Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Comparison of Short-Term and Long-Term outcomes of Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy in Rectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and objective: The last randomized controlled trials ,the ACOSOG Z6051 1,2 and the ALaCaRT trial3, 4 could not show the non-inferiority of the laparoscopy in comparison to laparotomy for rectal cancer. In fact, the ten first years of practicing laparoscopy were years when surgeons developed their learning curve. Therefore, by excluding this learning bias, it is possible to end up with a more fair and correct comparison between the two techniques. It is henceforth relevant to pursue a new meta-analysis that compares the two techniques and excludes studies done during the earlier periods of laparoscopic rectal surgery. Results: Six randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1556 patients in the laparoscopy group and 1188 patients in the laparotomy group. Our meta-analysis was in favor of laparoscopy in a significant way for blood loss, first bowel movement and the number of harvested lymph nodes. It was non-significantly in favour of laparoscopy for 30-days mortality after surgery and length of hospital stay. It was significantly in favor of laparotomy for operative duration. No significant difference was found in anastomotic leakage) , reoperation within 30 days, number of positive CRMs and completeness of mesorectal excision between the two groups. No difference was found in recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival between laparoscopy group and laparotomy group. Conclusion: The comparison of the randomized controlled trials published before and after 2010, showed no significant difference in outcomes between the learning period and after. Keywords: Laparoscopy, laparotomy, long-term outcomes, meta-analysis, short-term outcomes, rectal cancer

Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for pathological T4 colon cancer

PURPOSE

The surgical indication of laparoscopic surgery for pT4 colon cancer remains to be established because only a few studies have investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for them to date. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate the validity of laparoscopic surgery for them.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 81 patients with pT4 colon cancer who underwent surgical resection with a curative intent at Kobe University Hospital from January 2007 to December 2015. The short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the propensity score-matched patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (LAP group, n = 25) and those who underwent open colectomy (OP group, n = 25).

RESULTS

Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the LAP group than in the OP group (p = 0.029). Operative time, R0 resection rate, and morbidity did not significantly differ between the two groups. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) did not significantly differ between the propensity score-matched groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the entire cohort showed the surgical approach (LAP vs OP) selected was not a significant prognostic factor for OS or RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

The short and the long-term outcomes were similar between the LAP and OP groups. Laparoscopic surgery might be a safe and feasible option for pT4 colon cancer patients.

Design, development and evaluation of an inflatable retractor for atraumatic retraction in laparoscopic colectomy

Laparoscopic colectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of malignant tumours arising in the mucosa of the colon wall. The procedure is performed under general endotracheal anaesthesia and involves establishing a pneumoperitoneum with the patient in the Trendelenburg position. However this position can cause anaesthetic difficulties due to excess blood flow to the head and neck, increased pressure on the diaphragm and increased venous pressure. In the absence of steep head-down positioning, the bowels fall or "spill" into the operating field, obstructing the surgical space. The primary goal of this work is to design an atraumatic laparoscopic retractor to minimise the Trendelenburg position whilst effectively retracting the bowels from the operating field. This work details the design, evaluation and optimisation of a novel, hand held, inflatable, laparoscopic retractor, through physical experimentation, computer simulation, and pre-clinical animal investigation. The optimised design for the inflatable retractor performs in line with simulated expectations, and was successfully tested for safety and technical feasibility in vivo in a porcine model, where the bowels were effectively removed from the operating space whilst the model remained in the supine position. These initial results represent a promising approach for the mitigation of the Trendelenburg position, whilst effectively retracting the bowels during laparoscopic colectomy, using this atraumatic, inflatable retractor.

Laparoscopy in the emergency setting: a retrospective review of 540 patients with acute abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely accepted among surgeons for the diagnosis and management of acute abdominal conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate and summarize the experience in laparoscopic procedures, both diagnostic and interventional, for emergency nontraumatic abdominal conditions, in a tertiary academic center.

METHODS

From June 2005 to June 2009, a total of 1414 patients were subjected to a variety of emergency procedures at the university hospital of Patras and 540 of these patients were managed laparoscopically (38.2%). Indications for operations in the laparoscopic group were abdominal pain mimicking appendicitis in 229 patients (42.4%), acute cholecystitis in 248 patients (45.9%), gastroduodenal perforated ulcer in 14 patients (2.6%), small bowel obstruction in 24 patients (4.4%), and nonspecific abdominal pain in 25 patients (4.6%).

RESULTS

Diagnosis was established in 530 patients (98.2%) and definitive laparoscopic treatment was offered to 514 patients (95.2%). The conversion rate was 2.2%. Total mortality was 1.1% and total morbidity was 7.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach to abdominal emergency provides high diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic options. Surgical experience, optimal procedural timing, and appropriate patient selection criteria diminish perioperative mortality and morbidity, and are associated with nominal conversion.

Laparoscopic approaches to rectal cancer

Laparoscopic colectomy has been proven oncologically equivalent to conventional surgery and is now generally agreed to offer patients a reduced length of stay, shorter recovery times, and improved cosmesis. In contrast, acceptance of laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer has been much delayed and the enthusiasm of early studies has met considerable skepticism. For rectal cancer, it has been demonstrated that there is considerable variation between surgeons in disease-free survival and local pelvic recurrence after open proctectomy for rectal cancer. These differences are likely to be magnified when the technical challenge of laparoscopy is added to proctectomy. Minimally invasive approaches to rectal cancer need to demonstrate equivalent oncologic outcomes and maintenance or improvement in quality of life. This review will outline the current evidence for laparoscopy as a treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, emphasize the need for standardized approaches among multidisciplinary teams, and highlight the technical details of different laparoscopic operations for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colectomy has not been accepted as quickly as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is because of its steep learning curve, concerns with oncological outcomes, lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and initial reports on port-site recurrence after curative resection. The aim of this review is to summarise current evidence on laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Review of literature following Medline search using key words 'laparoscopic', 'colorectal' and 'surgery'.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery proved to be safe, cost-effective and with improved short-term outcomes. However, further studies are needed to assess the role of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and the value of enhanced recovery protocols in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections.

Emergency laparoscopy--current best practice

Emergency laparoscopic surgery allows both the evaluation of acute abdominal pain and the treatment of many common acute abdominal disorders. This review critically evaluates the current evidence base for the use of laparoscopy, both diagnostic and interventional, in the emergency abdomen, and provides guidance for surgeons as to current best practise. Laparoscopic surgery is firmly established as the best intervention in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and most gynaecological emergencies but requires further randomised controlled trials to definitively establish its role in other conditions.