Laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision with colonic J-pouch reconstruction: five-year results

Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is gaining popularity in rectal tumor treatment. However, contrasting data are available regarding its safety and efficacy. Our aim is to compare the open and MIS approaches for rectal cancer treatment. Two-hundred-thirty-seven patients were included: 113 open and 124 MIS rectal resections. After the propensity score matching analysis (PS), the cases were matched into 42 open and 42 MIS. Short- and long-term outcomes, and pathological findings were analyzed before and after PS. A further comparison of the same outcomes and costs was conducted between the laparoscopic and the robotic approaches. As a whole, a sphincter-preserving procedure was more frequently performed in the MIS group (110 vs 75 cases; p < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss during MIS was significantly lower than during open surgery [127 (± 92) vs 242 (± 122) mL; p < 0.0001], with clear advantages for the robotic approach over laparoscopy [113 (± 87) vs 147 (± 93) mL; p 0.01]. Complication rate was comparable between the two groups. A higher rate of CRM positivity was evidenced after open surgery (12.4% vs 1.7%; p 0.004). A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested in the MIS group [12.5 (± 6.4) vs 11 (± 5.6); p 0.04]. After PS, no difference in terms of perioperative outcomes was noted, with the only exception of a higher blood loss in the open approach [242 (± 122) vs 127 (± 92) mL; p < 0.0001]. For the matched cases, no difference in 5-year overall and disease-free survival was evidenced (p 0.50 and 0.88, respectively). Mean costs were higher for robotics as compared to laparoscopy [9812 (±1974)€ vs 9045 (± 1893)€; p 0.02]. MIS could be considered as a treatment option for rectal cancer. The PS study evidenced clear advantages in terms of estimated blood loss over the open surgery. Costs still remain the main limit for robotics.

Single-Docking Full Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Purpose. Robotic surgery has gradually gained importance in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, recent studies have not shown any advantages when compared with laparoscopy. The objective of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience in robotic rectal surgery focusing on short-term and long-term outcomes. Methods. Sixty consecutive robotic rectal resections for adenocarcinoma, over a 4-year period, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Oncological outcomes and surgical resection quality as well as overall and disease-free survival were also assessed. Results. Thirty patients out of 60 (50%) underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Anterior rectal resection was performed in 52 cases (86.7%), and abdominoperineal resection was done in 8 cases (13.3%). Mean operative time was 283 (±68.6) minutes. The conversion rate was 5% (3 patients). Postoperative complications occurred in 10 cases (16.7%), and reoperation was required in 1 case (1.7%). Mean hospital stay was 9 days, while 30-day mortality was 1.7% (1 patients). The histopathological analysis reported a negative circumferential radial margin and distal margins in 100% of cases with a complete or near complete total mesorectal excision in 98.3% of patients. Mean follow-up was 32.8 months with a recurrence rate of 3.4% (2 patients). Overall survival and disease-free survival were 94% and 87%, respectively. Conclusions. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be safe and feasible when performed by highly skilled surgeons. It offers acceptable perioperative outcomes with a conversion rate notably lower than with the laparoscopic approach. Adequate pathological results and long-term oncological outcomes were also obtained.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic surgery at a single institution.

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is regarded as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer were acceptable in previous reports. However, evidence of long-term feasibility and oncologic safety is required.

METHODS

Between April 2006 and August 2011, 217 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer with stage I-III disease were enrolled prospectively (robot, n = 133; laparoscopy, n = 84). Median follow-up period was 58 months (range, 4-80 months). Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes, morbidities, 5-year survival rates, prognostic factors, and cost were evaluated.

RESULTS

Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the conversion rate and length of hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate was 92.8% in robotic, and 93.5% in laparoscopic surgical procedures (P = 0.829). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 81.9% and 78.7%, respectively (P = 0.547). Local recurrence was similar: 2.3% and 1.2% (P = 0.649). According to the univariate analysis, this type of surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for long-term survival. The patient's mean payment for robotic surgery was approximately 2.34 times higher than laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found in the 5-year overall, disease-free survival and local recurrence rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures. We concluded that robotic surgery for rectal cancer failed to offer any oncologic or clinical benefits as compared with laparoscopy despite an increased cost.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in China: an overview

Since its introduction into China in 2001, laparoscopic techniques have been extensively used for the surgical management of colorectal cancer during the last two decades in China. Like all the pioneers of the technique, Chinese gastrointestinal surgeons claim that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer led to faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and more rapid return to daily activities respect to open surgery while offering the same functional and oncological results. There has been booming interest in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer since 2006 in China. The last decade has witnessed national growth in the application of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer and yielded a significant amount of scientific data to support its clinical merits and advantages. However, few prospective randomized controlled trials have investigated the benefits of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in China. In this article, we make an overview of the current data and state of the art of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in China.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: long-term results

The long-term role of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, the feasibility, the perioperative outcome, and the long-term results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for extraperitoneal rectal cancer considering a single center series.

METHODS

Data about 186 unselected consecutive patients that underwent laparoscopic TME for middle and low rectal cancer between January 2001 and December 2011 were prospectively recorded and were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Distribution of TNM stage was 5 % T1, 37 % T2, 52.5 % T3, and 6 % T4. Fifty-one percent of patients have lymph node metastases. The average duration of surgery was 234 min. Fourteen patients required conversion (7.5 %). A complete microscopic excision was achieved in 169 patients (91 %). The mean hospital stay was 9 days. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 24 %. Surgical-related complications were reported in 19 %. Overall mortality was 0.5 %. Sex, tumor level, and the presence of a stoma were the only statistically significant independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Median follow-up was 71 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 77 %, with 89 % for stage 1, 81 % for stage 2, 43 % for stage 3, and 10 % for stage 4. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 66 %. The 10-year survival rate was 54 %. Nine patients (4.8 %) experienced a pelvic recurrence. Late metastases developed in 31 patients (17.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the oncological safety of laparoscopic TME in a long follow-up period.

Have early postoperative complications from laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery improved over the past 20 years?

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been increasingly used since 1991 following the publication of the first case series. Since then, several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is challenging with associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine if the rates of early postoperative complications in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have improved over the past 20 years.

