A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

Quality of life in permanent ostomates - what really matters to them?

PURPOSE

The impact of a permanent stoma, such as post-abdominoperineal resection (APR), on quality of life (QoL) is well-documented. While stoma-related QoL tools exist, their relationship with stoma satisfaction is unclear. This study aimed to identify which aspects of QoL were most associated with stoma satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional study of consecutive patients who had an APR for rectal cancer at an Australian tertiary hospital (2012-2021), identified from a prospectively maintained database, was conducted. The Stoma-QoL questionnaire was used. Overall patient satisfaction with stoma function, and whether healthcare advice was sought for stoma dysfunction, were explored. Linear regression assessed the association between individual issues examined in the Stoma-QoL questionnaire and overall patient satisfaction with stoma function.

RESULTS

Overall, 64 patients (62.5% male, mean 68.1 years) participated. Stoma-QoL score was associated with stoma satisfaction (P < 0.05). QoL items impacting satisfaction were: needing to know nearest toilet location (P = 0.04), pouch smell concerns (P = 0.008), needing daytime rest (P = 0.02), clothing limitations (P = 0.02), sexual attractiveness concerns (P < 0.05), embarrassment (P < 0.05), difficulty hiding the pouch (P = 0.02), concerns about being burdensome (P = 0.04) and difficulty with interpersonal interaction (P = 0.03). Only 11 (17.2%) patients sought healthcare advice for stoma dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

While stoma-specific QoL is associated with stoma satisfaction, individual QoL aspects impact differently on satisfaction in permanent colostomy patients. These findings may help identify focus areas for peri-operative counselling for clinicians and stomal therapists, highlight the importance of tailored multidisciplinary care in ostomates and suggests that a stoma type-specific Stoma-QoL questionnaire is required.

Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction, a minimally invasive surgical technique for mid-rectal cancers: Retrospective single-center analysis and single-surgeon experience of selected patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of middle rectal resection followed by transanal specimen extraction.

METHODS

Forty-four patients with small mid-rectal tumors underwent laparoscopic rectal resection followed by transanal specimen extraction.

RESULTS

The procedure was successful in all patients without intraoperative conversion or additional access. The mean operation time was 182.7 minutes (range, 130-255 minutes), the mean blood loss was 26.5 mL (range, 5-120 mL), the mean postoperative exhaust time was 31.3 hours (range, 16-60 hours), and the mean length of hospital stay was 9.5 days (range, 8-19 days). One patient developed anastomotic leakage, which was treated by intravenous antibiotics and daily pelvic cavity flushes through the abdominal drainage tube. No infection-related complications or anal incontinence were observed. The mean tumor size was 2.1 cm (range, 1.6-3.2 cm), the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 16.5 (range, 6-31), and the mean follow-up time was 8.5 months (range, 2-16 months). By the last follow-up, no signs of recurrence had been found in any patient.

CONCLUSION

The combination of standard laparoscopic proctectomy and transanal specimen extraction could become a well-established strategy for selected patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancer: A single-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is gaining popularity, but persuasive evidence on reducing surgical trauma is still lacking. This study compared robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections (APRs) for the risk of postoperative complications in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between December 2013 and 2016, patients with rectal cancer ≤5 cm from anal verge, cT1-T3 N0-1, or ycT1-T3 Nx stage, and no distant metastases were enrolled in a single-center, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to robotic or laparoscopic APRs at 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher) of the intent-to-treat population. The trial registration number is NCT01985698 (http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov).

RESULTS

Totally 347 eligible patients were enrolled: 174 in robotic and 173 in laparoscopic group. Robotic APRs significantly reduced postoperative complication rate (13.2% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.013), also reduced open conversion rate (0% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.030), intraoperative hemorrhage (median, 100 vs. 130 ml; p < 0.001), 30-day readmission rate (2.3% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.044), postoperative hospital stay (median, 5.0 vs. 7.0 days; p < 0.001), and improved urinary and sexual function. No significant difference was observed in long-term oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with laparoscopic APRs, robotic APRs significantly reduced surgical trauma and promoted postoperative recovery.

Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Single Specialized Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754.RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE LA RESECCIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO ESPECIALIZADOANTECEDENTES:Estudios aleatorizados han validado la proctectomía laparoscópica para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto igual a la proctectomía abierta, pero la mayoría de esos estudios han incluido resecciones con preservación del esfínter junto con resección abdominoperineal.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo entre la resección abdominoperineal abierta y mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:Servicio único especializado en cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto primario entre 2000 y 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 452 pacientes, 372 en el grupo abierto y 80 en el grupo mínimamente invasivo, con una mediana de seguimiento de 74 meses. Hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en términos de tratamiento con radiación neoadyuvante (67,5% del grupo abierto versus 81,3% del grupo mínimamente invasivo, p = 0,01), tiempo operatorio (media de 200 minutos versus 287 minutos, p < 0,0001) y la duración media de la estancia (9,5 días frente a 6,6 días, p < 0,0001). Las tasas generales de complicaciones fueron similares entre los grupos (34,5% versus 27,5%, p = 0,177). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos (21,7 versus 22,2 ganglios, p = 0,7), márgenes radiales circunferenciales (1,48 cm y 1,37 cm, p = 0,4), ni en la tasa de márgenes radiales afectados (10,8 cm). % versus 6,3%, p = 0,37). La supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% en el grupo abierto frente al 80% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,344), mientras que la tasa de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años en el grupo abierto fue del 63,2% frente al 77,6% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,09).LIMITACIONES:Experiencia en una institución de referencia única.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien ambos tienen resultados perioperatorios similares, el enfoque mínimamente invasivo, beneficia a los pacientes con estadía más corta y menor riesgo de infecciones de la herida quirúrgica. Ambos enfoques, producen una calidad técnica oncológica similar en términos de ganglios linfáticos extraídos y estado de los márgenes, y tienen resultados oncológicos comparables a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Circumferential Resection Margin After Laparoscopic and Open Rectal Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest better oncological results after open versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer. The external validity of these results has not been tested on a nationwide basis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer with special emphasis on surgical approach.

DESIGN

This database study was based on the Danish nationwide colorectal cancer database. To identify risk factors for positive circumferential resection margin, we performed uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses. To assess the role of surgical approach, a propensity score-matched analysis was performed.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at public hospitals across Denmark.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing elective rectal resection from October 2009 through December 2013 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured was the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin.

RESULTS

Included in the final analyses were 2721 cases (745 operated on by an open approach; 1976 by laparoscopy). On direct comparison, positive circumferential resection margin occurred more often after open resection (6.3% vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). After multivariate analyses, tumors located low in the rectum, neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, increasing T and N stage, tumor fixated in the pelvis, and dissection in the muscularis plane increased the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin. In the propensity score-matched sample (541 exact matched pairs), the laparoscopic approach did not influence the risk of a positive circumferential resection margin (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5; p = 0.77).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data, and thereby contained possible selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this nationwide database study, and after multivariate and propensity score-matched analyses, there was no increased risk of positive circumferential resection margin after laparoscopic vs open rectal resection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996. MARGEN DE RESECCIÓN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUÉS DE LA RESECCIÓN RECTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA Y ABIERTA: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE DE PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN A NIVEL NACIONAL: Estudios recientes sugieren mejores resultados oncológicos después de la resección rectal abierta versus laparoscópica. La validez de estos resultados no se ha probado a nivel nacional.

OBJETIVO

Identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo en pacientes sometidos a cirugía por cáncer de recto con especial énfasis en el abordaje quirúrgico. DISEÑO:: Estudio de la base de datos nacional de Dinamarca de cáncer colorrectal. Para identificar los factores de riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo, realizamos análisis de regresión logística uni y multivariable. Para evaluar el papel del abordaje quirúrgico, se realizó un análisis emparejado de puntuación de propensión.

AJUSTES

Hospitales públicos en toda Dinamarca.

PACIENTES

Pacientes sometidos a resección rectal electiva en el período comprendido entre octubre de 2009 y diciembre de 2013.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS

Riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo.

RESULTADOS

2721 casos (745 operados por abordaje abierto; 1976 por laparoscopia) se incluyeron en el análisis final. En la comparación directa, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo ocurrió más a frecuentemente, después de la resección abierta (6.3 vs 4.7%; p = 0.047). Posterior a los análisis multivariados, tumores localizados en el recto bajo, quimioterapia con radioterapia neoadyuvante, incremento de etapas T y la N, tumor fijo en pelvis y la disección en el plano muscular, aumentaron el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo. En la muestra emparejada del puntaje de propensión (541 pares coincidentes exactos), el abordaje laparoscópico no influyó en el riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo (razón de probabilidades (IC 95%) 0.9 (0.6-1.5); p = 0.77).

LIMITACIONES

Revisión retrospectiva de los datos recopilados prospectivamente y por lo tanto, posible sesgo de selección.

CONCLUSIONES

El estudio de la base de datos a nivel nacional y después de los análisis emparejados multivariados y de puntuación de propensión, no hubo un mayor riesgo del margen de resección circunferencial positivo después de la resección laparoscópica versus resección abierta. Vea el Resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A996.

