Laparoscopic colectomy

COLOR IV: a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Right-sided colon cancer is a prevalent malignancy. The standard surgical treatment for this condition is laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, with ileocolic anastomosis being a crucial step in the procedure. Recently, intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis has garnered attention for its minimally invasive benefits. However, there remains a paucity of rigorously designed, large-scale, international multicenter randomized controlled trials to definitively assess the safety and efficacy of intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

This study is an international, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial designed to compare the safety and efficacy of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer undergoing right hemicolectomy. The primary endpoint is the anastomotic leakage rate within 30 days post-surgery. The main secondary endpoint is the 3-year disease-free survival rate post-surgery. A comprehensive quality assurance protocol will be established before the trial begins, including CT review, pathological evaluation, and the standardization and assessment of surgical techniques.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis following right hemicolectomy in patients with right-sided colon cancer. The anticipated outcome is that intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis will show an anastomotic leakage rate and a 3-year disease-free survival rate comparable to those of extracorporeal anastomosis, while offering the added benefit of faster postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic assisted colectomy versus laparoscopic complete colectomy: a cost analysis

To compare the short-term outcomes and explore the potential economic benefits of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LAC/EA) vs. laparoscopic complete colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (LCC/IA) for patients with non-metastatic resectable colon cancer. Data of patients who underwent laparoscopic hemicolectomy from January 2017 to March 2023 were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analyses was carried out to minimize the selection bias. Before PSM, a total of 113 patients met the inclusion criteria (39 in the LCC/IA vs. 74 in the LAC/EA). Clinicopathologic characteristics were comparable except for the median number of removed lymph nodes (P = 0.023). LCC/IA was associated with longer operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter incision length. The rate of 30-day postoperative complications was similar, but the time to first flatus and soft diet was shorter in the LCC/IA. No deaths were reported in either group within 30 days after surgery. Costs of surgical instruments (25,945.8 ± 1,918.0 vs. 23,551.9 ± 2,665.5 RMB; P < 0.01) were higher for the LCC/IA but overall costs were similar (LCC/IA, 43,220.0 ± 4,954.0 vs. LAC/EA, 41,269.2 ± 6,685.9 RMB; P = 0.112). After PSM, 38 patients in the LCC/IA and 63 patients in the LAC/EA were compared. LCC/IA was superior in terms of intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and postoperative functional recovery. There was an extra charge of 2385.0 RMB regarding surgical instruments in the LCC/IA but the overall cost did not reach statistical significance. LCC/IA is a feasible, safe, and cost-effective surgical treatment for patients with non-metastatic resectable colon cancer.

Intracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy: a nationwide survey of the Korean Society of Coloproctology

Purpose

We investigated the current practices and perceptions of colorectal surgeons in South Korea regarding intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (RHC).

Methods

Members of the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP) participated in an online survey encompassing demographic information, surgical experiences, methods for IIA, and advantages, barriers, and perceptions of IIA. We performed a statistical analysis of survey results.

Results

Among the 1,074 KSCP members contacted, 178 responded to the survey. Most respondents were males aged 40-49 years with >10 years of experience who were affiliated with a tertiary healthcare facility. One hundred fifty-six respondents had performed <100 colorectal cancer surgeries annually. Fifty-nine respondents reported experiences of the IIA technique in minimally invasive RHC. Most respondents favored the isoperistaltic side-to-side (S-S) anastomosis and stapled S-S anastomosis, hand-sewn closure for the common channel, and the periumbilical area for primary specimen extraction. Respondents with IIA experience emphasized the reduction in postoperative complications as the primary reason for performing IIA, whereas respondents without IIA experience cited the lack of benefits as the main deterrent. Respondents commonly cited concerns regarding anastomotic leakage and intraabdominal contamination as the primary reasons for not performing IIA. Respondents with IIA experience demonstrated a more positive response towards attempting or transitioning to IIA than those without. Respondents with IIA experience prioritized self-sufficiency, whereas respondents without IIA experience prioritized proctorship and discussions of the initial cases.

Conclusion

Measures to standardize the IIA technique and appropriate training programs must be implemented to enhance its use in minimally invasive RHC.

Differences in the Difficulty of Accessing Various 3-Dimensional Locations Under Mirror-Image Conditions During Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colon surgery frequently requires performing maneuvers under mirror-images conditions; the complexity differs depending on the surgical site location in the abdominal cavity. However, no previous reports have examined this.

METHODS

Eleven surgeons participated in this study. Operations were performed on 25 points placed at the bottom and sides of a laparoscopic training box under mirror-image conditions. The mean time-point required to operate at each point and variation between surgeons were evaluated.

RESULTS

When the right hand was used, time-points to touch the right side-superficial ends were 0.50 to 0.58 and 0.27 to 0.45 for the other sites. With the left hand, time-points to touch the left side-superficial ends were 0.58 to 0.63 and 0.28 to 0.51 for the other sites, indicating that the most difficult manipulation was at the proximal site of the surgical port. The variation in the difficulty according to the spots increased with a decrease in the surgeon's experience (right hand, r =-0.248; left hand, r =-0.491).

CONCLUSIONS

In performing laparoscopic surgery under mirror-image conditions, the technical difficulty varies by location, and operating in locations close to the forceps port is the most difficult.

A novel U-tied semi-manual anastomosis in totally laparoscopic colectomy

TECHNIQUE

We describe improvements to the previously proposed "U-tied anastomosis" with the aim of broadening its indications, especially in left hemicolectomy. After bowel mobilization and vascular ligation, the proximal and distal colon were aligned in a U-shape using a ligature. An anastomosis was constructed using a linear stapler through the common enterotomies. Following resection of the bowel using laparoscopic coagulation shears, the common opening was closed using 3-0 barbed sutures.