METHOD

A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases between August 1991 and August 2011 was conducted using the keywords laparoscopy, rectal cancer and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using linear regression ANOVA performed in GNUMERICS software.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included for analysis. Over the last 20 years there has been no significant change in the rate of any early postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, conversion, sexual, urinary or faecal dysfunction, wound infection, overall morbidity or mortality). However, in the last 3 years, the rate of positive resection margins has decreased significantly (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of a statistically significant change in early postoperative complications until 3 years ago. This may reflect the inherent morbidity associated with rectal surgery regardless of the approach used, the limitations of the current laparoscopic instrumentation or the relatively long learning curve. With increasing experience, a repeat analysis in the near future following the publication of ongoing randomized clinical trials might show improved outcomes.

Functional long-term results after rectal cancer surgery--technique of the athermal mesorectal excision

PURPOSE

The total mesorectal excision (TME), embedded in a multimodal therapeutic concept, is accepted as the standard therapy of the advanced adenocarcinoma of the middle and lower thirds. The thermal damages of the autonomous nerves in the little pelvis caused by dissection devices remains a large problem. For our patients, we use water-jet dissection (WJD)-aided TME with the intention to minimise the rate of bladder and sexual function disorders.

METHODS

From October 2001 until June 2010, we recorded 125 patients with an adenocarcinoma of the middle and lower third of the rectum. Ninety deep anterior rectum resections and 35 abdominoperineal rectum extirpations by WJD were performed. Of the patients, 27.2 % received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Bladder and sexual function disorders were assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 46 (2-117) months. Considering a local recurrence rate of 9.6 %, the tumour-specific 5-year survival of the entire collective was 75.4 %. Long-term bladder function disorders showed in 6.0 % (4/64) and sexual function disorders in 25.0 % (9/36) of the male patients in the course of time.

CONCLUSION

The specific advantage of the WJD technique is not only the facilitated dissection between the mesorectal fascia and the surrounding nervous structures in the little pelvis but also a completely athermal TME. The rate of bladder and sexual function disorders is an excellent result compared to that of international centres. Due to the size of the patient collective and the retrospective character of the study, further studies are necessary to validate the presented results.

Laparoscopic rectal resection versus open rectal resection with minilaparotomy for invasive rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The minilaparotomy approach is technically feasible for the resection of rectal cancer in selected patients with rapid postoperative recovery and small incision. The study aimed to compare the clinical and oncological outcomes of minilaparotomy and laparoscopic approaches in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The 122 included patients with rectal cancer were assigned to either minilaparotomy group (n=65) or laparoscopic group (n=57) which ran from January 2005 to January 2008. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, postoperative and long-term complications, pathological results and survival rates were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The demographic data of the two groups were similar. The time to normal diet (P=0.024) and the hospital stay (P=0.043) were less in the laparoscopic group than that in the minilaparotomy group. Compared with the minilaparotomy group, the mean operation time was significantly longer [low anterior resection (LAR), P=0.030; abdominoperineal resection (APR), P=0.048] and the direct costs higher for laparoscopic group (P<0.001). The morbidity and mortality were comparable between the two groups. Local recurrence was similar (5.3% laparoscopic, 1.5% minilaparotomy, P=0.520). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were also similar (overall survival is 87.1% in laparoscopic group, and 82.5%in minilaparotomy group, P=0.425; disease-free survival is 74.2% in the laparoscopic group, and 71.4% in mini- laparotomy group, P=0.633).

CONCLUSIONS

The minilaparotomy approach was similarly safe and oncologically equivalent to laparoscopic approach for patients with rectal cancer. At the expense of a longer operative time and higher cost, laparoscopic surgery was associated with faster postoperative recovery.

Current status of rectal cancer treatment in China

AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common carcinoma in China. For economic reasons, a national CRC registry has not been established and a large-scale screening programme has not been implemented.

METHOD

Clinical studies (since 2000) of CRC epidemiology which originated from China were summarized, and data was analyzed.

RESULTS

In China, the majority of hospitals in central cities and even in county hospitals are able to provide medical care for CRC patients. Due to socio-economic disparities, medical conditions and skill level, there is a wide variation in the treatment. Most oncologists make their clinical decisions based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, although some domestic guidelines are now available. On 11 October 2011, the China Ministry of Health released national guidelines for CRC treatment. Owing to language difficulties, research on CRC in China has only had a limited exposure in the international literature, due in some part to lack of understanding of the current position in the country.

CONCLUSION

The national guidelines for CRC treatment will give a degree of standardization of the treatment of CRC nationwide and will ensure that higher quality care will be available, especially in rural areas. Chinese colorectal surgeons urgently need to exchange their knowledge and experience with international colleagues.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

This single-center, prospective, randomized trial was designed to compare the short-term clinical outcome between laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision (TME) with anal sphincter preservation (ASP) in patients with mid and low rectal cancer. Long-term morbidity and survival data also were recorded and compared between the two groups.

METHODS

Between August 2001 and August 2007, 80 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were randomized to receive either laparoscopic-assisted (40 patients) or open (40 patients) TME with ASP. The median follow-up time for all patients was 75.7 (range 16.9-115.7) months for the laparoscopic-assisted group and 76.1 (range 4.7-126.6) months for the open group. The primary endpoint of the study was short-term clinical outcome. Secondary endpoints included long-term morbidity rate and survival. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The demographic data of the two groups were comparable. Postoperative recovery was better after laparoscopic surgery, with less analgesic requirement (P < 0.001), earlier mobilization (P = 0.001), lower short-term morbidity rate (P = 0.043), and a trend towards shorter hospital stay (P = 0.071). The cumulative long-term morbidity rate also was lower in the laparoscopic-assisted group (P = 0.019). The oncologic clearance in terms of macroscopic quality of the TME specimen, circumferential resection margin involvement, and number of lymph nodes removed was similar between both groups. After curative resection, the probabilities of survival at 5 years of the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups were 85.9 and 91.3 %, respectively (P = 0.912). The respective probabilities of being disease-free were 83.3 and 74.5 % (P = 0.114).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic-assisted TME with ASP improves postoperative recovery, reduces short-term and long-term morbidity rates, and seemingly does not jeopardize survival compared with open surgery for mid and low rectal cancer ( http://ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00485316).