The Application of Extraperitoneal Ostomy Combined with Pelvic Peritoneal Reconstruction in Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Due to the technical difficulty, it is not common to close the pelvic peritoneum in laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in China, which increases the risk of related complications. Permanent sigmoid colostomy is performed through the transperitoneal route conventionally in LAPR. This leads to the high occurrence of parastomal hernias and bowel obstructions. To prevent the complications and reduce surgical costs of LAPR, we performed some modifications for it.

METHODS

38 patients diagnosed with low rectal cancer during July 2014 to July 2016 received LAPR with our modifications. First, the mobilization of the rectum and lymphadenectomy were identical to the classical routine method. Second, two sutures were performed on the pelvic peritoneum with the first to reduce the tension, followed by the second continuous suture to close the pelvic floor. Third, a tunnel was made between the parietal peritoneum and abdominal wall for the end sigmoid to pass through to finish the colostomy.

RESULTS

LAPR was performed on totally 38 patients successfully with no case transferring to open surgery. The follow-up period was from 1 month to 1 year. The mean operative time was 142.2 ± 16.5 min ranging from 100 min to 175 min. The mean hospital stay was 12.0 ± 1.5 days. No case underwent the reconstruction of stoma. There was not a single complication of LAPR with these two techniques that occurred to all 38 patients.

CONCLUSION

We consider LAPR with our two techniques feasible and safe, which can be accepted quickly to improve the life quality of patients. Therefore, we suggest our procedures as the first choice during LAPR surgery. This trial is registered with trial registration number 2014028.

Closure of the perineal defect after abdominoperineal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma - ACPGBI Position Statement

BACKGROUND

Perineal wound morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE). There is no consensus on the optimum perineal reconstruction method after APE, and in particular 'extra-levator APE' (ELAPE).

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. This position statement formulated clinical questions and graded the evidence to make recommendations.

RESULTS

Perineal wound complications may be higher following ELAPE compared to 'conventional APE (cAPE)' however there is insufficient evidence to recommend cAPE over ELAPE with regards to the impact upon perineal wound healing. The majority of cAPE studies have used primary closure with varying complication rates reported. Where concerns regarding perineal wound healing exist, myocutaneous flap closure may be considered as an alternative method. There is minimal available evidence on perineal mesh reconstruction following cAPE. Primary closure, mesh use and myocutaneous flap reconstruction following ELAPE has been reported although variations in definitions and low-quality of available evidence limit comparison. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular method of perineal closure after ELAPE. Primary perineal closure is likely to have a higher risk of perineal herniation. Myocutaneous flaps and biological mesh have been effectively used in ELAPE closure. There is insufficient evidence to support one particular type of flap or mesh. Perineal wound complication rates are significantly increased when neo-adjuvant radiotherapy is delivered, regardless of surgical technique. There is no evidence that laparoscopy reduces APE perineal wound complications.

CONCLUSION

This position statement updates clinicians on current evidence around perineal closure after APE surgery.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.

Frequency and timing of short-term complications following abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) is primarily used for rectal cancer and is associated with a high rate of complications. Though the majority of APRs are performed as open procedures, laparoscopic APRs have become more popular. The differences in short-term complications between open and laparoscopic APR are poorly characterized.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to determine the frequency and timing of onset of 30-d postoperative complications after APR and identify differences between open and laparoscopic APR.

RESULTS

A total of 7681 patients undergoing laparoscopic or open APR between 2011 and 2015 were identified. The total complication rate for APR was high (45.4%). APRs were commonly complicated by blood transfusion (20.1%), surgical site infection (19.3%), and readmission (12.3%). Laparoscopic APR was associated with a 14% lower total complication rate compared to open APR (36.0% versus 50.1%, P < 0.001). This was primarily driven by a decreased rate of transfusion (10.7% versus 24.9%, P < 0.001) and surgical site infection (15.5% versus 21.2%, P < 0.001). Laparoscopic APR had shorter length of stay and decreased reoperation rate but similar rates of readmission and death. Cardiopulmonary complications occurred earlier in the postoperative period after APR, whereas infectious complications occurred later.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term complications following APR are common and occur more frequently in patients who undergo open APR. This, along with factors such as risk of positive pathologic margins, surgeon skill set, and patient characteristics, should contribute to the decision-making process when planning rectal cancer surgery.

