgery.

METHODS

A total of 391 patients with colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 190) or open (n = 201) resection. Long-term follow-up was performed every six months by office visits. Quality of life was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 months after surgery by a modified version of Short Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Eight (4.2 percent) laparoscopic group patients needed conversion to open surgery. Overall long-term morbidity rate was 6.8 percent (13/190) in the laparoscopic vs. 14.9 percent (30/201) in the open group (P = 0.018). Overall quality of life was significantly better in the laparoscopic group in the first 12 months after surgery, whereas at 24 months, patients of the laparoscopic group reported a significant advantage only in social functioning. No difference was found in both overall and disease-free survival rates by comparing laparoscopic vs. open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal resection was associated with a lower incidence of long-term complications and a better quality of life in the first 12 months after surgery compared with open surgery. No difference between groups was found in overall and disease-free survival rates.

Minimally invasive treatment of colon cancer

The advantages of laparoscopy in the treatment of benign diseases have been well demonstrated. Compared with laparotomy, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter hospitalization period, shorter duration of ileus, decreased postoperative pain, earlier return to work, and improved cosmesis. The role of laparoscopy for the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancy has had a slower evolution and been the subject of considerable debate over the past decade. Since 1991, several concerns have limited the widespread use of laparoscopy for attempted cure of colorectal carcinoma. This review aims to analyze the results of several studies published to date on short and long term outcome of laparoscopy for colorectal carcinoma, based on levels of evidence. From the least to the most convincing data, the hierarchy of study designs progresses through a spectrum ranging from retrospective reviews to prospective series, to case-controlled, cohort, and ultimately randomized controlled trials.

Safety of Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Rectal Transection With Double-Stapling Technique Anastomosis

To assess the feasibility and analyze the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection with double-stapling technique anastomosis, a review was performed of a prospective registry of 67 patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy and anterior resection with intracorporeal rectal transection and double-stapling technique anastomosis between July 2001 and January 2004. Patients were divided into 3 groups: sigmoid colon/rectosigmoid carcinoma, upper rectal carcinoma, and middle/lower rectal carcinoma. A comparison was made of the short-term outcomes among the groups. The number of cartridges required in bowel transection was significantly increased in patients with middle/lower rectal carcinoma, and significant differences were observed in the length of the first stapler cartridge fired for rectal transection. Furthermore, mean operative time and blood loss were also significantly greater in the middle/lower rectum group; however, complication rates and postoperative course were similar among the 3 groups. No anastomotic leakage was observed. Laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection with double-stapling technique anastomosis can be performed safely without increased morbidity or mortality.

Comparison of resource utilization and long-term quality-of-life outcomes between laparoscopic and conventional colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of laparosopic and conventional colorectal surgery, with special reference to costs of treatment and patients' quality of life, were compared.

METHODS

A partly retrospective cohort study was designed to assess the use of resources, and a follow-up interview was undertaken to evaluate patients' quality of life after both to define laparoscopic (LAP) and conventional (CON) surgery.

RESULTS

The length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the LAP group (median, 11 days; interquartile range [IQR], 9-15) than in the CON group (median, 16 days; IQR, 13-23; p < 0.0001), which is reflected in lower costs of hospitalization calculated for the three most frequent surgical interventions. Statistically significant improvements were noted between the median scores in the domains of physical functioning (LAP 85 vs CON 68; p < 0.05) and vitality (LAP 85 vs CON 69; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with colorectal diseases, offering lower costs and a better quality of life in the long term.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery modifies risk factors for postoperative morbidity

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic colorectal surgery can modify the risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

A total of 384 consecutive patients with colorectal disease were randomized to laparoscopic resection (n = 190) or open resection (n = 194). On admission, demographics, comorbidity, and nutritional status were recorded. Operative variables, patient outcome, and length of stay were also recorded. Postoperative complications were registered by four members of staff not involved in the study.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity rate was 27.1 percent, with the rate in the laparoscopic group (18.7 percent) being less than that in the open group (31.5 percent; P = 0.003). Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection had a faster recovery of bowel function (P = 0.0001) and a shorter length of stay (P = 0.0001). In the whole cohort of patients, multivariate analysis identified open surgery (P = 0.003), duration of surgery (P = 0.01), and homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01) as risk factors for postoperative morbidity. In the open group, blood loss (P = 0.01), homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01), duration of surgery (P = 0.009), weight loss (P = 0.06), and age (P = 0.08) were related to postoperative morbidity. In the laparoscopic group the only risk factor identified was duration of surgery (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

In the laparoscopic group, both postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly reduced and most risk factors for postoperative morbidity disappeared.