A review on functional results of sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer: the anterior resection syndrome

The aim of this review is to characterize the functional results and "anterior resection syndrome" (ARS) after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. The purpose of sphincter-saving operations is to save the anal sphincters by avoiding the need for rectal abdomino-perineal resection with a permanent stoma. A variety of alternative techniques have been proposed and, today, ultra-low anterior resections of the rectum are commonplace. Inevitably rectal resections modify anorectal physiology. The backdrop of the functional asset for ultralow anterior resections is related to a small neorectal capacity with high endo-neorectal pressures that act together on a weakened sphincteric mechanism. Sometimes a defecation disorder called ARS may be induced and the patient experiences an extremely low quality of life. Impaired bowel function is usually provoked either by colonic dysmotility, neorectal reservoir dysfunction, anal sphincter damage or by a combination of these factors. Surgical technique defects can contribute to these possible causes: anastomotic ischemia, short length of the descending colon and stretching of neorectal mesentery may play a role. Unfortunately, there is no therapeutic algorithm or gold standard treatment that may be used for ARS. Nevertheless, it is rational to use conservative therapy first and then resort to surgery. Drugs, rehabilitative treatment and sacral neuromodulation may be used; after failure of conservative methods, surgical treatment can be considered.

Oncologic outcomes and perioperative clinicopathologic results after robot-assisted tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery is a new and emerging surgical procedure for rectal cancer patients. However, there is a lack of information regarding oncologic outcomes for this procedure. We aimed to evaluate oncologic and perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes of surgical resection using robotic instruments for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Data from rectal cancer patients (n = 370) diagnosed with stage I-IV disease sited below 15 cm from the anal verge who underwent robot-assisted tumor-specific mesorectal excision consecutively from June 2006 to December 2010 were evaluated. Clinicopathologic and follow-up data were recorded prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative clinicopathologic outcomes, postoperative complications, 3-year overall survival rate, and 3-year disease-free survival rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients underwent robot-assisted tumor-specific mesorectal excision. Of all postoperative pathologic stages, 15 (4.1 %) were stage 0 (pathologic complete remission), 126 (34.1 %) stage I, 95 (25.7 %) stage II, 118 (31.9 %) stage III, and 16 (4.3 %) stage IV. The 3-year overall survival rate was 93.1 % (pathologic complete remission = 100 %, stage I = 99.2 %, stage II = 97.1 %, stage III = 90.1 %, and stage IV = 48.4 %). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 79.2 % (pathologic complete remission = 100 %, stage I = 93.7 %, stage II = 79.8 %, stage III = 69.6 %, and stage IV = 0.0 %). The 3-year cumulative local recurrence rate was 3.6 % (n = 10). The circumferential resection margin positive rate was 5.7 % (n = 21). Local recurrence developed in one patient and systemic recurrence developed in five patients. The total number of patients with postoperative complications was 86 (23.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

These data show the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in terms of oncologic outcomes.

An extended medial to lateral approach to mobilize the splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study of laparoscopic low anterior resection was to compare splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) carried out by an extended medial to lateral approach with that by a lateral approach.

METHOD

Records of patients with rectal cancer on a prospectively maintained database undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection performed between January 2009 and November 2011 by a single surgeon were analysed. The extended medial to lateral approach involved continuing the medial to lateral approach upwards to enter the lesser sac over the pancreas, thus permitting detachment of the splenic flexure.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-seven patients, including 164 undergoing a lateral SFM and 73 an extended medial to lateral SFM, were evaluated. Both patient groups had similar characteristics except for operative time (152.7 ± 32.7 min extended medial to lateral; 171.5 ± 40.8 min lateral; P < 0.001), postoperatively the interval to oral intake (3.1 ± 0.8 days extended medial to lateral; 3.7 ± 0.9 lateral; P < 0.001) and duration of hospital stay (8.2 ± 2.8 days extended medial to lateral; 10.3 ± 7.5 days lateral; P = 0.002) favoured the extended medial to lateral group.

CONCLUSION

An extended medial to lateral approach for SFM during laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer appears to be an improvement over the previously used lateral approach, because it may provide a shorter operation time and shorter hospital stay.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

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

Left-sided ileostomy at specimen extraction site in laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic ileostomy is usually created at the right lower quadrant (RLQ) because of its vicinity to the ileocecal valve. In the laparoscopic procedure, however, another wound is required for stoma, resulting in a scar after takedown. This study assessed the feasibility of left-sided ileostomy (LI) at the specimen extraction site in laparoscopic-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

One hundred five patients underwent laparoscopic LAR with diverting ileostomy for rectal cancer. Among them, 82 (78.1%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Diverting stomas were created in the RLQ in 49 (46.7%) and in the left lower quadrant in 53 patients (53.3%). We compared surgical morbidity and recovery data between the right-sided ileostomy (RI) and LI groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, type of CRT, distance from the anal verge, and TNM stage. Parastomal hernia developed in 3 patients (1 in RI, 2 in LI) and postoperative ileus in 10 patients (4 in RI, 6 in LI). The frequency of complications showed no difference between the two groups (10.2% in RI, 14.3% in LI; P=.53). There was also no difference in terms of time to resumption of regular diet (2.9 versus 3.2 days; P=.25) or length of hospital stay (7.9 versus 7.7 days; P=.61).

CONCLUSIONS

LI in laparoscopic LAR was not associated with increased postoperative morbidity or delay in postoperative recovery. Because it can provide better cosmesis, it would be a possible option for diversion in laparoscopic LAR.

Surgical issues in locally advanced rectal cancer treated by preoperative chemoradiotherapy

The standard treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision. This approach is supported by randomized trials, but there are still many unanswered questions about the multimodal management of rectal cancer. In surgical terms, these include the optimal time interval between completion of chemoradiotherapy and surgery; adequate distal resection margin and circumferential radial margin; sphincter preservation; laparoscopic surgery; and conservative management, including a 'wait and see' policy and local excision. This review considers these controversial issues in preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic subtotal colectomy with cecorectal anastomosis for chronic idiopathic colonic pseudo-obstruction: report of a case

Chronic idiopathic colonic pseudo-obstruction (CICP) is characterized by the chronic disturbance of colonic motility without mechanical obstruction, any underlying disease or medication. Currently, there are no established medical treatments for CICP. A 62-year-old female who had undergone right hemicolectomy for splenic flexure syndrome caused by idiopathic megacolon was referred to our hospital with relapse, experiencing palpitation and abdominal fullness. She was diagnosed with CICP according to findings of marked dilation of the colon without mechanical obstruction, dilation of other parts of the gastrointestinal tract, or underlying disease. The dilated colon was surgically removed by hand-assisted laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, followed by cecorectal anastomosis. Histopathologically, there was no degeneration or lack of ganglion cells in Auerbach's plexus. The patient has experienced no severe symptoms after undergoing the present operation.

Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) with medial access for right-hemi colon cancer: feasibility and technical strategies

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to investigate the feasibility and technical strategies of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-hemi colon cancer.

METHODS

The clinical and pathological findings of 64 patients with right-hemi colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic CME between March 2010 and September 2011 were collected retrospectively. Among them, 35 cases were eligible for the final analysis through various screening factors. The quality of surgery also was assessed by reviewing the recorded video obtained through the operations in terms of specimen anatomic planes and completeness of the excised mesocolon.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic CME is focused on applying the concept of enveloped visceral and parietal planes during the operations. Laparoscopic approach proceeds with medial access where the dissection starts at ileocolic vessel before proceeds along with the superior mesenteric vessel. The access also emphasized en bloc resection of mesocolon without defections to the planes. Besides, lymph node resections at the root of ileocolic; right colic and middle colic vessels are necessary for ileocecum cancer. Cancers at the hepatic flexure requires further dissection of subpyloric lymph nodes and of greater omentum that is within 15 cm of the tumor and along the greater curvature. Thirty-five cases were evaluated as good plane. The median total number of central lymph nodes retrieved was 19 (range, 15-25) and central lymph node metastasis was found in 5 of all stage III cases. The median operation time was 2.6 h and the blood loss was 80 mL. The median time for passage of flatus and hospitalization were 2 and 12 days respectively. Complications were observed in three cases.

CONCLUSIONS

CME is a novel concept for colon cancer surgery and might be a standard for the procedure. Laparoscopic CME with medial access is technically feasible and randomized trials are needed to evaluate its long-term outcomes.

Complete versus partial mobilization of splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal tumors: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study is to compare the results after partial and complete splenic flexure mobilization (SFM).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The records of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic procedures for primary rectal tumor patients were abstracted from a prospectively designed database. The phrenicocolic and splenocolic ligaments were divided via a four-trocar technique in the partial SFM group, and dissection was continued with the separation of gastrocolic and pancreaticomesocolic attachments via a five-trocar procedure in the complete SFM group. The following data were compared between the groups: Demographics, intra- and postoperative information, and pathological features.

RESULTS

In total, 122 cases (77 [63.1%] male, 58.2±13.2 years old) who underwent a partial (n=36, 29.5%) or a complete (n=86, 70.5%) SFM were included. Reservoir creation (48.8% versus 19.4%, P=.003) was more common and conversion (8.1% versus 22.2%, P=.039) was less frequent in the complete SFM group, but there were significantly more T4 tumors in the partial group (16.7% versus 2.3%, P=.008). Demographics, other intra- and postoperative parameters, and pathological features were identical.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, complete SFM decreased conversion rates, but this finding may be related to the higher rate of T4 tumors in the partial SFM group. Complete SFM assures an increase in reservoir creation in patients receiving a low anterior resection. Because other parameters are identical, the decision for the level of SFM is better left to the surgeon in cases undergoing a low anterior resection, but complete SFM may be preferred in cases who are candidates for a reservoir formation.

The long-term gastrointestinal functional outcomes following curative anterior resection in adults with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Significant variability and a lack of transparency exist in the reporting of anterior resection outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to qualitatively analyze the long-term functional outcomes and assessment tools used in evaluating patients with rectal cancer following anterior resection, to quantify the incidence of these outcomes, and to identify risk factors for long-term incontinence.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched using the terms rectal neoplasms, resection, and gastrointestinal function.

STUDY SELECTION

The studies included were in English and evaluated adults with rectal cancer, curative anterior resection, and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients with recurrent/metastatic disease were excluded. Of the 805 records identified, 48 articles were included.

INTERVENTION

The intervention performed was anterior resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was incontinence (gas, liquid stool, and solid stool).

RESULTS

The histories of 3349 patients from 17 countries were summarized. Surgeries were conducted between 1978 to 2004 with a median follow-up of 24 months (interquartile range, 12, 57). Sixty-five percent of studies did not use a validated assessment tool. Reported outcomes and incidence rates were variable. The reported proportion of patients with incontinence ranged from 3.2% to 79.3%, with a pooled incidence of 35.2% (95% CI 27.9, 43.3). Risk factors for incontinence, identified by meta-regression, were preoperative radiation 0.009 and, in particular, short-course radiation (P = .006), and study quality (randomized controlled trial P = .004, observational P = .006).

LIMITATIONS

The meta-analysis was limited by the significant heterogeneity of the primary data.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional outcomes are inconsistently assessed and reported and require common definitions, and the more regular use of validated assessment tools, as well. Preoperative radiation and, in particular, short-course radiation may be a strong risk factor for incontinence; however, further studies are needed.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline.

METHODS

An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.

Laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision: 10-year report

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is currently the gold standard for resection of mid or low rectal cancer and is associated with a low local recurrence rate. However, few studies have reported the long-term oncological outcome following use of a laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological outcome after laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME with a median follow up of about 4 years.

METHOD

Patients with mid or low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME with curative intent between March 1999 and March 2009 were prospectively recruited for analysis.

RESULTS

During the 10-year study period, 177 patients underwent laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME with curative intent for rectal cancer. Conversion was required in two (1%) patients. There was no operative mortality. At a median follow-up period of 49 months, local recurrence had occurred in nine (5.1%) patients. The overall metastatic recurrence rate after curative resection was 22%. The overall 5-year survival and 5-year disease-free survival in the present study were 74% and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME is safe with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those of open surgery.

Sphincter preservation for distal rectal cancer - a goal worth achieving at all costs?

To assess the merits of currently available treatment options in the management of patients with low rectal cancer, a review of the medical literature pertaining to the operative and non-operative management of low rectal cancer was performed, with particular emphasis on sphincter preservation, oncological outcome, functional outcome, morbidity, quality of life, and patient preference. Low anterior resection (AR) is technically feasible in an increasing proportion of patients with low rectal cancer. The cost of sphincter preservation is the risk of morbidity and poor functional outcome in a significant proportion of patients. Transanal and endoscopic surgery are attractive options in selected patients that can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes while avoiding the morbidity and functional sequelae of open total mesorectal excision. In complete responders to neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a non-operative approach may prove to be an option. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) imposes a permanent stoma and is associated with significant incidence of perineal morbidity but avoids the risk of poor functional outcome following AR. Quality of life following AR and APE is comparable. Given the choice, most patients will choose AR over APE, however patients following APE positively appraise this option. In striving toward sphincter preservation the challenge is not only to achieve the best possible oncological outcome, but also to ensure that patients with low rectal cancer have realistic and accurate expectations of their treatment choice so that the best possible overall outcome can be obtained by each individual.

