Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a comparative study on short-term outcomes. A single-institution experience regarding anterior resections and abdominoperineal resections

Quality of life after robotic versus conventional minimally invasive cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimizing postoperative quality of life (QoL) is an essential aspect of surgical oncology. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) decreases surgical morbidity and improves QoL outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare post-operative QoL after oncologic resections using different MIS modalities. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles that compared post-operative QoL in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) or laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus robotic surgery (RS) for malignancy. Quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tools. Meta-analysis was performed using an inverse-variance random effects model. 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 15 studies had a low risk of bias, while 11 had a moderate risk of bias and 1 had serious risk of bias. 8330 patients (RS: 5090, LS/VATS: 3240) from across 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Global QoL was significantly better after robotic surgery in the pooled analysis overall (SMD: - 0.28 [95% CI: - 0.49, - 0.08]), as well as in the prostatectomy and gastrectomy subgroups. GRADE certainty of evidence was low. Analysis of EPIC-26 subdomains also suggested greater sexual function after robotic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy. Robotic and conventional MIS approaches produce similar postoperative QoL after oncologic surgery for various tumor types, although advantages may emerge in some patient populations. Our results may assist surgeons in counseling patients who are undergoing oncologic surgery.

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 comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer was reported as advantageous compared to laparotomy resection. However, this finding remains controversial, especially given the two recent randomized controlled trials published on The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Objective

To perform a meta-analysis that compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

Data source

To identify clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer published by August 2016, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Springer Link and Clinicaltrials.gov databases by combining various key words. Data were extracted from every identified study to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 43 articles from 38 studies with a total of 13408 patients were included. Although laparoscopic radical rectectomy increased operation time (MD = 37.23, 95% CI: 28.88 to 45.57, P < 0.0001), it can significantly decrease the blood loss (MD = –143.13, 95% CI: –183.48 to –102.78, P < 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (MD = –0.97, 95% CI: –1.35 to –0.59, P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD = –2.40, 95% CI: –3.10 to –1.70, P < 0.0001), postoperative complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86, P < 0.0001), mortality (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.57, P < 0.0001) and the CRM positive rate (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75, P < 0.0001). No significant difference were noted between the groups regarding intraoperative complications, TME completeness and harvesting of lymph nodes. Regarding the long-term survival data, the laparoscopic group was not inferior to laparotomy. Some pooled data, such as 3-year DFS, 5-year OS and 5-year local recurrence were even superior for the laparoscopic group.

Conclusions

Given the definite benefits in short-term outcomes and trending benefits in long-term outcomes that were observed, we recommend laparoscopic surgery be used for rectal cancer resection.

Meta-analysis of the risk of small bowel obstruction following open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

One of the potential advantages of laparoscopic compared with open colorectal surgery is a reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction events. Early reports support this proposal, but accumulated evidence is lacking.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials and observational studies by searching the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from 1990 to August 2015. The primary outcomes were early and late postoperative bowel obstruction following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Both ileus and bowel obstruction were defined as a postoperative bowel obstruction. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed, and a random-effects model was used to account for the heterogeneity among the studies.

Results

Twenty-four randomized clinical trials and 88 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis; 106 studies reported early outcome and 12 late outcome. Collectively, these studies reported on the outcomes of 148 392 patients, of whom 58 133 had laparoscopic surgery and 90 259 open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced rates of early (odds ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·54 to 0·72; P &lt; 0·001) and late (odds ratio 0·61, 0·41 to 0·92; P = 0·019) postoperative bowel obstruction. Weighted mean values for early postoperative bowel obstruction were 8 (95 per cent c.i. 6 to 10) and 5 (3 to 7) per cent for open and laparoscopic surgery respectively, and for late bowel obstruction were 4 (2 to 6) and 3 (1 to 5) per cent respectively.

Conclusion

The reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction demonstrates an advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal disease.

