Quality of life after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: A systematic review

Assessing Preoperative (EORTC) QLQ-C30 Score in Elderly Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Results from a Prospective Cohort Study

Background: In the present study, we aimed to investigate the association between (EORTC) QLQ-C30 scores and both preoperative somatometric parameters and postoperative outcomes in elderly patients undergoing elective surgery for resectable colorectal cancer. Methods: The 118 elderly consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery for cancer in a single university's surgical department between 01/2018 and 12/2018 were prospectively enrolled in the present study. All patients with an age > 65 years, diagnosed with resectable colorectal cancer, without metastatic disease, that underwent elective surgery were included prospectively in the present study. Results: Regarding patients' characteristics, a negative correlation between preoperative QLQ (pQLQ) score and age (p = 0.001) and a positive correlation between body mass index (BMI) and pQLQ score (p = 0.048) were observed. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.004) in the mean pQLQ score between patients with rectal or colon cancer. Moreover, assessing pQLQ score was a useful tool in terms of postoperative recovery. Negative correlations between the pQLQ score and time (days) of beginning oral feeding (p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.004) were found. The pQLQ score was statistically significantly lower (p = 0.005) in patients who had any postoperative complication; however, there was no difference in patients with major complications. Conclusions: Advanced age, colon cancer and decreased BMI were negatively associated with preoperative QLQ. The assessment of pQLQ in elderly patients with colorectal cancer can be a useful predictive tool for postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and postoperative rehabilitation.

Meta-analysis of the effect of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery on long-term quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery on the quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the growth period after the operation, and to provide a reference for surgical treatment decisions of patients with CRC.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through May 7, 2022 for clinical studies comparing the postoperative quality of life in CRC patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery with those who underwent open surgery. Data were extracted from eligible studies following rigorous quality review. All studies included patient numbers, surgery type, follow-up length, and quality of life scores.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies were included, resulting in significantly better physical functioning scores with laparoscopic versus open surgery. (Standardized mean difference = 0.45; 95% CI (0.15, 0.75), P = .003). However, in general health, social functioning, bodily pain, vitality, quality of life index, Global Quality Scale, physical component summary and mental component summary, there was no telling difference between the 2 surgical therapies.

CONCLUSION

Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery has weak advantages. There was no noteworthy difference in the long-term quality of life between the 2 surgical treatments for CRC patients. Whether laparoscopic surgery can bring more improvement to the quality of life of patients with CRC needs more high-quality clinical randomized studies to verify.

Does the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score Accurately Represent the Impact of Bowel Dysfunction on Health-Related Quality of Life?

BACKGROUND

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery is common, but its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is complex. Objective measures of bowel function may not be a good representation on the actual impact on HRQOL. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine whether there are differences between patient-reported bowel-related impairment versus a standardized measure of bowel dysfunction on HRQOL.

METHODS

A prospective database starting in September 2018 of adult patients who had undergone sphincter preserving rectal cancer surgery up to October 2021 was queried. Patients were excluded if they had local recurrence, metastasis, persistent stoma, or had less than 1-year follow-up. Patients were administered the study instruments at their standard surveillance visit: patient-reported bowel-related quality of life(BQOL) impairment, HRQOL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and bowel dysfunction using the low anterior resection syndrome(LARS) score.

RESULTS

Overall, 136 patients were included. There were 43% with no LARS, 22% with minor LARS, and 35% with major LARS. For the BQOL, 26% of subjects reported no impairment, 57% minor impairment, and 17% major impairment. There was a high proportion of discordance between BQOL and LARS, with 23% minor or major LARS in patients with no BQOL impairment, and 32% with no or minor LARS with major BQOL impairment. The BQOL was associated with more changes in SF-36 scores compared to the LARS score.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient-reported BQOL is likely to be a more relevant outcome of interest to patients than the objective LARS score. This has important implications for shared decision-making for rectal cancer treatments.