Laparoscopic vs open resection for patients with rectal cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to assess the safety and oncologic feasibility of laparoscopic-assisted resection for rectal cancer vs open rectal resection as a phase II pilot study for a planned randomized control trial.

METHODS

A case-matched controlled prospective analysis of 54 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection for stage I to III (no T4) rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge from 2002 to 2005 was performed. Patients were matched with contemporary patients who underwent open rectal cancer surgery (n = 108) in a 1 to 2 fashion. The perioperative clinical outcomes, postoperative pathology, and oncologic outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The demographic data did not differ significantly between the groups. The laparoscopic group manifested early return of bowel function (P = .003). The complication rate was 22.2% in the laparoscopic group and 32.4% in the open group (P = .178). Local recurrence was similar (2.0% laparoscopic, 4.2% open, P = .417). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rate also were similar (overall survival, 90.8% laparoscopic, 88.5% open, P = .261; disease-free survival, 80.8% laparoscopic, 75.8% open. P = .390).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic-assisted resection for rectal cancer was acceptable in terms of oncologic outcomes and perioperative clinical outcomes. The present data are the basis for a large-scale randomized trial for comparison of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgeries (American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z6051).

The use of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer

The use of laparoscopic techniques in the treatment of rectal cancer was until recently regarded with skepticism, because it did not seem to fulfill the oncologic principles of open surgery. The first report of a rectal cancer case treated by using laparoscopy has been made approximately two decades ago. From that moment on, the laparoscopic technique, progressed thanks to the development of the optical devices that allowed the improvement of the laparoscopic image, as well as the progressive increase of experience of the surgical teams specialized in colorectal laparoscopic surgery. These advantages (the faster recovery of the bowel function, less postoperative pain, lower blood loss, decreased hospitalization period) make the laparoscopic surgery a viable option for the treatment of rectal cancer. Recently published studies prove the similar results between open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, in terms of mortality and postoperative morbidity, local recurrence, long-term survival or postoperative complications (anastomotic fistulas, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction), some studies even revealing the superiority of the laparoscopic surgery in preserving the function of the pelvic nerves.

Laparoscopic versus open proctectomy for rectal cancer: patients' outcome and oncologic adequacy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic management of rectal cancer to open surgery.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or open proctectomy for rectal cancer between November 2004 and July 2006 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients in the laparoscopic group (LG) were matched for tumor location, stage, comorbidity, and type of surgical procedure to 50 patients in the open group (OG). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups relative to American Society of Anesthesiologists score or tumor, node, metastasis stage; however, body mass index and age of the LG were significantly lower compared with the OG (P<0.05). In the LG, the procedure was successfully laparoscopically completed in 28 patients (87.5%). The median operative time was 240 minutes in the LG and 185 minutes in the OG (P< 0.05). Overall morbidity was 25% and 38%, respectively (P=0.1), the median hospital stay was 6 days, and median time to first bowel movement was 3 days in the LG compared with 7 and 4 days in the OG, respectively (P=0.7 and 0.01, respectively). The number of identified lymph nodes, distal and radial margins were comparable between both groups. Median follow-up was 10 (1 to 18) months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer is feasible in 87.5% of patients and despite a longer operative time compared with laparotomy, is safe with the advantages of faster recovery of bowel function. This procedure does not compromise the oncologic adequacy of resection or significantly differ from open proctectomy relative to short-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery produces better outcomes for high risk cancer patients compared to open surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The excellent outcomes reported for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in selected patients could also be potentially advantageous for high risk patients. This prospective study was designed to examine the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic resection in high risk patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2008 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer were stratified into high and low risk groups. High risk was defined as >or=80 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists >or=3, preoperative radiotherapy, T4 tumor and BMI >or=30. Outcomes included median length of stay, lymph node yield, resection margins, 30-day hospital readmission, postoperative mortality and major postoperative complications requiring reoperation within 30 days of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 424 patients underwent elective laparoscopic (224) and open (200) resections. Overall mortality rate for laparoscopic resection was 1 of 224 (0.4%) versus 4 of 200 (2%) for open resection. Median length of stay was 4 (2-33) versus 10 (1-69) days (P < 0.0001), and rate of complications requiring reoperation was 2 of 224 (0.8%) compared with 10 of 200 (5%) (P = 0.02).Among the 280 (66%) "high risk" patients, 146 had laparoscopic resection (8 conversions; 5%) and 134 had open resections. Median hospital stay was 4 (2-33) days in the laparoscopic group versus 11 (1-69) days in the open group (P < 0.0001). Complications requiring reoperation were 2 of 146 (1.4%) after laparoscopic resection versus 7 of 134 (5.2%) after open resection (P < 0.09). Readmission rate after laparoscopic resection was 12.3% versus 5.2% after open resection (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer can achieve excellent results even in "high risk" patients and is associated with significant reductions in length of stay compared with open resection.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: experience of a single center with a series of 174 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer is not considered a gold standard treatment due to the high conversion rate and the long operation time.

METHODS

A retrospective review examined a surgical series of 174 laparoscopic low rectal resections involving total mesorectal excision (1995-2006), with particular reference to technical points as well as surgical and oncologic outcomes. Miles operations and partial mesorectal excisions were excluded.

RESULTS

The cancer affected the low rectum in 110 cases and the medium rectum in 64 cases. A total of 68 patients were subjected to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. The anastomosis was mechanical for 83.3% of the cases and intersphinteric through the perineum for 16.6% of the cases. Protective ileostomy was performed in 112 cases. The conversion rate was 4.6%. The mesorectum remained intact in 91.6% of the cases and was partially interrupted in 15 of the cases. In no case was it totally discontinued. The postoperative morbidity rate was 16.7%, and the mortality rate was 0.57%. The incidence of anastomotic fistulas was 14.4%. The percentage was higher for males (18.6 vs 8.3%) and correlated with the low distance of the tumor from the anal verge (18.2 vs 7.8%) and the absence of a protection ileostomy (20.9 vs 10.7%). After an average follow-up period of 48.6 months (range, 24-149 months), six patients (3.44%) experienced a pelvic recurrence. The 5-year overall survival rate was 75.4%, and the disease-free survival rate was 61.9%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer is safe and effective, allowing surgical and oncologic outcomes similar to those reported for open surgery.

