Laparoscopic colorectal resections: a simple predictor model and a stratification risk for conversion to open surgery

An evidence-based model for predicting conversion to open surgery in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative conversion to open surgery is an adverse event during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), associated with poor postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting conversion in patients undergoing MIDP.

METHODS

A total of 352 patients who underwent MIPD were included in this retrospective analysis and randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts. Potential risk factors related to open conversion were identified through a literature review, and data on these factors in our cohort was collected accordingly. In the training cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust the impact of confounding factors to identify independent risk factors for model building. The constructed model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristics curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration curves.

RESULTS

Following an extensive literature review, a total of ten preoperative risk factors were identified, including sex, BMI, albumin, smoker, size of lesion, tumor close to major vessels, type of pancreatic resection, surgical approach, MIDP experience, and suspicion of malignancy. Multivariate analysis revealed that sex, tumor close to major vessels, suspicion of malignancy, type of pancreatic resection (subtotal pancreatectomy or left pancreatectomy), and MIDP experience persisted as significant predictors for conversion to open surgery during MIDP. The constructed model offered superior discrimination ability compared to the existing model (area under the curve, training cohort: 0.921 vs. 0.757, P < 0.001; validation cohort: 0.834 vs. 0.716, P = 0.018). The DCA and the calibration curves revealed the clinical usefulness of the nomogram and a good consistency between the predicted and observed values.

CONCLUSION

The evidence-based prediction model developed in this study outperformed the previous model in predicting conversions of MIDP. This model could contribute to decision-making processes surrounding the selection of surgical approaches and facilitate patient counseling on the conversion risk of MIDP.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Patients

Aim

Our research compares the clinical results of open surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal malignancies.

Materials and Methods

Our analysis focused on a database that included data on patients with colorectal cancer who had laparoscopic or open surgery for stages I to III at a prestigious healthcare institute in India. Two groups of 50 patients underwent laparoscopic and 50 underwent conventional open colorectal surgery (OCRS and LCRS, respectively) throughout the same time. Patient demographics, operation data, initial postoperative outcomes, follow-up appointments, pathology results, and cancer stages were examined.

Results

The LCRS group had a much longer operation time compared to the OCRS. Subjects in the LCRS group experienced a notably accelerated recovery after surgery. The hospital stay for the OCRS group was considerably longer compared to that in the LCRS group.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is a reliable and convenient alternative to the traditional open approach, providing comparable oncological efficacy.

Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on conversion to laparotomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in Japan (a secondary analysis of the EnSSURE study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conversion to laparotomy is among the serious intraoperative complications and carries an increased risk of postoperative complications. In this cohort study, we investigated whether or not the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) affects the conversion rate among patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of data collected from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for cStage II and III rectal cancer from 2014 to 2016 across 56 institutions affiliated with the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Data from the original EnSSURE study were analyzed to investigate risk factors for conversion to laparotomy by performing univariate and multivariate analyses based on the reason for conversion.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 3,168 cases, including 65 (2.1%) involving conversion to laparotomy. Indicated conversion accounted for 27 cases (0.9%), while technical conversion accounted for 35 cases (1.1%). The multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors for indicated conversion to laparotomy: tumor diameter [mm] (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, p = 0.0002), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 7.92, 95% CI 3.14-19.97, p < 0.0001), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 4.46, 95% CI 2.01-9.90, p = 0.0002). The multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for technical conversion to laparotomy: registered case number of institution (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.0029), institution type [non-university/university hospital] (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.54-8.04, p = 0.0028), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 5.96, 95% CI 2.15-16.53, p = 0.0006), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 6.26, 95% CI 3.01-13.05, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation of ESSQS-certified physicians may reduce the risk of both indicated and technical conversion. Referral to specialized institutions, such as high-volume centers and university hospitals, especially for patients exhibiting relevant background risk factors, may reduce the risk of conversion to laparotomy and lead to better outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000040645.

Anthropometric measures of obesity in patients with knee joint pathology: Body surface area versus body mass index

BACKGROUND

Obesity is quantified using body mass index. Body surface area may provide a superior and more anthropometric method of quantifying obesity in patients with musculoskeletal knee disease. This study compares the effect of weight, height, age and gender on body mass index and body surface area in a population with orthopaedic knee disease.

