Laparoscopic versus open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a literature review and recommendations from the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie

The risk of postoperative complications is higher in stage I-III colorectal cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate whether previous abdominal surgery (PAS) affected stage I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who underwent radical resection.

METHODS

Stage I-III CRC patients who received surgery at a single clinical center from Jan 2014 to Dec 2022 were retrospectively included in this study. Baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes were compared between the PAS group and the non-PAS group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to find risk factors for overall complications and major complications. A 1:1 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the selection bias between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 22.0) software.

RESULTS

A total of 5895 stage I-III CRC patients were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PAS group had 1336 (22.7%) patients, and the non-PAS group had 4559 (77.3%) patients. After the PSM, there were 1335 patients in each group, and no significant difference was found in all baseline characteristics between the two groups (P > 0.05). After comparing the short-term outcomes, the PAS group had a longer operation time (before PSM, P < 0.01; after PSM, P < 0.01) and more overall complications (before PSM, P = 0.027; after PSM, P = 0.022) whether before or after PSM. In univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, PAS was an independent risk factor for overall complications (univariate analysis, P = 0.022; multivariate analysis, P = 0.029) but not for major complications (univariate analysis, P = 0.688).

CONCLUSION

Stage I-III CRC patients with PAS might experience longer operation time and have a higher risk of postoperative overall complications. However, it did not appear to significantly affect the major complications. Surgeons should take steps to improve surgical outcomes for patients with PAS.

Minimally invasive vs. open approach to the simultaneous treatment of colorectal tumors with synchronous liver metastasis: a single center, propensity-score matched analysis from Mayo clinic

BACKGROUND

Open combined resections of colorectal primary tumors and synchronous liver metastases have become common in selected cases. However, evidences favoring a minimally invasive (MIS) approach are still limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of MIS vs. open synchronous liver and colorectal resections.

METHODS

384 cases of synchronous colorectal and liver resections performed at one institution were identified during the study period. MIS vs open approach were compared after a propensity score matching; surgical outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

MIS cases featured longer operative time (399 vs 300 min, p < 0.001), fewer blood loss (200 vs 500 ml, p = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization (median LOS 4 vs 6 days, p = 0.001). No difference was observed between the two groups for use of Pringle maneuver (p = 0.083), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.061), achievement of negative colorectal (p = 0.176) and liver margins (p = 1.000), postoperative complications (p = 1.000) and significant (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a) complications (p = 0.817), delay of adjuvant therapy due to complications (p = 0.555), 30- and 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Synchronous colorectal and liver metastases resections via a minimally-invasive approach in high-volume centers with appropriate expertise result in significantly lower blood loss and length of stay despite longer operative time in comparison to open, with no oncological inferiority.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer increases with aging. Curative-intent surgery based on a minimally invasive concept is expected to bring survival benefits to elderly patients (aged over 80 years) with colorectal cancer who are frequently with fragile health status and advanced tumors. The study explored survival outcomes in this patient population who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery and aimed to identify an optimal surgical option for those patients.

METHODS

We retrieved the clinical materials and follow-up data on elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery in our institution. The pathological and surgical outcomes were compared to examine the efficacy and safety of the two approaches. The DFS (disease-free survival) and OS (overall survival) results at 3 years after surgery were assessed to explore the survival benefits.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were screened for the study, including 55 in the robotic group and 56 in the laparoscopic group. The demographic details were generally similar between the two groups. No statistically significant difference in the number of removed lymph nodes was observed between the two approaches, with a median of 15 versus 14 (P = 0.053). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced by robotic technique when compared to the laparoscopic approach, with a mean of 76.9 ml versus 161.6 ml (P = 0.025). There were no significant differences in operation time, conversion, postoperative complications and recovery, and long-term outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was prized for elderly patients with colorectal cancer who developed anemia and/or hematological conditions.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in an elderly population with high comorbidity: a single centre experience

PURPOSE

The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients with high comorbidity is a controversial subject. This retrospective analysis aims to compare two different age groups with respect to short and long term clinical and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

All laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer performed between February 2011 and October 2017 with curative or palliative intention were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 128 completed resections, the rate of major complications, length of hospital stays, 30-day mortality, 2-year recurrence rate, and the survival after palliative surgery were comparable between group A (< 75 years; n = 76) and B (≥ 75 years; n = 52). Patients in group B showed an extraordinarily high proportion of ASA III stage (73.1% vs. A: 35.5%; p < 0.01) and, in this context, an increased rate of minor postoperative complications (17.3% vs. A: 6.6%; p < 0.05) and lower overall 2 and 5-year survival rates. Within the first 2 years, they died sooner in the event of recurrence (57.1% vs. A: 18.2%; p < 0.05), and their survival after rectal resection, especially for low rectal carcinoma, was significantly reduced (58.8% vs. A: 96.7%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer can be strongly advocated for elderly patients even in the face of high comorbidity. Whether very old patients with low rectal carcinoma also benefit from minimally invasive surgery or should undergo alternative therapies would need to be clarified primarily by examining the quality of life.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for elderly patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical and survival outcomes between laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were systematically searched. The review included studies that were either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational in design. STATA was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis was conducted with 24 studies. Compared with elderly subjects with open surgery, those undergoing laparoscopic surgery had a lower risk of mortality (within 3 months postoperatively) (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.94). The long-term overall survival (HR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.04), disease-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.13), risk of recurrence (RR 1.44, 95% CI: 0.90, 2.30) and readmission (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.88, 1.40) rates were statistically similar in both the groups. The operative time (in minutes) was higher (WMD 30.37, 95% CI: 17.75, 43.0) and the blood loss (in ml) was lower (WMD -78.85, 95% CI: -101.96, -55.75) in those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The length of hospital stay (in days) (WMD -2.53, 95% CI: -3.11, -1.95) and the time of return of bowel movements (in days) (WMD -1.06, 95% CI: -1.20, -0.93) was lower in those with laparoscopic surgery. The pooled risk of complications was lower in those with laparoscopic surgery (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.74), compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that in elderly subjects with colorectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery appears to be more beneficial than open surgery and should be prioritized, subject to the availability of required technical skills and facilities.