Total mesorectal excision: what are we doing?

The introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has reduced local recurrence rates and improved oncologic outcomes, although complication rates such as anastomotic leak have also been a consequence. With the advent of neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, many are questioning how this development may change the role of TME. This review presents a history of how TME evolved and a description of this technique. Complication rates, the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on local recurrence, variations of TME such as nerve-sparing proctectomy and cancer-specific mesorectal excision, and a review of functional outcomes for various methods of reconstruction are presented.

Reconstruction techniques after proctectomy: what's the best?

There are approximately 40,000 new rectal cancer cases diagnosed each year in the United States, representing the second most common gastrointestinal malignancy (behind colon cancer). With the advent of sphincter preserving techniques, patients with mid and low colorectal cancers enjoy the benefits of better postoperative functional outcomes and quality of life; however, controversy exists over which reconstructive technique is superior in restoring bowel continuity. Construction of a straight coloanal anastomosis is technically simpler, but functional outcomes are inferior compared with colonic reservoirs. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current data regarding reconstructive techniques following proctectomy.

Laparoscopic anterior resection

Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is increasingly practiced worldwide in the last 2 decades. However, due to procedural complexity, laparoscopic rectal cancer excision had not proceeded at a similar pace. This article deals with the technique of laparoscopic anterior resection. Resection of rectosigmoid or upper rectal tumors is first described, followed by the more difficult sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision. We have been using and modifying this technique of laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer since 1990 s. In our recent review, the local recurrence rate was 7.4%, and the overall 5-year survival was 70%. Our data suggest laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is safe and is the procedure of choice in selected patients.

Endo-laparoscopic colectomy without mini-laparotomy for left-sided colonic tumors

BACKGROUND

In performing "traditional" laparoscopic colectomy for left-sided colonic tumors, specimen retrieval necessitates a mini-laparotomy which often is the cause of postoperative pain, wound infection, and other pain-related complications. Here we describe a new technique of endo-laparoscopic anterior resection without mini-laparotomy, where specimen retrieval and colorectal anastomosis can be safely achieved with the use of the transanal endoscopic operation (TEO) device set-up.

METHODS

This hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) technique involves insertion of the TEO device in the lower rectum and luminal extraction of the specimen via the device. The technique is applicable to patients with small tumors (4 cm or less) in the left-sided colon or upper rectum, where transanal construction of a stapled colorectal anastomosis is intended.

RESULTS

The technique was attempted in ten patients (male:female 4:6) with median age of 66 years (range: 55-81 years). Five patients suffered from rectosigmoid tumors, whereas four patients had lesions in the sigmoid colon and one had a lesion in the descending colon. The median operating time was 127.5 min (range: 105-170 min) and the median blood loss was 20 ml (range: 20-50 ml). The median hospital stay was 7 days (range: 4-18 days), while the median maximum pain score (visual analog score) was 2 (range: 2-3) during in-hospital stay in this small series.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary experience indicates this new technique of endo-laparoscopic colectomy is feasible for selected patients with left-sided colonic tumors. Complications related to mini-laparotomy can be abolished entirely with this hybrid approach.

Evaluations of laparoscopic proctocolectomy versus traditional technique in patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This was a retrospective study that evaluated the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for rectal cancer, in comparison with a case control series of open surgery (OS), during an 8-year period.

METHODOLOGY

Between October 1998 and December 2006, 203 patients with rectal malignancies underwent colectomy; 146 of them had colectomy with the traditional technique (OS), while 57 underwent resection of rectal cancer laparoscopically (LS). The LS group was compared with 60 patients from the OS group (selected from the 146 OS group patients), matched by size, sex, age, anatomical location of the tumor, type, extent of resection, and pathological stage. Data were obtained from patients' medical records. Statistical analysis was performed with the t test and chi-square test. All data are expressed as mean +/- standard error of the mean (SEM).

RESULTS

Mean age of the LS group was 63.7+/-12 years versus 69+/-12 years in the OS group. There were more men than women in both the laparoscopic (33 males, 24 females) and OS groups (35 men, 25 women). The mean follow-up period was 38 months and 78 months for LS and OS groups, respectively. The procedure included low anterior resection (43 in LS and 45 in OS), and 13 patients in both groups underwent abdominoperineal resection and 3 transanal resections (2 in OS and 1 in LS). Mean tumor size was 4.2+/-2.12cm in the LS versus 5.2+/-2.02cm in the OS group. Conversion to an open procedure occurred in 4 patients (6.7%), all in the first 20 cases. Postoperative complications developed in 28 patients (11.7%), 13 in the LS group and 15 in the OS group. Median operative time was longer, but median blood loss was significantly lower in the LS group. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for the LS group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe for patients with rectal cancer and provides benefits during the postoperative period without increased morbidity or mortality.

Mortality risk analysis following routine vs selective defunctioning stoma formation after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question whether a defunctioning stoma (DS) should be constructed routinely after total mesorectal excision or whether it could be used selectively to ensure patient safety.

METHOD

A PubMed search was performed. All randomized trials on the role of a DS were included. Also, observational articles published between January 1997 and August 2007 were reviewed. Sensitivity analysis of the mortality risk was performed.

RESULTS

The clinical anastamotic leak (CAL) rate was 17% in 358 patients from four randomized trials and 9.6% in 4059 patients from 39 observational studies. The CAL rate increased significantly from 9.6% with DS to 24.4% without DS in four randomized trials, and from 7.9% with DS to 13.2% without DS in 17 observational studies. The re-operation rate as a result of anastomotic leakage was lower in patients with DS than in patients without DS in both study types. Leak-related mortality was not significantly different: 7.2% with vs 7.7% without DS in observational studies, and 0% with vs 4.6% without DS in randomized trials. Sensitivity analysis indicated that a selective DS strategy is acceptable if the CAL rate without DS is less than 16.6% with a CAL-related mortality of no more than 4.6%.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review support the routine construction of a protective stoma. However, selective use of a DS is justified from a patient safety point of view if the CAL-rate and its related mortality are limited. Each unit should audit its performance.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a review