RESULTS

Eight consecutive patients underwent colectomy using the U-tied semi-manual technique between May and July 2023. In all cases, the U-tied procedures were completed using one cartridge and two sutures. No complications or mortality were observed after one month of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The U-tied semi-manual anastomosis is a straightforward and effective method for intracorporeal anastomosis. The simplified reconstruction technique of U-tied series, together with the minimization of technique variability, results in consistent outcomes when performed by surgeons with different levels of experience. The streamlined process enhances the homogeneity of the intracorporeal anastomosis while reducing cartridge use.

Robotic-assisted colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: Short-term surgical outcomes of a multi-institutional prospective cohort study in Japan

Background

In Japan, there are no substantial reports on robotic-assisted colectomy because few institutions performed the procedure, as it was not covered by national insurance until March 2022.

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy for patients with curatively resectable colon cancer in Japan.

Methods

This multi-institutional, prospective, single-arm, observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with curatively resectable clinical stage I-IIIC colon adenocarcinoma with D2 or D3 lymph node dissection and treated with robotic-assisted colectomy. The primary endpoint was the conversion rate to laparotomy. The non-inferiority of outcomes for robotic-assisted colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy, which was determined from historical data, was verified.

Results

One hundred patients were registered between July 2019 and March 2022 and underwent robotic-assisted colectomy performed by seven expert surgeons at six institutions. Thirteen patients were excluded because their surgeons had insufficient experience performing robotic-assisted colectomy; therefore, 87 patients were eligible for the primary endpoint analysis. There was no conversion in these 87 patients, and robotic-assisted colectomy was non-inferior to laparoscopic colectomy in terms of conversion rate (90% confidence interval 0-3.38, p = 0.0006). No intraoperative adverse events occurred, and no mortality was observed in a total of 100 patients. The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo complications grade III or higher was 4%.

Conclusion

This study showed the non-inferiority of the conversion rates between robotic-assisted colectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Favorable perioperative outcomes also suggest the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy.

Radiation Oncologists' Approach to Rectosigmoid Junction Tumors in Turkey: The Turkish Society for Radiation Oncology Gastrointestinal Group Survey Study (TROD 02-007)

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The objective was to determine the preferences and perspectives regarding preoperative evaluation and treatment strategies for rectosigmoid junction cancer among radiation oncologists using a questionnaire survey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since defining the correct origin of the neoplasm is essential in tailoring the most appropriate treatment scheme in the rectosigmoid junction region, we surveyed Turkish radiation oncologists about clinical decisions in rectosigmoid junction cancer patients via a 20-point questionnaire.

RESULTS

Based on responses from 130 radiation oncologists surveyed across the country, 119 (91.5%) used the anterior peritoneal reflection as the landmark, while 111 (85.4%) used the distance from the anal verge to the boundary between the rectum and sigmoid. This indicates that most of the participants decided to consider both pretreatment evaluation methods. Although distance at colonoscopy can be very variable, when the discrepancy was observed between these methods, 66 (50.8%) participants made the final decision according to the distance from the anal verge in our questionnaire. The conclusion from the questionnaire is that there is difficulty in interpreting magnetic resonance imaging findings, and there is a need for anatomic landmarks relevant to the limit between the rectum and sigmoid so that clinicians can confidently facilitate the diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide variation in the diagnosis and decision-making of rectosigmoid junction cancer among radiation oncologists in Turkey, according to our survey, because of several definitions of the rectosigmoid junction boundaries. Considerable attention is required to clarify whether the first preoperative treatment or surgery for rectosigmoid junction cancer.

A U-tie technique simplifies the intracorporeal anastomosis of totally laparoscopic colectomy

TECHNIQUE

We propose a small improvement termed "U-tied functional end-to-end anastomosis", aiming to promote the standardization of totally laparoscopic colectomy. After bowel mobilization and vascular ligation, the proximal and distal bowel regions are tied in parallel using a ligature. Anastomosis is completed using a linear stapler through the common enterotomies. Resection of the bowel and closure of the stump are then performed simultaneously with one cartridge following the bowel anastomosis.

RESULTS

Thirty patients underwent U-tied anastomosis from December 2019 to October 2022. In all cases, two cartridges were used to complete the U-tied procedure. There were no major complications or mortality within 30 days after the operation, and only one patient developed mild surgical site infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The U-tied intracorporeal anastomosis is safe and effective, simplifying the reconstruction process and reducing the discrepancy between the operators' experience on the anastomotic outcomes. Thus, this procedure may promote homogeneity of intracorporeal anastomosis and reduce the use of cartridges.

Laparoscopic and robotic intracorporeal resection and end-to-end anastomosis in left colectomy: a prospective cohort study - stage 2a IDEAL framework for evaluating surgical innovation

PURPOSE

To analyze the safety and feasibility of intracorporeal resection and anastomosis in upper rectum, sigmoid, and left colon surgery, via both laparoscopic and robotic approaches. The secondary aim was to assess possible short-term differences between laparoscopic versus robotic surgery.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study according to IDEAL framework exploration and assessment stage (Development, stage 2a), evaluating and comparing the laparoscopic approach and the robotic approach in left colon, sigmoid, and upper rectum surgery with intracorporeal resection and end-to-end anastomosis. Demographic, preoperative, surgical, and postoperative variables of patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery are described and compared according to the surgical technique used.

RESULTS

Between May 2020 and March 2022, seventy-nine patients were consecutively included in the study, 41 operated via laparoscopy (laparoscopic left colectomy: LLC) and 38 by robotic surgery (robotic left colectomy: RLC). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic variables. In surgical variables, the median surgical times differed significantly: 198 min (SD 48 min) for LLC vs. 246 min (SD 72 min) for RLC (p = 0.01, 95% CI: - 75.2 to - 20.5)). The only significant difference regarding postoperative complications was a higher degree of relevant morbidity in the LLC (Clavien-Dindo > II (14.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.03) and Comprehensive Complication Index (IQR 22 vs. IQR 0, p = 0.03). The pathological results were similar in both approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and robotic intracorporeal resection and anastomosis are feasible and safe, and obtain similar surgical, postoperative, and pathological results than described in literature. However, morbidity seems to be higher in LLC group with fewer relevant postoperative complications. The results of this study enable us to proceed to stage 2b of the IDEAL framework.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

The study is registered in Clinical trials with the registration code NCT0445693.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of minimally invasive, robotic and open approaches in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic (LAP), laparoscopic-assisted (LAPA), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and robotic colorectal surgery using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of comparing the five different approaches in colorectal surgery were included in a literature search until September 2022. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were reported for total costs, surgical costs, operating time, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of surgical approaches into homogeneous clusters. The cophenetic correlation coefficient (cc) was evaluated to identify the most cost-effective clustering method. The primary outcomes assessed were: costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy, measuring total costs against postoperative complications, mortality rate, and LOS, respectively.

