Lymphovascular clearance in laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy is similar to open surgery

Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: comparable to conventional oncologic surgery?

As a result of the obvious benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, minimally invasive techniques have been applied to more complex gastrointestinal procedures, including colorectal resections. The goal in adapting laparoscopic techniques for colorectal surgery is to offer an operation that results in less pain, shorter hospital stay, more rapid return to normal activities, and improved cosmesis compared with conventional operation. The challenge has been to show that this can be done safely and efficiently and that for cancer patients there is no detrimental oncologic effect. The major issues that have been and continue to be addressed are (1) whether an adequate resection can be performed laparoscopically, (2) whether there is a high rate of wound or port site recurrence following these operations, and (3) whether, by using these techniques, we are trading short-term benefits for a poor long-term oncologic outcome. To answer these fundamental questions, several prospective randomized trials have been conducted and several more are under way. The results of these trials indicate that, in terms of cancer outcome, there is no difference in overall survival, disease-free survival, and wound recurrences in patients treated using laparoscopic techniques compared with conventional operation. In addition, there are short-term benefits associated with the use of these techniques. It can now be said that from an oncologic standpoint, in experienced hands, laparoscopic colectomy for curable colon cancer is equivalent to conventional therapy, and it is superior to conventional operation regarding short-term outcomes. Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer should be offered to appropriately selected patients.

Is laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery equal to open surgery? An evidence based perspective

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is an evolving subject. Recent studies show that LCS can not only offer safe surgery but evidence is growing that this new technique can be superior to classical open procedures. Fewer perioperative complications and faster postoperative recovery are regularly mentioned when studies of LCS are presented. Even though the learning curve of LCS is frequently debated when limitations of laparoscopic surgeries are reviewed, studies show that in experienced hands LCS can be a safe procedure for colorectal cancer treatment. The learning curve however, is associated with high conversion rates and economical aspects such as higher costs and prolonged hospital stay. Nevertheless, laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery (LCCR) offers several advantages such as less co-morbidity and less postoperative pain in comparison with open procedures. Furthermore, the good exposure of the pelvic cavity by laparoscopy and the magnification of anatomical structures seem to facilitate pelvic dissection laparoscopically. Moreover, recent studies describe no difference in safety and oncological radicalness in LCCR compared to the open total mesorectal excision (TME). The oncological adequacy of LCCR still remains unproven today, because long-term results do not yet exist. To date, only a few studies have described the results of laparoscopic TME combined with preoperative adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer. The aim of this review is to examine the various areas of development and

controversy of LCCR in comparison to the conventional open approach.

Retrospective, matched case-control study comparing the oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in patients with right-sided colon cancer

PURPOSE

The short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer remain largely uninvestigated. This study was undertaken to compare the morbidity and mortality after either a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC) or an open right hemicolectomy (ORHC) for this type of tumor.

METHODS

The study group included 100 patients who underwent an LRHC and 100 patients who underwent an ORHC for right-sided colon cancer from 1990 through 2004. The two groups were retrospectively well matched with respect to sex, age (+/-5 years), and pathological tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 83 months in the LRHC group and 105 months in the ORHC group. The LRHC group had a lower volume of intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001), a lower rate of wound infection (P = 0.019) or postoperative intestinal obstruction (P = 0.013), and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) than the ORHC group. The rate of recurrence did not differ significantly between the LRHC group (19%) and the ORHC group (22%). In patients with TNM stage I or II, the disease-free survival (DFS) rate (94.9% vs 95.1%) and overall survival (OS) rate (95.8% vs 95.0%) did not differ significantly between the two groups. A similar tendency was observed in patients with stage III with the rates for DFS (71.3% vs 60.4%) and OS (73.6% vs 64.1%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

An LRHC for right-sided colon cancer has the advantage over an ORHC of better short-term outcomes, and both groups have similar long-term oncologic outcomes. An LRHC is thus an acceptable alternative to an ORHC for the treatment of this type cancer.

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

Acceptance of laparoscopy for the management of oncological disease has been slow due to the increased complexity of the technique, requirement of technological advances, and fears for the oncological safety of the approach. Laparoscopic oncological surgery has a role in the management of oncological patients at all stages of disease. Good evidence exists for the laparoscopic approach being a viable option for colon cancer patients. Current large multicenter trials will report the true outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery and how it compares with open surgery. This article examines some of the parameters by which laparoscopic colectomy will be judged.

Laparoscopic colon resection for colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colon resection for cancer is as yet an unproven operation. This review article summarizes current data on the topic.

METHODS

A Medline review identified articles published since 1990 summarizing patients with potentially curable colon cancer who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted colon resection. Only articles that were randomized or had a control group with historical or matched open cases were used.