Despite increasing evidence on the success of laparoscopic resection in colorectal diseases, clinicians remain skeptical about the application of laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer, although it may benefit patients by resulting in early return of bowel function, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay. Rectal cancer surgery has been regarded as a technically demanding procedure. Deviation from the oncologic principle of mesrectal dissection will lead to a higher local recurrence rate. Therefore, rectal cancer was not included in earlier studies on laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer. However, many colorectal surgeons who practice laparoscopic surgery soon appreciated that the improved optics of laparoscopy can provide a much better view of the pelvis, and the Heald principle of meticulous sharp dissection for total mesorectal excision could be performed without compromise. In recent years, there has been increasing number of reports on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancers. Apart from the issues on postoperative outcomes and long-term results, laparoscopic resection has generated interest in its impact on the preservation of sexual and bladder function. We summarize the current evidence on laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

Factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with double stapling technique anastomosis for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although the laparoscopic approach is accepted for the treatment of colon cancer, its value for low rectal cancer is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of patient and tumor factors, particularly pelvic dimensions, on the difficulties in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-nine consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic TME with intracorporeal rectal transection and double stapling technique (DST) anastomosis for low rectal cancer. Gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor diameter, tumor depth, tumor distance from the anal verge, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and 5 pelvic dimensions (pelvic inlet, pelvic outlet, length of sacrum, interspinous distance, and intertuberous distance) were analyzed as variables affecting the difficulties of laparoscopic TME. The dependent variables were pelvic operative time, which was defined as the time required for dissection of the rectum from the pelvis, intracorporeal transaction, and anastomosis. Other dependent variables were intraoperative blood loss, overall postoperative morbidity, and anastomotic leakage. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictive significance of variables.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that BMI (P < .0001), tumor distance from the anal verge (P = .0003), tumor depth (P = .0021), and pelvic outlet (P = .0362) were independently predictive of pelvic operative time. Pelvic operative time was related to intraoperative blood loss (P < .0001). The tumor distance from the anal verge (P = .0333, odds ratio [OR]: 1.06) was related to postoperative morbidity, and pelvic outlet was related to anastomotic leakage (P = .0305, OR: 1.13).

CONCLUSION

BMI, tumor distance from the anal verge, tumor depth, and pelvic outlet were independent predictors for operative time and morbidity. These factors should be taken into account when planning laparoscopic TME.

Safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer with preoperative chemoradiation therapy

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with preoperative chemoradiation therapy is an accepted standard treatment for low rectal cancer. Although the laparoscopic approach is accepted for the treatment of colon cancer, its value for low rectal cancer is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether preoperative chemoradiation therapy exerted an adverse influence on laparoscopic TME for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We studied 125 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic TME for low rectal cancer. Twenty patients with preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT-Lap group) were compared with 105 patients without chemoradiation therapy (non-CRT-Lap group).

RESULTS

Operating time in the CRT-Lap group (276 min, range 160-390 min) was no different from that in the non-CRT-Lap group (263 min, range 143-456 min). The CRT-Lap group had more blood loss during the operation (70 vs. 37 ml), but mean blood loss was <100 ml. The distal tumor margin was longer in the CRT-Lap group (25.8 vs. 18.6 mm). The number of lymph node harvested did not differ between the groups (14.5 vs. 15.4). Conversion to open surgery was necessary only in one case in the non-CRT-Lap group. There was no anastomotic leakage in the CRT-Lap group, whereas three patients (3.1%) had anastomotic leakage in the non-CRT-Lap group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic TME with preoperative chemoradiation therapy is a safe procedure with reasonable operating time and does not appear to pose any threat to the surgical and oncologic outcomes.

Anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic protectomy can be managed by a minimally invasive approach

PURPOSE

This study was designed to identify the clinical features of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer and to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic management for this problem.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were obtained from 307 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic proctectomy and primary anastomosis. Age, sex, tumor location, tumor stage, body mass index, comorbidities, ileostomy, conversion, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, previous abdominal operation, and hospital stay were analyzed for patients with or without anastomotic leakage. Management and outcome of anastomotic leakage also were analyzed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 29 patients (9.4 percent). Diverting ileostomy was initially fashioned in 65 patients (21.2 percent). Leakage was related to young age, male sex, lower tumor location, and longer operation time. Ten patients (34.5 percent) were successfully managed with conservative treatment. Seventeen patients (58.6 percent) were managed via a laparoscopic approach. Open surgery was performed in two patients who showed diffuse fecal soiling or had previous conversion, respectively. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

When leakage occurs, laparotomy or colostomy is not needed routinely. For surgical intervention, the abdominal cavity should be explored first by laparoscopic visualization because the majority of patients can be successfully managed with laparoscopy and ileostomy.

Laparoscopic resection of extraperitoneal rectal cancer: a comparative analysis with open resection

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open resection in patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

METHODS

Five hundred forty-four patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 1996 and 2007 were included. Patients were divided into a laparoscopic surgery group (LAP, n = 170) and an open surgery group (OPEN, n = 374).

RESULTS

Morbidity requiring surgical correction was 5.8% in the LAP group and 4.8% in the OPEN group (p = 0.75). The anastomotic leakage rate was similar in both groups (5.7% in both; p = 0.98). Differences were found in preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (LAP group 4.6 ng/ml, OPEN group 7.7 ng/ml, p = 0.001), sphincter preservation (LAP group 82.9%, OPEN group 69.8%, p = 0.001), and mean distance from anal verge (LAP group 4.6 cm, OPEN group 5.2 cm, p = 0.002). Local recurrence and metastasis were similar by stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that laparoscopic resection of extraperitoneal rectal cancer was safe and effective.

Laparoscopic and minimally invasive resection of malignant colorectal disease

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer is a burgeoning field of general surgery. Randomized controlled trials have assessed short-term patient-oriented and long-term oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic resection. These trials have demonstrated that the laparoscopic approach is equivalent to open surgery with a shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic resection also may result in improved short-term patient-oriented outcomes and equivalent oncologic resections versus the open approach. Transanal excision of select rectal cancer using endoscopic microsurgery is promising and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is an emerging modality. The efficacy of minimally invasive treatment for rectal cancer compared with conventional approaches will be clarified further in randomized controlled trials.

Multimedia article. Laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection with colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis

PURPOSE

Optimal treatment of mid to distal rectal cancers includes total mesorectal excision for oncologic clearance and, where reanastomosis is feasible, a colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis improves bowel function. There is recent interest in performing an ultralow anterior resection laparoscopically. A technique is described that includes specimen extraction through the eventual routine defunctioning colostomy or ileostomy site.

