Analysis of Clinical Efficiency and Safety of Laparoscopic Anus-Conserving Operation for Ultralow Rectal Cancer

To explore the efficiency and safety of laparoscopic anus-conserving operation for ultralow rectal cancer, we retrospectively reviewed 236 patients with ultralow rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic anus-conserving operation (experimental group, n = 124) or conventional open surgery (control group, n = 112). Operation-related indexes, pathological results of mesentery, incidence rates of postoperative complications, anus preservation rates, anal sphincter controllability after surgery, and survival rates of the first, second, and third years after operation were compared between the two groups. The amount of intraoperative bleeding, first postoperative exhaust time, abdominal drainage, pain score, and hospital stay in the experimental group were significantly less than those in the control group ( P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the postoperative circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, number of dissected lymph nodes, successful resection rate, and quality of mesorectum between the two groups ( P > 0.05). The total incidence rate of postoperative complications, anal sphincter controllability, and survival rates after surgery were similar between the two groups ( P > 0.05). The anus preservation rate of the experimental group (84.7%) was significantly higher than that of the control group (69.6%) ( P < 0.05). Laparoscopic anus-conserving operation is effective and safe in treatment of patients with ultralow rectal cancer, which has advantages such as small trauma, less intra-operative bleeding, short hospital stay, rapid recovery, a low incidence rate of postoperative complications, and a high anus-preserving rate, so it is worthy of clinical application.

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.

Interest of Laparoscopy for "En Bloc" Resection of Primary Malignant Sacral Tumors by Combined Approach: Comparative Study With Open Median Laparotomy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare laparoscopy with open median laparotomy for anterior approach in "en bloc" resection of primary malignant sacral tumors (PMST) in combined approach strategy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Wide margin surgical resection is the "gold standard" treatment of PMST.

METHODS

Two groups of patients suffering from PMST and operated for "en bloc" resection by combined approach (anterior and posterior) only differencing for the anterior approach were constituted: "laparoscopy" group (n = 11) and "laparotomy" group (n = 22). Intraoperative morbidity (blood loss, red blood cell transfusion (RBC transfusion), surgical procedure duration) and postoperative morbidity (surgical-site infection (SSI), perineal dysfunctions, local recurrence) were analyzed. Surgical margins were studied. Data of both groups were compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney test for continuous data and Fisher test for categorical data. Overall survival (OS) and Disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Blood loss during anterior approach was less important in "laparoscopy" group 71.9 mL (range 0-400 mL) as compared with 2140 mL (range 0-9000 mL) for "laparotomy" group (P = 0.019). Blood loss during posterior approach was not different between the 2 groups. Total blood loss including anterior and posterior approach was inferior in "laparoscopy" group 2208 mL (range 230-4800 mL) versus 5385.7 mL (range 1400-11500 mL) for "laparotomy" group (P = 0.026). We reported significant difference on blood transfusion (3.7 RBC transfusions (range 0-8) for "laparoscopy group" versus 10.1 RBC transfusions (range 0-35) for "laparotomy" group (P = 0.025)). Surgical duration, quality of surgical margins, perineal dysfunctions and SSI were equivalent for both groups. At a follow-up of 36.6 months for "laparoscopy" group and 115.3 months for "laparotomy" group, OS and DFS were equivalent.

CONCLUSION

Use of laparoscopy for anterior approach decreases intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative RBC transfusion without increasing surgical duration, without altering the quality of surgical margins and without impairing long-term outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Outcomes in 132 patients following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with greater than 5-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The role of laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is still questioned as a safe and adequate cancer operation. Currently, multicenter randomized prospective trials are underway to evaluate this. We analyze our long-term results using laparoscopic TME in the treatment of rectal cancer to evaluate its oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective laparoscopic database was queried to identify all patients operated upon for rectal cancer from April 1997 to September 2007. In total, 151 patients were identified. Metastatic disease excluded 19 patients, leaving 132 patients to be analyzed for perioperative and 5-year oncologic outcomes. Procedures included LAR, n = 35; transanal abdominal transanal proctosigmoidectomy, n = 77; and APR, n = 20. All surgeries were TME or pTME.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic TME was performed on 89 men (67%), mean age 61 (22-85). Preoperative chemoradiation was administered in 119 (90.2 %) with median dose of 5500 cGy (3800-10,080). Mean EBL was 300 ml, and 4.5% were transfused. Seven patients (5.3%) underwent conversion, 5 to lap-assisted, with a 1.5% conversion rate to open. Pathologic stage of disease: complete response: 24%; I: 36%; II: 22%; III: 18%. There were no mortalities. Overall morbidity was 23.5%, with no anastomotic leaks and 5 (3.8%) delayed anastomotic stricture/fistula. There were no port site recurrences. Mean follow-up was 69.4 months (7.6-168.0). Overall LR was 5.3% (n = 7). There was only one isolated LR (0.8%). Mean time to local recurrence was 13.9 months. Metastatic rate was 18.2%. By stage, disease-specific survival was: CR 86.3%; I: 87.4%; II: 86.4%; III: 77.4%. Overall, 5-year survival was 84.8%.

CONCLUSION

The long-term data confirm that laparoscopic TME can be performed with lasting low local recurrence (5.3 %) and excellent 5-year survival (84.8%). This report's importance stems from it representing one of the largest experiences of rectal cancer treated by laparoscopic TME with greater than 5-year follow-up reported in the literature.