Colon cancer: laparoscopic resection

A novel knotless hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis using V-loc barbed suture vs. stapled anastomosis in laparoscopic left colonic surgery: A propensity scoring match analysis

Background

Laparoscopic colectomy is widely practiced for colon cancer, but many variations exist for anastomosis after laparoscopic colon cancer radical resection.

Method

We retrospectively analyzed 226 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted radical resection for left colon cancer with knotless hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis (KHEA) technique with barbed V-loc™ suture material and compared perioperative outcomes, safety, and efficacy to those undergoing stapled anastomosis from 2010 to 2021.

Results

After the 1:2 propensity score matching, 123 participants with similar preoperative characteristics (age, body mass index, TNM stage, and tumor location) were enrolled in the study: 41 in the KHEA and 82 in the stapler group. Statistically significant differences were found in time to accomplish the anastomosis (mean 7.9 vs. 11.9 min, p < 0.001) and hospital costs (mean 46,569.71 vs. 50,915.35 CNY, p < 0.05) that differed between the KHEA and stapler group, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found in the mean delay to bowel function recovery (2.6 vs. 2.7 days, p = 0.466), duration of hospital stay (8.6 vs. 7.9 days, p = 0.407), or rate of postoperative complications (14.6% vs. 11.0%, p = 0.563). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 11 patients: 5 (12.2%) vs. 6 (7.3%) (p > 0.05) in the KHEA and stapler group, respectively.

Conclusion

KHEA is feasible and safe for anastomosis after laparoscopic left hemicolectomy. The KHEA technique could reduce operation time and hospital costs with complication rates comparable to stapling.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study

The role of laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer has been supported by the results of randomized controlled trials. However, its benefits and disadvantages in the real world setting should be further assessed with population-based studies.The hospitalization data of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer were sourced from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patient and hospital characteristics and perioperative outcomes including length of hospital stay, operation time, opioid use, blood transfusion, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and use of mechanical ventilation were compared. The overall survival was also assessed. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had shorter hospital stay (p < 0.0001) and less demand for opioid analgesia (p = 0.0005). Further logistic regression revealed that patients undergoing open surgery were 1.70, 2.89, and 3.00 times more likely to have blood transfusion, to be admitted to ICU, and to use mechanical ventilation than patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Operations performed in medical centers were also associated with less adverse events. The overall survival was comparable between the 2 groups.With adequate hospital quality and volume, laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer was associated with improved perioperative outcomes. The long-term survival was not compromised.

Impact of medial-to-lateral vs lateral-to-medial approach on short-term and cancer-related outcomes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is the favoured method of colorectal cancer resections. It is surgeon expertise and discretion to choose whether to mobilize colon lateral-to-medial or medial-to-lateral. We aim to identify the advantage of one approach over the other in short-term and cancerrelated outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all laparoscopic colorectal resections with curative-intent, in a single unit, from March 2013 to October 2014. Data was collected on patient demographics, method of laparoscopic mobilisation, operating time, length-of-stay, post-operative complications, clearance of circumferential resection margins lymph node harvest and follow-up.

Results

137 patients with comparable patient demographics had laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. 76 (60.3%) male and 50 (39.7%) female patients. 58(46.0%) of resections were performed using medial-to-lateral approach, while 68(54.0%) lateral-to-medial. Lateral group had on average 14(0–38) lymph nodes with specimen compared to 17 (6–45) in medial group. There was a statistically significant difference in the major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo IV) between the groups with 1(1.7%) in the medial-to-lateral group compared to 7 (10.2%) in the lateral-to-medial group, (p .035). Patients in the medial-to-lateral group had median length-of-stay of 7 days (range 2–55) compared to 7 days (range 2–75) in the lateral-to-medial group. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between both groups up-to 1334 days p=.413.

Conclusion

Our study shows that mobilising the colon medially in laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection increases the lymph node harvest, gives comparable CRM clearance, similar length of hospital stay and complications. It makes no statistically significant difference in the overall patient survival.

•

This study reports that no one approach is superior to the other but the patient having surgery using medial-to-lateral approach have less post operative complications and higher number of lymph node harvest.

•

There is no long-term advantage to report.

•

Meta-analysis by Ding and colleagues reported that medial-to-lateral approach is better in terms of conversion rate and complications but give less number of lymph nodes in the specimen.

Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in safety of laparoscopic rectal resection for extraperitoneal cancer, compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review from 2000 to July 2012 was performed searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and morbidity. Then a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, representing 1684 patients, met the inclusion criteria: four were randomized for a total of 814 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.2% of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.3% of patients in the open group, with an RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.19-1.64, p = 0.287). The overall incidence of short-term complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.5%) compared to the open group (38.2%), with an RR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.94, p = 0.004). Surgical complications, wound complications, blood loss and the need for blood transfusion, time for bowel movement recovery, food intake recovery, and hospital stay were significantly lower or less frequent in the laparoscopic group. The incidence of intra-operative injuries, anastomotic leakages, and surgical re-interventions was similar in the two groups. Only operative time was in favour of the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality was lower after laparoscopy although not significantly so, while the short-term morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, was significantly lower after laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer compared to open surgery.

Impact of contrast-enhanced computed tomography colonography on laparoscopic surgical planning of colorectal cancer

AIM

To evaluate the impact of contrast-enhanced computed tomography colonography (CE-CTC) on laparoscopic surgery planning in patient with stenosing colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-nine patients with endoscopically proven colorectal cancer underwent CE-CTC, after incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Two experienced radiologists evaluated site, length, and TNM staging of colorectal cancers on three-dimensional double contrast enema-like views, 2D axial and multiplanar reconstructions. All the patients underwent colorectal resection and surgery bulletin, pathology of surgical specimens, and radiological follow-up at about 8 months were used as reference standard.

RESULTS

The detection rate of colorectal cancer was 100 % (75/75); CE-CTC allowed for a diagnosis of a synchronous colorectal cancer in five patients (7 %). CE-CTC correctly judged the site of the lesions in all the cases; clinically significant localization errors at conventional colonoscopy were noted in 3 out of 69 patients (4 %). Additional colonic polyps greater than 6 mm in diameter were found in 21 out of 69 patients (30 %); in two patients (3 %) the surgeon performed an enlarged colectomy to include synchronous polyps proximal to colorectal cancer. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were for T1-T2 vs. T3-T4: 96 %, 71 %, 92 %, 87 %, and 91 %, respectively; for N: 94 %, 42 %, 64 %, 86 %, and 70 %; for M: 100 %, 100 %, 83 %, 100 %, and 97 %. There were no complications associated with CE-CTC.

CONCLUSION

Information given by CE-CTC concerning colorectal cancer location and synchronous colonic cancers and polyps changed the laparoscopic surgical strategy in almost 14 % of patients.

What is the effect of laparoscopic colectomy on pattern of colon cancer recurrence? A propensity score and competing risk analysis compared with open colectomy

BACKGROUND

Variability in colon cancer recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy (LAC) remains poorly understood. The aim of our study was to quantify the influence of LAC on colon cancer recurrence patterns.

METHODS

We included 986 patients undergoing curative colectomy at our institution between 1992 and 2008. Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression, propensity score adjustment, and competing risks modeling were used to evaluate the influence of laparoscopic surgery on the site of colon cancer recurrence, including the following: liver metastasis, lung metastasis, local recurrence, peritoneal dissemination, other, and multiple sites. We estimated the risk factors for each recurrence site.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery was used in 419 (42.5 %) of 986 patients, with an overall median follow-up time of 5.0 years (interquartile range 3.5). The overall 5-year disease-free survival rate was 86.1 % (open surgery 81.8 % vs. laparoscopic surgery 92.0 %; p < 0.001). However, after covariates and propensity score adjustment, laparoscopic surgery was not a significant risk factor for each type of recurrence: liver hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (95 % CI 0.45-1.89), p = 0.84; lung HR 0.67 (95 % CI 0.26-1.70), p = 0.39; local HR 0.56 (95 % CI 0.12-2.63), p = 0.46; peritoneal HR 2.49 (95 % CI 0.75-8.27), p = 0.14; others HR 0.47 (95 % CI 0.04-5.13), p = 0.53; multiple HR 0.88 (95 % CI 0.25-3.14), p = 0.84. The risk factors for each type of recurrence were variable and characterized by specific clinicopathological features.

CONCLUSION

Our study reveals that LAC and open colectomy demonstrate comparable overall colon cancer recurrence rates and recurrence sites. Specific clinicopathological characteristics may have a stronger influence on colon cancer recurrence site compared with the surgical technique.

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer reduces short-term mortality and morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer treatment remains controversial. We evaluated differences in the safety of laparoscopic rectal resection versus open surgery for cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review from 2000 to 2011 was performed searching the Medline and Embase databases (prospero registration CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and overall morbidity. Then a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR of less than 1.0 was in favor of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on surgical and medical complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies, representing 4,539 patients, met the inclusion criteria; eight were randomized for a total of 1,746 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.0 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.46 (95 % confidence interval 0.21-0.99, p = 0.048). The raw incidence of overall complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.8 %) compared to the open group (35.4 %). The overall RR was 0.83 (95 % confidence interval 0.76-0.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality and morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, were significantly lower after laparoscopic compared to open surgery.

