The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

INTERVENTION(S)

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were oncological parameters.

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

Comparison of Short-Term and Long-Term outcomes of Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy in Rectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and objective: The last randomized controlled trials ,the ACOSOG Z6051 1,2 and the ALaCaRT trial3, 4 could not show the non-inferiority of the laparoscopy in comparison to laparotomy for rectal cancer. In fact, the ten first years of practicing laparoscopy were years when surgeons developed their learning curve. Therefore, by excluding this learning bias, it is possible to end up with a more fair and correct comparison between the two techniques. It is henceforth relevant to pursue a new meta-analysis that compares the two techniques and excludes studies done during the earlier periods of laparoscopic rectal surgery. Results: Six randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1556 patients in the laparoscopy group and 1188 patients in the laparotomy group. Our meta-analysis was in favor of laparoscopy in a significant way for blood loss, first bowel movement and the number of harvested lymph nodes. It was non-significantly in favour of laparoscopy for 30-days mortality after surgery and length of hospital stay. It was significantly in favor of laparotomy for operative duration. No significant difference was found in anastomotic leakage) , reoperation within 30 days, number of positive CRMs and completeness of mesorectal excision between the two groups. No difference was found in recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival between laparoscopy group and laparotomy group. Conclusion: The comparison of the randomized controlled trials published before and after 2010, showed no significant difference in outcomes between the learning period and after. Keywords: Laparoscopy, laparotomy, long-term outcomes, meta-analysis, short-term outcomes, rectal cancer

[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results]

BACKGROUND

The number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.

RESULTS

The procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.

Age and comorbidities do not affect short-term outcomes after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection in elderly patients. A multi-institutional cohort study in 287 patients

Postoperative complications and mortality rates after rectal cancer surgery are higher in elderly than in non-elderly patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether, like in open surgery, age and comorbidities affect postoperative outcomes limiting the benefits of a laparoscopic approach. Between April 2011 and July 2020, data of 287 patients with rectal cancer submitted to laparoscopic rectal resection from different institutions were collected in an electronic database and were categorized into two groups: < 75 years and ≥ 75 years of age. Perioperative data and short-term outcomes were compared between these groups. Risk factors for postoperative complications were determined on multivariate analysis, including age groups and previous comorbidities as variables. Seventy-seven elderly patients had both higher ASA scores (p < 0.001) and cardiovascular disease rates (p = 0.02) compared with 210 non-elderly patients. There were no significative differences between groups in terms of overall postoperative complications (p = 0.3), number of patients with complications (p = 0.2), length of stay (p = 0.2) and death during hospitalization (p = 0.9). The only independent variables correlated with postoperative morbidity were male gender (OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.53-3.68, p < 0.01) and low-medium localization of the tumor (OR 2.12; 75% CI 1.43-4.21, p < 0.01). Although older people are more frail patients, short-term postoperative outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years of age were similar to those of younger patients after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Elderly patients benefit from laparoscopic rectal resection as well as non-elderly patient, despite advanced age and comorbidities.

Current Surgical Strategies for the Treatment of Rectal Adenocarcinoma and the Risk of Local Recurrence

BACKGROUND

Despite new medical and surgical strategies, 5-year local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma was reported in up to 25% of cases. Therefore, we aimed to review surgical strategies for the prevention of local recurrences in rectal cancer.

SUMMARY

After implementation of the total mesorectal excision (TME), surgical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma with anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision (APE) allowed decrease in local recurrence (3% at 5 years). More recently, extralevator APE was described as an alternative to APE, decreasing specimen perforation and recurrence rate. Moreover, technique modifications were developed to optimize rectal resection, such as the laparoscopic or robotic approach, and transanal TME. However, the technical advantages conferred by these techniques did not translate into a decreased recurrence rate. Lateral lymph node dissection is another technique, which aimed at improving the long-term outcomes; nevertheless, there is currently no evidence to recommend its routine use. Strategies to preserve the rectum are also emerging, such as local excision, and may be beneficial for subgroups of patients. Key Messages: Rectal cancer management requires a multidisciplinary approach, and surgical strategy should be tailored to patient factors: general health, previous perineal intervention, anatomy, preference, and tumor characteristics such as stage and localization.