Laparoscopic Subtotal Gastrectomy and Sigmoidectomy Combined With Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) for Synchronous Gastric Cancer and Sigmoid Colon Cancer: A Case Report

Background

Gastric cancer and colon cancer are rarely seen in clinic, but there are still related reports. For gastric cancer and simultaneous colon cancer, surgical resection is the main treatment. Traditional surgery requires an incision from xiphoid process to pubic symphysis. With the progress of minimally invasive technology, laparoscopic surgery is also used in the treatment of gastric cancer, but also in the abdominal incision to remove specimens and in vitro anastomosis of digestive tract. Taking specimens through the natural cavity as a new surgical method can not only reduce the abdominal incision, but also reduce the occurrence of wound-related complications. Here, we report a patient with gastric cancer and colon cancer who was treated in our hospital.

Case Summary

We report a series of patients with gastric cancer and colon cancer. upper abdominal pain was treated in our hospital for 6 months. electronic gastroscopy showed large irregular ulcers on the lesser curvature of the gastric antrum and biopsy showed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the gastric antrum. The enhanced CT of abdomen and pelvis showed irregular thickening of gastric antrum wall, irregular thickening of sigmoid colon wall and no obvious enlarged lymph nodes around. Further electronic enteroscopy showed that the sigmoid colon showed cauliflower protuberance, the intestinal cavity was slightly narrow, the intestinal wall was stiff, and the biopsy pathology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon. No obvious abnormality was found in serological tumor indexes. We diagnosed gastric cancer with sigmoid colon cancer and the patient received Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy and sigmoidectomy combined with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery. At present, 12 months after operation, no clear tumor recurrence was found in the metastasis.

Conclusion

We should improve the understanding of gastric cancer and sigmoid cancer and combine examination with pathology to avoid misdiagnosis as metastatic cancer. Laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy should be performed for tumors with no serosa invasion, body mass index <30 and tumor diameter <6.5 cm. Sigmoidectomy combined with natural nostril sampling is feasible.

Initial Retrocolic Endoscopic Tunnel Approach As an Ergonomic and Oncologically Apt Laparoscopic Technique for Resection of Malignant Right Colonic Lesions: An Experience from a University Hospital

Introduction: Radical minimal access cancer surgery has demonstrated similar outcomes as open surgery of late, but with less morbidity, improving the quality of life especially in patients with colorectal cancer. Initial retrocolic endoscopic tunnel approach (IRETA) has been described in the literature by Palanivelu et al. as a laparoscopic technique for radical resection of malignant right colonic lesions (MRCL) following the modified concept of medial to lateral dissection. In this work, the authors present their experience of this ergonomic surgical technique. Materials and Methods: To begin with, retrocolic dissection was carried out to free and dissect the ascending colon up to hepatic flexure with the reflection of the peritoneum over the right colon along the white line of Toldt with abdominal wall kept intact initially to sustain intracorporeal specimen steadiness. Subsequently, the specimen is lifted medially in a distinct lymphovascular sheath, leading to high ligation of ileocolic, right colic, and the right branch of the middle colic vein with a consequent definite en bloc thorough removal of the lesion. The specimen was delivered through a transumbilical incision. Results: Ten patients (age 45.4 ± 5.6 years) underwent resection by the IRETA technique with a mean operating time of 185 ± 30 minutes and blood loss of 90 ± 20 mL. Mean hospital stay was 6 days. R0 surgical resection was achieved in all patients with proper marginal clearance. Ninety percent had adequate lymph nodal resection. One patient had an intraoperative complication and n = 3 patients developed postoperative ileus. Adjuvant chemotherapy was given and there is no recurrence on 28 months of average follow-up. Conclusion: With the increasing use of laparoscopic surgery for the management of colorectal cancers, the IRETA technique appears to be an ergonomic and oncologically robust procedure for the removal of MRCL. The presented data set needs to be increased with at least 5 years of follow-up to establish long-term surgical outcomes.

Report of 13-year survival of patients with colon and rectal cancers; lessons from Shiraz colorectal cancer surgery registry system of a level three medical center

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in women and the third most common cancer in men worldwide, with an increasing trend in its incidence in Asian countries. In the present study, we aimed to describe the 13-year results of patients with CRC based on the Shiraz Colorectal Cancer Surgery (SCORCS) registry system in patients with a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) undergoing surgery.

Methods

Between 2007 and 2020, 811 patients, including 280 patients with CC and 531 patients with RC, registered in SCORCS, were included in the present study. The information collected for this study included demographic characteristics of the patients, primary clinical presentations, laboratory findings before surgery, radiologic and colonoscopy results, and surgical procedures. Death was confirmed by the physician as “CRC-related”. The data were analyzed by SPSS software version 21; life table and Kaplan-Meier curve were used for evaluating the overall survival, recurrence, and metastasis rates and Log-Rank test or Breslow test to check significant differences between the subgroups. The Cox proportional regression model was fitted to evaluate the prognostic factors of survival recurrence and metastasis.