Value of multi-disciplinary input into laparoscopic management of rectal cancer - An observational study

AIM

To assess the impact of multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) management in optimising the outcome for rectal cancers.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients with rectal cancers (defined as tumours ≤ 15 cm from anal verge) discussed at our MDT between Jan 2008 and Jan 2011. The data was validated against the national database to ensure completeness of dataset. The clinical course and follow-up data was validated using the institution’s electronic patient records. The data was analysed in terms of frequencies and percentages. Significance of any differences were analysed using χ² test. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for overall survival and disease free survival.

RESULTS

Following appropriate staging, one hundred and thirty-three patients were suitable for potentially curative resections. Seventy two (54%) were upper rectal cancer (URC) - tumour was > 6 cm from the anal verge and 61 (46%) were lower rectal cancers (LRC) - lower extent of the tumour was palpable ≤ 6 cm. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) appeared threatened on pre-operative MRI in 19/61 (31%) patients with LRC requiring neo-adjuvant therapy (NAT). Of the 133 resections, 118 (89%) were attempted laparoscopically (5% conversion rate). CRM was positive in 9 (6.7%) patients; Median lymph node harvest was 12 (2-37). Major complications occurred in 8 (6%) patients. Median follow-up was 53 mo (0-82). The 90-d mortality was 2 (1.5%). Over the follow-up period, disease related mortality was 11 (8.2%) and overall mortality was 39 (29.3%). Four (3%) patients had local recurrence and 22 (16.5%) patients had distant metastases.

CONCLUSION

Management of rectal cancers can be optimized with multi-disciplinary input to attain acceptable long-term oncological outcomes even when incorporating a laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer resection.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and high-quality Nonrandomized Studies in the last 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality published reports comparing laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Studies that compared LRR and ORR and were published within the last 5 years were identified. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) were evaluated based on the Jadad score, the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and modified Methodological Indices for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS). The mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to compare the operative time, blood loss, mortality, complications, harvested lymph nodes, hospital stay, distal resection margin, and circumferential resection margin. The risk ratio (RR) method was used to examine recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified and included 7 RCTs and 7 NRCTs and 4353 patients (2251 LRR, 2102 ORR). Although the operation time of the LRR group was obviously longer than that of the conventional surgery group (MD = 25.64, 95%CI = [5.17,46.10], P = 0.01), LRR was associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.52,0.87], P = 0.002), less blood loss (MD = -66.49, 95%CI = [-88.31, -44.66], P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (OR = -1.26,95%CI = [-2.45, -0.07],P = 0.004) and shorter bowel function recovery times (MD = -0.93, 95%CI = [-1.27,-0.58], P < 0.00001). Moreover, the difference in the DRM was statistically clear (MD = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02,0.27], P = 0.03). However, no significant differences between the LRR and ORR groups were observed in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, positive CRM, local and distal recurrence, or overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that there are no significant differences between LRR and ORR in terms of survival and pathological outcomes with the exception of the DRM. Moreover, this study suggests that LRR can be performed safely and elicits faster recovery times compared with conventional surgery.

Conventional and/or laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: what is the current evidence?

Despite many years of experience with laparoscopic procedures in rectal cancer, the superiority of minimally invasive approaches has been questioned especially in recent years. This article is a short review of the current knowledge about laparoscopic approaches in comparison to conventional modalities in patients with rectal cancer. To present the current state of the knowledge, we focused on reports that were published in the last few years and compared them to multicenter trials and meta-analyses published last year. Our analysis mainly applied to the primary end-points of these trials. We also included expert opinions that have been published in the last several months.

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection.

INTERVENTIONS

Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P < .001). Length of stay (7.3 vs 7.0 days; mean difference, 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1), readmission within 30 days (3.3% vs 4.1%; difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%), and severe complications (22.5% vs 22.1%; difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%) did not differ significantly. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in 462 operated and analyzed surgeries was complete (77%) and nearly complete (16.5%) in 93.5% of the cases. Negative circumferential radial margin was observed in 90% of the overall group (87.9% laparoscopic resection and 92.3% open resection; P = .11). Distal margin result was negative in more than 98% of patients irrespective of type of surgery (P = .91).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

The short term feasibility of abdominoperineal resection with prostatectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer: open and laparoscopic cases report

Total pelvic exenteration is often selected for advanced rectal cancer with prostatic invasion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short term feasibility of the abdominoperineal resection with prostatectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer. We performed abdominoperineal resection with prostatectomy for 3 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including 2 patients by totally laparoscopic procedure. Patients' background, intra- and postoperative factors and short-term prognosis were evaluated. All patients underwent complete resection of primary tumor with negative surgical margins. We could perform the surgery by both open and laparoscopic procedure in collaboration with urologist. There was no operation related mortality. One patient who was treated by open procedure had urinary anastomotic leakage. No patient had recurrenced, but one patient died of other disease. Our experience suggests that open or laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with prostatectomy could be an alternative to total pelvic exenteration for the patients with rectal cancer invading the prostate. The collaboration with the urologist would be important to perform quality-controlled surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery, but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) in patients with RC are equivalent to those of laparoscopic TME (LTME).