METHODS

An observational cohort study was conducted of patients presenting with musculoskeletal knee disease. Associations between body mass index, body surface area, age, gender, height, weight and operative versus non-operative management were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients were included. Body surface area was more strongly correlated to weight than body mass index (r = 0.98, p < 0.001 versus r = 0.84, p < 0.001). Body surface area also reflects height which body mass index under presents (r = 0.65, p < 0.001 versus r = -0.08, p = 0.35). Body mass index and body surface area were correlated with one another (r = 0.70, p < 0.001). Age was inversely correlated with body surface area (r = -0.20, p = 0.013) but not body mass index (r = 0.05, p = 0.585). Body mass index did not differ between males and females (30.1 versus 30.9, p = 0.37); however, BSA scores were significantly higher in males than females (2.11 versus 1.91, p < 0.001). Neither body surface area nor body mass index scores influenced operative versus non-operative treatment.

CONCLUSION

Body surface area could be a useful alternative to body mass index when considering obesity in patients with musculoskeletal knee pathology. Body surface area better reflects the effects of height, weight, age and gender than body mass index.

Advances in pelvic imaging parameters predicting surgical difficulty in rectal cancer

Due to the fixed bony structure of the pelvis, the pelvic operation space is limited, complicating the surgical operation of rectal cancer, especially middle and low rectal cancer. The closer the tumor is to the anal verge, the smaller the operative field and operating space, the longer the operative time, and the greater the incidence of intraoperative side injuries and postoperative complications. To date, there is still no clear definition of a difficult pelvis that affects the surgical operation of rectal cancer. Few related research reports exist in the literature, and views on this aspect are not the same between countries. Therefore, it is particularly important to predict the difficulty of rectal cancer surgery in a certain way before surgery and to select the surgical method most suitable for each case during the treatment of rectal cancer.

Robotic colon surgery in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer resection can be technically difficult in the obese (OB) population. Robotic surgery is a promising technique but its benefits remain uncertain in OB patients. The aim of this study is to compare OB versus non-obese (NOB) patients undergoing robotic colon surgery, as well as OB patients undergoing robotic versus open or laparoscopic colonic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcome measures included length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI) rate, complications, anastomotic leak and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included, with five comparing OB and NOB patients undergoing robotic colon surgery included in meta-analysis. A total of 263 OB patients and 400 NOB patients formed the sample for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, conversion to open, LOS, lymph node yield, anastomotic leak and postoperative ileus. There was a trend towards a significant increase in overall complications and SSI in the OB group (32.3% OB versus 26.8% NOB for complications, 14.2% OB versus 9.9% NOB for SSI). The three included studies comparing surgical techniques were too heterogeneous to undergo meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colon surgery is safe in obese patients, but high-quality prospective evidence is lacking. Future studies should report on oncological safety and the cost-effectiveness of adopting the robotic technique in these challenging patients.

Available prediction scores of conversion for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery seem to be unsuitable for nowadays rectal cancer management

Introduction

This study aimed to externally evaluate the accuracy of four predictive scores for conversion to open surgery after rectal laparoscopic resection. None of the four scores achieved external validation previously.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of two prospectively maintained databases from two academic centers in France and Morocco. All consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2020 were included. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the factors present in the four scores and conversion. The accuracy of each score was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC). Observed and predicted conversion rates were compared for each score using the Chi-square goodness-of-fit test.

Results

Four hundred patients were included. There were 264 men (66%) with a mean age of 65.95 years (standard deviation 12.2). The median tumor height was 7 cm (quartiles 4–11) and 29% of patients had low rectal tumors. Conversion rate was 21.75%. The accuracy to predict conversion was low with an AUC lower than 0,62 for the four models. The observed conversion rates were significantly different from the predicted rates, except for one score.

Conclusions

The four models had low accuracy in predicting the conversion to open surgery for laparoscopic rectal resection. There is a need for new well-designed studies, analyzing more specific variables, in a multicentric design to ensure generalizability of the results for daily surgical practice.