RESULTS

22 RCTs with 4239 patients were included. Open surgery had the lowest total costs, surgical costs, and operating time but the longest LOS and most postoperative complications. LOS was significantly decreased in LAP compared to open surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.46-0.96). Robotic surgery resulted in the highest total costs, surgical costs, and most extended operative duration but the shortest LOS and lowest mortality. LAPA and robotic surgery were superior in the costs-morbidity analysis. HAL was associated with the worst costs-mortality profile. LAP, LAPA, and HAL were better in terms of costs-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, LAP and LAPA are the most cost-effective approaches for colorectal surgery in terms of overall postoperative complications, mortality, and LOS.

Primary Colorectal Cancer

Over the last few decades, the colorectal surgery world has seen a paradigm shift in the care of patients. The introduction of minimally invasive techniques led to the development of procedures resulting in reduced patient morbidity and hospital stay. The vetting process of minimally invasive colorectal surgery involved rigorous studies to ensure that oncologic outcomes were not being compromised. In this chapter, we discuss the most relevant randomized controlled trials that support the practice of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The multimodal treatment of rectal cancer has developed rapidly, resulting in improved survival and decreased morbidity and mortality. In this review, we also present the latest evidence behind the multidisciplinary approach to rectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer

Although surgery is the established standard and mainstay for treatment of colorectal cancer, advances in technology and clinical trials over the past 50 years have dramatically expanded and improved the detection, staging, treatment, and understanding of this disease. This review highlights contributions by surgeons, oncologists, gastroenterologists, engineers, and scientists to increase postsurgical recurrence-free survival, reduce the time and toxicity of treatment, and improve the quality of life for patients over the past half-century.

Robotic Approach is Associated With a Lower Conversion Rate Compared to Laparoscopic Approach for Patients Undergoing Colectomy for T4b Colon Cancer. An Analysis of the National Cancer Database

INTRODUCTION

We examined the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for T4b colon cancer, as well as the clinical factors associated with conversion to an open approach and its consequences on perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients undergoing colectomy for cT4b colon cancer (2010-2016). Patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic colectomy were matched using Propensity-Score analysis. Factors associated with conversion to an open approach were assessed using Logistic-regression multivariable-analysis (MVA).

RESULTS

Colectomy for cT4b colon cancer was performed in 9030 patients (open: n = 6,543, robotic: n = 157, laparoscopic: n = 2330). In the propensity-matched groups, robotic approach had lower rate of conversion (12% vs 37%, P < .001), shorter hospital stays (5 vs 7-days, P = .02), and similar overall-survival (5-yr: 49% vs 39%, P = .16), compared to laparoscopic approach. Conversion to an open approach was noted in 801(32%) of the patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical colectomy (robotic n = 23(15%), laparoscopic n = 778(33%). Factors associated with lower rate of conversion on multivariable-analysis included recent year of surgery (95% CI: 0.88-.97), robotic approach (95% CI: 0.22-.56), and surgeries performed in Academic hospitals (95% CI: 0.65-.96). Conversion to an open approach was associated with higher rate of positive parenchymal margin (31% vs 25%, P = .001), higher rate of 30-day readmission (12% vs 9.5%, P = .04), and similar overall survival (5-yr: 32% vs 35%, P = .19), compared to those who had no conversion.

CONCLUSION

At the National level, patients undergoing colectomy for T4b colon cancer via a robotic approach had more favorable perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic approach. Conversion to an open approach did not compromise long term survival, despite being associated with higher rate of positive margins and readmissions rate.

Improved Morbidity, Mortality, and Cost with Minimally Invasive Colon Resection Compared to Open Surgery

Background and Objectives:

Despite the growth of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in many specialties, open colon surgery is still routinely performed. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between open colon and minimally invasive colon resections.

Methods:

We analyzed outcomes between January 1, 2016 and December31, 2018 using the Vizient® clinical database. Demographics, hospital length of stay, readmissions, complications, mortality, and costs were compared between patients undergoing elective open and minimally invasive colon resections. For bivariate analysis, Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous variables and χ² test was used for categorical variables. Multiple Logistic and Quintile regression were used for multivariable analyses.

Results:

A total of 88,405 elective colon resections (open: 56,599; minimally invasive: 31,806) were reviewed. A significantly larger proportion of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery were obese (body mass index > 30) compared to those undergoing open surgery (71.4% vs. 59.6%; p < 0.0001). As compared to minimally invasive colectomy, open colectomy patients had: a longer median length of stay [median (range): 7 (4–13) days vs. 4 (3 – 6) days, p < 0.0001], higher 30-day readmission rate [n = 8557 (15.1%) vs. 2815 (8.9%), p < 0.0001], higher mortality [n = 2590 (4.4%) vs. 107 (0.34%), p < 0.0001], and a higher total direct cost [median (range): $13,582 (9041–23,094) vs. $9013 (6748 – 12,649), p < 0.0001]. Multivariable models confirmed these findings.

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive colon surgery has clear benefits in terms of length of stay, readmission rate, mortality and cost, and the routine use of open colon resection should be revaluated.

Intraoperative localization of gastrointestinal tumors by magnetic tracer technique during laparoscopic-assisted surgery (with video)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic localization of gastrointestinal tumors has long been an important objective. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical application of a magnetic tracer technique during laparoscopic-assisted surgery.