Resultados do registro de cirurgias colorretais videolaparoscópicas realizadas no Estado de Minas Gerais - Brasil de 1996 a 2009

INTRODUÇÃO: A partir de 1991, a videolaparoscopia começou a ser considerada no tratamento de doenças colorretais. O aprimoramento da técnica cirúrgica associado aos benefícios encontrados em diversos estudos publicados levou a modificações nas perspectivas da videolaparoscopia. A partir da publicação do estudo COST as ressecções oncológicas laparoscópicas foram reconhecidas como alternativa viável, com resultados semelhantes à cirurgia convencional. PACIENTES E MÉTODOS: Realizou-se pesquisa através de formulário específico e consulta a prontuários dos principais serviços de coloproctologia de Belo Horizonte. Avaliando-se sexo, idade, indicação cirúrgica, procedimento realizado, técnica laparoscópica, complicações, conversão, estadiamento e recidiva (no caso de neoplasias). RESULTADOS: Foram levantados dados sobre 503 cirurgias colorretais laparoscópicas: 347 (68,9%) em mulheres e 156 (31,1%) homens. A técnica cirúrgica foi totalmente laparoscópica em 137 casos, vídeo-assistida 245 casos. O procedimento mais realizado foi a retossigmoidectomia (41,1%), seguido pela colectomia direita (12,5%), colectomia esquerda (6,9%). Doenças benignas foram responsáveis por 259 (51,5%) casos, destes as principais indicações cirúrgicas foram endometriose 126 (48,6%), pólipos 40 (15,4%), doença diverticular 30 (11,6%). Das 240 cirurgias realizadas por doenças malignas as mais frequentes foram retossigmoidectomia 102 (42,5%), colectomia direita 46 (19,1%), colectomia esquerda 18 (7,5%), amputação abdominoperineal 18 (7,5%). Houve 54 conversões (10.7%) dos casos, 12,9% (31/240) nos casos de neoplasias, 8,5% (22/259) nos de doenças benignas. Complicações sistêmicas ou cirúrgicas ocorreram em 31 (6,1%) e 56 (11,1%) casos, respectivamente. Foram registrados onze (2,18%) óbitos nos primeiros 30 dias após a cirurgia. CONCLUSÃO: O estudo atual foi o primeiro levantamento da implantação de cirurgias colorretais laparoscópicas realizado de forma multicêntrica em Minas Gerais. Os dados levantados são consistentes com registros nacionais de videocirurgia colorretal, mostrando a eficiência do método de aprendizado com realização de cirurgias com tutor. Além disso, que pequena parte das cirurgias colorretais são realizadas por via laparoscópica no estado, restritos apenas a centros especializados, sobrecarregando esses serviços e limitando o acesso para a população.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colectomy has not been accepted as quickly as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is because of its steep learning curve, concerns with oncological outcomes, lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and initial reports on port-site recurrence after curative resection. The aim of this review is to summarise current evidence on laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Review of literature following Medline search using key words 'laparoscopic', 'colorectal' and 'surgery'.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery proved to be safe, cost-effective and with improved short-term outcomes. However, further studies are needed to assess the role of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and the value of enhanced recovery protocols in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections.

Clinical evidences of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery has widely spread in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In Japan, a nation-wide survey has shown that a rate of advanced colorectal cancer has increased gradually and reached 65% of the total cases for colorectal cancer in 2007. For colon cancer, many randomized controlled trials regarding short-term outcome demonstrate that laparoscopic surgery is feasible, safe and has many benefits including reduction in a peri-operative mortality. In terms of long-term outcome, four randomized controlled trials insist that there are no differences in both laparoscopic and open surgeries. However, there are still more important issues including long-term oncological outcome for advanced colon cancer, cost effectiveness and the impact on quality of life of patients. Meanwhile, for rectal cancer, a controversy persists with regard to the appropriateness of laparoscopic surgery because of concerns over the safety of the procedure and a necessity of lateral lymph node dissection for lower rectal cancer. At present, laparoscopic surgery is acceptable for Stage I colon cancer, whereas there are controversies for Stage II/III colon cancer and each staged rectal cancer because of inadequate clinical evidences. Whether laparoscopic surgery further spreads to be applied for colorectal cancer or not, it would be confirmed by Japanese large-scale phase III trial (JCOG0404) estimating oncological outcome for Stage II/III colon cancer and a Phase II trial estimating the feasibility for Stage 0/I rectal cancer in near future.

