Laparoscopic vs. open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Are these approaches still comparable? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Rectal Cancer Resection: Insights From a Resource-Limited Setting

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer treatment are emerging as the standard of care. Robotic surgery is unfeasible across the country due to constrained resource allocation. This study aimed to assess the oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer in a resource-limited setting.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched analysis was carried out to compare the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer resection at a high-volume tertiary cancer centre in South India.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty patients were included (110 patients in each group). The median follow-up was 93 months. There was no difference in positive circumferential resection margin between laparoscopic and open group (4.5% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.55), with a significantly better nodal yield in laparoscopic group. There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic and open groups in terms of local recurrence (5.1% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.12), 5-year disease-free survival (86% vs. 81%, p = 0.22, HR 0.699, 95% CI 0.353-1.27) or overall survival (85% vs. 76%, p = 0.21, HR 0.658, 95% CI 0.340-1.27). The mean cost between the two groups had no difference.

CONCLUSION

In a resource-limited setting with good expertise, laparoscopic surgery is an effective minimally invasive option that has good survival outcomes without imposing a financial burden on patients.

Robotic surgery is associated with a decreased risk of circumferential resection margin positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer undergoing mesorectal excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether robotic surgery (RS) decreases the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) in patients with rectal cancer (RC) undergoing mesorectal excision (ME).

BACKGROUND

Although it is well known that CRM positivity affects postoperative outcomes in patients with RC undergoing ME, few studies have investigated whether RS is superior to conventional LS for the risk of CRM positivity.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature up to December 2022 to identify studies that compared the risk of CRM positivity between patients with RC undergoing robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies, consisting of 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 propensity score matching (PSM) studies, involved a total of 9203 patients with RC who underwent ME were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that RS decreased the overall risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.73-0.92; P = 0.001; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS. Results of a meta-analysis of the 4 selected RCTs also showed that RS decreased the risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.62; 95 % CI, 0.43-0.91; P = 0.01; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that RS is associated with a decreased risk of CRM positivity compared with conventional LS in patients with RC undergoing ME.

Influence of Certification Program on Treatment Quality and Survival for Rectal Cancer Patients in Germany: Results of 13 Certified Centers in Collaboration with AN Institute

INTRODUCTION

The certification of oncological units as colorectal cancer centers (CrCCs) has been proposed to standardize oncological treatment and improve the outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The proportion of patients with CRC in Germany that are treated by a certified center is around 53%. Lately, the effect of certification on the treatment outcomes has been critically discussed.

AIM

Our aim was to investigate the treatment outcomes in patients with rectal carcinoma at certified CrCCs, in German hospitals of different medical care levels.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicentric database (AN Institute) of adult patients who underwent surgery for rectal carcinoma between 2002 and 2016. We included 563 patients from 13 hospitals of different medical care levels (basic, priority, and maximal care) over periods of 5 years before and after certification.

RESULTS

The certified CrCCs showed a significant increase in the use of laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery (5% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). However, we observed a significantly prolonged mean duration of surgery in certified CrCCs (161 Min. vs. 192 Min., p < 0.001). The overall morbidity did not improve (32% vs. 38%, p = 0.174), but the appearance of postoperative stool fistulas decreased significantly in certified CrCCs (2% vs. 0%, p = 0.036). Concerning the overall in-hospital mortality, we registered a positive trend in certified centers during the five-year period after the certification (5% vs. 3%, p = 0.190). The length of preoperative hospitalization (preop. LOS) was shortened significantly (4.71 vs. 4.13 days, p < 0.001), while the overall length of in-hospital stays was also shorter in certified CrCCs (20.32 vs. 19.54 days, p = 0.065). We registered a clear advantage in detailed, high-quality histopathological examinations regarding the N, L, V, and M.E.R.C.U.R.Y. statuses. In the performed subgroup analysis, a significantly longer overall survival after certification was registered for maximal medical care units (p = 0.029) and in patients with UICC stage IV disease (p = 0.041). In patients with UICC stage III disease, we registered a slightly non-significant improvement in the disease-free survival (UICC III: p = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study indicate an improvement in terms of the treatment quality and outcomes in certified CrCCs, which is enforced by certification-specific aspects such as a more differentiated surgical approach, a lower rate of certain postoperative complications, and a multidisciplinary approach. Further prospective clinical trials are necessary to investigate the influence of certification in the treatment of CRC patients.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence

Background

Rectal cancer is a disease in which cancer cells form in the rectum, which has the primary function of temporarily storing feces, controlling defecation, and maintaining continence. Surgery is the most common treatment for rectal cancer; surgical approaches include open, laparoscopic, and robotic assisted. We conducted an expedited summary of the clinical evidence for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the risk of bias in the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2), and we assessed the risk of bias in the included RCT using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, version 1. We reported the quality of the body of evidence as evaluated in the included systematic reviews according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria if it was evaluated.

Results

We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review (12 systematic reviews and 1 RCT on robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and 1 systematic review on robotic-assisted vs. open rectal cancer surgery). Compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival; similar rates of conversion, blood transfusion, and readmission,· reduced blood loss; shorter length of stay; and improved quality of life. Compared with open rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival, reduced blood loss, and shorter length of stay.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery.

Outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Transanal dissection is increasingly used in laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision of lower rectal cancers. Several studies compared outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection, yet there is a paucity of high-quality evidence. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled comparative analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection based on evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2022-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through March 2023. The Medical Subject Headings terms used in the search were Rectal neoplasms, Proctectomy, Laparoscopy, and Transanal. The main outcomes included operative and pathologic outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias version 2 tool, and certainty of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary study outcome was conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (1,339 patients; median age 61.2 years) were included; 671 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection, and 668 underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, and disease stage, but the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection group had a higher male-to-female ratio, received neoadjuvant therapy and had a hand-sewn anastomosis more often. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection had lower conversion rates (odds ratio = 0.179; P = .001), a higher likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision (odds ratio = 1.435; P = .025), and fewer harvested lymph nodes (weighted mean difference = -1.926; P = .035). The groups had similar operative times (weighted mean difference = -3.476; P = .398), total complications (odds ratio = 0.94; P = .665), major complications (odds ratio = 1.112; P = .66), anastomotic leak (odds ratio = 0.67; P = .432), positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 0.549; P = .155), and positive distal margins (odds ratio = 0.559; P = .171).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, greater likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision, and fewer harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS).

Materials and methods

The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023.

Results

Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Effect of intraoperative anastomotic reinforcement suture on the prevention of anastomotic leakage of double-stapling anastomosis for laparoscopic rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of sutures to strengthen the anastomosis after rectal cancer surgery to reduce the possibility of anastomotic leakage has been debated. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the influence of intraoperative anastomotic reinforcing sutures on anastomotic leakage of double-stapling anastomosis for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify literature examining anastomotic leak as the primary outcome to compare studies of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using the double-stapling anastomosis technique with or without intraoperative anastomotic reinforcement with sutures.

RESULTS

A total of 1122 rectal cancer patients from 5 nonrandomized studies were included in the research. In the combined trial, intraoperative anastomotic reinforcement sutures significantly reduced the incidence of anastomotic leakage in patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55; p < 0.0001). With or without intraoperative anastomotic reinforcing sutures, the incidence of postoperative reoperation for anastomotic leak did not differ substantially (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.08-1.21, p = 0.09). Moreover, the surgery was prolonged due to anastomotic reinforcement with sutures (OR, 6.64; 95% CI, - 6.18 to 19.47, p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative anastomotic reinforcement with sutures may be associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage. The amount of research evidence is limited because most of the studies analyzed did not include patients with factors such as neoadjuvant therapy or prophylactic stomas. Therefore, additional multicenter randomized controlled studies with larger size samples are needed to support the validity of the approach.