METHODS

Fifty-seven patients with gastrointestinal tumors, who voluntarily underwent endoscopic marking between May 2019 and May 2020, were enrolled. A magnetic ring was clamped onto tissues adjacent to the lesion and released during preoperative endoscopy. Then, another magnet ring or laparoscopic instrument was delivered to the wall of the digestive tract contralateral to the lesion and attracted, thus achieving accurate intraoperative localization. Observational evaluation included data regarding preoperative marking, intraoperative localization, operation, and safety.

RESULTS

Fifty-six of the 57 (98.2%) patients with gastric tumors (n = 35), duodenal tumors (n = 1), and colorectal tumors (n = 20), successfully underwent marking, localization, and resection. The mean margins of proximal and distal resection of colorectal tumors were 106 and 78 mm, respectively. The mean (± SD) duration of endoscopic marking and laparoscopic localization for gastric/duodenal and colorectal tumors were 5.3 ± 0.3, 1.0 ± 0.1, 5.5 ± 0.4, and 1.0 ± 0.1 min, respectively. No complications occurred in 56 of the 57 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnetic tracer technique demonstrated promising potential as a localization method for gastrointestinal tumors, with superior safety, effectiveness, rapidity, and convenience.

Healthcare Costs of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients in the First 12 Months: A Secondary Endpoint Analysis of the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is widely used, however the healthcare costs are thought to be higher than for open resection. This secondary endpoint analysis of a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate total healthcare costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with open resection for rectal cancer over a 12-month period.

METHODS

Patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT) were included in a prospective costing analysis. All healthcare use for the index surgery and hospital admission, readmissions, and follow-up care over 12 months were included. Unit costs were valued in Australian dollars (AUD$) using scheduled Medicare fees and hospital cost weights. The primary outcome was mean per patient cost. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was undertaken for robustness checks.

RESULTS

Data from 468 patients indicated that the laparoscopic-assisted surgical procedure incurred a mean cost of AUD$4542 (standard deviation [SD] AUD$1050)-AUD$521 higher than the open procedure mean cost of AUD$4021 (SD AUD$804) due to longer operative time and involvement of more costly equipment (95% confidence interval [CI] AUD$354-AUD$692). At 12 months, the average cost for the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups was AUD$43,288 (SD AUD$40,883) and AUD$45,384 (SD AUD$38,659), respectively, due to the shorter subsequent hospital stays. No overall significant cost difference between groups was found (95% CI -AUD$9358 to AUD$5003). One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

While initially higher, the costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer were similar to open resection at 12 months. Clinicians may choose a surgical approach based on clinical need.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG) was the legal sponsor and trial coordination was performed by the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12609000663257).

Robotic-assisted surgery for complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis: A single-surgeon case-series comparison

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted techniques in colorectal surgery have dramatically increased. Comparative data on the management of uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis using robotics is lacking. The purpose of this study is to examine outcomes of patients who underwent robotic-assisted resection in diverticulitis.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for diverticulitis from October 2009 to November 2018. Demographic data, preoperative and intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were assessed using χ² or Fisher exact test with p values <0.05 considered significant. IRB approval was obtained for this study, #NCR190935.

RESULTS

Comparison revealed significant differences in operative times (222 vs. 291 min, p < 0.00001), mean estimated blood loss (130 vs. 304 cc, p = 0.0003) and mean length of stay (3.9 vs. 5.0 days, p = 0.006). Low rates of postoperative complications were observed, with no significant differences noted for conversion to laparoscopy, surgical site infection, leak, intra-abdominal abscess, 30-day unplanned readmission or recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Patients with complicated diverticulitis required longer operative time, had increased estimated blood loss and more often converted to an open procedure; however, overall rates of post-operative complications were low in both groups. RAS shows promise for use in complicated diverticulitis.

Return to work following laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: Findings from AlaCaRT-Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial

BACKGROUND

Maintaining employment for adults with cancer is important, however, little is known about the impact of surgery for rectal cancer on an individual's capacity to return to work (RTW). This study aimed to determine the impact of laparoscopic vs. open resection on RTW at 12 months.

METHODS

Analyses were undertaken among participants randomized in the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT), with work status available at baseline (presurgery), and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics estimated the effect of surgery on RTW in any capacity, or return to preoperative work status at 12 months.

RESULTS

About 228 of 449 (51%) surviving trial participants at 12 months completed work status questionnaires; mean age was 62 years, 66% males, 117 of these received laparoscopic resection (51%). Of 228, 120 were employed at baseline (90 full-time, 30 part-time). Overall RTW in 120 participants in paid work at baseline was 78% (84% laparoscopic, 70% open surgery). Those employed full-time were more likely to RTW at 12 months (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.02-12.31). Those with distant metastases at baseline were less likely to RTW (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, <0.01-0.83). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher rate of RTW but did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.88; 95% CI, 0.95-8.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Full-time work presurgery and the presence of metastatic disease predicts RTW status at 12 months. A laparoscopic-assisted surgical approach to rectal cancer may facilitate more patients to RTW, however, larger sample sizes are likely needed to confirm this result.

Estimating Population-Based Recurrence Rates of Colorectal Cancer over Time in the United States

BACKGROUND

Population-based metastatic recurrence rates for patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer cannot be estimated directly from population-based cancer registries because recurrence information is not reported. We derived population-based colorectal cancer recurrence rates using disease-specific survival data based on our understanding of the colorectal cancer recurrence-death process.

METHODS

We used a statistical continuous-time multistate survival model to derive population-based annual colorectal cancer recurrence rates from 6 months to 10 years after colorectal cancer diagnosis using relative survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. The model was based on the assumption that, after 6 months of diagnosis, all colorectal cancer-related deaths occur only in patients who experience a metastatic recurrence first, and that the annual colorectal cancer-specific death rate among patients with recurrence was the same as in those diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease. We allowed recurrence rates to vary by post-diagnosis time, age, stage, and location for two diagnostic time periods.