Prevalence of internal hernias after laparoscopic colonic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic approach for colorectal resections is gaining popularity. Internal small bowel herniation (SBH) through a mesenteric defect has been described and, although rare, is a severe complication. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and outcome of internal hernias after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

During a 5-year period, all patients who underwent laparoscopic left colon resection were included in the study. A retrospective data base query was performed searching for all patients in whom SBH required surgical reintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 436 laparoscopic left colorectal resections were performed from January 2000 to July 2006. Five male patients presented symptomatic internal hernias and required re-operation. Four had a resection for cancer and one for sigmoiditis. The mesenteric defect was not initially closed in three cases. In all cases, we found small bowel hernias through the mesocolon defect. One patient was re-operated on post-op day 2 for mesenteric ischemia and died after 24 h.

DISCUSSION

Internal hernia is a rare but fatal complication after laparoscopic colonic resection. Suspicion of this diagnosis requires emergency re-operation because symptoms are nonspecific.

CONCLUSION

All mesenteric defects created during colorectal laparoscopy surgery should be meticulously closed.

Laparoscopic colon resection by a single general surgeon in a community hospital: a review of 200 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

We assessed a single surgeon's experience on laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCR) at a single non academic, community hospital. The surgeon was trained in minimally-invasive techniques and robotic surgery with >500 procedures at another non-university hospital, either as operating surgeon or as assistant.

METHODS

Short-term outcome of patients undergoing LCR for benign/neoplastic disease (June 2005-September 2007) was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients (104 males, 104 females; median age 69.1 years, Interquartile Range (IQR):59.3-76.6) underwent LCR. Over 70% of the operations were performed for cancer. Left hemicolectomy was performed in 102 patients (49.1%), right hemicolectomy in 50 (24%), anterior resection in 40 (19.2%), other procedures in 16 (7.7%). One-hundred-ninety (91.3%) operations were elective. The median operative time was 180 min (IQR:150-210). Conversion rate was 4.8%: 3.4% for benign and 5.4% for neoplastic disease (p = n.s.). The median lymph node harvest in cancer patients was 16 (IQR:12-20). Mortality and overall morbidity rates were 0.5% and 13%, with no significant difference between benign and malignant disease, colon and rectum, elective and non elective operations.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of LCR surgery performed by a well-trained laparoscopic surgeon working in a community hospital are comparable with results from academic health science centers.

Is laparoscopic surgery acceptable for advanced colon cancer?

Laparoscopic surgery is widespread in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In Japan, a nationwide survey has shown that the rate of advanced colorectal cancer has increased gradually to 65% of total laparoscopic surgeries in 2007. Many randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that in the short term, laparoscopic surgery is feasible, safe, and has many benefits, including reduction of peri-operative mortality. In terms of long-term outcomes, four randomized controlled trials suggest that there are no differences in laparosupic and open surgery for colon cancer. However, important issues, including long-term oncological outcome, cost effectiveness, and the impact on the quality of life of patients, should be addressed in well-designed large-scale trials. In Japan, a retrospective multicenter study has demonstrated that the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery are beneficial, and the long-term outcomes are the same as for open surgery. In 2004, a prospective large-scale randomized controlled trial (JCOG0404) to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery was started to evaluate oncological outcomes for advanced colon cancer. This trial is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. In the present study, laparoscopic surgery is found to be acceptable for stage I disease of colon cancer, whereas it is controversial for stage II/III disease because of inadequate clinical evidence. Whether laparoscopic surgery is acceptable for advanced colon cancer or not should be confirmed by the Japanese large-scale prospective randomized controlled trial (JCOG0404) in the near future.

Prospective, case-matched study of heated and humidified carbon dioxide insufflation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is often prolonged and may cause hypothermia. It is uncertain if heated and humidified carbon dioxide (CO(2)) in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is beneficial. This is a prospective case-matched study on the use of heated and humidified CO(2) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHOD

Twenty consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery with heated (36 degrees C) and humidified (95%) CO(2) were compared with 20 consecutive patients using standard CO(2) (30.2 degrees C). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon in an institution. The changes in core temperature during surgery, visual quality of images and the short-term clinical outcome were documented.

