Favorable short-term oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for small T4 colon cancer: a multicenter comparative study.World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18:299. [PMID: 33187538 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-02074-5]

Outcomes following open versus laparoscopic multi-visceral resection for locally advanced colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aims to compare morbidity, mortality, oncological safety, and survival outcomes after laparoscopic multi-visceral resection (MVR) of the locally advanced primary colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with locally advanced CRC undergoing MVR were selected. The primary endpoints were peri-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were R0 and R1 resection, local and distant disease recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) rates. RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Ten comparative observational studies reporting a total of 936 patients undergoing laparoscopic MVR (n = 452) and open surgery (n = 484) were identified. Primary outcome analysis demonstrated a significantly longer operative time in laparoscopic surgery compared with open operations (P = 0.008). However, intra-operative blood loss (P<0.00001) and wound infection (P = 0.05) favoured laparoscopy. Anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.91), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.40), and mortality rates (P = 0.87) were comparable between the two groups. Moreover the total number of harvested lymph nodes, R0/R1 resections, local/distant disease recurrence, DFS, and OS rates were also comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Although inherent limitations exist with observational studies, the available evidence demonstrates that laparoscopic MVR in locally advanced CRC seems to be a feasible and oncologically safe surgical option in carefully selected cohorts.

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for locally advanced T4 colonic cancer: meta-analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the early postoperative and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy for T4 cancer compared with open surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for any relevant clinical study comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy as treatment for T4 colonic cancer. The risk ratio (RR) with 95 per cent c.i. was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference (m.d.) with 95 per cent confidence interval for continuous variables. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was implemented for assessing quality of evidence (QoE).

RESULTS

Twenty-four observational studies (21 retrospective and 3 prospective cohort studies) were included, analysing a total of 18 123 patients: 9024 received laparoscopic colectomy and 9099 underwent open surgery. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with lower rates of mortality (RR 0.48, 95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.56; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE moderate) and complications (RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76; P < 0.001; I2 = 20 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) compared with an open procedure. No differences in R0 resection rate (RR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.03; P = 0.12; I2 = 37 per cent, random-effects model; QoE very low) and recurrence rate (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.14; P = 0.81; I2 = 0 per cent, fixed-effect model; QoE very low) were found.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy for T4 colonic cancer is safe, and is associated with better clinical outcomes than open surgery and similar oncological outcomes.

Prognosis of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in middle-aged patients

Background

The prognosis of middle-aged patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated by laparoscopic resection (LR) is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of LR compared with open resection (OR) for middle-aged patients with CRC.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used the data from a database of all consecutive colorectal resections performed between January 2009 and December 2017. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to handle the selection bias based on age, gender, body mass index, tumour location, AJCC stage and admission year. Univariate and multivariate COX regression model was used to identify risk factors of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

After PSM, 154 patients were included in each group. Compared with the OR group in the total cohort, there were better survival outcomes in the LR group for 5-year OS and 5-year DFS (both P < 0.001). These differences were observed for Stage II and III diseases and for all CRC, irrespective of location. The multivariate analysis showed that tumour ≥5 cm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.750, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.026-2.986, P = 0.040), Stage III (HR = 14.092, 95% CI: 1.894-104.848, P = 0.010) and LR (HR = 0.300, 95% CI: 0.160-0.560, P < 0.001) were independently associated with OS. Pre-operative carcinoembryonic antigen ≥5 ng/ml (HR = 3.954, 95% CI: 1.363-11.473, P = 0.011), Stage III (HR = 6.206, 95% CI: 1.470-26.200, P = 0.013) and LR (HR = 0.341, 95% CI: 0.178-0.653, P = 0.001) were independently associated with DFS.

Conclusions

In middle-aged patients with CRC, LR achieves better survival than OR. Complications are similar, except for less blood loss and shorter post-surgical hospital stay with LR.

Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery: Current status and future perspectives

In recent years, the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer has remained high. Currently, surgical resection is still the most effective method for treating gastrointestinal cancer. Traditionally, radical surgery depends on open surgery. However, traditional open surgery inflicts great trauma and is associated with a slow recovery. Minimally invasive surgery, which aims to reduce postoperative complications and accelerate postoperative recovery, has been rapidly developed in the last two decades; it is increasingly used in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and widely used in early-stage gastrointestinal cancer. Nevertheless, many operations for gastrointestinal cancer treatment are still performed by open surgery. One reason for this may be the challenges of minimally invasive technology, especially when operating in narrow spaces, such as within the pelvis or near the upper edge of the pancreas. Moreover, some of the current literature has questioned oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Overall, the current evidence suggests that minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible in gastrointestinal cancer surgery, but most of the studies published in this field are retrospective studies and case-matched studies. Large-scale randomized prospective studies are needed to further support the application of minimally invasive surgery. In this review, we summarize several common minimally invasive methods used to treat gastrointestinal cancer and discuss the advances in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer in detail.

Predictive value of computed tomography with coronal reconstruction in right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision for right colon cancers: a retrospective study

Background

Understanding the vascular anatomy is critical for performing central vascular ligation (CVL) in right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME). This study aimed to investigate the predictive value of multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) with coronal reconstruction in right hemicolectomy with CME.

Methods

This is a retrospective descriptive study. Eighty patients with right colon cancer who underwent right hemicolectomy from December 2015 to January 2020 were included. The intraoperative reports (including imaging data) and MSCT images with coronal reconstruction were analysed and compared. The detection rates of the ileocolic vein (ICV) and ileocolic artery (ICA) roots and the accuracy in predicting their anatomical relationship were analysed. The detection rate and accuracy in predicting the location of the gastrocolic trunk of Henle (GTH), middle colic artery (MCA) and middle colic vein (MCV) were analysed. The distance from the ICV root to the GTH root (ICV-GTH distance) was measured and analysed. The maximum distance from the left side of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) to the right side of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV), named the ‘lsSMA-rsSMV distance’, was also measured and analysed.

Results

In seventy-four (92.5%) patients, both the ICV and ICA roots were located; their anatomical relationship was determined by MSCT, and the accuracy of the prediction was 97.2% (72/74). The GTH was located by MSCT in 75 (93.7%) patients, and the accuracy of the prediction was 97.33% (73/75). The MCA was located by MSCT in 47 (58.75%) patients, and the accuracy was 78.72% (37/47). The MCV was located by MSCT in 51 (63.75%) patients, and the accuracy of the prediction was 84.31% (43/51). The ICV-GTH distance was measured in 73 (91.2%) patients, and the mean distance was 4.28 ± 2.5 cm. The lsSMA-rsSMV distance was measured in 76 (95%) patients, and the mean distance was 2.21 ± 0.6 cm.

Conclusions

With its satisfactory accuracy in predicting and visualising the information of key anatomical sites, MSCT with coronary reconstruction has some predictive value in CME with CVL in right hemicolectomy.