RESULTS

In patients diagnosed in 1975-1984, annual recurrence rates 6 months to 5 years after diagnosis ranged from 0.054 to 0.060 in stage II colon cancer, 0.094 to 0.105 in stage II rectal cancer, and 0.146 to 0.177 in stage III colorectal cancer, depending on age. We found a statistically significant decrease in colorectal cancer recurrence among patients diagnosed in 1994-2003 compared with those diagnosed in 1975-1984 for 6 months to 5 years after diagnosis (hazard ratios between 0.43 and 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

We derived population-based annual recurrence rates for up to 10 years after diagnosis using relative survival data.

IMPACT

Our estimates can be used in decision-analytic models to facilitate analyses of colorectal cancer interventions that are more generalizable.

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.

Berberine: A novel therapeutic strategy for cancer

Cancer, even currently, is one of the main reasons for mortality and morbidity, worldwide. In recent years, a great deal of effort has been made to find efficient therapeutic strategies for cancer, however, particularly with regards to side effects and the possibility of complete remission. Berberine (BBR) is a nature-driven phytochemical component originated from different plant groups such as Berberis vulgaris, Berberis aquifolium, and Berberis aristata. BBR is a well-known nutraceutical because of its wide range of pharmacological activities including anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic, antibacterial, antiparasitic, antidiarrheal, antihypertensive, hypolipidemic, and fungicide. In addition, it exhibits inhibitory effects on multiple types of cancers. In this review, we have elaborated on the anticancer effects of BBR through the regulation of different molecular pathways such as: inducing apoptosis, autophagy, arresting cell cycle, and inhibiting metastasis and invasion.

Intracorporeal or Extracorporeal Ileocolic Anastomosis After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: A Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to determine whether there are clinically relevant differences in outcomes between laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) and LRC with extracorporeal IA (EIA).

BACKGROUND

IIA and EIA are 2 well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after LRC. There are no high-quality studies demonstrating the superiority of one anastomotic technique over the other.

METHODS

This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a benign or malignant right-sided colon neoplasm. Primary endpoint was length of hospital stay (LOS). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03045107.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Median operative time was comparable in IIA versus EIA group {130 [interquartile range (IQR) 105-195] vs 130 (IQR 110-180) min; P = 0.770} and no intraoperative complications occurred. The quicker recovery of bowel function after IIA than EIA [gas: 2 (IQR 2-3) vs 3 (IQR 2-3) days, P = 0.003; stool: 4 (IQR 3-5) vs 4.5 (IQR 3-5) days, P = 0.032] was not reflected in any advantage in the primary endpoint: median LOS was similar in the 2 groups [6 (IQR 5-7) vs 6 (IQR 5-8) days; P = 0.839]. No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, length of skin incision, 30-day morbidity (17.1% vs 15.7%, P = 0.823), reoperation rate, and readmission rate between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRC with IIA is associated with earlier recovery of postoperative bowel function than LRC with EIA; however, it does not reflect into a shorter LOS.

Comparison of Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic-Assisted Colon Cancer Surgery Using a Joystick-Guided Endoscope Holder (Soloassist II) or a Human Assistant

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Soloassist II-assisted (SA) group and in the human-assisted (HA) group.

Methods

A total of 76 patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy and anterior resection performed by a single surgeon between January 2017 and May 2018 were recruited from the consecutively enrolled registry and retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Of 76 patients, 43 underwent surgery with human assistance and 33 underwent surgery using the Soloassist II system. The clinicopathologic characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 groups. In both HA and SA groups, no statistical difference was observed between operation time (220.23 ± 47.83 minutes vs. 218.03 ± 38.22 minutes, P = 0.829), total number of harvested lymph nodes (20.42 ± 10.86 vs. 20.24 ± 8.21, P = 0.938), and other parameters of short-term outcomes (length of hospital stay, blood loss, open conversion, time to flatus, time to soft diet, and complication events). Subgroup analyses did not show statistical differences.

Conclusion

Soloassist II can reduce the participation of a human assistant during surgery and is not inferior to human assistance in laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery. Thus, it is a feasible instrument in laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery that can provide positive short-term outcomes.

Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to find the better treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) by comparing robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS), laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS), and open surgery using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search updated to August 15, 2017 was performed. All the included literatures were evaluated according to the quality evaluation criteria of bias risk recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. All data were comprehensively analyzed by ADDIS. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to show the effect index of all data. The degree of convergence of the model was evaluated by the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method with the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) as the evaluation indicator.

RESULTS

The PSRF values of operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication, mortality, and anastomotic leakage ranged from 1.00 to 1.01, and those of wound infection, bleeding, and ileus ranged from 1.00 to 1.02. Open surgery had the shortest operation time compared with LACS and RACS. Furthermore, compared with LACS, the amount of blood loss, complication, mortality, bleeding rate, and ileus rate for RACS were the least, and the length of hospital stay for RACS was the shortest. The anastomotic leakage rate for LACS was the least, but there was no significant difference compared with those of RACS and open surgery. The wound infection rate for LACS was the least, but there was no significant difference compared with that of RACS.

CONCLUSION

RACS might be a better treatment for patients with CRC.

Laparoscopy for Colon Cancer

The use of laparoscopy has become widespread across many surgical specialties. Its utility as treatment for colon cancer was initially met with hesitancy due to concern for port site and wound recurrences; however, this was later disproven by large retrospective series. Subsequently, there have been multiple, large, prospective, randomized studies evaluating laparoscopic versus open colectomy for colon cancer. All studies yielded similar results and showed no statistical difference in overall survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence. Additionally, these studies revealed similar operative outcomes with respect to complication rates, perioperative mortality, and conversion to open colectomy, as well as equivalent oncologic resections. Overall in the laparoscopic colectomy groups, hospital stays were shorter, and often times patients required less narcotics postoperatively, but laparoscopic operative times were longer. With adequate training, the use of laparoscopy can be safely employed for patients with colon cancer.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

Oncologic Outcomes of Single-incision Laparoscopic Surgery Compared With Conventional Laparoscopy for Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to document perioperative results and mid-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) colectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic (CL) colectomy.