Results

Laparoscopy was performed in 60% of patients (66% in RC and 51% in CC), laparotomy in 32% (27% in RC and 41% in CC), and 7% required conversion. The median time of follow-up was 29 months in all patients; 28 months in patients with RC, and 33 months in patients with CC; 1, 3, and 5 years’ survival rate was 90, 70, and 63% for all the patients, 89%, 67%, and 58% for RC and 90%, 74%, and 71% for CC, respectively (P = 0.009). The Cox regression analysis revealed tumor stages II, (P = 0.003, HR:2.45, 95% CI;1.34–4.49), III, (P ≤ 0.001, HR:3.46, 95% CI;1.88–6.36) and IV, (P ≤ 0.001, HR:6.28, 95% CI;2.73–14.42) in RC and stage IV, (P = 0.03, HR:9.33, 95% CI;1.1-76.37) in CC were the significant survival prognostic factors. The metastasis and recurrence of the tumors occurred earlier in patients with RC than CC (P = 0.001 and 0.03, respectively).

Conclusions

Long-term follow-up of patients with CRC in an Iranian population indicated the significance of screening for diagnosis of early stages and improved survival of the patients.

Improved Morbidity, Mortality, and Cost with Minimally Invasive Colon Resection Compared to Open Surgery

Background and Objectives:

Despite the growth of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in many specialties, open colon surgery is still routinely performed. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and costs between open colon and minimally invasive colon resections.

Methods:

We analyzed outcomes between January 1, 2016 and December31, 2018 using the Vizient® clinical database. Demographics, hospital length of stay, readmissions, complications, mortality, and costs were compared between patients undergoing elective open and minimally invasive colon resections. For bivariate analysis, Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous variables and χ² test was used for categorical variables. Multiple Logistic and Quintile regression were used for multivariable analyses.

Results:

A total of 88,405 elective colon resections (open: 56,599; minimally invasive: 31,806) were reviewed. A significantly larger proportion of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery were obese (body mass index > 30) compared to those undergoing open surgery (71.4% vs. 59.6%; p < 0.0001). As compared to minimally invasive colectomy, open colectomy patients had: a longer median length of stay [median (range): 7 (4–13) days vs. 4 (3 – 6) days, p < 0.0001], higher 30-day readmission rate [n = 8557 (15.1%) vs. 2815 (8.9%), p < 0.0001], higher mortality [n = 2590 (4.4%) vs. 107 (0.34%), p < 0.0001], and a higher total direct cost [median (range): $13,582 (9041–23,094) vs. $9013 (6748 – 12,649), p < 0.0001]. Multivariable models confirmed these findings.

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive colon surgery has clear benefits in terms of length of stay, readmission rate, mortality and cost, and the routine use of open colon resection should be revaluated.

Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery—will robotic surgery be the future?

Due to the complexity of the procedures and the texture of the organ itself, pancreatic surgery remains a challenge in the field of visceral surgery. During the past decade, a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery has gained distribution in clinical routine, extending from left-sided procedures to pancreatic head resections. While a laparoscopic approach has proven beneficial for many patients with left-sided pancreatic pathologies, the complex reconstruction in pancreas head resections remains worrisome with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic technique was established to overcome such technical constraints while preserving the advantages of the laparoscopic approach. Even though robotic systems are still in development, especially in pancreatoduodenectomy, the current literature demonstrates the feasibility of this approach and stable clinical and oncological outcomes compared to the open technique, albeit only under the condition of such operations being performed by specialist teams in a high-volume setting (>20 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies per year). The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding a minimally invasive approach to pancreatic surgery and to review the potential of a robotic approach. Presently, there is still a scarcity of sound evidence and long-term oncological data regarding the role of minimally invasive and robotic pancreatic surgery in the literature, especially in the setting of pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Clinical Value of Multi-Slice Spiral CT Angiography, Colon Imaging, and Image Fusion in the Preoperative Evaluation of Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision for Right Colon Cancer: a Prospective Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical value of CT angiography (CTA), CT colonography (CTC), and image fusion in the preoperative evaluation of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colon cancer.

METHODS

In this randomized prospective study, 80 patients undergoing laparoscopic CME for right colon cancer were randomly divided into two groups: image fusion [the original images were reconstructed using CTA and CTC, then fused into three-dimensional images of the blood vessels and intestines (n = 40)] and control (without CTA and CTC reconstruction before surgery). All patients underwent plain and enhanced abdominal CT before surgery.

RESULTS

In the image fusion group, the gastrocolic trunk of Henle was present in 33 cases, and its branches originated from the colon vein, right gastroepiploic vein, and superior anterior pancreaticoduodenal vein. Among these patients, 5 exhibited the right gastroepiploic vein and superior anterior pancreaticoduodenal vein; 21 exhibited a gastrointestinal trunk consisting of 2 or 3 branches of the right gastroepiploic vein, right colon vein, and middle colon vein; and 7 exhibited 3 or 4 gastro-pancreatic and colon trunks consisting of the right colon vein, middle colon vein, right gastroepiploic vein, and superior anterior pancreaticoduodenal vein. The correspondence with the anatomy actually observed during surgery was 100%. Compared with the conventional CT group, the duration of the operation in the image fusion group was shorter, with reduced intraoperative bleeding, and more lymph node dissection. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications and length of hospital stay between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For laparoscopic CME for right colon cancer, CTA, CTC, and image fusion were effective preoperative evaluation methods, which avoided some unseen dangers in the operation process and led to better therapeutic outcomes.