Laparoscopic resection of colon Cancer: Consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer during the annual congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2002.

METHODS

A systematic review of the current literature was combined with the opinions, of experts in the field of colon cancer surgery to formulate evidence-based statements and recommendations on the laparoscopic resection of colon cancer.

RESULTS

Advanced age, obesity, and previous abdominal operations are not considered absolute contraindications for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The most common cause for conversion is the presence of bulky or invasive tumors. Laparoscopic operation takes longer to perform than the open counterpart, but the outcome is similar in terms of specimen size and pathological examination. Immediate postoperative morbidity and mortality are comparable for laparoscopic and open colonic cancer surgery. The laparoscopically operated patients had less postoperative pain, better-preserved pulmonary function, earlier restoration of gastrointestinal function, and an earlier discharge from the hospital. The postoperative stress response is lower after laparoscopic colectomy. The incidence of port site metastases is <1%. Survival after laparoscopic resection of colon cancer appears to be at least equal to survival after open resection. The costs of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer are higher than those for open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure that improves short-term outcome. Results regarding the long-term survival of patients enrolled in large multicenter trials will determine its role in general surgery.

Laparoscopic colon resection for colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colon resection for cancer is as yet an unproven operation. This review article summarizes current data on the topic.

METHODS

A Medline review identified articles published since 1990 summarizing patients with potentially curable colon cancer who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted colon resection. Only articles that were randomized or had a control group with historical or matched open cases were used.

RESULTS

Very few prospective randomized controls exist. Several clinical trials are under way with one completed. Data thus far support some patient benefits with a laparoscopic approach. No differences in morbidity, oncologic data, or survival appear to exist.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of ongoing clinical trials are still needed to further evaluate the role of laparoscopic assisted colon resection in patients with potentially curable colon cancer.

Laparoscopy and its current role in the management of colorectal disease

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current place of laparoscopy in the management of colorectal disease.

METHOD

A literature search was undertaken on Medline between the period 1991 and 2002.

RESULTS

From the literature there is good evidence that the laparoscopic approach is associated with at least some short-term advantages. Improved cosmesis and better patient's satisfaction are also evident. Because of this laparoscopy has been widely employed in various benign conditions. Among others, laparoscopic stoma formation, laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease and Crohn's disease, laparoscopic rectopexy, as well as laparoscopic assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure were commonly reported. As port site recurrence and oncological safety are of less concern, there have been increasing reports on laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Although long-term follow up data is still limited, results of large prospective studies as well as various randomized trials show that recurrence and survival rates of the laparoscopic approach were at least comparable to open surgery. As experience and confidence accumulates, there are also increasing reports on technically demanding, laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal excision. Articles on functional aspects following this type of resection also start to appear, which might be one of the future directions.

CONCLUSION

The applicability of laparoscopy to colorectal disease continues to expand. Laparoscopic approach should be considered for patients with benign conditions. For colorectal cancer, results from randomized trials so far have been favourable. Hence, the authors suggest the utility of laparoscopy in potentially curable cancer can also be judiciously relaxed.

Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic colonic surgery in octogenarians: a matched case-control study

This study was undertaken to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colonic carcinoma in octogenarians and compare them with those for a younger group of patients who underwent the same surgical procedures. This matched case-control study involved 17 octogenarian patients with colonic carcinoma who underwent laparoscopic surgery between 1996 and 2001. The results were compared with those for 34 matched patients aged 60 years or less who underwent the same surgical procedures during the same period. Both groups were well matched for clinical characteristics. However, the American Society of Anesthesiology status was significantly higher in the octogenarian group (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the incidence of complications, the interval before resumption of liquid or solid food intake, or length of hospitalization. There were no deaths in either group. Advanced age should not be regarded as a contraindication for laparoscopic colonic surgery.

Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with coloplasty and coloanal anastomosis for mid and low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of laparoscopic rectal resection in patients with mid or low rectal cancer was studied prospectively with regard to quality of mesorectal excision, autonomic pelvic nerve preservation and anal sphincter preservation.