Efficacy of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopy surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) vs. laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on RACS and LACS in CRC patients published up to January 4, 2022. The outcomes included operative time, length of stay, conversion, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+), and complications.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (412 participants with RACS and 420 with LACS) were included. The pooled results showed shorter operative time (WMD=44.28, 95%CI: 9.36, 79.19, P = 0.013; PQ<0.001) and lower costs in RACS than in LACS (WMD=1546.15, 95%CI: 761.51, 2330.78, P<0.001; PQ=0.208), while no differences were observed for the length of stay (WMD=-0.31, 95%CI: -1.13,0.51, P = 0.456; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.990), blood loss (WMD=-33.72, 95%CI: -205.06, 137.62, P = 0.700; I2=89.0%, PQ=0.003), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD=1.38, 95%CI: -0.09, 2.85, P = 0.066; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.645), the time of first flatus (WMD=0.20, 95%CI: -0.20, 0.61, P = 0.328; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.337), rates of conversion to open surgery (RR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.38,1.01, P = 0.053; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.459), complication rates (RR=1.11, 95%CI: 0.83,1.49, P = 0.466; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.948), and CRM+ rates (RR=1.02, 95%CI: 0.66,1.58, P = 0.938; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.408). No publication bias was detected. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results for the operative time were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CRC who underwent RACS and LACS had a similar length of stay, blood loss, the time of first flatus, rates of conversion to open surgery, the number of harvested lymph nodes, complication rates, and CRM+ rates; however, RACS led to longer surgeries and higher costs than LACS.

Fast-track surgery nursing intervention in CRC patients with laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery

In this study, the application effect of fast-track surgery (FTS) nursing intervention in laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is investigated, and the optimal perioperative management strategy for CRC surgery is explored. One hundred thirty CRC patients are included in this study, in which 67 patients undergo laparotomy (Group A) and 63 patients undergo laparoscopic surgery (Group B). These patients were also randomly divided into traditional nursing subgroup (Group A1 [n = 33] and Group B1 [n = 31]) and FTS nursing subgroup (Group A2 [n = 34] and Group B2 [n = 32]). The general data of patients, pre-operative preparation, intra-operative data, postoperative recovery data, and postoperative complications are recorded. Both FTS and laparoscopic surgery can advance the anal exhaust time, and shorten postoperative fasting and water deprivation time, and the hospitalization time without increasing the incidence of complications. FTS has advantages in reducing the indwelling time of gastric tube and throat pain. Simultaneous implementation of FTS and laparoscopic surgery has the best effect on the postoperative recovery of CRC patients.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic technique for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery has been universally accepted as a valid option for the treatment of diverticular disease, provided specific expertise is available. Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the application of robotic approaches for diverticular disease. We aimed at evaluating whether robotic colectomy may offer some advantages over the laparoscopic approach for surgical treatment of diverticular disease by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature.

METHODS

The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web Of Sciences electronic databases were searched for literature up to December 2020. Inclusion criteria considered all comparative studies evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis eligible. The conversion rate to the open approach was evaluated as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The data of 4177 patients from nine studies were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy compared to those who underwent surgery with a robotic approach had a significantly higher risk of conversion into an open procedure (12.5% vs. 7.4%, p < 0.00001) and abbreviated hospital stay (p < 0.0001) at the price of a longer operating time (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic approach offers significant advantages in terms of conversion rate and shortened hospital stay for the treatment of diverticular disease. However, because of the lack of available evidence, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

Prognostic Discrimination of Alternative Lymph Node Classification Systems for Patients with Radically Resected Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Cohort Study from a Single Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Lymph node ratio (LNR) and the Log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) have been proposed as a new prognostic indicator in surgical oncology. Various studies have shown a superior discriminating power of LODDS over LNR and lymph node category (N) in diverse cancer entities, when examined as a continuous variable. However, for each of the classification systems various cut-off values have been defined, with the question of the most appropriate for patients with CRC still remaining open. The present study aimed to compare the predictive impact of different lymph node classification systems and to define the best cut-off values regarding accurate evaluation of overall survival in patients with resectable, non-metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

CRC patients who underwent surgical resection from 1996 to 2018 were extracted from our medical data base. Cox proportional hazards regression models and C-statistics were performed to assess the discriminative power of 25 LNR and 26 LODDS classifications. Regression models were adjusted for age, sex, extent of the tumor, differentiation, tumor size and localization.