Operative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in a regional hospital in a developing country: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic surgery is an alternative procedure for colorectal cancers. However, high-level supporting evidence has been derived from high-volume centers in developed countries. During the early phase of applying the laparoscopic approach, we evaluated the procedure's short-term outcomes in our regional middle-volume hospital in a developing country.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data for a cohort of 223 colorectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery from October 2017 to September 2019. We compared 165 patients undergoing open surgery (OS group) with 58 undergoing laparoscopic surgery (LS group) using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, each group contained 58 patients for evaluating outcomes. The LS group had more harvested mesenteric lymph nodes (5.0 nodes, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-8.1; p-value: <0.01) with comparable blood loss (p-value: 0.54) and margin status (p-value: 0.66). However, LS was more time-consuming (68.8 min longer; 95% CI: 53.0-84.7; p-value: <0.01). Morbidity and mortality rates were equivalent (odds ratio (OR): 1.3, 95% CI: 0.25-2.73, p-value: 0.74, and OR: 2, 95% CI: 0.18-22.1, p-value: 0.57, respectively). The LS group experienced fewer days to begin normal eating (-0.5 days, 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.1, p-value: 0.04) and shorter hospital stay (-1.5 days, 95% CI: -2.7 to -0.4, p-value: <0.01). The conversion rate was 3.5%.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach was applicable even in a regional middle-volume hospital in a developing country. However, longer surgical time was a drawback.

Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes in Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personal Experience in a Single Institution

The oncologic merits of the laparoscopic technique for colorectal cancer surgery remain debatable. Eligible patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer who were scheduled for an elective resection by one surgeon in a medical institution were randomized to either laparoscopic or open surgery. During this period, a total of 188 patients received laparoscopic surgery and the other 163 patients received the open approach. The primary endpoint was cancer-free five-year survival after operative treatment, and the secondary endpoint was the tumor recurrence incidence. Besides, surgical complications were also compared. There was no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic groups regarding the average number of lymph nodes dissected, ileus, anastomosis leakage, overall mortality rate, cancer recurrence rate, or cancer-free five-year survival. Even though performing a laparoscopic approach used a significantly longer operation time, this technique was more effective for colorectal cancer treatment in terms of shorter hospital stay and less blood loss. Meanwhile, fewer patients receiving the laparoscopic approach developed postoperative urinary tract infection, wound infection, or pneumonia, which reached statistical significance. For non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better short-term outcomes, whether in several surgical complications and intra-operative blood loss. Though there was no significant statistical difference in terms of cancer-free five-year survival and tumor recurrence, it is strongly recommended that patients undergo laparoscopic surgery if not contraindicated.

Laparoscopic resection of splenic flexure colon cancers: a retrospective multi-center study with 117 cases

The objective is to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic resections of splenic flexure colon cancers in three Italian high-volume centers. The laparoscopic resection of splenic flexure colon cancers is a challenging procedure and has not been completely standardized, mainly due to the technical difficulty, the arduous identification of major blood vessels, and the problems associated with anastomosis construction. In this retrospective cohort observational study, a consecutive series of patients treated in three Italian high-volume centers with elective laparoscopic resection of the splenic flexure for cancer is analyzed. The observational period was from January 2008 to August 2017. Patient demographics and clinical features, operative data, and short- and long-term outcomes were prospectively recorded in a specific database and were retrospectively analyzed. During the observation period, 117 patients were selected. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 15 patients (12.8%). Of 102 complete laparoscopic procedures, multi-visceral resection was performed in 13 cases (12.7%). Postoperative surgical complications occurred in 13 patients (12.7%), with 3 cases of anastomotic leak (2.9%) and 3 cases of re-operation (2.9%). The postoperative mortality in this population was null. The 5-year overall survival rate was 84.3%, and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 87.8%. Laparoscopic resection of the splenic flexure is feasible and safe in high-volume centers. Compared to the results of other laparoscopic colonic resections, the short- and long-term outcomes are similar, but the conversion rate is higher.

Simultaneous Colon and Liver Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases: A Single Center Experience

Background: The one-stage approach for colorectal cancer (CRC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) has demonstrated advantages, when feasible, in terms of oncological radicality and reduction in sanitary costs. The simultaneous laparoscopic approach to both colon cancer and liver metastases joins the advantages of mini-invasiveness to the one-stage approach. Methods: During the period from February 2011 to July 2017, a single surgeon performed 17 laparoscopic colorectal operations with simultaneous liver resection for CRC with SLM. Colorectal procedures included 9 rectal resections, 6 left colectomies, and 2 right colectomies. Associated hepatic resections included 1 left hepatectomy, 1 right posterior sectionectomy, 2 segmentectomies, and 13 wedge resections. We analyzed retrospectively the patient's short-term outcome and operative and oncologic results. Results: There was no conversion to open surgery. Six patients (35%) had minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I-II), whereas only 2 patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) and no mortality occurred. The median time of discharge was 8.6 (range 5-36) days. We obtained 94% of R0 resection margin on the liver specimen and 100% of negative distal and circumferential margin in case of rectal resection. An average of 20 lymphnodes were retrieved in the colorectal specimen. Conclusions: Simultaneous mini-invasive colorectal and liver resection is a challenging but feasible procedure. The advantages of treating primary cancer and metastases in the same recovery justify the morbidity rate, especially because the most of the complications are minor and no cases of mortality occurred. Further experience is needed to better understand how to reduce the morbidity rate.

Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs.

Results

Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.

Joint consensus on abdominal robotic surgery and anesthesia from a task force of the SIAARTI and SIC

Minimally invasive surgical procedures have revolutionized the world of surgery in the past decades. While laparoscopy, the first minimally invasive surgical technique to be developed, is widely used and has been addressed by several guidelines and recommendations, the implementation of robotic-assisted surgery is still hindered by the lack of consensus documents that support healthcare professionals in the management of this novel surgical procedure. Here we summarize the available evidence and provide expert opinion aimed at improving the implementation and resolution of issues derived from robotic abdominal surgery procedures. A joint task force of Italian surgeons, anesthesiologists and clinical epidemiologists reviewed the available evidence on robotic abdominal surgery. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of evidence. Statements and recommendations are provided for general issues regarding robotic abdominal surgery, operating theatre organization, preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management, and postoperative procedures and discharge. The consensus document provides evidence-based recommendations and expert statements aimed at improving the implementation and management of robotic abdominal surgery.

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6-9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery.

OBJECTIVES

The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches.

DESIGN

Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work.

SETTING

Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited.

RESULTS

During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Laparoscopic Colectomy Versus Open Colectomy for Treatment of Transverse Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of transverse colon cancer (TCC) is still not standardized. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) for treatment of TCC in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes compared with open colectomy.

METHOD

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed and Embase. The last search was performed on September 15, 2016. The short-term outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and oncological surgical quality. The long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Thirteen articles and one conference abstract published between 2010 and 2016 with a total of 1728 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. LC was associated with significant less estimated blood loss, fewer total postoperative complications, and shorter time to first flatus, time to liquid diet, length of hospital stay, and length of postoperative hospital stay. However, longer operative time was needed in LC. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups concerning the intraoperative complications, mortality, ileus, anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, abdominal infection, lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, OS, or DFS.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that LC is a safe and feasible technique for TCC associated with less estimated blood loss, fewer total postoperative complications, quicker recovery of intestinal function, shorter length of hospital stay, and equivalent long-term outcomes. Furthermore, a large-scaled, prospective randomized controlled study is warranted to verify those results.

Comparison of multi-modal early oral nutrition for the tolerance of oral nutrition with conventional care after major abdominal surgery: a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial

Background & aims

Early oral nutrition (EON) has been shown to improve recovery of gastrointestinal function, length of stay and mortality after abdominal surgery; however, early oral nutrition often fails during the first week after surgery. Here, a multi-modal early oral nutrition program is introduced to promote recovery of gastrointestinal function and tolerance of oral nutrition.

Methods

Consecutive patients scheduled for abdominal surgery were randomized to the multimodal EON group or a group receiving conventional care. The primary endpoint was the time of first defecation. The secondary endpoints were outcomes and the cost-effectiveness ratio in treating infectious complications. The rate of infectious-free patients was regarded as the index of effectiveness.

Results

One hundred seven patients were randomly assigned to groups. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. In intention-to-treat analysis, the success rate of oral nutrition during the first week after surgery in the multimodal EON group was 44 (83.0%) versus 31 (57.4%) in the conventional care group (P = 0.004). Time to first defecation, time to flatus, recovery time of bowel sounds, and prolonged postoperative ileus were all less in the multimodal EON group (P < 0.05). The median postoperative length of stay in the multimodal EON group was 8 days (6, 12) versus 10 days (7, 18) in the conventional care group (P < 0.001). The total cost of treatment and nutritional support were also less in the multi-modal early oral nutrition group (P < 0.001). The effectiveness was 84.9 and 79.9% in the multimodal EON and conventional care group, respectively (P = 0.475). However, the cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 537.6 (506.1, 589.3) and USD 637.8 (593.9, 710.3), respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The multi-modal early oral nutrition program was an effective way to improve tolerance of oral nutrition during the first week after surgery, decrease the length of stay and improve cost-effectiveness after abdominal surgery.

Trial registration

Registration number: ChiCTR-TRC-14004395. Registered 15 March 2014.

[Laparoscopic colectomy versus colectomy performed via laparotomy in the treatment of non-metastatic colic adenocarcinomas]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colectomy is considered with increasing frequency the gold standard treatment for colorectal cancer. Our study aims to show that short-term results and the oncological safety of laparoscopy are at least equivalent to those of laparotomy in the treatment of non-metastatic colic adenocarcinomas. We also highlight the impact of the learning curve on outcomes after laparoscopy in patients with these cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients undergoing surgery for resectable colic adenocarcinomas over a period of 6 years. The study population was divided into 2 groups based on the surgical procedure used initially. The group "OC" included 35 patients who underwent midline laparotomy and the group "LAC" included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopy. All data were analyzed using SPSS software version 19.0.

RESULTS

Our study showed that there was no significant difference in short-term outcomes between the 2 groups, namely intraoperative morbidity, hospital stay, intensive care unit stay as well as postoperative morbidity and mortality. Regarding the long-term outcomes, there was also no significant difference in the incidence of late complications, type of recurrence, overall survival and disease-free survival. Oncological safety based on the limits of resection and the number of lymph nodes removed was not significantly different between the two groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (p <0.001). Convertion rate was 33%. It went from 67% in the first 2 years of the study to 13% in the last 2 years. The conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy had no significant impact neither on early postoperative outcomes nor on overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is a surgical procedure resulting in at least equivalent short and long term outcomes as laparotomy. The learning curve representing a "prerequisite" has no negative impact on the outcomes of laparoscopic treatment of non-metastatic colic cancers.