METHODS

Laparoscopic rectal excision was performed in 32 patients (21 men) with rectal carcinoma located 5 cm from the anal verge. Most patients had T3 disease and received preoperative radiotherapy. The surgical procedure was performed 6 weeks after radiotherapy and included total mesorectal excision, intersphincteric resection, transanal coloanal anastomosis with coloplasty and loop ileostomy.

RESULTS

Three patients needed conversion to a laparotomy. Postoperative morbidity occurred in ten patients, related mainly to coloplasty. Macroscopic evaluation showed an intact mesorectal excision in 29 of 32 excised specimens; microscopically, 30 of the 32 resections were R0. Sphincter preservation was achieved in 31 patients. The hypogastric nerves and pelvic plexuses were identified and preserved in 24 of the 32 patients. Sexual function was preserved in ten of 18 evaluable men.

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic approach can be considered in most patients with mid or low rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation to mitogens and gut oxygen tension were surrogate endpoints.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Evidence-based proof of the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery on immunometabolic response and clinically relevant outcome variables is scanty. Further randomized trials are desirable before proposing laparoscopy as a superior technique.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 136) or open (n = 133) colorectal resection. Four trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative complications. Lymphocyte proliferation to Candida albicans and phytohemagglutinin was evaluated before and 3 and 15 days after surgery. Operative gut oxygen tension was monitored continuously by a polarographic microprobe.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic group the conversion rate was 5.1%. The overall morbidity rate was 20.6% in the laparoscopic group and 38.3% in the open group. Postoperative infections occurred in 15 of the 136 patients in the laparoscopic group and 31 of the 133 patients in the open group. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.4 +/- 2.9 days in the laparoscopic group and 12.5 +/- 4.1 days in the open group. On postoperative day 3, lymphocyte proliferation was impaired in both groups. Fifteen days after surgery, the proliferation index returned to baseline values only in the laparoscopic group. Intraoperative gut oxygen tension was higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in a significant reduction of 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation and gut oxygen tension were better preserved in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

Use of intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Laparoscopic surgery has become popular in recent years, but few studies have addressed analgesia for this type of surgery. We conducted a prospective double-blind randomised trial on 36 cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to determine the influence of intrathecal morphine on postoperative pain relief. All patients received a subarachnoid block with local anaesthetic in addition to general anaesthesia. One group also received intrathecal morphine. A patient-controlled analgesic (PCA) device was prescribed for pain control postoperatively and the visual analogue score (VAS) was used for pain assessment. The group who received intrathecal morphine used significantly less morphine. There were no adverse cardiovascular effects of the combined anaesthetic technique. Nausea and vomiting remained the main side-effect of intrathecal morphine but this was easily treated with anti-emetics.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation to mitogens and gut oxygen tension were surrogate endpoints.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Evidence-based proof of the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery on immunometabolic response and clinically relevant outcome variables is scanty. Further randomized trials are desirable before proposing laparoscopy as a superior technique.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 136) or open (n = 133) colorectal resection. Four trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative complications. Lymphocyte proliferation to Candida albicans and phytohemagglutinin was evaluated before and 3 and 15 days after surgery. Operative gut oxygen tension was monitored continuously by a polarographic microprobe.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopic group the conversion rate was 5.1%. The overall morbidity rate was 20.6% in the laparoscopic group and 38.3% in the open group. Postoperative infections occurred in 15 of the 136 patients in the laparoscopic group and 31 of the 133 patients in the open group. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.4 +/- 2.9 days in the laparoscopic group and 12.5 +/- 4.1 days in the open group. On postoperative day 3, lymphocyte proliferation was impaired in both groups. Fifteen days after surgery, the proliferation index returned to baseline values only in the laparoscopic group. Intraoperative gut oxygen tension was higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in a significant reduction of 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation and gut oxygen tension were better preserved in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery For Colorectal Carcinoma