RESULTS

The core temperature fell during surgery in both groups. Although the fall of core temperature was more in the control group, it was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The passage of flatus was more delayed in heated and humidified group (P = 0.004), but it did not affect the hospital discharge. All the other parameters, including the quality of visual images and the postoperative pain, were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite better temperature maintenance (nonsignificant), pneumoperitoneum using heated and humidified CO(2) gas did not appear to have any clinical benefits in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopic colon surgery: past, present and future

Since its first described case in 1991, laparoscopic colon surgery has lagged behind minimally invasive surgical methods for solid intra-abdominal organs in terms of acceptability, dissemination, and ease of learning. In colon cancer, initial concerns over port site metastases and adequacy of oncologic resection have considerably dampened early enthusiasm for this procedure. Only recently, with the publication of several large, randomized controlled trials, has the incidence of port site metastases been shown to be equivalent to that of open resection. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has also been demonstrated to be at least equivalent to traditional laparotomy in terms of adequacy of oncologic resection, disease recurrence, and long-term survival. In addition, numerous reports have validated short-term benefits following laparoscopic resection for cancer, including shorter hospital stay, shorter time to recovery of bowel function, and decreased analgesic requirements, as well as other postoperative variables. In benign colonic disease, much less high-quality literature exists supporting the use of laparoscopic methods. Two recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated some short-term benefits to laparoscopic ileocolic resection for CD, in addition to evident cosmetic advantages. On the other hand, the current evidence on laparoscopic surgery for UC does not support its routine use among nonexpert surgeons outside of specialized centers. Laparoscopic colonic resection for diverticular disease appears to provide several short-term benefits, although these advantages may not translate to cases of complicated diverticulitis. Despite the increasing acceptability of minimally invasive methods for the management of benign and malignant colonic pathologies, laparoscopic colon resection remains a prohibitively difficult technique to master. Numerous technological innovations have been introduced onto the market in an effort to decrease the steep learning curve associated with laparoscopic colon surgery. Good evidence exists supporting the use of second-generation, sleeveless, hand-assist devices in this context. Similarly, new hemostatic devices such as the ultrasonic scalpel and the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer may be particularly helpful for extensive colonic mobilizations, in which several vascular pedicles must be taken. The precise role of these hemostatic technologies has yet to be established, particularly in comparison with stapling devices and significantly cheaper laparoscopic clips. Finally, recent advances in camera systems are promising to improve the ease with which difficult colonic dissections can be performed.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Traditionally open surgical resection has been recommended for colorectal tumours, but recently, laparoscopic surgery has gained popularity. This review summarizes the published data on laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with emphasis on recently published trials. For colon cancer laparoscopic resection appears to be associated with the same outcome as open surgery. However, whilst short-term outcome was better in the laparoscopic group in most of the randomized trials, when comparing laparoscopic with fast-track open surgery, no differences could be demonstrated in a randomized control trial. For rectal cancer the data are less clear. It seems that it may be feasible to resect at least small rectal cancers laparoscopically. Clearly the role of the laparoscopic technique needs to be better defined in rectal cancer. It has been well documented that short- and long-term outcome of colorectal cancer surgery depends on the quality and experience of the team treating the patient. Therefore, the major future challenge in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery will be to provide and structure adequate training and introduce quality control measures.

Systematic review on the short-term outcome of laparoscopic resection for colon and rectosigmoid cancer

OBJECTIVE

Several large randomized controlled trials on laparoscopic resection for colon and rectosigmoid cancer have recently been published. There is a need to provide an up-to-date systematic review in this subject.

METHODS

A literature search of all published randomized trials in English between January 1991 and September 2005 was obtained, from Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and All EBM Reviews (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial, Cochrane Database of Systemic Review, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), including e-links to the related articles. Two independent assessors reviewed the trials using a standardized protocol. Where means and standard deviations were available, meta-analysis was performed using the Forest plot review. Studies where medians and ranges were presented were separately analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 17 randomized controlled trials with 4013 procedures were reviewed. The conversion rate varied widely between studies and was lowest in single-Centre trials. There were no significant differences in overall and surgical complication rate, anastomotic leak rate, re-operation rate and oncological clearance. However, laparoscopic resection has a significantly lower peri-operative mortality (odds ratio 0.33; P = 0.005), lower wound complications (odds ratio 0.65; P = 0.01), less blood loss (weighted mean difference 0.11 l; P < 0.00001) and reduced postoperative pain scores by 12.6% with reduction of requirements for narcotic analgesia by 30.7%. After laparoscopic surgery, patients passed flatus 38.8% earlier (weighted mean difference 27.6 h; P < 0.00001) and had bowel movement 21.0% earlier (weighted mean difference 23.9 h; P < 0.00001) and resumed oral diet 28.3% sooner than patients in the open group (weighted mean difference 27.3 h; P < 0.00001). Patients were discharged 19.1% earlier after laparoscopic surgery than open surgery (weighted mean difference 1.7 days; P < 0.00001). Laparoscopic resection took 28.7% longer (weighted mean difference 40.1 min; P < 0.00001) to perform.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectosigmoid cancer is feasible, safe and has many short-term benefits.