BACKGROUND

SIL surgery is an advance in minimally invasive operative techniques and is widely accepted for various types of surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from 767 patients who underwent radical colectomy (250 SIL colectomy and 517 CL colectomy) between 2010 and 2011 due to primary colon cancer and retrospectively analyzed these patients with propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Before matching, patients with CL surgery had a significantly higher percentage of comorbidities (49.2% vs 57.8%, P = 0.024). Tumor location significantly differed between 2 groups: SIL surgery was performed more frequently in patients with right colon cancer. After propensity score matching, each group included 239 patients, and there was no difference between the SIL and CL surgery groups. Estimated blood loss was more in the patients with SIL colectomy, but the rate itself of intraoperative complications was not statistically different (P = 0.662). The median follow-up period was 37 months. There were 20 recurrences in the SIL surgery group (8.4%), including 3 locoregional recurrences and 18 (7.5%) in the CL surgery group. Disease-free survival at 48 months did not differ significantly between the SIL and CL surgery groups (89.8% vs 89.9%, P = 0.548).

CONCLUSIONS

SIL colectomy for colon cancer shows probably higher, but an acceptable complication rate and can provide resection and oncologic outcomes equal to those of CL colectomy.

Ten-year outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal resection: results of a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of laparoscopy compared to open surgery on long-term outcomes in a large series of patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing short-term results of laparoscopic (LPS) versus open colorectal resection.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a prospective database including 662 patients with colorectal disease (526, 79 % cancer patients) who were randomly assigned to LPS or open colorectal resection and followed every 6 months by office visits. The primary endpoint of the study was long-term morbidity. Secondary outcomes included 10-year overall, cancer-specific, and disease-free survivals. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight (8.8 %) patients were lost to follow-up. Median follow-up was 131 (IQR 78-153) months in the LPS group and 126 (IQR 52-152) months in the open group (p = 0.121). Overall, long-term morbidity rate was 11.8 % (36/309) in the LPS versus 12.6 % (37/295) in the open group (p = 0.770). Incisional hernia rate was 5.8 % (18/309) in the LPS group versus 8.1 % (24/295) in the open group (p = 0.264). Adhesion-related small-bowel obstruction occurred in five (1.6 %) patients in the LPS versus four (1.4 %) patients in the open group (p = 1.000). In 497 cancer patients, 10-year overall survival was 45.3 % in the LPS group and 40.9 % in the open group (p = 0.160). No difference was found in cancer-specific and disease-free survivals, also when patients were stratified according to cancer stage.

CONCLUSION

In this series, LPS colorectal resection was not associated with a lower long-term morbidity rate when compared to open surgery. Overall, cancer-specific and disease-free survivals were similar in cancer patients who were treated with LPS and open surgeries.

Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open colectomy for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and open approaches to colon resection have equivalent long-term outcomes and oncologic integrity for the treatment of colon cancer. Differences in short-term outcomes should therefore help to guide surgeons in their choice of operation. We hypothesized that minimally invasive colectomy is associated with superior short-term outcomes compared to traditional open colectomy in the setting of colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing nonemergent colectomy for colon cancer in 2012 and 2013 were selected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted colectomy participant use file. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on operative approach-open versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Univariate, multivariate, and propensity-adjusted multivariate analyses were performed to compare postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 11,031 patients were identified for inclusion in the study, with an overall MIS rate of 65.3% (n = 7200). On both univariate and multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with fewer postoperative complications and lower mortality. In the risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, MIS approach was associated with an odds ratio of 0.598 for any postoperative morbidity compared to open (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study of patients undergoing colectomy for colon cancer demonstrates significantly improved outcomes associated with a MIS approach, even when controlling for baseline differences in illness severity. When feasible, minimally invasive colectomy should be considered gold standard for the surgical treatment of colon cancer.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: It's Time to Change Practice!

Perioperative surgical care is undergoing a paradigm shift. Traditional practices such as prolonged preoperative fasting (nil by mouth from midnight), bowel cleaning, and reintroduction of oral nutrition 3-5 days after surgery are being shunned. These and other similar changes have been formulated into a protocol called Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway. It is a multimodal perioperative care pathway designed to achieve early recovery after surgical procedures by maintaining preoperative organ function and reducing the profound stress response following surgery. The key elements of an ERAS protocol include preoperative counseling, optimization of nutrition, standardized analgesic and anesthetic regimes, and early mobilization. The recent literature is heavily influenced by colorectal surgery, but the principles are now being applied to a wide range of disciplines. As they challenge traditional surgical doctrine, the implementation of ERAS guidelines has been slow, despite the significant body of evidence indicating that ERAS guidelines may lead to improved outcomes.

Acute laparoscopic and open sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis: a propensity score-matched cohort

Background

Hartmann’s procedure for perforated diverticulitis can be characterised by high morbidity and mortality rates. While the scientific community focuses on laparoscopic lavage as an alternative for laparotomy, the option of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy seems overlooked. We compared morbidity and hospital stay following acute laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) and open sigmoidectomy (OS) for perforated diverticulitis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort parallel to the Ladies trial included patients from 28 Dutch academic or teaching hospitals between July 2010 and July 2014. Patients with LS were matched 1:2 to OS using the propensity score for age, gender, previous laparotomy, CRP level, gastrointestinal surgeon, and Hinchey classification.

Results

The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 39 patients with LS and 78 patients with OS, selected from a sample of 307 consecutive patients with purulent or faecal perforated diverticulitis. In both groups, 66 % of the patients had Hartmann’s procedure and 34 % had primary anastomosis. The hospital stay was shorter following LS (LS 7 vs OS 9 days; P = 0.016), and the postoperative morbidity rate was lower following LS (LS 44 % vs OS 66 %; P = 0.016). Mortality was low in both groups (LS 3 % vs OS 4 %; P = 0.685). The stoma reversal rate after Hartmann’s procedure was higher following laparoscopy, with a probability of being stoma-free at 12 months of 88 and 62 % in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (P = 0.019). After primary anastomosis, the probability of reversal was 100 % in both groups.

