Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Africa: an outcome comparison endorsed by the Nigerian society for colorectal disorders

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) offer superior outcomes compared to open surgery. This study aimed to review the robotic and laparoscopic procedures for CRC performed in Africa, and compare the mean surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, rate of conversion, and prevalence of morbidity and mortality. This is the first study to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for CRC in Africa.

METHODS

A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, AJOL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched, identifying 2,259 publications, 33 of which were deemed eligible. Statistical analysis of outcomes was performed using "R". Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

The minimally invasive approach has been applied for CRC treatment in seven African countries: Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa. Laparoscopic surgeries accounted for 1,485 (95%) of cases, while 71 (5%) were robotic. Robotic procedures were associated with a longer surgery duration (256.41 min vs. 190.45 min, p < 0.0001), higher blood loss (226.48 mL vs. 141.55 mL, p < 0.0001), and a shorter hospital stay (4.52 days vs. 6.06 days, p = 0.85). Robotic procedures had a lower rate of conversion (3% vs. 8%, p = 0.29) and a lower prevalence of morbidity (19% vs. 26%, p = 0.26). Wound infection (24.49%) and ileus (57.14%) were the most common complications following laparoscopic and robotic procedures, respectively. There was no mortality from robotic surgeries; however, a prevalence of 0.39% (95% CI: 0;1.19) was recorded from laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes and compares the outcomes of advances in the treatment of CRC in the African setting, providing insights for policymakers, healthcare providers, and international organizations to make decisions regarding optimizing care for CRC patients in Africa.

Safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery in a specialized colorectal cancer unit

INTRODUCTION

In the past 30 years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has made remarkable progress and has become the standard of care in colorectal cancer treatment. The implementation of new techniques or platforms is, therefore, a challenge for surgical teams. This study aims to analyze the experience in the implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the colorectal unit in a specialized colorectal cancer center. We will report and compare the clinical outcomes of the patients submitted to the different surgical approaches, reflecting the importance of surgical training in the laparoscopic and robotic field for the reduction of surgical complications and improve short-term outcomes.

METHODS

This study involved a retrospective analysis of data collected from a prospectively maintained database at the colorectal unit of Champalimaud Foundation between 2012 and 2023. Data were collected as part of routine clinical documentation and included variables on patient's demographics, staging, short-term outcomes, and follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 661 patients treated at the Champalimaud Foundation between 2012 and 2023 were included, of which 389 (59%) had colon and 272 (41%) rectal cancer. Most of the patients underwent elective surgery, with a minimally invasive approach performed in 91% of cases. A complete resection (R0) was achieved in 95.1% (619) of the procedures with a pathology report staging 64.5% (409) of tumors as pT3-4. Eleven percent (70) of patients had complications classified as Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 3.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the safety of the implementation of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer care, with improvement in postoperative outcomes and surgical quality, supporting the importance of surgical training and specialized teams.

Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in octogenarians and nonagenarians: an analysis of the US nationwide inpatient sample 2005-2018

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant health concern, particularly among older adults. Outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries for right-sided colon cancers in the oldest old population have yet to be evaluated despite increased use of these surgeries.

AIM

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes after robot-assisted right hemicolectomy (RARH) versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) in octogenarian and nonagenarian patients.

METHODS

This population-based, retrospective and observational study analyzed the data of adults ≥ 80 years old diagnosed with right-side colon cancer who received RARH or LRH. All data were extracted from the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database 2005-2018. Associations between type of surgery and in-hospital outcomes were determined using univariate and multivariable logistic regression and linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

Data of 7,550 patients (representing 37,126 hospitalized patients in the U.S.) were analyzed. Mean age of the study population was 84.8 years, 61.4% were females, and 79.1% were non-smokers. After adjusting for relevant confounders, regression analysis showed that patients undergoing RARH had a significantly shorter LOS (adjusted Beta (aBeta), -0.24, 95% CI: -0.32, -0.15) but greater total hospital costs (aBeta, 26.54, 95% CI: 24.64, 28.44) than patients undergoing LRH. No significant differences in mortality, perioperative complications, and risk of unfavorable discharge were observed between the two procedures (p > 0.05). Stratified analyses by frailty status revealed consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

RARH is associated with a significantly shorter LOS but higher total hospital costs than LRH among octogenarians and nonagenarians. Other short-term outcomes for this population are similar between the two procedures, including in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, and unfavorable discharge. These findings also apply to frail patients.