Laparoscopic assisted low anterior resection for advanced rectal cancer in a kidney transplant recipient: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Development of de novo malignancy has become a major cause of late mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Surgery is currently the most important treatment of choice for transplant patients with resectable CRC. However, conventional open surgery represents a great risk to these high-risk patients. They seem to benefit more from laparoscopic surgery, based on the favorable oncological outcome and remarkable short-term advantages of this approach.

PATIENT CONCERNS

In this study, we have reported a case of a 50-year-old man who had underwent kidney transplantation for 4 years. He presented with recurrent hematochezia and frequent loose stools for 1 year, and consulted a doctor for recent progressive general malaise and weight loss.

DIAGNOSES

Colonoscopy revealed a near-circumferential mass at the middle rectum about 8 cm from anal verge. Further biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma. Following computed tomography demonstrated peripheral lymph node metastasis, but no signs of distant metastasis.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient underwent a laparoscopic assisted low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Concomitantly, a loop transverse colostomy was performed to prevent anastomotic leakage. The surgery was completed within 120 min with a blood loss of 100 mL, and immunosuppressive therapy was not stopped perioperatively. Considering the tumor stage of pT3N1M0, the patient also received adjuvant chemotherapy with a regimen of FOLFOX for 8 cycles.

OUTCOMES

Anastomotic bleeding occurred in this patient about 4 h after surgery, and a control of hemorrhage per anus was performed timely. The following postoperative course was uneventful without any complications, and graft function stayed well. After 4 months of follow-up period, the patient was in a good condition. No evidences of local recurrence and distant metastasis were found.

CONCLUSION

We have presented a case of successful laparoscopic resection for advanced rectal cancer in a kidney transplant recipient. We believe laparoscopic surgery for CRC in transplant recipients is technically feasible and oncologically safe, which could be a preferred option of surgical procedure in the near future.

Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

Over the past few decades, robotic surgery has developed from a futuristic dream to a real, widely used technology. Today, robotic platforms are used for a range of procedures and have added a new facet to the development and implementation of minimally invasive surgeries. The potential advantages are enormous, but the current progress is impeded by high costs and limited technology. However, recent advances in haptic feedback systems and single-port surgical techniques demonstrate a clear role for robotics and are likely to improve surgical outcomes. Although robotic surgeries have become the gold standard for a number of procedures, the research in colorectal surgery is not definitive and more work needs to be done to prove its safety and efficacy to both surgeons and patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Loop Ileostomy Reversal: Is there an Advantage to a Minimally Invasive Approach?

BACKGROUND

Ileostomy reversals are commonly performed procedures after colon and rectal operations. Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (LIR) with lysis of adhesions has potential benefits over conventional open surgery. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and open ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

133 consecutive patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at our institution between June 2009 and August 2013 were analyzed using a retrospective database. The group comprised 53 laparoscopic cases and 80 open cases, performed by four surgeons at a single center. The data were analyzed for patient demographics, operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The two groups had comparable mean age, gender distribution, ASA scores, and BMI. The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer duration of surgery compared to the open reversal group (109 versus 93 min, p < 0.05). However, this group underwent more lysis of adhesions (60.4 % versus 26.3 %, p < 0.01) as well as concurrent stoma site mesh reinforcement (32.1 % versus 6.3 %, p < 0.01). In the laparoscopy group, 20.7 % of patients underwent intra-corporeal ileo-ileal anastomosis. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic and open groups with regard to estimated blood loss (31 versus 40 ml, respectively) or mean length of stay (5.3 vs. 5.7 days, respectively). The rates of overall 30-day morbidity (16.9 % for laparoscopic vs. 21.3 % for open) as well as rates of specific complications were equivalent between groups. 30-day mortalities were not noted in either group.

CONCLUSION

LIR is safe and effective with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The use of laparoscopy as an option in terms of concomitant hernia repair and lysis of adhesions may be considered in selected patients.

Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery: Does the Surgical Technique Influence Pain Outcome? Results from an International Registry

Postoperative pain management relevant for specific surgical procedures is debated. The importance of evaluating pain with consideration given to type of surgery and the patient's perspective has been emphasized. In this prospective cohort study, we analysed outcome data from 607 patients in the international PAIN OUT registry for assessment and comparison of postoperative pain outcome within the 24 first hours after laparoscopic and open colonic surgery. Patients from the laparoscopic group scored minimum pain at a higher level than the open group (P = 0.012). Apart from minimum pain, no other significant differences in patient reported outcomes were observed. Maximum pain scores >3 were reported from 77% (laparoscopic) and 68% (open) patients (mean ≥ 5 in both groups). Pain interference with mobilization was reported by 87–93% of patients. Both groups scored high levels of patient satisfaction. In the open group, a higher frequency of patients received a combination of general and regional anaesthesia, which had an impact of the minimum pain score. Our results from registry data indicate that surgical technique does not influence the quality of postoperative pain management during the first postoperative day if adequate analgesia is given.