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

Conversion to Open Surgery in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Resection: Predictive Factors and its Impact on Long-Term Outcomes. A Case Series Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection is the treatment of choice for colorectal cancer. Rates of conversion to open surgery range between 7% and 30% and controversy exists as to the effect of this on oncologic outcomes. The objective of this study was to analyze what factors are predictive of conversion and what effect they have on oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

From a prospective database of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery between 2000 and 2018 a univariate and multivariate analyses were made of demographic, pathologic, and surgical variables together with complementary treatments comparing purely laparoscopic resection with conversions to open surgery. Overall and disease-free survival were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Of a total of 829 patients, 43 (5.18%) converted to open surgery. In the univariate analysis, 12 variables were significantly associated with conversion, of which left-sided resection [odds ratio (OR): 2.908; P=0.02], resection of the rectum (OR: 4.749, P=0.014), and local invasion of the tumor (OR: 6.905, P<0.01) were independently predictive factors in the multiple logistic regression. Female sex was associated with fewer conversions (OR: 0.375, P=0.012). The incidence and pattern of relapses were similar in both groups and there were no significant differences between overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Left-sided resections, resections of the rectum and tumor invasion of neighboring structures are associated with higher rates of conversion. Female sex is associated with fewer conversions. Conversion to open surgery does not compromise oncologic outcomes at 5 and 10 years.

Usefulness of Endoscopic Tattooing Before Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Clinical Complete Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer for Providing a Safe Distal Surgical Margin

Background: Endoscopic tattooing of colorectal tumors enables tumor localization and determination of appropriate surgical margins. It becomes very difficult to detect the distal surgical margins (DSMs) of rectal tumors in patients who obtain clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. In this study, our aim is to examine the benefits of endoscopic tattooing of the tumor before neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in accurate localization of the previous tumor and in providing appropriate DSMs in cases with cCR. Patients and Methods: The patients who were diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer, received neoadjuvant therapy and subsequently achieved cCR, and underwent surgery between January 2015 and October 2020 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they were endoscopically tattooed before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Results: A total of 49 cases were included in the study. Significantly better DSMs were observed especially in female gender in the tattooed group. DSMs were found to be closer to the resection margins in the nontattooed group. It was found that endoscopic tattooing had a significant effect on the DSM in the regression analysis (P = .06, R² = 0.47). It was determined that laparoscopy or open surgery alone did not differ in terms of DSMs but open surgery together with tattooing was found to be strongly effective in providing larger DSMs. Conclusion: In locally advanced rectal cancer, endoscopic tattooing of the distal margin of the tumor before neoadjuvant therapy is a reliable and effective method for obtaining a safe DSM and not leaving the residual tumor at the lower end of anastomosis, especially in cases of cCR.

Single-incision robotic colectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: A matched case control study

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and single incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are both advanced minimally invasive operative techniques. However, studies comparing these two surgical methods have not been published. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the short-term outcomes of SIRC with those of SILC.

METHODS

A total of 21 consecutive patients underwent SIRC and 136 consecutive patients underwent SILC in separate institutes between January 2013 and December 2019. We used retrospective cohort matching to analyze these patients.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, patients who underwent SIRC had a lower percentage of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades III-IV (5% vs. 19%, P = 0.11) compared with patients who underwent SILC. The SIRC group revealed a higher proportion of sigmoid colon lesions and anterior resections than the SILC group (61% vs. 45%, P = 0.16). After 1:4 cohort matching, 21 patients were enrolled in the SIRC group and 84 patients were enrolled in the SILC group. No statistically significant difference in terms of operative time (SIRC: 185 ± 46 min, SILC: 208 ± 53 min; P = 0.51), estimated blood loss (SIRC: 12 ± 22 ml, SILC: 85 ± 234 ml; P = 0.12), and complications (SIRC: 4.7%, SIRC: 7.1%; P = 0.31) was observed between these groups. Length of postoperative hospital stay (SIRC: 8.3 ± 1.7 days, SILC: 9.3 ± 6.5; P = 0.10) and number of harvested lymph nodes (SIRC: 21.3 ± 10.3, SILC: 21.3 ± 9.5; P = 0.77) were also similar between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, numbers of harvested lymph node is less in SIRC than SILC (SIRC: 18.1 ± 4.7 vs. SILC: 18.9 ± 8.1, P = 0.04) in anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

SIRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical and pathological outcomes for right- and left-side colectomy.