Conclusions

In this propensity score-matched cohort, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy is superior to open sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with regard to postoperative morbidity and hospital stay.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4694-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adoption of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: It Was Quite a Journey

The adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been a slow but steady progress. The first adopters rapidly expanded the application of the technology to all colorectal pathology. Issues related to extraction and port site recurrence of cancer delayed widespread adoption until incontrovertible data from well-powered prospective randomized studies confirmed equipoise with open surgery. Since that time, the data has consistently demonstrated patient-care benefits related to reductions in both short- and long-term complications historically associated with open colectomy. The potential for further improvement related to single-port access, robotic assistance, and natural orifice access for both the surgery and/or extraction will await the test of time. However, it is clear now that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is the new standard of care and a key enabler of enhanced recovery programs.

Re-interventions following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: data from 818 individuals from the Dutch surgical colorectal audit

BACKGROUND

The surgical procedure of choice for the resection of colorectal cancer has shifted in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Although increasing data prove advantages of elective laparoscopic surgery, less is known about the results in acute indications such as surgical re-interventions following colorectal resections. This study aims to assess the clinical benefits in recovery following laparoscopic re-interventions compared with open re-interventions following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed an analysis of data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit from January 2010 to December 2012. All patients requiring surgical re-intervention after initial laparoscopic colorectal surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 27,448 patients, 11,856 underwent laparoscopic surgery. Following laparoscopic surgery, 159 patients (1.3%) had a laparoscopic re-intervention, and 659 patients (5.6%) had an open re-intervention. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for patients' demographics and risk factors, the length of hospital stay was 17 days (interquartile range, 11-16 days) for the laparoscopic group and 23 days (interquartile range, 14-37 days) for the open group (odds ratio [OR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.84). In the laparoscopic group the intensive care unit admission rate was 39% compared with 66% in the open group. The 30-day mortality rate was 7 (4%) in the laparoscopic group compared with 89 (14%) in the open group (OR=0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is feasible in selected patients. Because of the unknown extent of selection bias, prospective studies are needed to define the exact position and benefits of laparoscopic re-interventions.

Do the advantages of a minimally invasive approach remain in complex colorectal procedures? A nationwide comparison

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of laparoscopic colectomy, experience and technology continue to improve. Although accepted for many colorectal conditions, its use and outcomes in complex procedures are less understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic transverse colectomy and total abdominal colectomy (study group) with an open approach (comparative group) and the more established laparoscopic right, left, and sigmoid colectomies (control group).

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008-2011) of all patients undergoing elective right, left, sigmoid, total, or transverse colectomy as identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. Risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes were assessed using regression modeling accounting for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and surgical procedures.

SETTINGS

The study included a national sample from a population database.

PATIENTS

There were 45,771 admissions: 2946 in the study group, 36,949 in the control group, and 5876 in the open comparative group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, length of stay, and hospital charges.

RESULTS

The patients were predominantly white (73%), had private insurance (64%), and underwent surgery at urban centers (92%). Mortality was similar between the study and control groups (0.42% vs 0.51%; p = 0.52), with a higher complication rate in the study group (19% vs 14%; p < 0.01). The study group was also associated with a lower mortality rate compared with the open group (0.51% vs 2.20%; p < 0.01), which remained consistent after adjusting for covariates (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.20-0.71]; p < 0.01). The study group had fewer complications overall compared with the open group (19% vs 27%; p < 0.01) and a shorter median length of stay (4.6 vs 6.3 days; p < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study using an administrative database.

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach for total abdominal and transverse colectomies has similar mortality rates and slightly higher complications than the more established laparoscopic colectomy procedures and improved perioperative outcomes when compared with an open technique (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A178).

Reduced perioperative death following laparoscopic colorectal resection: results of an international observational study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approaches to colorectal surgery are known to accelerate recovery but the effect on postoperative mortality is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences exist in postoperative mortality between patients undergoing laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in a group of international healthcare institutions.

METHODS

Administrative data from 30 worldwide institutions were searched for patients who underwent elective colorectal surgical resection between January 2007 and December 2011. The primary outcome measure was 30-day-in-hospital mortality rate. Secondary outcome measures were 30-day readmission rate, length of stay, and 30-day reoperation rate.

RESULTS

There were 30,369 (20,641 colonic and 9728 rectal) resections recorded over the 5 years. Eight thousand eighty-six were laparoscopic (26.6%) and 22,283 (73.4%) were open. Following propensity-score matching of the laparoscopic and open cohorts, mortality was 0.5% following laparoscopic colectomy and 1.2% after conventional surgery (P < 0.001). After adjusting for differences in preoperative risk factors including gender, age, comorbidity, type of surgery and diagnosis, by matching on propensity score, laparoscopic surgery was a strong determinant of reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.62; P < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.45; P < 0.001), reduced readmission (odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.71-0.86; P < 0.001) and reduced re-operation (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.76; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is associated with reduced in-hospital mortality when compared with conventional techniques. This finding is consistent across international healthcare institutions and supports efforts to disseminate laparoscopic skills.

Laparoscopic management of diverticular colovesical fistula: experience in 15 cases and review of the literature

Colovesical fistulas secondary to diverticular disease may be considered a contraindication to the laparoscopic approach. The feasibility of laparoscopic management of complicated diverticulitis and mixed diverticular fistulas has been demonstrated. However, few studies on the laparoscopic management of diverticular colovesical fistulas exist. A retrospective analysis was performed of 15 patients with diverticular colovesical fistula, who underwent laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection and bladder repair. Median operating time was 135 minutes and median blood loss, 75 mL. Five patients were converted to an open procedure (33.3%) with an associated increase in hospital stay (P = 0.035). Median time to return of bowel function was 2 days and median length of stay, 6 days. Overall morbidity was 20% with no major complications. There was no mortality. There was no recurrence during median follow-up of 12.4 months. These results suggest that laparoscopic management of diverticular colovesical fistulas is both feasible and safe in the setting of appropriate surgical expertise.