METHODS

Consecutive unselected patients who underwent laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection were recruited. Patients with adenocarcinoma underwent preoperative endorectal ultrasound to individualize for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, based on local extent and lymph nodes seen. The operative procedures were as shown in the video. Posterior dissection along the "total mesorectal excision plane" included incision of Waldeyer's fascia. Bowel continuity was restored by an intracoporeal double-cross stapled colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis, but where not possible a coloplasty with pull-through handsewn coloanal anastomosis was performed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection was performed on 55 patients (35 men; median age, 63 (range, 33-90) years) from March 2004 to October 2006. The median body mass index was 26.3 (19-38); 14 patients (25 percent) had a body mass index >30. Ten patients (18 percent) had an American Society of Anesthesiologists' classification of III. The indications were adenocarcinoma (n = 51), squamous-cell carcinoma of rectum (n = 1), dermoid tumor of mesorectum (n = 1), large villous adenoma (n = 1), and carcinoid with local lymph node metastases (n = 1). The adenocarcinomas were a median distance of 6 (3-12) cm from the anal verge. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was given in 12 patients (24 percent) who had preoperative endoanal ultrasound findings of tumor extension beyond the muscularis propria and chemoradiotherapy in 7 (14 percent) of these patients where the tumor was more bulky and fixed. Laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection was completed at a median 180 (90-405) minutes, with 53.5 (2-2250) ml of blood loss, and the specimen was extracted through a 4.5 (3.5-11) cm wound. The latter included three cases (5 percent) that were converted. Significant adhesiolysis was required in 29 patients (52.7 percent) because of previous operations. The histologic grading or the adenocarcinoma patients were: Stage I, n = 14; Stage II, n = 23; Stage III, n = 11; Stage IV, n = 3. Of those who underwent curative resection (Stages I-III), the distal resection margin was 2.9 +/- 0.7 cm (mean +/- standard error) and the radial resection margins were at least 2 mm in all patients. The level of the coloanal anastomosis was a median 3.5 (0-4.5) cm from the anal verge; a coloanal pull-through anastomosis was required in one patient who had a distal cancer. The ileostomies functioned and patients tolerated free fluids at a median of two (1-9) days, and the median postoperative hospital stay was seven (3-22) days. At a median follow-up of 14 (2-33) months, none of the adenocarcinoma patients who had undergone curative resection had recurrences. Four patients (8 percent) had postoperative complications that required operative/invasive intervention (anatomotic leak n = 1, proximal bowel ischemia n = 1, port site hernia n = 1, pelvic collection n = 1). Four other patients had smaller pelvic collections that resolved with antibiotics; pelvic collections were associated with advanced stage of cancer (P = 0.047). Discharge was delayed by acute gastric distension in 11 patients; the latter was associated with poorer American Society of Anesthesiologists' risk classification (P = 0.035). Erectile dysfunction occurred in ten men, and this was associated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (P = 0.042). One patient (2 percent) had persistent urinary retention that required catheterization at latest follow-up. The ileostomy had been closed in 50 patients, and at last follow-up, the median stool frequency was two (1-8) bowel movements per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection could be offered routinely and completed safely in Western populations, where obesity and adhesions from previous abdominal surgery is common. A laparoscopic technique readily allowed visual identification of the autonomic nerves in the abdomen over the aorta, which could then be followed down into the pelvis. If the pelvis was deep, inversion of the 30 degrees laparoscope in the "upside down" position fascilited incision of Waldeyer's fascia. This brought the rectum proximally and anteriorly, aiding with the laparoscopic stapler transection of the distal rectum, especially if the cancer was distal, the patient was obese, and the pelvis was narrow. Extraction of the specimen at the eventual defunctioning stoma site reduced the incisions required. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may have a role in postoperative male sexual dysfunction. Further randomized, controlled studies that include assessing five-year cancer survival/recurrence, pelvic nerve dysfunction, and bowel function are needed before laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection becomes widely accepted.

Multimedia article. Relaparoscopy for salvage surgery in anastomotic recurrence of rectal cancer: feasible and safe

Laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer is technically challenging even for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Therefore, in a locally recurrent rectal cancer not many surgeons would be keen to adopt the relaparoscopy approach. In this video article, we present a case of salvage laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection performed for an isolated anastomotic recurrence developed 13 months after a laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection.

Male sexual and urinary function after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Urinary and sexual dysfunction are potential complications of rectal surgery for cancer. This study retrospectively evaluated the frequency of such complications after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) with autonomic nerve preservation.

METHODS

For this study, 50 men younger than 75 years who underwent radical LTME for mid and low rectal cancer were followed up for at least 12 months, interviewed, and administered a standardized questionnaire about postoperative functional outcomes and quality of life.

RESULTS

Sexual desire was maintained by 55.6%, ability to engage in intercourse by 57.8%, and ability to achieve orgasm and ejaculation by 37.8% of the patients. Distance of the tumor from the anal verge and adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatments were the significant predictors of poor postoperative sexual function. Seven patients (14%) presented transitory postoperative urinary dysfunction, all of whom were medically treated. Tumor stage and distance from the anal verge were independently associated with the postoperative global International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS). No differences were observed in urinary quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, LTME did not reproduce or improve on sexual and urinary dysfunction outcomes obtained in the best open TME series. Further trials are needed to evaluate functional outcome in rectal cancer patients.

Long-term wound advantages of the laparoscopic approach in rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

No long-term advantage of the laparoscopic approach has been demonstrated in colorectal surgery. This study compared the risk of incisional hernia between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2004, patients who had restorative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer by laparoscopy were compared with those treated by open surgery. Follow-up was prospective, and incisional hernia was considered to be any abdominal wound dehiscence occurring at the midline, extraction, trocar or ileostomy site. Cumulative risks of hernia were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log rank test.

RESULTS

Some 155 patients had a laparoscopic and 165 an open procedure. The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex, body mass index, tumour stage, loop ileostomy and morbidity. The conversion rate was 20.6 per cent. The rate of incisional hernia in all patients was 11.4 per cent at 1 year, 21.1 per cent at 2 years and 23.7 per cent at 5 years. The rate of hernia at 5 years was significantly lower in the laparoscopic than in the open group (13.0 versus 33.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The rate of hernia due specifically to the laparoscopic procedure (extraction and trocar sites) was ten times less than that after a primary or secondary open procedure (2.1 versus 16.1-33.1 per cent; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach decreases the risk of long-term incisional hernia following restorative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. The benefit is most apparent in patients without conversion or postoperative complication.