Modes of carbon dioxide delivery during laparoscopy generate distinct differences in peritoneal damage and hypoxia in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

Insufflation with CO₂ can employ continuous flow, recirculated gas and/or additional warming and humidification. The ability to compare these modes of delivery depends upon the assays employed and opportunities to minimize subject variation. The use of pigs to train colorectal surgeons provided an opportunity to compare three modes of CO₂ delivery under controlled circumstances.

METHODS

Sixteen pigs were subjected to rectal resection, insufflated with dry-cold CO₂ (DC-CO₂) (n = 5), recirculated CO₂ by an AirSeal device (n = 5) and humidification and warming (HW-CO2) by a HumiGard device (n = 6). Peritoneal biopsies were harvested from the same region of the peritoneum for fixation for immunohistochemistry for hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to evaluate hypoxia induction or tissue/cellular damage, respectively.

RESULTS

DC-CO₂ insufflation by both modes leads to significant damage to mesothelial cells as measured by cellular bulging and retraction as well as microvillus shortening compared with HW-CO₂ at 1 to 1.5 h. DC-CO₂ also leads to a rapid and significant induction of HIF-1α compared with HW-CO₂.

CONCLUSIONS

DC-CO₂ insufflation induces substantive cellular damage and hypoxia responses within the first hour of application. The use of HW-CO₂ insufflation ameliorates these processes for the first one to one and half hours in a large mammal used to replicate surgery in humans.

Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial.

AIM

To compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC).

RESULTS

30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield.

CONCLUSIONS

While OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Versus Transanal Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal.

CONCLUSIONS

The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.

Is there still a place for open surgery in the treatment strategy of rectal cancer?

Over the last 30 years laparoscopic surgery of rectal cancer has been progressively gaining popularity due to expanding experience and the development of technical skills according to the surgeons’ learning curves. The report constitutes a review of recently published articles concerning surgical techniques in colon cancer, with special emphasis on rectal cancer treatment. We tried to address the question of whether, in view of further development and broader use of laparoscopic surgery, there still is a place for open surgery in the treatment strategy of rectal cancer.

Surgical resection for rectal cancer. Is laparoscopic surgery as successful as open approach? A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, it has been questioned if minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was surgically successful. We decided to perform a meta-analysis to determine if minimally invasive surgery is adequate to obtain a complete resection for curable rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search pertaining to evaluation between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for rectal cancer was performed until 30th November 2016 in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive and open surgery. Outcomes analyzed were number of clear Distal Resection Margins (DRM or DM), complete Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) and complete, nearly complete and incomplete Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) and of patients who received laparoscopic or open treatment for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

12 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of successful surgical resection was similar between open and laparoscopic surgery. About distance from distal margin of the specimen, clear CRM and complete TME there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD = -0.090 cm, p = 0.364, 95% CI -0.283, 0.104; OR = 1.032, p = 0.821, 95% CI 0.784, 1.360; OR = 0.933, p = 0.720, 95% CI 0.638, 1.364, respectively). The analysis of nearly complete TME showed a significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.407, p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.103, 1.795), while the analysis of incomplete TME showed a non-significant difference (OR = 1.010, p = 0.964, 95% CI 0.664, 1.534).

CONCLUSIONS

By pooling together data from 5 RCTs and 7 nRCTs, we are able to provide evidence of safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery. Waiting for further randomized clinical trials, our results are encouraging to introduce laparoscopic rectal resection in daily practice.

Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer (LRC) is performed worldwide. However, APR involves technical difficulties and often causes intractable perineal complications. Therefore, a novel and secure technique during APR is required to overcome these critical issues. Although the usefulness of the endoscopic trans-anal approach has been documented, no series of the endoscopic trans-perineal approach during laparoscopic APR for LRC has been reported.