What influences conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic colorectal resection?

INTRODUCTION

We analyzed the risk of morbidity and mortality in laparoscopic (Lap) conversion for colorectal surgery across a group of subspecialist surgeons with expertise in minimally invasive techniques.

METHODS

We reviewed prospective data patients who underwent abdominopelvic procedures from 7/1/2007 to 12/31/2016 at a tertiary care facility. We identified procedures that were converted from Lap to open (Lap converted). Lap converted procedures were matched to Lap completed and open procedures based on elective versus urgent and surgeon. We also abstracted patient demographics and outcomes at 30 days using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program defined adverse event list. We analyzed outcomes across these groups (Lap converted, Lap completed, open procedures) with x² and t tests and used the Bonferroni Correction to account for multiple statistical testing.

RESULTS

From a database of 12,454 procedures, we identified 100 Lap converted procedures and matched them to 305 open procedures and 339 Lap completed procedures. In our dataset of abdominopelvic procedures, Lap techniques were attempted in 49 ± 1%. We noted a higher risk of aggerate morbidity following open procedures (33 ± 10) as compared to Lap converted (29 ± 17%) and the matched Lap completed procedures (18 ± 8%; p < 0.001). Converted cases had the longest operative time (222 ± 102 min), compared to lap completed (177 ± 110), and open procedures (183 ± 89). There were no differences in mortality, sepsis complications, anastomotic leaks, or unplanned returns to the operating room across the three operative groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although aggregate morbidity of Lap converted procedures is higher than in Lap completed procedures, it remains less than in matched open procedures. Compared to Lap completed procedures, the additional morbidity of Lap converted procedures appears to be related to additional surgical site infection risk. Our data suggest that surgeons should not necessarily be influenced by additional complications associated with conversion when contemplating complex laparoscopic colorectal procedures.

Objective Preoperative Parameters Predict Difficult Pelvic Dissections and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Objective criteria to predict difficult pelvic dissection with prognostic significance are lacking. Previous studies have focused on predicting intraoperative conversion and not evaluated factors specific to pelvic surgery. We aimed to develop an objective, prognostic, preoperative assessment to predict difficult pelvic dissections and clinical outcomes. Such a model is much needed, may facilitate objective comparisons between rectal cancer centers, or may serve as a stratification variable in clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer within 10 cm of the anal verge (2009-2014) were retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were categorized into "routine" or "difficult" based on predefined criteria. All patients underwent 14 measurements on preoperative imaging. Outcomes were compared between the two groups. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression was used to develop the prediction model, which was validated in an independent data set.

RESULTS

Of the 280 patients analyzed, 80 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were similar except for more males having a "difficult" pelvis. "Difficult" patients were significantly more likely to have a narrower pelvis, smaller pelvic volumes, a longer pelvis, more curved sacrum, and more acute anorectal angle. Difficult cases correlated significantly with higher blood loss, hospital costs, longer operative time, and length of stay. A practical model to predict difficult pelvic dissections was created and included male gender, previous radiation, and length from promontory to pelvic floor > 130 mm. Model validation was performed in 40 patients from an independent data set.

CONCLUSIONS

An objective, validated model that predicts a difficult pelvic dissection and associated worse clinical outcome is possible.

The effect of hospital familiarity with complex procedures on overall healthcare burden

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate variations in prolonged outcome after proctectomy based on hospital volume.

STUDY DESIGN

From the Premier Perspective database (2012-2014), hospital volumes for proctectomy of benign and malignant conditions were classified as low, intermediate and high. Hospitals were grouped into tertiles. Impact of procedure volume on in-hospital as well as 90-day post-discharge complications, length of stay, discharge destination and costs was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 9306 proctectomy procedures, 6960 occurred at high, 1695 at intermediate and 651 at low volume hospitals. After adjustment, high volume institutions were associated with lower in-hospital surgical complications while low volume centers had higher ninety-day post-discharge medical and surgical complications (p < .05 for all). High volume centers had a shorter hospital stay while the need for extended care facility was higher in low volume centers (p < .05 for all). Healthcare costs were higher for low volume hospitals.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that variations in outcomes and costs after complex procedures such as proctectomy exist and are related to institutional familiarity with a procedure.