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08 %) in the RTME group and 675 (54.92 %) in the LTME group. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower conversion rate (OR 0.23, 95 % CI [0.10, 0.52]; P = 0.0004), lower positive rate of circumferential resection margins (CRM) (2.74 % vs 5.78 %, OR 0.44, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.96], P = 0.04), and lesser incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED) (OR 0.09, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.41]; P = 0.002). Operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, number of lymph nodes harvested, distal resection margin (DRM), proximal resection margin (PRM), and local recurrence had no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RTME is safe and feasible and may be an alternative treatment for RC. More international multicenter prospective large sample RCTs investigating the long-term oncological and functional outcomes are needed to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery; but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RTME in patients with RC are equivalent to those of LTME.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08%) in the RTME and 675 (54.92%) in the LTME. Meta-analysis suggested that the conversion rate to open surgery in RTME was significantly lower than in LTME (P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and the oncological accuracy of resection and local recurrence between the two groups. The positive rate of circumferential resection margins (P = 0.04) and the incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.002) were lower in RTME compared with LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

RTME for RC is safe and feasible, and the short- and medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are equivalent or preferable to LTME. It may be an alternative treatment for RC. More multicenter randomized controlled trials investigating the long-term oncological and functional outcomes are required to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.

A study of laparoscopic extraperitoneal sigmoid colostomy after abdomino-perineal resection for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To established a procedure for laparoscopic extraperitoneal ostomy after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and study safety aspects and complications.

METHOD

From July 2011 to July 2012, 36 patients with low rectal cancer undergoing APR were included in the study and divided into extraperitoneal ostomy group (n = 18) and intraperitoneal ostomy group (n = 18). Short- and long-term complications were compared between the two groups. All patients were followed up and the median duration was 17 months (range: 12-24).

RESULTS

The rates of short-term complication related to colostomies were comparable between the two groups, except the rate for stoma edema was higher in the extraperitoneal group (33.3% vs 0%; P = 0.008). In the intraperitoneal ostomy group, two patients developed stoma prolapse, one had stoma stenosis, and two had parastomal hernia. In contrast, no long-term complications related to colostomies occurred in the extraperitoneal ostomy group. The rate of long-term complication was lower in the extraperitoneal ostomy group (0% vs 22.2%; P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic extraperitoneal ostomy is a relatively simple and safe procedure, with fewer long-term complications related to colostomy. However the follow-up period was not too long and needs to be extended.

Comparison of tumor recurrence between laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

By traditional open surgery, the tumor recurrence rate of total mesorectal excision with sphincter-preserving procedure was lower than that of abdominoperineal resection (APR) for the treatment of low rectal cancer. The present study aimed to rescrutinize whether the same conclusion can be drawn when both surgical procedures are performed laparoscopically.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the prospectively recorded clinicopathologic data of 344 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer, in which 170 patients underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME), whereas 174 patients underwent laparoscopic TME directly without chemoradiotherapy. Such patients were further stratified according to the pathologic tumor, node, metastasis stage (stage II or III disease) and surgical strategy (APR or sphincter-preserving operation [SPO]). The surgical procedures are presented in supplemental videos. The disease-free survival, recurrence patterns, and functional recovery of patient groups stratified as appropriate were compared.

RESULTS

In patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the estimated recurrence rate were similar between laparoscopic TME with SPO and laparoscopic APR with 10.6%, 7 of 66, versus 18.5%, 5 of 27, in stage II disease (p = 0.811, log-rank test); and 19.3%, 11 of 57, versus 20%, 4 of 20, in stage III disease (p = 0.980). In patients without preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the recurrence rate was significantly higher in laparoscopic APR than in the laparoscopic TME with SPO group of patients with stage III disease (45%, 9 of 20, vs. 19.3%, 16 of 83, p = 0.025), whereas the recurrence rate of the two procedures was similar (21.4%, 3 of 14, vs. 17.5%, 10 of 57, p = 0.702) in stage II disease.

CONCLUSIONS

When low rectal cancer was operated on by laparoscopic approach, the poorer prognosis of APR compared to SPO was only observed in stage III patients without preoperative chemoradiotherapy.