Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Middle and Lower Rectal Cancer

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study on surgical outcomes and long-term survival

Although the safety and short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer patients are well-documented, there is limited research on the long-term survival outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery. This is a retrospective study that includes 502 patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal or sigmoid colon cancer between August 2016 and September 2021. All patients were diagnosed with rectal or sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to minimize selection bias. Perioperative outcomes, complication rates, and pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 5-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were calculated and compared. Before matching, patients in the robotic group had earlier pathological T and N stages and were more likely to have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to the laparoscopic group. After matching, most clinicopathological outcomes were similar between the two groups, but the robotic group had longer operative times and a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic group. After matching for clinical factors, the 5-year DFS rates were 88.19% for the robotic group and 82.46% for the laparoscopic group (P = 0.122), and the OS rates were 90.5% and 79.5% (P = 0.342), showing no significant differences. In the stratified analysis, patients in the robotic surgery group had significantly higher 5-year DFS rates in the following subgroups: age < 65 years, TNM stage I-II, received neoadjuvant therapy, and primary tumor located in the rectum. The safety and efficacy of robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer were validated compared to laparoscopic surgery, with both groups of patients exhibiting comparable long-term prognoses.

Mid- and low-rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open treatment-short- and long-term results. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach in the treatment of mid- or low-rectal cancer is still controversial. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic resection of extraperitoneal cancer is associated with improved short-time non-oncological outcomes, although high-level evidence showing similar short- and long-term oncological outcomes is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our paper is to study the oncological and non-oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of MedLine, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed by combining various key words.

STUDY SELECTION

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer were included. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane reviewer's handbook. This meta-analysis was based on the recommendation of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.

INTERVENTION(S)

This study analyzes laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were oncological parameters.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs comprising 4,411 patients matched the selection criteria. Meta-analysis showed a significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery in short-time non-oncological outcomes. Although laparoscopic approach increased operation time, it decreases significantly the blood loss and length of hospital stay. No significant difference was noted regarding short- and long-term oncological outcomes, but 4 and 5 years disease-free survival were statistically higher in the open group.

LIMITATIONS

There are still questions about the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer being comparable to the open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that all surgical resections have been performed in high volume centers by expert surgeons, the minimally invasive surgery in patients with extraperitoneal cancer could still be not considered equivalent to open surgery in terms of oncological radicality.

Similarities and differences between study designs in short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, case-matched, and cohort studies

AIM

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard in surgical research, and case-matched studies, such as studies with propensity score matching, are expected to serve as an alternative to RCT. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery for rectal cancer, but it remains unclear whether there are any differences in the findings obtained using these study designs. We aimed to examine similarities and differences between findings from different study designs regarding laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. RCT, case-matched studies, and cohort studies comparing laparoscopic low anterior resection and open low anterior resection for rectal cancer were included. In total, 8 short-term outcomes and 3 long-term outcomes were assessed. Meta-analysis was conducted stratified by study design using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included in this review. Findings did not differ between RCT and case-matched studies for most outcomes. However, the estimated treatment effect was largest in cohort studies, intermediate in case-matched studies, and smallest in RCT for overall postoperative complications and 3-year local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Findings from case-matched studies were similar to those from RCT in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. However, findings from case-matched studies were sometimes intermediate between those of RCT and unadjusted cohort studies, and case-matched studies and cohort studies have a potential to overestimate the treatment effect compared with RCT.

Application of spontaneously closing cannula ileostomy in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer

An anastomotic leak (AL) is the most serious complication observed in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer (LARRC). In order to protect anastomosis from AL and avoid stoma reversal surgery in patients with ileostomy, spontaneously closing cannula ileostomy (SCCI) was used in LARRC and its safety and feasibility were assessed in the present study. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that SCCI has been used in such a case. A total of 41 patients who underwent LARRC with SCCI or ileostomy procedures between November 2013 and August 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient demographics, clinical features and surgical data were evaluated using a Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher's exact test or linear-by-linear association. Demographics, surgical data and the majority of clinical features of the two groups were consistently similar. In the SCCI group, the length of postoperative stay, total cost and stoma period were significantly improved compared with those in the ileostomy group. Additionally, the median protective period in the SCCI group was 22 days [interquartile range (IQR), 19–22 days], the median time to cannula removal was 23 days (IQR, 20–24 days) and the median time to cannula stoma closure was 12 days (IQR, 11–13 days). No SCCI-associated complications occurred. No significant differences in routine complications, including staple-line bleeding, anastomotic leak, anastomotic dehiscence, anastomotic stenosis and wound infection, were identified between the two groups. In LARRC, the SCCI procedure was demonstrated to be a safe and feasible diverting technique to protect anastomosis from AL. In contrast to ileostomy, the SCCI procedure obviated the requirement for stoma reversal surgery, which resulted in decreased lengths of postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization costs and stoma periods.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

The first International conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection was arranged in conjunction with the annual meeting of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA), in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 19th 2016. The presented evidence and outcomes resulting from the session for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is summarized and addressed perioperative outcome, the outcome for cancer and patient selection for the procedure.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to compare MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy. Patient selection was discussed based on plenary talks, panel discussions and a worldwide survey on MIDP.

RESULTS

Of 582 studies, 52 (40 observational and 12 case-matched) were included in the assessment for outcome for LDP (n = 5023) vs. ODP (n = 16,306) whereas 16 observational comparative studies were identified for cancer outcome. No randomized trials were identified. MIDP resulted in similar outcome to ODP with a tendency for lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay in the MIDP group.

DISCUSSION

Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

Clinical application of laparoscopic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection and extraperitoneal sigmoidostomy for low rectal cancer

AIM: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection and extraperitoneal sigmoidostomy for low rectal cancer.

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological data for 25 low rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection and extraperitoneal sigmoidostomy at the First Hospital of Wuhan from January 2013 to February 2015.

RESULTS: Laparoscopic surgery was successful in all the 25 cases. Operative time was 162.5 min ± 35.6 min, and intraoperative blood loss was 55.5 mL ± 26.8 mL. Fat liquefaction and infection at the perineal incision occurred in two cases. After a median follow-up of 25 mo (range, 3-36 mo), no recurrence occurred.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection plus extraperitoneal sigmoidostomy is feasible for low rectal cancer and is associated with few complications, low recurrence rate, and satisfactory short-term curative effect.