The robotic approach significantly reduces length of stay after colectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has helped overcome several of the inherent limitations of conventional laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to identify any short-term advantage of robotic-assisted (RC) over laparoscopic colectomy (LC) using standardized nationwide data.

METHODS

Patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2012-2014 datasets who underwent elective LC or RC were compared for patient demographics, comorbidity, diagnosis, extent of colon resection, operative duration, and conversion rates. Thirty-day postoperative complications and post-discharge utilization of resources, readmission, and discharge to another facility were also evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to balance the sample size in the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 35,839 LC and RC procedures, 2482 cases were eligible for propensity score matching for the statistically significant variables (standardized difference > 0.10) and 1241 colectomy procedures were assigned to each group. Most of the major, minor surgical, and medical postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. However, RC was associated with reduced 30-day postoperative septic complications (2.3 vs. 4%, p = 0.02), hospital stay (mean: 4.8 vs. 6.3 days, p = 0.001), and discharge to another facility (3.5 vs. 5.8%, p = 0.01). RC was, however, associated with readmission within 30 days after surgery (9.4 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.049). Postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, reoperation, reintubation, and mortality were equivalent between RC and LC.

CONCLUSION

This propensity score-matched analysis suggests that RC is associated with some recovery benefits over LC. Greater experience with the technique may allow these advantages to counter some of the cost-related concerns that have deterred the more widespread utilization of robotic technology for colectomy.

Right versus left laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: does side make any difference?

PURPOSE

To compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between right laparoscopic colectomy (RLC) and left laparoscopic colectomy (LLC) for colon cancer.

METHOD

Patients who underwent elective RLC or LLC for colon cancer between January 2004 and December 2014 were identified and elected for a retrospective analysis. Primary outcomes were technical difficulty (including operative time, intraoperative complications, and conversion rate) and postoperative outcome (including postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, reinterventions, readmissions, and mortality).

RESULTS

A total of 547 patients (mean age: 68.5 years old; 48.4% males) were analyzed. The RLC group had a higher mean age (71 vs 65; p < 0.001), ASA 3/4 grade (36 vs 26%; p = 0.02), and comorbidity rate (61 vs 48%, p = 0.003). Regarding technical difficulty, no difference was found between the groups in intraoperative complications (4.1 vs 5.9%; p = 0.34) or conversion rate (6.2 vs 3.9%, p = 0.24). Mean operative time was significantly shorter for RLC (162 vs 185 min, p < 0.001). Regarding postoperative outcome, the RLC group had a higher overall morbidity (20.5 vs 13.3%, p = 0.03), ileus (10.6 vs 2.4%, p < 0.001), and a longer hospital stay (4.7 vs 3.9 days, p = 0.003), with no differences regarding reoperations, readmissions, or mortality. The multivariate analysis showed that RLC were independently associated with a longer operative time and postoperative ileus.

CONCLUSIONS

RLC for colon cancer was independently associated with a shorter operative time, an increased risk of ileus, and a longer hospital stay than left laparoscopic colectomy in high-volume centers.

Impact of surgeon laparoscopic training and case volume of laparoscopic surgery on conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery

AIM

The study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic volume and type of training influence conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHOD

An Institutional Review Board-approved prospective database was reviewed for patients who underwent colorectal resection, performed by six colorectal surgeons, for all diagnoses from 2009 to 2014. Surgeons were designated as laparoscopic- or open-trained based on formal laparoscopic colorectal surgery training, and were classified as low laparoscopic volume (LLV) (i.e. had performed < 100 laparoscopic procedures) or high laparoscopic volume (HLV) (i.e. had performed ≥ 100 laparoscopic procedures). Technique was laparoscopic, open or converted (pre-emptive or reactive). Conversion was compared among three groups: LLV, laparoscopic trained (group A); LLV, open trained (group B); and HLV, open trained (group C).