Does robotics improve minimally invasive rectal surgery? Functional and oncological implications

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted surgery has been reported to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer in a minimally invasive manner. Nevertheless, substantial data concerning functional outcomes and long-term oncological adequacy is still lacking. We aimed to assess the current role of robotics in rectal surgery focusing on patients' functional and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted to search articles published in English up to 11 September 2015 concerning functional and/or oncological outcomes of patients who received robot-assisted rectal surgery. All relevant papers were evaluated on functional implications such as postoperative sexual and urinary dysfunction and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Robotics showed a general trend towards lower rates of sexual and urinary postoperative dysfunction and earlier recovery compared with laparoscopy. The rates of 3-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival of robotic-assisted rectal surgery compared favourably with those of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study fails to provide solid evidence to draw definitive conclusions on whether robotic systems could be useful in ameliorating the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. However, the available data suggest potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy with reference to functional outcomes.

Have early postoperative complications from laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery improved over the past 20 years?

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been increasingly used since 1991 following the publication of the first case series. Since then, several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is challenging with associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine if the rates of early postoperative complications in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have improved over the past 20 years.

METHOD

A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases between August 1991 and August 2011 was conducted using the keywords laparoscopy, rectal cancer and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using linear regression ANOVA performed in GNUMERICS software.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included for analysis. Over the last 20 years there has been no significant change in the rate of any early postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, conversion, sexual, urinary or faecal dysfunction, wound infection, overall morbidity or mortality). However, in the last 3 years, the rate of positive resection margins has decreased significantly (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of a statistically significant change in early postoperative complications until 3 years ago. This may reflect the inherent morbidity associated with rectal surgery regardless of the approach used, the limitations of the current laparoscopic instrumentation or the relatively long learning curve. With increasing experience, a repeat analysis in the near future following the publication of ongoing randomized clinical trials might show improved outcomes.

[Outcomes following rectal and recto-sigmoid cancer resections: comparison of the laparoscopic and open techniques]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Surgical technique and experience are considered as significant determinants of the successful treatment of recto-sigmoid malignancies.

METHODS

Two hundred patients operated on between 2005 and 2009 were prospectively followed with an average of 39.8 months. Patients with rectosigmoid or rectal cancer were included, either with primary resection or resection after neoadjuvant therapy. The primary aim was to assess the average survival in the two groups; secondary outcomes were stage specific survival and the incidence of loco-regional recurrence and distant metastases. Intra- and postoperative complications, operating time, onco-pathological specimen quality and length of stay were also analysed.

RESULTS

During the follow-up comparable rates for 3-year survival and recurrence rates were found without statistical difference. Hospital stay in the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter and the mid-term survival rates were also better in the more advanced stages. Incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of laparoscopic rectal and recto-sigmoid resections were not inferior, and - in some aspects - they were even better compared to open procedures. Adding the properties of the minimally invasive technique (shorter recovery, reduced surgical stress reaction) this should be the preferred method of operative approach.

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

This review of cancer outcomes is based on key literature searches of the medical databases and meta-analysis of short-term benefits of laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) published between January 2000 and September 2013 listed in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42013005076). The primary endpoint was clearance of the circumferential resection margin. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model, and sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model; subgroup analysis was performed on subsets of patients with extraperitoneal cancer of the rectum. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used as outcome measures.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (10,861 patients) met the inclusion criteria; eight were RCTs (2,659 patients). The RCTs reported involvement of the circumferential margin in 7.9 % of patients who underwent laparoscopic and in 6.9 % of those undergoing open surgery; the overall RR was 1.00 (95 % confidence interval 0.73-1.35) with no heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis of patients with extraperitoneal cancer showed equivalent involvement of the circumferential margin in the two treatment groups. Although significantly more lymph nodes were retrieved in the surgical specimen after open surgery, the MD of -0.56 was of marginal clinical significance. The sensitivity and subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the rate of R0 resections, distal margin clearance, mesorectal fascia integrity, or local recurrence at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence from RCTs and non-RCTs, the short-term benefit and oncological adequacy of laparoscopic rectal resection appear to be equivalent to open surgery, with some evidence potentially pointing to comparable long-term outcomes and oncological adequacy in selected patients with primary resectable rectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

Although definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer treatment remains controversial. We evaluated differences in the safety of laparoscopic rectal resection versus open surgery for cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review from 2000 to 2011 was performed searching the Medline and Embase databases (prospero registration CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and overall 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; a RR of less than 1.0 was in favor of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on surgical and medical complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies, representing 4,539 patients, met the inclusion criteria; eight were randomized for a total of 1,746 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.0 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.46 (95 % confidence interval 0.21-0.99, p = 0.048). The raw incidence of overall complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.8 %) compared to the open group (35.4 %). The overall RR was 0.83 (95 % confidence interval 0.76-0.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality and morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, were significantly lower after laparoscopic compared to open surgery.

