Current state of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in Australasia

Acquiring Advanced Laparoscopic Colectomy Skills - The Issues

Colorectal surgery has been revolutionised towards minimally invasive surgery with the emergence of enhanced recovery protocol after surgery initiatives. However, laparoscopic colectomy has yet to be widely adopted, due mainly to the steep learning curve. We aim to review and discuss the methods of overcoming these learning curves by accelerating the competency level of the trainees without compromising patient safety. To provide this mini review, we assessed 70 articles in PubMed that were found through a search comprised the keywords laparoscopic colectomy, minimal invasive colectomy, learning curve and surgical education. We found England's Laparoscopic Colorectal National Training Programme (LAPCO-NTP) England to be by far the most structured programme established for colorectal surgeons, which involves pre-clinical and clinical phases that end with an assessment. For budding colorectal trainees, learning may be accelerated by simulator-based training to achieve laparoscopic dexterity coupled with an in-theatre proctorship by field experts. Task-specific checklists and video recordings are essential adjuncts to gauge progress and performance. As competency is established, careful case selections with the proctor are essential to maintain motivation and ensure safe performances. A structured programme to establish competency is vital to help both the proctor and trainee gauge real-time progress and performance. However, training systems both inside and outside the operating theatre (OT) are equally useful to achieve the desired performance.

The effect of increasing body mass index on laparoscopic surgery for colon and rectal cancer

AIM

Obesity is common in Western countries and its prevalence is increasing. Colorectal cancer is common, and surgery for colorectal cancer is technically more challenging in obese patients. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been shown to be oncologically equivalent, with improved short- term outcomes. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has proven technically challenging, and recent results have raised concerns about oncological equivalence. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the clinical and oncological outcomes of surgery for colorectal cancer, including the rate at which laparoscopic surgery is attempted and the rate at which laparoscopic surgery is converted to open surgery.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from two tertiary institutions was performed. Data were obtained from the Cabrini Monash University colorectal neoplasia database for patients having surgical resection for colon and rectal cancers between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2015. Surgical and medical complications, tumour recurrence and overall survival and laparoscopic surgery and conversion rates were investigated.

RESULTS

This large case series of 1464 patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer has demonstrated that an elevated BMI is associated with a lower likelihood of attempting laparoscopic surgery and a higher conversion rate to open surgery when laparoscopy is attempted. Conversion was 1.9 times more likely in obese patients with colon cancer and 4.1 times more likely in obese patients with rectal cancer. The critical BMI for colon cancer patients was > 35 kg/m² , and for rectal cancer patients > 30 kg/m² . Obesity is also associated with increased rates of surgical complications, including anastomotic leakage and wound complications. Pathological parameters, tumour recurrence and survival were not affected by elevated BMI.

CONCLUSION

In the surgical management of colorectal cancer, obesity is associated with a lower likelihood of laparoscopic surgery being attempted, a higher likelihood of conversion to open surgery when laparoscopic surgery is attempted, and a higher rate of surgical complications.

Clinical and Economic Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Open and Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The short-term benefits of laparoscopy for rectal surgery are equivocal. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical and economic impact of an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) for laparoscopic and open rectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent elective rectal resection with primary anastomosis between January 2009 and March 2012 at two tertiary-care, university-affiliated institutions were identified. Patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into four groups, according to surgical approach (laparoscopic [lap] or open) and perioperative management (ERP or conventional care [CC]). Length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and hospital costs were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 381 patients were included in the analysis (201 open-CC, 34 lap-CC, 38 open-ERP, and 108 lap-ERP). Patients were mostly similar at baseline. ERPs significantly reduced median LOS after both open cases (open-CC 10 days versus open-ERP 7.5 days, P = .003) and laparoscopic cases (lap-CC 5 days versus lap-ERP 4.5 days, P = .046). ERPs also reduced variability in LOS compared with CC. There was no difference in postoperative complications with the use of ERPs (open-CC 51% versus open-ERP 50%, P = .419; lap-CC 32% versus lap-ERP 36%, P = .689). On multivariate analysis, both ERP (-3.6 days [95% confidence interval, CI -6.0 to -1.3]) and laparoscopy (-3.6 days [95% CI -5.9 to -1.0]) were independently associated with decreased LOS. Overall costs were only lower when lap-ERP was compared with open-CC (mean difference -2420 CAN$ [95% CI -5628 to -786]).

CONCLUSIONS

ERPs reduced LOS after rectal resections, and the combination of laparoscopy and ERPs significantly reduced overall costs compared to when neither strategy was used.

The Conflicting Evidence of Three-dimensional Displays in Laparoscopy: A Review of Systems Old and New

OBJECTIVE

To describe studies evaluating 3 generations of three-dimensional (3D) displays over the course of 20 years.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Most previous studies have analyzed performance differences during 3D and two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy without using appropriate controls that equated conditions in all respects except for 3D or 2D viewing.

METHODS

Databases search consisted of MEDLINE and PubMed. The reference lists for all relevant articles were also reviewed for additional articles. The search strategy employed the use of keywords "3D," "Laparoscopic," "Laparoscopy," "Performance," "Education," "Learning," and "Surgery" in appropriate combinations.

RESULTS

Our current understanding of the performance metrics between 3D and 2D laparoscopy is mostly from the research with flawed study designs. This review has been written in a qualitative style to explain in detail how prior research has underestimated the potential benefit of 3D displays and the improvements that must be made in future experiments comparing 3D and 2D displays to better determine any advantage of using one display or the other.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual laparoscopic performance in 3D may be affected by a multitude of factors. It is crucial for studies to measure participant stereoscopic ability, control for system crosstalk, and use validated measures of performance.

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome.

METHOD

An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.