RESULTS

In total, 159/567 procedures were open and 408 laparoscopic procedures were attempted. Of the 408 laparoscopic procedures, 73 were converted. Among the 567 patients [mean age: 56 ± 17 years (44% male)], the overall conversion rate was 13% (73/567), including 75% pre-emptive and 25% reactive. Conversion rates for groups A, B and C were 17.9%, 42.6% and 14.3%, respectively. Significantly higher conversion was seen in group B compared with group C (P = 0.01), but not between group A and group C (P = 0.85) or between group B and group A (P = 0.11). Converted patients were older (P < 0.001), with lower rates of proctectomy (P = 0.007), higher rates of anastomosis (P < 0.001) and higher body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and surgeon factors, training type was not associated with conversion (P = 0.15). Compared with successful laparoscopy, converted patients had a significantly higher incidence of ileus (P < 0.001), length of stay (P = 0.002), time to flatus (OR = 3.21, P < 0.001) and time to solids (P < 0.001). Converted patients experienced increased morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Training is not associated with conversion. Rather, HLV surgeons, regardless of training, convert less frequently than do LLV surgeons.

Body Mass Index Significantly Impacts Outcomes of Colorectal Surgery

There are limited data regarding the association between body mass index (BMI) and colorectal surgery outcomes. We sought to evaluate the effect of BMI on short-term surgical outcomes in colon and rectal surgery patients in the United States. The American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Project database was used to identify all patients who underwent colon or rectal resection from 2005 to 2013. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of BMI on outcomes. A total of 206,360 patients underwent colorectal resection during the study period. Of these, 3.2 per cent of patients were underweight (BMI < 18.5), 23.8 per cent patients were normal weight (18.5 ≤, BMI < 25), 26.5 per cent were overweight (25 ≤, BMI < 30), 25.2 per cent were obese (30 ≤, BMI < 40), and 5.3 per cent were morbidly obese (BMI ≥ 40). Underweight patients had longer length of stay (confidence interval: 2.70–3.49, P < 0.001) and higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.45, P < 0.01) compared with patients with a normal BMI. Morbidly obese patients had the highest overall morbidity rate compared with normal BMI patients (adjusted odds ratio: 1.53, confidence interval: 1.42–1.64, P < 0.01). BMI is associated with outcomes in colon and rectal surgery patients. Underweight and morbidly obese patients have a significantly increased risk of postsurgical complications compared with those with normal BMI.

Abdominal fat ratio - a novel parameter for predicting conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard for colorectal cancer resection in the UK but it can be technically challenging in patients who are obese. Patients whose body fat is mainly inside the abdominal cavity are more challenging than those whose fat is mainly outside the abdominal cavity. Abdominal fat ratio (AFR) is a simple parameter proposed by the authors to aid identification of this subgroup. MATERIALS AND METHODS All 195 patients who underwent elective, laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections from March 2010 to November 2013 were included in the study. For patients who were obese (body mass index greater than 30), preoperative staging computed tomography was used to determine AFR. This was assessed by two different, blinded observers and compared with conversion rate. RESULTS Of the 195 patients, 58 (29.7%) fell into the obese group and 137 (70.3%) into the non-obese group. The median AFR of the obese group that were converted to open surgery was significantly higher at 5.9 compared with those completed laparoscopically (3.3, P = 0.0001, Mann-Whitney). There was no significant difference in conversion rate when looking at body mass index, tumour site or size. DISCUSSION Previous studies have found body mass index, age, gender, previous abdominal surgery, site and locally advanced tumours to be associated with an increased risk of conversion. This study adds AFR to the list of risk factors. CONCLUSION AFR is a simple, reproducible parameter which can help to predict conversion risk in obese patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection.

Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with previous abdominal surgery: A systematic review

AIM: To perform a systematic review focusing on short-term outcomes after colorectal surgery in patients with previous abdominal open surgery (PAOS).

METHODS: A broad literature search was performed with the terms “colorectal”, “colectomy”, “PAOS”, “previous surgery” and “PAOS”. Studies were included if their topic was laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with PAOS, whether descriptive or comparative. Endpoints of interest were conversion rates, inadvertent enterotomy and morbidity. Analysis of articles was made according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

RESULTS: From a total of 394 citations, 13 full-texts achieved selection criteria to be included in the study. Twelve of them compared patients with and without PAOS. All studies were retrospective and comparative and two were case-matched. The selected studies comprised a total of 5005 patients, 1865 with PAOS. Among the later, only 294 (16%) had history of a midline incision for previous gastrointestinal surgery. Conversion rates were significantly higher in 3 of 12 studies and inadvertent enterotomy during laparoscopy was more prevalent in 3 of 5 studies that disclosed this event. Morbidity was similar in the majority of studies. A quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) could not be performed due to heterogeneity of the studies.