Short-term results of laparoscopic surgery after preoperative chemoradiation for clinically staged T3 and T4 rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for clinically staged T3 and T4 rectal cancer has not been clearly defined specifically in cases following preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic surgery after preoperative CRT for clinically staged T3 and T4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between May 2003 and June 2009, 57 patients (T3: n = 50, T4: n = 7) who underwent preoperative CRT for rectal cancer were identified. Forty-three patients with laparoscopic surgery (Lap group) were compared with 14 patients who underwent open surgery (Open group). Perioperative data including postoperative morbidity were assessed between the two groups.

RESULTS

All patients underwent complete laparoscopic operations, and none was converted to laparotomy. Operating time was longer in the Open group (331 vs 375 min, P < 0.01). Blood loss was lower in the Lap group (160 vs 316 mL, P < 0.01). Lymph node harvest and morbidity rate were similar in both groups. The distal tumor margin was negative in all patients. No patients had perioperative mortality associated with surgery after CRT.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery after preoperative CRT is a feasible and a safe option for T3 and T4 rectal cancer compared to conventional open surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare LTME and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) as the primary treatment for patients with middle and low rectal cancer with regard to short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches up to October 30, 2011 were performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated by LTME versus OTME. Fixed and random effects models were used. Review Manager version 5.1 software was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Four RCTs enrolling 624 participants (LTME group, 308 cases; OTME group, 316 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. LTME for rectal cancer was associated with a significantly longer operative time but significantly less intraoperative blood loss and earlier time to pass first flatus. We found no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, overall morbidity, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups. Time to resume liquid diet, time to resume normal diet, and length of hospital stay, although not significantly different between the two groups, did suggest a positive trend toward LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be concluded that LTME is a safe and effective alternative to OTME and is justifiable under the setting of clinical trials. Additional RCTs that compare LTME and OTME and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of LTME are required to determine the advantages of LTME over OTME.

Evaluation of diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Diverting ileostomy is believed to mitigate the effects of anastomotic complications in low anterior resections (LAR) for rectal cancer. However, there are no data about the effects of diverting ileostomy on the outcomes of laparoscopic LAR METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 77 consecutive rectal cancer patients who had undergone laparoscopic LAR with (n = 23) or without (n = 54) diverting ileostomy. The patients' data were recorded and supplemented on short-term follow-up visits and included standard demographics, operative procedure, location of the cancer, and final pathologic diagnosis. We noted length of hospitalisation, complications, and time interval from ileostomy creation to closure. Morbidity and mortality were also included.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention requiring anastomotic leakage occurred in three patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR without diverting ileostomy. The anastomosis level of patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR with diverting ileostomy was significantly lower than that of patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR without diverting ileostomy (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Anastomosis level and total mesorectal excision are the main factors for creation of diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic LAR Laparoscopic LAR without diverting ileostomy could be selectively performed. Our study provides a basis for further prospective randomised studies on the role of diverting ileostomy in LAR.

The effect of the introduction of the ERAS protocol in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine whether the introduction of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer offers additional advantages concerning postoperative hospital stay compared to laparoscopy and conventional care.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients that underwent a laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer in a single institution between January 2004 and July 2009 were retrospectively included in this study. The ERAS protocol was introduced in this cohort in January 2007. The study cohort was divided in a conventional care group and an ERAS group. Both groups were compared for primary and secondary outcome measures. The primary outcome measure was postoperative length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were included: 43 in the ERAS group and 33 in the conventional care (control) group. Median hospital stay was 7 days (range 2-83 days) in the ERAS group and 10 days (range 4-74 days) in the control group (p = 0.04). Return of bowel function occurred on days 2 and 3 respectively (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between both groups concerning postoperative complications, readmission rate and reoperations. Thirty-day mortality was absent in both groups.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the introduction of the ERAS protocol in laparoscopic TME leads to a further reduction in length of hospital stay.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline.