RESULTS

Very few prospective randomized controls exist. Several clinical trials are under way with one completed. Data thus far support some patient benefits with a laparoscopic approach. No differences in morbidity, oncologic data, or survival appear to exist.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of ongoing clinical trials are still needed to further evaluate the role of laparoscopic assisted colon resection in patients with potentially curable colon cancer.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) offers the lowest reported rates of local recurrence and the best survival results in patients with rectal cancer. However, the laparoscopic approach to resection for colorectal cancer remains controversial due to fears that oncologic principles will be compromised. We assessed the feasibility, safety and long-term outcome of laparoscopic rectal cancer resections following the principles of TME. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative outcome and long-term results of laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

We reviewed the prospective database of 102 consecutive unselected patients undergoing laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer between November 1991 and December 2000. Follow-up was done through office charts or direct patient contact. Recurrence and survival curves were generated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic TME was completed successfully in 99 patients, whereas conversion to an open approach was required in three cases (3%). The overall morbidity and mortality rates were 27% and 2%, respectively, with an overall anastomotic leak rate of 17%. Of the 102 patients, four were excluded from the oncologic evaluation because final pathology was not confirmatory (two had anal canal squamous cell carcinoma and two had villous adenoma with dysplasia). In 90 of the 98 remaining patients (91.8%), the resection was considered curative. The remainder had a palliative resection due to synchronous metastatic disease or locally advanced disease. Mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 6-96). There were no trocar site recurrences. The local recurrence rate was 6%, and the cancer-specific survival of all curatively resected patients was 75% at 5 years. The overall survival rate of all curatively resected patients was 65% at 5 years; mean survival time was 6.23 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.39-7.07).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic TME is feasible and safe. The laparoscopic approach to the surgical treatment of operable rectal cancer does not seem to entail any oncologic disadvantages.

Laparoscopy and its current role in the management of colorectal disease

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current place of laparoscopy in the management of colorectal disease.

METHOD

A literature search was undertaken on Medline between the period 1991 and 2002.

RESULTS

From the literature there is good evidence that the laparoscopic approach is associated with at least some short-term advantages. Improved cosmesis and better patient's satisfaction are also evident. Because of this laparoscopy has been widely employed in various benign conditions. Among others, laparoscopic stoma formation, laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease and Crohn's disease, laparoscopic rectopexy, as well as laparoscopic assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure were commonly reported. As port site recurrence and oncological safety are of less concern, there have been increasing reports on laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Although long-term follow up data is still limited, results of large prospective studies as well as various randomized trials show that recurrence and survival rates of the laparoscopic approach were at least comparable to open surgery. As experience and confidence accumulates, there are also increasing reports on technically demanding, laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal excision. Articles on functional aspects following this type of resection also start to appear, which might be one of the future directions.

CONCLUSION

The applicability of laparoscopy to colorectal disease continues to expand. Laparoscopic approach should be considered for patients with benign conditions. For colorectal cancer, results from randomized trials so far have been favourable. Hence, the authors suggest the utility of laparoscopy in potentially curable cancer can also be judiciously relaxed.

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

Colorectal cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in the USA and western Europe, with more than 34,000 new cases per year in the UK alone. Annual expenditure is in excess of pounds sterling 300 million, required for surgical, adjuvant and palliative treatment. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has yet to gain the widespread support observed with gallbladder surgery. Randomized controlled trials are ongoing, evaluating the short- and long-term risks and benefits of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery. Although long-term results are awaited, there is evidence of short-term benefits and no obvious evidence of laparoscopic techniques conferring any additional harm in terms of tumor recurrence or disease-free survival. This review explores the likely benefits and areas of continued concern. Information resources provide a background to colorectal cancer for nonclinicians and new strategies and a 5-year view are presented.

Care of the laparoscopic colectomy patient

Laparoscopic bowel surgery has demonstrated patient care benefits of decreased duration of hospital stay, smaller incisions, lower risk of cardiopulmonary complications, and reduced risk of small-bowel obstruction. Resection of complicated diverticular disease and inflammatory bowel disease can be technically challenging and may be associated with higher conversion rates. The applicability of these techniques to colon cancer is supported by a growing body of evidence that demonstrates similar survival and recurrence rates obtained by open resection and the exaggeration of the risk of port site recurrences. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has also challenged much of the standard postoperative care plans used for colectomy. Optimal postoperative care of the laparoscopic colectomy patient requires an appreciation of the faster recovery enjoyed by these patients and the fact that ambulation and dietary advancement need to be accelerated. Coordination between the surgical team and the postoperative care team is essential to obtain all the benefits associated with this new approach to the management of colorectal disease.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery For Colorectal Carcinoma