CONCLUSION: Conversion rates were slightly higher in PAOS groups, although not statistical significant in most studies. History of PAOS did not implicate in higher morbidity rates.

Comparison of Risk Factors for Unplanned Conversion from Laparoscopic and Robotic to Open Colorectal Surgery Using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) Database

Robotic colorectal surgery has been shown to have lower rates of unplanned conversion to open surgery when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Risk factors associated with conversion from robotic to open colectomy and comparisons of the risk factors between robotic and laparoscopic approaches have not been previously reported. Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries between July 1, 2012 and April 28, 2015, were identified in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry. Candidate covariates were identified, and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for conversion. There were 4796 cases that met study inclusion criteria. Conversion was required in 18.2 % of laparoscopic and 7.7 % of robotic cases (p < 0.0001). Risk factors for conversion in the laparoscopic group included the following: moderate/severe adhesions, obesity, colorectal cancer, hypertension, rectal operations, urgent priority, and tobacco use. Risk factors for conversion in the robotic group included the following: severe adhesions, bleeding disorder, presence of cancer, cirrhosis, and use of statins. Higher surgeon volume was protective in both groups. Conversion rates are lower for robotic than for laparoscopic colorectal surgery with fewer predictors of conversion. Recognition of factors predicting conversion may allow surgeons to choose an operative approach that optimizes the benefits of the available technologies.

Single-port endoscopic mesocolic and mesorectal excision using an extraperitoneal approach

BACKGROUND

The extraperitoneal rectal dissection via a transanal approach facilitates the mesorectal dissection. The retroperitoneal approach for mesocolic excision may also offer some similar advantages. To complete the lymphadenectomy of extraperitoneal mesorectal resection, we developed an innovative approach for upper rectal and mesocolic excision via an exclusive retroperitoneal dissection using a single-port access at the site of the future stomy.

METHODS

This study was a prospective pilot study and was conducted between 2013 and 2015 at two oncologic centers. Five consecutive patients, with ano-rectal cancer requiring permanent stoma, underwent this procedure.

RESULTS

The bowel was never touched or mobilized to perform the lymphadenectomy, and no Trendelenburg was required. The median operative duration was 300 min (range 205-310). The quality of the surgical plane was classified as good (mesorectal) in the five patients. The median circumferential and distal margins were, respectively, 5 mm (range 1-20) and 20 mm (range 5-25). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 11 (range 5-18). No laparotomy or multiport laparoscopy was required. There was no death. Two patients had perineal wound dehiscence (one minor and one major).

CONCLUSIONS

The mesocolic excision via a retroperitoneal approach is feasible, completes naturally the transanal mesorectal excision and may confer several advantages including no morbidity of small bowel manipulation or Trendelenburg position. Further studies are required to analyze this approach.

Effect of BMI on Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: a Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), then case-matched for comparability. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates between groups.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were evaluated in each cohort. The BMI was significantly different (p < 0.01). All other demographics were well matched. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.86), blood loss (p = 0.38), intraoperative complications (p = 0.54), or conversion rates (p = 0.91) across cohorts. Length of stay was comparable between groups (p = 0.45). Postoperatively, the complication (p = 0.87), readmission (p = 1.00), and reoperation rates (p = 0.95) were similar. There were no mortalities. For malignant cases (37.8 %), the lymph node yield (p = 0.48) and positive margins (p = 1.00) were similar and acceptable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In our matched RALS series, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. RALS is a feasible option in the surgical setting of the obese patient. Further controlled studies are warranted to explore the full benefits.