METHODS

An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.

Laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma: Complications and management in 132 consecutive patients

AIM: To analyze the clinical manifestations and risk factors of complications in laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer patients.

METHODS: A series of 132 consecutive patients who received laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer in our center were included. The etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of rectal cancer were studied among the patients with surgery-related complications using both univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS: No conversion to open surgery was observed and 5 cases converted to hand-assisted laparoscopic operation. The overall morbidity rate was 20.5%. Complications occurred during the operation in 7 patients (5.3%), within 30 postoperative days in 24 patients (18.2%), and within 3 mo in 2 patients (1.5%). The most significant complications were anastomotic leakage (9.1%) and anastomotic hemorrhage (5.3%). Size and location of tumor, pathological staging and preoperative nutrition were significant factors associated with LAR complications, while gender, age and pathological type showed no relevance. Binary logistics regression showed that the size and location of tumor, and pathological staging were independent factors of laparoscopic LAR. All the complications were treated during their onset of clinical manifestations by interventional or conservative therapy.

CONCLUSION: Anastomotic leakage is a major complication in laparoscopic LAR. The complications may be associated with tumor size and site, and pathological stage. Interventional therapies are of value in the management of laparoscopic LAR complications.

Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was designed to determine postoperative complication rates of radical surgery for rectal cancer (abdominal perineal resection and anterior resection).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lack of accepted complication rates for rectal cancer surgery may hinder quality improvement efforts and may impede the conception of future studies because of uncertainty regarding the expected event rates.

METHODS

All prospective studies of rectal cancer receiving radical surgery published between 1990 and August 2008 were obtained by searching Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, as well as ASCO GI, CAGS, and ASCRS meeting abstracts between 2004 and 2008. There was no language restriction. The outcomes extracted were anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, postoperative death, wound infection, and fecal incontinence. Summary complication rates were obtained using a random effects model; the Z-test was used to test for study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifty-three prospective cohort studies and 45 randomized controlled studies with 36,315 patients (24,845 patients had an anastomosis) were eligible for inclusion. Most of the studies found were based in continental Europe (58%), followed by Asia (25%), United Kingdom (10%), North America (5%), and Australia/New Zealand. The anastomotic leak rate, reported in 84 studies, was 11% (95% CI: 10, 12); the pelvic sepsis rate, in 29 studies, was 12% (9, 16); the postoperative death rate, in 75 studies, was 2% (2, 3); and the wound infection rate, in 50 studies, was 7% (5, 8). Fecal incontinence rates were reported in too few studies and so heterogeneously that numerical summarization was inappropriate. Year of publication, use of preoperative radiation, use of laparoscopy, and use of protecting stoma were not significant variables, but average age, median tumor height, and method of detection (clinical vs. radiologic) showed significance to explain heterogeneity in anastomotic leak rates. Year of publication, study origin, average age, and use of laparoscopy were significant, but median tumor height and preoperative radiation use were not significant in explaining heterogeneity among observed postoperative death rates. With multivariable analysis, only average age for anastomotic leak and year of publication for postoperative death remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark complication rates for radical rectal cancer surgery were obtained for use in sample size calculations in future studies and for quality control purposes. Postoperative death rates showed improvement in recent years.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in mid and lower rectal cancers following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT).

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach for colon cancer has been widely accepted. A few studies have shown that there are advantages of laparoscopic over open TME surgery for rectal cancer. However, the role of laparoscopy has not been clearly defined specifically in cases following nCRT.