RESULTS

Our study group consisted of 654 consecutive patients with non-metastatic CRC. C-statistic revealed 2 LNR and 5 LODDS classifications that demonstrated superior prognostic performance in patients with UICC III CRC, compared to the N category. No clear advantage of one classification over another could be demonstrated in any other patient subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct LNR and LODDS classifications demonstrate a prognostic superiority over the N category only in patients with Stage III radically resected CRC.

Long-term oncologic result of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy is an acceptable procedure for early-stage gastric cancer; however, most patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and older age in Taiwan. The feasibility and safety of applying laparoscopic gastrectomy in daily practice remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy versus open procedures.

Methods

From 2007 to 2015, 192 patients who underwent open gastrectomy and 189 patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer at a single center were included. Propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust selection biases associated with age, preoperative hemoglobin, the extent of resection, tumor size, and stage of the disease. The demographics, perioperative parameters, short-term postoperative results, and 5-year survival data were analyzed.

Results

Open gastrectomy was more frequently performed in the elderly, larger tumor size, advanced stage of the disease, and disease requiring total gastrectomy or combined organ resection. After propensity score matching, 108 patients with laparoscopic gastrectomy were compared to 108 patients with open gastrectomy. The morbidity rates were not different in both groups (25.9%), while hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (16.0 vs. 18.8 days, p = 0.04). The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival were superior in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively); however, the survival differences were not significant in the subgroup analysis by stage. Laparoscopic gastrectomy had fewer recurrences than open gastrectomy. The pattern of recurrence was not different between the groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic gastrectomy can be safely applied in both early and locally advanced gastric cancer without compromising oncologic outcomes.

Trial registration

Retrospective registration.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum]

An essential component of the treatment of colorectal cancer is a resection of the tumor-bearing segment of the bowels. After the development of minimally invasive procedures the feasibility and safety in oncological, colorectal surgery was questioned. The broad study situation for colon cancer over the last years showed predominantly consistent benefits during the perioperative phase and non-inferiority concerning long-term oncological outcomes. The implementation of laparoscopic rectal resection was more hesitant due to the complexity of the procedure and insufficient study data; however, overall the short-term benefits seem to be maintained and laparoscopic rectal resection is thought to be noninferior to open resection in the long run even though findings on the quality of the resected specimen are heterogeneous. Accordingly, most guidelines now include a recommendation of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. The limitation with respect to an achievable oncological equivalency of resection takes account of the complexity and the requirements of the intervention only in the setting of rational selection of patients and sufficient experience of the surgeon.

Impact of BMI on Adverse Events After Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes after open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remains unclear. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the interaction of body mass index and surgical modality (i.e., laparoscopy versus open) with respect to short-term clinical outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP database (2012-2016) was reviewed for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause morbidity. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 16,145 patients were grouped into open (N = 6759, 42%) and laparoscopic (N  = 9386, 58%) cohorts. Patients with higher BMI (p < 0.001) and those undergoing open surgery (p < 0.001) were at increased risk of all-cause morbidity. There was no significant change in the odds ratio of experiencing all-cause morbidity between open and laparoscopic surgery with increasing BMI (p = 0.572). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group (4 days vs. 6 days; p < 0.001), at the cost of increased operative time (239 min vs. 210 min, p < 0.001). The difference in operative time between laparoscopy and open surgery did not increase with rising BMI (i.e., ∆37 min vs. ∆39 min at BMI 25 kg/m² vs 50 kg/m², respectively, p = 0.491).

CONCLUSION

BMI may not be a strong modifier for surgical approach with respect to short-term clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and rectal cancer. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with improved short-term clinical outcomes, without much change in the absolute difference in operative time compared with open surgery, even at higher BMIs.