METHODS

Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery (TpMIS) has been used during laparoscopic APR in our institution since April 2014. TpMIS is defined as an endoscopic trans-perineal approach using a single-port device and laparoscopic instruments. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated 50 consecutive patients with LRC who underwent laparoscopic APR at our institution from February 2011 to June 2017 and compared the outcomes of the patients who underwent TpMIS [trans-perineal APR (TpAPR) group, n = 21] versus the conventional trans-perineal approach (conventional group, n = 29). We investigated our experiences with TpMIS in detail and evaluated the safety and utility of TpMIS for patients with LRC. Moreover, major features and difficulties of TpMIS were examined from a surgical viewpoint.

RESULTS

Intraoperative blood loss (median (range) 55 (10-600) vs. 120 (20-1650) ml) and severe perineal wound infection (Clavien-Dindo grade 3, 0 vs. 5 cases) were significantly lower in the TpAPR than conventional group. TpMIS led to a shortened hospital stay (median (range), 14 (10-74) vs. 23 (10-84) days), and neither mortality nor conversion to open surgery occurred in the TpAPR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnified visualization via endoscopy provided more accurate dissection and less blood loss during surgery. Minimal skin incisions enabled a reduction in postoperative perineal complications, and consequently shortened the hospital stay. TpMIS during laparoscopic APR is safe and beneficial for patients with LRC.

Short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic vs open rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence on the short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic (LRR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, OpenGrey and ClinicalTrials.gov register for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LRR vs ORR for rectal cancer and reporting short-term clinical outcomes. Articles published in English from January 1, 1995 to June, 30 2016 that met the selection criteria were retrieved and reviewed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements checklist for reporting a systematic review was followed. Random-effect models were used to estimate mean differences and risk ratios. The robustness and heterogeneity of the results were explored by performing sensitivity analyses. The pooled effect was considered significant when P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Overall, 14 RCTs were included. No differences were found in postoperative mortality (P = 0.19) and morbidity (P = 0.75) rates. The mean operative time was 36.67 min longer (95%CI: 27.22-46.11, P < 0.00001), the mean estimated blood loss was 88.80 ml lower (95%CI: -117.25 to -60.34, P < 0.00001), and the mean incision length was 11.17 cm smaller (95%CI: -13.88 to -8.47, P < 0.00001) for LRR than ORR. These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses that focused on the four major RCTs. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.71 d shorter (95%CI: -2.84 to -0.58, P < 0.003) for LRR than ORR. Similarly, bowel recovery (i.e., day of the first bowel movement) was 0.68 d shorter (95%CI: -1.00 to -0.36, P < 0.00001) for LRR. The sensitivity analysis did not confirm a significant difference between LRR and ORR for these latter two parameters. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high.

CONCLUSION

LRR is associated with lesser blood loss, smaller incision length, and longer operative times compared to ORR. No differences are observed for postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Defining the Role of Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Locally Advanced Rectal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

National examination of open proctectomy (OP), laparoscopic proctectomy (LP), and robotic proctectomy (RP) in pathological outcomes and overall survival (OS).

BACKGROUND

Surgical management for rectal adenocarcinoma is evolving towards utilization of LP and RP. However, the oncological impacts of a minimally invasive approach to rectal cancer have yet to be defined.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the National Cancer Database identified patients with nonmetastatic locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2014, who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant therapy. Cases were stratified by surgical approach. Multivariate analysis was used to compare pathological outcomes. Cox proportional-hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate long-term OS.

RESULTS

Of 6313 cases identified, 53.8% underwent OP, 31.8% underwent LP, and 14.3% underwent RP. Higher-volume academic/research and comprehensive community centers combined to perform 80% of laparoscopic cases and 83% of robotic cases. In an intent-to-treat model, multivariate analysis demonstrated superior circumferential margin negativity rates with LP compared with OP (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.77, P = 0.036). Cox proportional-hazard modeling demonstrated a lower death hazard ratio for LP compared with OP (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.99, P = 0.037). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a 5-year OS of 81% in LP compared with 78% in RP and 76% in OP (P = 0.0198).

CONCLUSION

In the hands of experienced colorectal specialists treating selected patients, LP may be a valuable operative technique that is associated with oncological benefits. Further exploration of pathological outcomes and long-term survival by means of prospective randomized trials may offer more definitive conclusions regarding comparisons of open and minimally invasive technique.