The role of laparoscopic resection in the management of colorectal cancer is still unclear. It has been shown that laparoscopic colectomies can be accomplished with acceptable morbidity. Major concerns are port-site recurrences and neoplastic dissemination. The aims of this study were to compare perioperative results and long-term outcomes in a prospective, nonrandomized study of patients treated by laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer. In particular, the effects of an initial laparoscopic approach on survival and recurrence were examined. One hundred fifty-seven patients with colorectal carcinoma were included in the prospective trial: 74 underwent laparoscopic resection and 83 underwent conventional open surgery. The two groups were comparable in terms of characteristics, demographic data, stage of disease, and use of adjuvant or palliative chemoradiotherapy. All patients were observed at 1.3- and 6-month intervals. The median duration of follow-up was 60 months (range, 10-125 months). The mean operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group. Six conversions (8.1%) were necessary. The passage of flatus and the restarting of oral intake (P = 0.0001) occurred earlier in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open conventional surgery group. The mean postoperative stay was significantly shorter in the former group (P = 0.005), as was the length of the scar (P = 0.001). There were no deaths in either group. The overall morbidity was significantly lower (13% versus 33.7%; P = 0.001) in patients treated laparoscopically. No significant differences were observed between the groups in the length of specimens, the size of the tumor, or the number of nodes removed. Late complications were more frequent after open resection (12% versus 5.4%; P = 0.01). Two port-site metastases (2.6%) were seen in stage III and IV locally advanced carcinoma. There was no significant difference in recurrent disease between the groups (24.3% versus 25%) during the 60-month follow-up. Stage-for-stage comparisons showed that disease recurrence rates and crude death rates were comparable.

Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal malignancies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal malignancies with open colectomy.

METHODS

Two search strategies were devised to retrieve literature from the Medline, Current Contents, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until July 1999. Inclusion of papers was determined using a predetermined protocol, independent assessments by two reviewers, and a final consensus decision. English language papers were selected. Acceptable study designs included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, or case reports. Fifty-two papers met the inclusion criteria. They were tabulated and critically appraised in terms of methodology and design, outcomes, and the possible influence of bias, confounding, and chance.

RESULTS

Little high-level evidence was available. Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancy was more expensive and time-consuming, but little evidence suggests high rates of port site recurrence. The new procedure's advantages revolve around early recovery from surgery and reduced pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal malignancies is inadequate to determine the procedure's safety and efficacy. Because of inadequate evidence detailing circumferential marginal clearance of tumors and the necessity of determining a precise incidence of cardiac and other major complications, along with wound and port site recurrence, it is recommended that a controlled clinical trial, ideally with random allocation to an intervention and control group, be conducted. Long-term survival rates need to be a primary aim of such a trial.

Laparoscopic colectomy

The unique challenges of a laparoscopic approach to colorectal surgery have delayed its widespread adoption into clinical practice. Advances in instrumentation, modifications of technique, and an unequivocal demonstration of its safety undoubtedly will increase its popularity in the future.

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

A number of controversies exist in the laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer, and thus the technique has so far failed to gain widespread acceptance throughout the United Kingdom. This review aims to discuss these issues in the context of ongoing published trials, assessing both purported advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

The United States National Library of Medicine Medline database, and the Bath Information Data Service (BIDS) were searched using keywords related to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Recent surgical journals were also reviewed for relevant publications. Attempts have been made to quote only the most recent work from institutions with multiple publications using the same group of patients, in order to present the most coherent picture. The data are presented as randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled studies, and series comprising more than 10 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This review confirms that laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery is technically feasible. In addition patients lose less blood, have less immunosuppression, and have shorter postoperative ileus, in-patient stay, and require less analgesia. However, concerns still remain as to the development of port-site metastases, the longer operating times, and the overall cost of the equipment. In view of these concerns, the place of laparoscopically assisted colorectal cancer surgery is likely to remain controversial for some years yet. Randomized, controlled trials are as yet too few to provide definitive answers to all these issues.

Laparoscopic-assisted resection of right-sided colonic carcinoma: a case-control study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma is technically feasible. Whether it is beneficial to patients is uncertain. This study reviewed the results of laparoscopic-assisted resection in patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

We attempted laparoscopic-assisted right to extended right hemicolectomy in 28 patients with right-sided colonic carcinoma (study group). The results were compared with 56 matched patients who underwent conventional open resection in the same period (comparative group).

RESULTS

The median follow-up times for the study and comparative groups were 21.4 and 23.5 months, respectively. The operating time was significantly longer (t-test, P < 0.001), whereas the time to resuming normal diet (Mann-Whitney U-test, P < 0.001) and the duration of hospital stay (Mann-Whitney U-test, P = 0.002) were significantly less in the study than in the comparative group. The oncological clearance, in terms of the number of lymph nodes removed and the resection margins, the complication rate, the disease-free rate, and the survival rate were comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that laparoscopic-assisted resection of right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma has the advantage over open surgery of allowing earlier recovery. However, this is at the expense of a longer operating time.

Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: trial update

Laparoscopic colon surgery is gaining acceptance for benign conditions, but cannot yet be considered an established procedure for malignancy. The main reported benefit of the technique is the reduction in length of hospital stay. Other potential benefits such as cosmesis, improvement in quality of life, physiologic and immunologic advantages, as well as reduced complication rates have not been clearly demonstrated. Concerns about laparoscopic colon surgery for cancer including the possibility of inadequate resection, tumor staging, and altered tumor spread due to pneumoperitoneum have only been partially addressed by retrospective and experimental studies and require a prospective randomized trial for definitive resolution. Details of the trial currently underway sponsored by the National Institutes of Health are described. Although innovations in clinical practice and increased familiarity account for the expanding popularity of laparoscopic colon surgery, results from this and similar worldwide trials are needed before this approach can be recommended for cancer.