An artificial intelligence-designed predictive calculator of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy in colon cancer

Minimally invasive surgery is safe and effective in colorectal cancer. Conversion to open surgery may be associated with adverse effects on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess risk factors of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy for colon cancer and impact of conversion on short-term and survival outcomes. This case-control study included colon cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine independent predictors of conversion from laparoscopic and robotic colectomy to open surgery. 26,546 patients (mean age: 66.9 ± 13.1 years) were included. Laparoscopic and robotic colectomies were performed in 79.1% and 20.9% of patients, respectively, with a 10.6% conversion rate. Independent predictors of conversion were male sex (OR: 1.19, p = 0.014), left-sided cancer (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), tumor size (OR: 1, p = 0.047), stage II (OR: 1.25, p = 0.007) and stage III (OR: 1.47, p < 0.001) disease, undifferentiated carcinomas (OR: 1.93, p = 0.002), subtotal (OR: 1.25, p = 0.011) and total (OR: 2.06, p < 0.001) colectomy, resection of contiguous organs (OR: 1.9, p < 0.001), and robotic colectomy (OR: 0.501, p < 0.001). Conversion was associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality and unplanned readmission, longer hospital stay, and shorter overall survival (59.8 vs 65.3 months, p < 0.001). Male patients, patients with bulky, high-grade, advanced-stage, and left-sided colon cancers, and patients undergoing extended resections are at increased risk of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy. The robotic platform was associated with reduced odds of conversion. However, surgeons' technical skills and criteria for conversion could not be assessed.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis after minimally invasive right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As part of the wide adoption of minimally invasive surgery, intracorporeal anastomosis is becoming increasingly common. The benefits of minimally invasive versus open right colectomy are well known although the additional benefits of an intracorporeal anastomosis, performed laparoscopically or robotically, are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the current literature comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in the setting of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR methods. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies, between January 1 2010 and July 1 2021, comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Four groups were identified: laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (L-ECA), laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (L-ICA), robotic extracorporeal anastomosis (R-ECA), and robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (R-ICA). Operative time, rate of conversion to an open procedure, surgical site infection, reoperation within 30 days, postoperative complications within 30 days, and length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. R-ICA and R-ECA had comparable operative times, but a robotic approach required more time than laparoscopic (68 min longer, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open surgery was 55% less likely in the R-ICA group vs. L-ICA, and up to 94% less likely in the R-ICA group in comparison to the R-ECA group. Length of hospital stay was shorter for R-ICA by a half day vs. R-ECA, and up to 1 day less vs. L-ECA. There were no differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, or surgical site infections, regardless of approach. However, the included studies all had high risks of bias due to confounding variables and patient selection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of hospitalization and decreased rate of conversion to open surgery, compared to either laparoscopic or extracorporeal robotic approaches. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true impact of robotic approach and intracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy.

Colorectal Cancer and the Obese Patient: A Call for Guidelines

The link between obesity and colorectal cancer has been well established. The worldwide rise in obesity rates in the past 40 years means that we are dealing with increasing numbers of obese patients with colorectal cancer. We aimed to review the existing guidelines and make recommendations specific to this group of patients. Upon comparing the current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines ®), the guidelines from the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the guidelines of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR), we observed that these did not take into consideration the needs of obese patients. We proceeded to make specific recommendations with regards to the diagnostic work-up, surgical pathways, minimally invasive technique, perioperative treatment, post-operative surveillance, and management of metastatic disease in this group of patients. Our review highlights the need for modification of the existing guidelines to account for the needs of this patient cohort. A multidisciplinary approach, including principles used by bariatric surgeons, should be the way forward to reach consensus in the management of this group of patients.

Low anterior resection syndrome: can it be prevented?

Surgery remains the cardinal treatment in colorectal cancers but changes in bowel habits after rectal cancer surgery are common and disabling conditions that affect patients' quality of life. Low anterior resection syndrome is a disorder of bowel function after rectal resection resulting in a lowering of the QoL and recently has been defined by an international working group not only by specified symptoms but also by their consequences. This review aims to explore an extensive bibliographic research on preventive strategies for LARS. All "modifiable variables," quantified by the LARS Score, such as type of anastomosis, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical strategy, and diverting stoma, were evaluated, while "non-modifiable variables" such as age, sex, BMI, ASA, preoperative TMN, tumor height, and type of mesorectal excision were excluded from the comparative analysis. The role of defunctioning stoma, local excision, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and non operative management seems to significantly affect risk of LARS, while type of anastomosis and surgical TME approach do not impact on LARS incidence or gravity in the long term period. Although it is established that some variables are associated with a greater onset of LARS, in clinical practice, technical difficulties and oncological limits often make difficult the application of some prevention plans. Transtomal irrigations, intraoperative neuromonitoring, pelvic floor rehabilitation before stoma closure, and early transanal irrigation represent new arguments of study in preventive strategies which could, if not eliminate the symptoms, at least mitigate them.