The Evidence against Prophylactic Nasogastric Intubation and Oral Restriction

Evidence-based perioperative care plans after colorectal surgery serve to improve quality outcome, decrease complications, and reduce medical cost. The benefits of routine nasogastric decompression and prolonged enteral restriction after bowel resection are not supported in this new era of evidence-based surgical care. Prophylactic nasogastric decompression fails to improve bowel function, length of stay, and prevent anastomotic leak, wound complications (infection, fascial dehiscence, incisional hernia), pulmonary complications (atelectasis, aspiration, pneumonia, fever, pharyngolaryngitis), and abdominal discomfort (distension, nausea, vomiting). Patients have earlier return of bowel function without the use of a nasogastric tube (NGT). Early refeeding within 24 hours after bowel resection is well tolerated in 80 to 90% of patients, and associated with earlier hospital discharge, decreased risk of infection, and improved postoperative hyperglycemic control. Abdominal discomfort is the most common complication observed in patients treated with early feeding and without a NGT, but does not result in higher therapeutic nasogastric intubation, postoperative ileus, aspiration, or other complications. The use of multimodal adjuncts in combination with these guidelines should be considered to improve outcome. The current literature is reviewed with suggestions for achieving better outcomes after colorectal resection.

Early oral feeding vs. traditional feeding in patients undergoing elective open bowel surgery-a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the safety, tolerability and outcome of early oral feeding vs. traditional feeding in patients undergoing elective open bowel surgery.

METHODS

A total of 120 consecutive patients who underwent elective open bowel surgeries were randomized into either early feeding (n = 60) or traditional feeding group (n = 60). Patients in the early feeding group were started on oral fluids on post-operative day 1, while those in the traditional feeding group were started orals after the resolution of ileus. Patient characteristics, surgical procedures, co-morbidity, first flatus, first defecation, time of starting solid diet, complications and length of hospitalization were assessed between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in demographic and baseline data. The number of days to first flatus (p < 0.0001), first defecation (p < 0.0001), length of post-operative stay (p = 0.011) and time of starting solid diet (p < 0.0001) were significantly earlier in the early feeding group. Anastomotic leak, wound infection, fever, vomiting, abdominal distention and other complications were similar. Multivariate analysis showed that patients in the early oral feeding group were discharged 3.4 days earlier (p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing elective open bowel surgeries, early post-operative feeding is safe, is well tolerated and reduces the length of hospitalization.

Mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic techniques have been extensively used for the surgical management of colorectal cancer during the last two decades. Accumulating data have demonstrated that laparoscopic colectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, some controversies regarding the oncologic quality of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer exist. Meanwhile, some progresses in colorectal surgery, such as robotic technology, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice specimen extraction, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, have been made in recent years. In this article, we review the published data and mainly focus on the current status and latest advances of mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.

Attaining surgical competency and its implications in surgical clinical trial design: a systematic review of the learning curve in laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly used in the treatment of colorectal cancer and more recently robotic assistance has been advocated. However, the learning curve to achieve surgical proficiency in laparoscopic surgery is ill-defined and subject to many influences. The aim of this review was to comprehensively appraise the literature on the learning curve for laparoscopic and robotic colorectal cancer surgery, and to quantify attainment of surgical proficiency and its implications in surgical clinical trial design.

METHODS

A systematic review using a defined search strategy was performed. Included studies had to state an explicit numerical value of the learning curve evaluated by a single parameter or multiple parameters.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included, 28 laparoscopic and 6 robot assisted. Of the laparoscopic studies, nine defined the learning curve on the basis of a single parameter. Nine studies used more than one parameter to define learning, and 11 used a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. One study used both a multiparameter and CUSUM analysis. The definition of proficiency was subjective, and the number of operations to achieve it ranged from 5 to 310 cases for laparoscopic and 15-30 cases for robotic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is multifaceted and often ill-defined, with poor descriptions of mentorship/supervision. Further, the quantification to attain proficiency is variable. The use of a single parameter to quantify this is simplistic. Multidimensional assessment is recommended; as part of this, the CUSUM model, which assesses trends in multiple surgical outcomes, is useful and appropriate when assessing the learning curve in a clinical setting.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: training the next generation

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) is touted to be an improved approach for minimally invasive surgery although no data currently exists regarding the acquisition of skills for the safe performance of this technique. The authors report their early experience with proctoring of surgical residents in SILC by experienced colorectal surgeons.

METHODS

Data regarding patient demographics, operative data, and short-term outcomes were prospectively collected at two surgical training hospitals. Residents and staff independently rated individual components of this technique to compare them with learning standard multiport colectomy (MP).

RESULTS

A total of 31 SILC cases (15 men; mean age 53 years) were managed. The average BMI was 26.5 kg/m(2) (range 16-39 kg/m(2)). The surgical indications included cancer (n = 13), polyps (n = 8), diverticular disease (n = 4), Crohn's disease (n = 2), familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 2), volvulus (n = 1), and rectal prolapse (n = 1). The average operative time was 164 ± 86 min, and the mean blood loss was 80 ± 83 mL. The mean incision length was 4.1 ± 1.1 cm. One case required additional trocar placement (stoma creation), and three cases required conversion to open procedure because of failure to progress, difficult colorectal anastomosis, or poor visualization. The median hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.3 days. The 30-day morbidity included minor wound infections (9.7 %), ileus (6.5 %), blood transfusion (3.2 %), and intraabdominal abscess (3.2 %). No deaths occurred. Residents rated vascular pedicle isolation, mobilization, critical structure exposure, instrument conflict/handling, and ergonomics as significantly more difficult with SILC.

CONCLUSIONS

Senior-level residents can safely perform SILC under appropriate experienced supervision. The required advanced skills reflect complex laparoscopic training occurring during residency. Opportunities exist for better preparation and training of surgical residents to perform this complex surgery independently and safely at completion of residency.