Laparoscopic approach to colonic cancer: critical appraisal of the literature

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to compare intracorporeal (IA) versus extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer.

METHODS

The meta-analysis was conducted following all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. Studies published from 2009 to 2012 that compare IA and EA after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy were identified. The included non-randomized studies were assessed for their methodological quality using the revised and modified grading system of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Intraoperative, early postoperative, and postoperative recovery outcomes were compared using weighted mean differences and odds ratios.

RESULTS

Five non-randomized controlled trials published between 2009 and 2011, comprising 425 patients, were included in this analysis. IA was associated with significant faster bowel movement, faster first flatus, shorter time to solid diet, decreased use of analgesics, and shorter duration of the hospital stay. No differences were observed for nasogastric tube reintroduction rate, operative time, incision length, number of nodes harvested, intraoperative complications, mortality, non-surgical site complications, surgical site complications (anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, wound infection, ileus), reintervention, and readmission rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Even when the limitations are taken into account due to the observational nature of the included studies, the results suggest that the IA after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer results in better postoperative recovery outcomes, such as shorter hospital stay, faster bowel movement recovery, faster first flatus, faster time to solid diet, and lesser analgesic usage.

Is laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than open resection? A meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and/or laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy (LRC) with open right colectomy (ORC). Many randomized clinical trial have shown that laparoscopic colectomy benefits patients with improved short-term outcomes and comparable overall survival in respect to the open approach. These results, however, could not be applied to right colectomy owing to its wide range of resection and more complicated vascular regional anatomy.

METHOD

We performed a meta-analysis of the literature in order to compare LRC vs ORC by examining 21 end-points including operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative mortality and morbidity, and oncological parameters. A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing right colectomy for cancer was carried out. The meta-analysis was conducted following all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis (PRISMA) statement. The search strategies were developed using the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM reviews and CINAHL until March 2011. We included randomized and non randomized studies that compared the LRC vs ORC for benign disease and malignant neoplasm irrespective of publication status. Only studies in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian languages were considered for inclusion. Emergency right colectomies were excluded. To perform the statistical analysis we used the odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, 15 nonrandomized clinical trials and two randomized clinical trials, involving a total of 1489 patients, were identified. The mean operative time was longer in the group of patients undergoing LRC [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.94, 95% CI: 25.01 to 50.88; P < 0.00001]. Intra-operative blood loss (WMD = -96.61; 95% CI: -150.68 to -42.54; P = 0.0005), length of hospital stay (WMD = -2.29; 95% CI: -3.96 to -0.63; P = 0.007) and short-term postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.83; P = 0.0009) were significantly in favour of LRC.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy results in less blood loss, a shorter length of hospital stay and lower postoperative short-term morbidity compared with ORC.

Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study shows that elderly patients may benefit from lower postoperative complication rates following laparoscopic versus open resection

BACKGROUND

A retrospective analysis of age-related postoperative morbidity in the Australia and New Zealand prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open resection for right- and left-sided colonic cancer is presented.

METHODS

A total of 592 eligible patients were entered and studied from 1998 to 2005.

RESULTS

Data from 294 patients who underwent laparoscopic and 298 who had open colonic resection were analysed; 266 patients were aged less than 70 years and 326 were 70 years or older (mean(s.d.) 70.3(11.0) years). Forty-three laparoscopic operations (14.6 per cent) were converted to an open procedure. Fewer complications were reported for intention-to-treat laparoscopic resections compared with open procedures (P = 0.002), owing primarily to a lower rate in patients aged 70 years or more (P = 0.002). Fewer patients in the laparoscopic group experienced any complication (P = 0.035), especially patients aged 70 years or above (P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Treatment choices for colonic cancer depend principally upon disease-free survival; however, patients aged 70 years or over should have rigorous preoperative investigation to avoid conversion and should be considered for laparoscopic colonic resection.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00202111 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

[Clinical value of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer]

BACKGROUND

Using data and analysis compiled in the nationwide German Colon/Rectal Cancer qualitative multicenter study, the aim of this study was to determine the value of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in clinical routine.

METHODS

From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2003, patients with colon cancer resections were evaluated for short-term postoperative and long-term oncologic results associated with operative approach (laparoscopic vs conversion vs open).

RESULTS

Of 21,721 patients with colon cancer, 949 (4.4%) underwent laparoscopic resection. These patients were younger (P<0.001) with lower ASA risk factors (P<0.001) and earlier UICC tumor stages (P<0.001) than open resected patients. They also showed reduced overall morbidity (P<0.001), in-hospital mortality (P=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (P<0.001). The rates of intraoperative and specific complications remained unchanged. Nineteen percent of the patients had resections converted to open approaches. These had the highest overall morbidity and longest hospital stays. Their mortality was three times that of the group with complete laparoscopic resection.

CONCLUSIONS

The open approach remained the standard of surgical care in colon cancer for the study duration. Laparoscopic surgery was used in only a small number of patients. By virtue of preferential patient selection, better early postoperative and long-term results could be achieved for the laparoscopic group than with the open approach. Conversions were shown to be associated with inferior results at the high rate of 19%. To ensure optimal results, laparoscopic surgery for colon carcinoma should be conducted by an experienced surgeon in an appropriately selected patient pool.

Staged laparoscopic adjuvant intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia after complete resection for locally advanced colorectal or gastric cancer: a preliminary experience

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery followed by intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia (IPCH) is a promising treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, a disease with dismal prognosis.

METHODS

We describe our preliminary experience with staged adjuvant laparoscopic IPCH after complete resection in patients with locally or regionally advanced colorectal or gastric cancer.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients underwent resection for colorectal (N = 16) or gastric cancer (N = 5) followed by staged laparoscopic IPCH. No conversion to laparotomy was required. No major operative incident occurred. Mean duration of hospital stay was 12 days (range 9-23 days). No mortality occurred in the 30-day postoperative period. Four patients developed major complications (19%). One patient (5%) was reoperated. Mean follow-up period was 15.5 months (range 9-29 months). Three patients died, including two of cancer-related causes. No patient developed peritoneal carcinomatosis during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Staged laparoscopic adjuvant IPCH after open or laparoscopic resection in selected patients with colorectal or gastric cancer is feasible and reasonably safe. However, additional data are required to determine the effect on long-term survival.