Emergent Laparoscopic Colectomy Is an Effective Alternative to Open Resection for Benign and Malignant Diseases: a Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open resections performed for colonic emergencies. A systematic search of the literature identified previously published comparative studies regarding emergent laparoscopic colectomy (ELC) and emergent open colectomy (EOC). Meta-analysis was performed utilizing a pooled odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables and a weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven studies involving 752 patients were identified. Although operation time was noted to be significantly shorter for EOC, patients post-ELC had significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.30, 0.66; P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, recovery time for post-ELC patients was significantly shorter, as was the length of hospital stay (WMD -2.78 days; 95 % CI -3.17, -2.38; P < 0.00001), the time to regular dietary habits (WMD -1.32 days; 95 % CI -2.51, -0.13; P = 0.03), and the time to recover bowel movement (WMD -0.55 days; 95 % CI -0.89, -0.22; P = 0.001). Reoperation rate and mortality were found to be comparable between ELC and EOC. The R0 resection rate and the number of lymph nodes harvested were also comparable between ELC and EOC for malignant diseases. Whether for benign or malignant disease, ELC is a safe and feasible procedure for colonic emergencies compared with EOC, despite being relatively time-consuming.

Outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy surgery in obese patients: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese.

The impact of delaying elective resection of diverticulitis on laparoscopic conversion rate

BACKGROUND

Guideline-concordant delay in elective laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis may result in repeated bouts of inflammation. We aimed to determine whether conversion rates from elective laparoscopic colectomy are higher after multiple episodes of diverticulitis.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study evaluating laparoscopic colectomy conversion rates for diverticulitis from 42 hospitals was conducted.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2013, 1,790 laparoscopic colectomies for diverticulitis (mean age 57.8 ± 13; 47% male) resulted in 295 (16.5%) conversions. Conversion occurred more frequently in nonelective operations (P < .001) and with fistula indications (P = .012). Conversion rates decreased with surgeon case volume (P = .028). Elective colectomy exclusively for episode-based indications (n = 784) had a conversion rate of 12.9%. Increasing episodes of diverticulitis were not associated with higher conversion rates, even among surgeons with similar experience levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis did not increase after multiple episodes of diverticulitis. Delaying elective resection appears to not prevent patients from the benefits of laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of 163 Patients in a Single Institution

Background. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancers. Materials and Methods. The medical records from a total of 163 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancers were retrospectively analyzed. Patient's demographic data, operative details and postoperative early outcomes, outpatient follow-up, pathologic results, and stages of the cancer were reviewed from the database. Results. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery showed significant advantages due to the minimally invasive nature of the surgery compared with those who underwent open surgery, namely, less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05). However, laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer resulted in a longer operative time compared with open surgery (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for medical complications (P > 0.05). Open surgery resulted in more incisional infections and postoperative ileus compared with laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.05). There were no differences in the pathologic parameters between two groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions. These findings indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer had the clear advantages of a minimally invasive surgery and relative disadvantage with longer surgery time and exhibited similar pathologic parameters compared with open surgery.

Geographic variation in use of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer

PURPOSE

Emerging evidence supporting the use of laparoscopic colectomy in patients with cancer has led to dramatic increases in utilization. Though certain patient and hospital characteristics may be associated with the use of laparoscopy, the influence of geography is poorly understood.

METHODS

We used national Medicare claims data from 2009 and 2010 to examine geographic variation in utilization of laparoscopic colectomy for patients with colon cancer. Patients were assigned to hospital referral regions (HRRs) where they were treated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate age, sex, and race-adjusted rates of laparoscopic colectomy for each HRR. Patient quintiles of adjusted HRR utilization were used to evaluate differences in patient and hospital characteristics across low and high-utilizing HRRs.

RESULTS

A total of 93,786 patients underwent colon resections at 3,476 hospitals during the study period, of which 30,502 (32.5%) were performed laparoscopically. Differences in patient characteristics between the lowest and highest quintiles of HRR utilization were negligible, and there was no difference in the availability of laparoscopic technology. Yet adjusted rates of laparoscopic colectomy utilization varied from 0% to 66.8% across 306 HRRs in the United States.

CONCLUSION

There is wide geographic variation in the utilization of laparoscopic colectomy for Medicare patients with colon cancer, suggesting treatment location may substantially influence a patient's options for surgical approach. Future efforts to reduce variation will require increased dissemination of training techniques, novel opportunities for learning among surgeons, and enhanced educational resources for patients.