Meta-analysis of the laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery within fast track surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic methods and fast-track surgery (FTS) can enhance recovery and reduce postoperative hospital stay. However, whether laparoscopic surgery can provide short-term benefits within FTS is controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery within FTS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for eligible studies. Endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay, time to first bowel movement, total postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, mortality within 30 days after surgery, and conversation rate of laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and six clinical controlled trials (1510 patients) were eligible for analyses. Duration of postoperative hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -1.65 days; p < 0.001), time to first bowel movement (-1.13 days; p < 0.001), total postoperative complication rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.65; p < 0.001), readmission rate (0.46; p < 0.001), and mortality (0.45; p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group. Overall conversion rate of laparoscopic surgery was 11.1%. Subgroup analyses based on each FT element demonstrated that studies without the element "prevention of hypothermia," "no bowel preparation," or "no routine use of drains" did not show significant differences between two groups with regard to duration of postoperative hospital stay or total prevalence of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Within FTS, laparoscopic methods can significantly shorten postoperative hospital stay, accelerate postoperative recovery, and enhance safety in colorectal surgery. The FT elements "prevention of hypothermia," "no bowel preparation," and "no routine use of drains" may play important parts in the combined effect of these two methods.

Overview of robotic colorectal surgery: Current and future practical developments

Minimal access surgery has revolutionised colorectal surgery by offering reduced morbidity and mortality over open surgery, while maintaining oncological and functional outcomes with the disadvantage of additional practical challenges. Robotic surgery aids the surgeon in overcoming these challenges. Uptake of robotic assistance has been relatively slow, mainly because of the high initial and ongoing costs of equipment but also because of limited evidence of improved patient outcomes. Advances in robotic colorectal surgery will aim to widen the scope of minimal access surgery to allow larger and more complex surgery through smaller access and natural orifices and also to make the technology more economical, allowing wider dispersal and uptake of robotic technology. Advances in robotic endoscopy will yield self-advancing endoscopes and a widening role for capsule endoscopy including the development of motile and steerable capsules able to deliver localised drug therapy and insufflation as well as being recharged from an extracorporeal power source to allow great longevity. Ultimately robotic technology may advance to the point where many conventional surgical interventions are no longer required. With respect to nanotechnology, surgery may eventually become obsolete.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Resection in High-Volume Surgical Centers: Long-Term Outcomes from the LAPCOLON Group Trial

BACKGROUND

Strong evidence has confirmed the benefit of laparoscopy in colorectal cancer resection but remains a challenging procedure. It is not clear that such promising results in selected patients translate into a favorable risk-benefit balance in real practice. We conducted a multicenter national observational registry to assess operative and oncologic long-term outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

METHODS

All patients with laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection between 2001 and 2004 were included. Data were extracted from the prospective Italian national database of 10 high-volume centers (≥40 colorectal cancer laparoscopic resections per year). Surgical technique and follow-up were standardized. Survivals were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

We reported 1832 patients with colon (58.5%) and rectal cancer (41.5%). TNM stage was 0-I-II in 1044 patients (57%) and III-IV in 788 patients (43%). Surgery included a totally laparoscopic procedure in 1820 patients (99.3%). Conversion was 10.5%. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 17 and 1.2%, respectively. Clinical anastomotic leakage rate was 8.3% (n=152). R0 resection was 95%. With a median follow-up of 54.2 months, cancer recurrence rate was 13.3%. At 5 years, cancer-free survival was 86.7%. Upon multivariate analysis, age (P=0.001) and TNM stage (P<0.001) were associated with cancer-free survival. Predictive factors of cancer recurrence were gender (P=0.029) and TNM stage (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In high-volume centers and non-selective patients, laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer achieves good operative results with satisfactory long-term oncologic results. Even in the laparoscopy era, age, gender, and TNM stage remain the most powerful predictor of oncologic outcomes.

Enhanced recovery care after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Compliance and outcomes of a multicenter study from the Spanish working group on ERAS

PURPOSE

ERAS (enhanced recovery after surgery) programs have proven to reduce morbidity and hospital stay in colorectal surgery. However, the feasibility of these programs in elderly patients has been questioned. The aim of this study is to assess the implementation and outcomes of an ERAS program for colorectal cancer in elderly patients.

METHODS

This is a multicenter observational study of a cohort of elderly patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an ERAS program. A total of 188 consecutive patients over 70 years who underwent elective colorectal surgery within an ERAS program at three institutions during a 2-year period were included. The compliance with the ERAS protocol interventions was measure. Complications were evaluated according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Data on length of stay and readmission rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Early intake and early mobilization were the most successfully carried out interventions. There was a global compliance rate of 56 % of patients for whom compliance was achieved with all measured interventions. The median hospital length of stay was 6 days. Almost 60 % of patients had no complications, 24 % had minor complications while 13 % had major complications; of them, 8 % patients were reoperated. The readmission rate was 6.4 %.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS after colorectal surgery in elderly patients presents as safe and feasible based on good reported outcomes of compliance rates, complications, readmissions, and needs for reoperation.

Current State of Laparoscopic Colonic Surgery in Austria: A National Survey

PURPOSE

Several studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic colonic resection has significant benefits in comparison with open approaches in patients with benign and malignant disease. The proportion of colonic and rectal resections conducted laparoscopically in Austria is not currently known; the aim of this study was to evaluate the current status of laparoscopic colonic surgery in Austria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to all general surgical departments in Austria. In collaboration with IMAS, an Austrian market research institute, an online survey was used to identify laparoscopic and open colorectal resections performed in 2013. The results were compared with data from the National Hospital Morbidity Database (NHMD), in which administrative in-patient data were also collected from all general surgical departments in Austria in 2013.