METHODS

All patients with rectal cancer who underwent nCRT were identified; no operations for rectal carcinoma were performed laparoscopically between 1997 and 2005. The laparoscopic cases were matched to open cases based on gender, procedure, age, and body mass index (BMI). The medical records were reviewed and short-term outcome was compared between these two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 15 software.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2008, 64 patients were identified, including 32 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and 32 who had a laparotomy. There was no difference between the two groups based on gender, procedure, age, BMI or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. The procedures performed within each group included 8 abdominoperineal resections and 24 anterior resections, which included 20 colonic J-pouch-anal anastomoses and 4 straight coloanal anastomoses. In the laparoscopic group, 12 patients underwent totally laparoscopic operations, 12 were either laparoscopic-assisted or hand-assisted procedures, and 8 were converted to laparotomy. The reasons for conversion included bleeding, splenic injury, and difficult anatomy. There were no differences in comorbidities, tumor location, tumor size, tumor stage or radiation dose between the two groups. Operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (267 + or - 76 versus 205 + or - 49 min, p < 0.001). Operative blood loss, complication rate, and mortality rate were all similar between the two groups. However, the laparoscopic group benefited from shorter length of stay (6.1 + or - 2.4 versus 7.6 + or - 2.3 days, p = 0.012), earlier first bowel movement (1.9 + or - 1 versus 3.3 + or - 2.4 days, p = 0.006), and shorter time to regular diet (3.9 + or - 2.1 versus 5.8 + or - 2.5 days, p = 0.003). There was no difference in lymph node harvest (both positive node harvest and total lymph node harvest), distal margin or radial margin.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, laparoscopic TME for mid and lower rectal cancer is feasible and safe. Patients benefit from the short-term advantages of laparoscopy, including shorter length of hospital stay, time to tolerating a regular diet, and time to first bowel movement or stoma function. Although there were no short-term differences in oncologic parameters, the long-term oncologic outcome requires further investigation.

Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing curative laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The use of laparoscopy surgery in the management of rectal cancer is controversial, especially in the mid and low rectum. The aim of this study was to determine oncologic and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 1999 and December 2006, 185 patients had surgery for rectal cancer; 103 these patients had mid and low rectal cancer. The source of data was inpatient/outpatient medical records. Telephone interviews were conducted for all patients. Actuarial survival was calculated with use of the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was performed in 58 (56.3%) patients, and pure laparoscopic surgery in 45 (43.7%) patients. Mean follow-up time was 42.1 months. The conversion rate was 2.9%. All specimen margins were negative. The anastomotic leak rate was 7.8% (n = 8). There was no 30-day mortality. Local recurrence rate was 5% at five years. Overall survival was 91% and disease-free survival was 73.1% at five years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgical techniques for mid and low rectal cancer seem safe and feasible with acceptable oncologic and long-term outcomes. Further studies, comparing laparoscopic and open methods, are warranted.

Current technique of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME): an international questionnaire among 368 surgeons

BACKGROUND

Current literature shows no consensus for the technique of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME). This study aimed to assess the current practice of LTME.

METHODS

From January to March 2008, members of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), the Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo-Surgeons (IAGES), and the Society of Laparoscopic Surgeons (SLS), together with renowned surgeons in the field of LTME, were invited to fill out an online questionnaire concerning aspects of LTME.

RESULTS

The 368 questionnaires showed that 77% of the study participants performed 1-20 LTMEs per year (low volume) and that 33% performed more than 20 LTMEs per year (high volume). Preoperative bowel preparation (PBP), Trendelenburg position, periumbilical insertion of a 30º laparoscope, medial-to-lateral dissection, ultrasonic hemostasis, high-tie ligation, splenic flexure mobilization, left ureteral identification, partial sigmoid resection, extraction of the specimen by a new minilaparotomy and wound protector, end-to-end stapled anastomosis using a 28- to 29-mm anvil with 3.5-mm staples, abdominal lavage, pelvic drainage, and diverting ileostoma were performed by a majority of the surgeons. Less consistency was observed in identification of the right ureter, dissection of Denonvilliers' fascia, location of the minilaparotomy, and construction of a colonic pouch. There were significant differences between high and low volume and between American and European surgeons. Significantly more low-volume surgeons indicated a preference for an open TME depending on the age and gender of the patient, the presence of comorbidity, previous laparotomy, and locally advanced tumor. More low-volume surgeons applied PBP (83.4% vs. 71.8%; p = 0.017). On the average, high-volume surgeons identified more autonomic pelvic nerves during dissection (2.6 vs. 1.8 nerves). The right ureter was identified by 66% of the American and 31.2% of the European surgeons. In the United States 91.5% and in Europe 61.2% created an end-to-end anastomosis. Pouches were created by 32% of the European and 6.8% of the American surgeons.

CONCLUSION

The respondents showed an apparent preference for several aspects of LTME. Differences were related to expertise and still more to continent.