The role of laparoscopic resection in the management of colorectal cancer is still unclear. It has been shown that laparoscopic colectomies can be accomplished with acceptable morbidity. Major concerns are port-site recurrences and neoplastic dissemination. The aims of this study were to compare perioperative results and long-term outcomes in a prospective, nonrandomized study of patients treated by laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer. In particular, the effects of an initial laparoscopic approach on survival and recurrence were examined. One hundred fifty-seven patients with colorectal carcinoma were included in the prospective trial: 74 underwent laparoscopic resection and 83 underwent conventional open surgery. The two groups were comparable in terms of characteristics, demographic data, stage of disease, and use of adjuvant or palliative chemoradiotherapy. All patients were observed at 1.3- and 6-month intervals. The median duration of follow-up was 60 months (range, 10-125 months). The mean operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group. Six conversions (8.1%) were necessary. The passage of flatus and the restarting of oral intake (P = 0.0001) occurred earlier in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open conventional surgery group. The mean postoperative stay was significantly shorter in the former group (P = 0.005), as was the length of the scar (P = 0.001). There were no deaths in either group. The overall morbidity was significantly lower (13% versus 33.7%; P = 0.001) in patients treated laparoscopically. No significant differences were observed between the groups in the length of specimens, the size of the tumor, or the number of nodes removed. Late complications were more frequent after open resection (12% versus 5.4%; P = 0.01). Two port-site metastases (2.6%) were seen in stage III and IV locally advanced carcinoma. There was no significant difference in recurrent disease between the groups (24.3% versus 25%) during the 60-month follow-up. Stage-for-stage comparisons showed that disease recurrence rates and crude death rates were comparable.

Converted laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Conversion rates following laparoscopic colorectal surgery vary widely between studies, and the outcome of converted patients remains controversial.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the English-language literature was updated until May 1999.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies on 3232 patients were considered for analysis. The overall conversion rate was 15.38%. Seventy nine percent of the studies did not include a definition for conversion; in these studies, the conversion rate was significantly lower than in the series where a specific definition was considered (13.7% vs 18.9%, chi-square test, p < 0.001). Converted patients had a prolonged hospital stay (11.38 vs 7.41 days) and operative time (209 vs 189 min) in comparison with laparoscopically completed patients (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.70-4.00 and 35.90-37.10, respectively). The factors associated with an increased rate for conversion were left colectomy (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.061), anterior resection of the rectum (OR = 1.088), diverticulitis (OR = 1.302), and cancer (OR = 2.944) (for each parameter, Wald chi-square value, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In nonrandomized studies, the rate of laparoscopically completed colorectal resections is close to 85%. Because converted patients have a distinct outcome, a clear definition of conversion is required to compare the results of randomized trials. Such trials should also consider a 20% rate of conversion when estimating the sample size for the desired power level. It is likely that converted patients will have a significant impact on the results of future clinical research in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopic vs. open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare the outcome after laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 1992 and June 1999 at a university-affiliated hospital. These included 219 open (mean age, 68.3 years) and 98 laparoscopic (mean age, 70.3 years) resections. Data from converted cases (n = 12) were included in the laparoscopic group using the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Operative time, lymph node yield, resection margins and postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and open technique. Parenteral analgesic use was less in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 2.7; open, 3.2 days; P = 0.021). Time to first flatus (laparoscopic, 1.8; open, 3 days; P < 0.0001) and first bowel movement (laparoscopic, 3.5; open, 4.9 days; P < 0.0001) was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Resumption of an oral liquid diet (laparoscopic, 2.1; open, 4 days; P < 0.0001) and solid diet (laparoscopic, 5.2; open, 7.1 days; P < 0.0001) was also quicker in the laparoscopic patients. Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic patients (laparoscopic, 6.9; open, 10.9 days; P < 0.001). There were less minor complications in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 11.2; open, 21.5 percent; P = 0.029) but no difference in major complications or perioperative mortality. Recurrence, disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups. No port site recurrences occurred in the laparoscopic group but there were three wound recurrences in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively in tertiary centers. Earlier discharge from hospital, quicker resumption of oral feeds and less postoperative pain are clear advantages. No adverse effect on recurrence or survival was noted, but results of prospective, randomized trials, currently underway, are needed before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer becomes the standard of practice.

Minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic approaches are increasingly being applied to colorectal surgical procedures. Initial concerns regarding the existence of benefits from the laparoscopic approach have now been addressed. Even as these were being addressed, however, further concerns arose regarding the appropriateness of this technique in malignancy. Colorectal cancer is the only intra-abdominal malignancy that is knowingly resected employing laparoscopic techniques. This controversy was highlighted by reports of early wound implants. With careful technique, training and experience, however, wound recurrences are rarely seen, suggesting that this phenomenon, in the clinical setting, is primarily technique-related. Lack of rigorous evidence either condemning or supporting the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resulted in the establishment of several large-scale randomized, prospective trials, all currently in progress, that aim to determine if laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer results in oncologic outcomes comparable to the open approach.