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 99 surgical departments in Austria responded (53.5%); 4335 colonic and rectal resections were carried out in the participating departments, representing 50.5% of all NHMD-recorded colorectal resections (n = 8576) in Austria in 2013. Of these 4335 colonic and rectal resections, 2597 (59.9%) were carried out using an open approach, 1674 (38.6%) were laparoscopic, and an exact classification was not available for 64 (1.5%). Among the NHMD-recorded colonic and rectal resections, 6342 (73.9%) were carried out with an open approach, and 2234 (26.1%) were laparoscopic.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of colorectal resections that are carried out laparoscopically is low (26.1%). Technical challenges and a learning curve with a significant number of cases may be reasons for the slow adoption of laparoscopic colonic surgery.

Improved survival with early adjuvant chemotherapy after colonic resection for stage III colonic cancer: A nationwide study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In stage III colonic cancer, time from surgery to start of adjuvant chemotherapy may influence survival. In this study, we evaluated the effect of timing of adjuvant therapy on survival.

METHODS

Database study from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group's national database. Data on patients with stage III colonic cancer operated between January 1, 2005 and August 31, 2012 were retrieved. Perioperative variables, surgical modality, and time to adjuvant therapy (<4, 4-8, or >8 weeks) were evaluated and Cox regression was performed to identify factors influencing survival.

RESULTS

The final population included 1,827 patients scheduled for adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant therapy started within 4 and 8 weeks improved survival when compared to start later than 8 weeks (HR [95%CI]: 1.7 [1.1-2.6]; P = 0.024 and 1.4 [1.07-1.8]; P = 0.013, respectively), whereas there was no significant difference in survival with start after 4 versus 8 weeks (1.2 [0.8-1.8]; P = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival increased when adjuvant therapy was started within 8 weeks after surgery for stage III colonic cancer.

A clinical model for predicting lymph node metastasis in submucosal invasive (T1) colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

No single histopathological feature of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer (T1-CRC) can reliably predict the risk for lymph node metastasis (LNM).

AIM

The purpose of the study was to develop a prediction model of LNM in T1-CRC.

METHODS

Ninety-seven surgically resected T1-CRC at our institution were retrospectively evaluated. Morphology, localization, grading, mode of growth, presence of background adenoma, lymphoid infiltration, angiolymphatic invasion, budding, and depth of invasion were assessed. Mortality and morbidity related to surgery were also evaluated. Benefit-risk balance was assessed according to the presence of severe complications and to the presence of LNM.

RESULTS

Fourteen cases had LNM (14%). Eight patients (8%) presented severe surgical complications and there were two deaths (2 %). Infiltrative growth pattern (OR 31.91, 95% CI 2.37-428.36; p = 0.009) and the absence of lymphoid infiltrate (OR 28.75; 95% CI 2.13-388.37; p = 0.011) were the only variables independently associated with LNM in the multivariate analysis. Both variables were included in the prediction model together with sessile morphology (OR 4.88; 95% CI 0.81-29.3; p = 0.083) and poorly differentiated carcinoma (OR 11.77; 95% CI 0.77-179.83; p = 0.076). A 0-100 score was developed (infiltrative growth pattern: no = 0, yes = 33; lymphoid infiltrate: no = 29, yes = 0; sessile morphology: no = 0, yes = 15; poorly differentiated: no = 0, yes = 23). Cutoff point to indicate additional surgery was set in 35 points (i.e., 10% risk LNM). Discrimination of the prediction model was excellent (AUC 0.90; 95% CI 0.81-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Combined evaluation of infiltrative growth pattern, lymphoid infiltration, poorly differentiated carcinoma, and sessile appearance showed good performance for discriminating T1-CRC patients with LNM. The benefit-risk balance was in favor of surgery when at least two of these criteria were present.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open thoracotomy for pulmonary metastasectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary metastasectomy has become a popular procedure for patients with pulmonary metastases. It can be achieved via the traditional open thoracotomy or the more recently developed video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). However, there has been much debate as to which approach is better in terms of detection of pulmonary metastases and, in turn, survival and recurrence outcomes. We aim to compare the two different approaches in terms of survival and recurrence outcomes.

METHODS

Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant publications dated prior to May 2013. The bibliographies of the included articles were examined for additional relevant articles that were not included in the search. All publications reporting on overall survival and recurrence-free survival were included. The articles were carefully examined and data were extracted. STATA 12L and RevMan5.2 software were used to combine the data using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 1960 studies were identified through the search. Thirty-two articles had extractable data regarding overall survival and recurrence-free survival. However, only eight articles were included in the end as the other 24 articles had incomplete data. From the included articles, we found that the VATS group had slightly higher odds of 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival with odds ratios of 1.53, 1.69 and 1.41, respectively, and also higher odds of 1-, 3- and 5-year recurrence-free survival with odds ratios of 1.29, 1.54 and 1.54, respectively.

CONCLUSION

VATS offers a suitable alternative to open thoracotomy for the treatment of pulmonary metastases.

Robotic surgery of the pancreas

Pancreatic surgery is one of the most challenging and complex fields in general surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many intra-abdominal pathologies the overwhelming majority of pancreatic surgery is performed in an open fashion. This is attributed to the retroperitoneal location of the pancreas, its intimate relationship to major vasculature and the complexity of reconstruction in the case of pancreatoduodenectomy. Herein, we describe the application of robotic technology to minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. The unique capabilities of the robotic platform have made the minimally invasive approach feasible and safe with equivalent if not better outcomes (e.g., decreased length of stay, less surgical site infections) to conventional open surgery. However, it is unclear whether the robotic approach is truly superior to traditional laparoscopy; this is a key point given the substantial costs associated with procuring and maintaining robotic capabilities.