The Impact of Postoperative Complications on Short- and Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life After Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Survival for rectal cancer patients has improved over the past decades. In parallel, long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is gaining interest. This study focuses on the effect of complications following rectal cancer surgery on HRQoL and survival.

METHODS

The TME-trial (1996-1999) randomized patients with operable rectal cancer between surgery with preoperative short-course radiotherapy and surgery. Questionnaires including the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist were sent at 6 time points within the first 24 months and after 14 years the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. Differences in HRQoL and survival between patients with and without complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1207 patients were included, of which 482 (39.9%) patients experienced complications, surgical complications occurred in 177 (14.6%) patients, non-surgical complications in 197 (16.3%) and 108 patients (8.9%) had a combination of both types of complications. Three months after surgery, patients with a combination of surgical- and non-surgical complications, especially patients with anastomotic leakage, had the worst HRQoL. Twelve months postoperative HRQoL returned to a similar level as before surgery, regardless of complications. In patients who survived 14 years, no significant differences in HRQoL were seen between patients with and without complications. However, patients with complications did have lower overall survival.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that survival and short-term HRQoL are negatively affected by complications. Twelve months after surgery HRQoL had returned to the preoperative level regardless, of complications. Also, in patients that survived 14 years, there was no effect of complications on HRQoL detected.

Patient-reported health-related quality of life after colorectal surgery

<b>Introduction:</b> Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. In most of these patients, quality of life is deteriorated. </br></br> <b>Aim:</b> The aim of our study was to analyze how the disease affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to examine the role of demographic, disease-related, and other factors in the overall quality of life. The second aim was to identify areas where HRQoL could be improved. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted. The study included a modified version of EQ-5D, as well as clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of the country. Patients over the age of 18, who had colorectar surgery, and were followed up at our clinic, were included in the survey. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> In patients after colorectal surgery, bowel control is a major concern that has an impact on their quality of life. The majority of patients expressed gratitude for the care they received and thanked the health-care providers for it. With the EQ-5D modified questionnaire, the concept of "perfect" health was reviewed and analyzed. A response "no difficulty" in any of the five domains was classified as perfect health. Only one-third of the patients said their health was “ideal” (no problems in any of the EQ-5D five domains). </br></br> <b>Discussion:</b> According to the results of this study, patients with CRC have considerably poorer HRQoL than the general population, as indicated by the EQ-5D utility scores. This discovery is in line with some previous research. </br></br> <b>Conclusion:</b> Colorectal surgery survivors' total HRQoL has been found to be lower than in the general population.

Functional outcome and quality of life following treatment for rectal cancer

Introduction Over the last decades, treatment for rectal cancer has substantially improved with development of new surgical options and treatment modalities. With the improvement of survival, functional outcome and quality of life are getting more attention.

Study objective To provide an overview of current modalities in rectal cancer treatment, with particular emphasis on functional outcomes and quality of life.

Results Functional outcomes after rectal cancer treatment are influenced by patient and tumor characteristics, surgical technique, the use of preoperative radiotherapy and the method and level of anastomosis. Sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer often results in poor functional outcomes that impair quality of life, referred to as low anterior resection syndrome. Abdominoperineal resection imposes the need for a permanent stoma but avoids the risk of this syndrome. Contrary to general belief, long-term quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma is similar to those after sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer.

Conclusion All patients should be informed about the risks of treatment modalities. Decision on rectal cancer treatment should be individualized since not all patients may benefit from a sphincter preserving surgery “at any price”. Non-resection treatment should be the future focus to avoid the need of a permanent stoma and bowel dysfunction.

Functional results after treatment for rectal cancer

Introduction With improving survival of rectal cancer, functional outcome has become increasingly important. Following sphincter-preserving resection many patients suffer from severe bowel dysfunction with an impact on quality of life (QoL) – referred to as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

Study objective To provide an overview of the current knowledge of LARS regarding symptomatology, occurrence, risk factors, pathophysiology, evaluation instruments and treatment options.

Results LARS is characterized by urgency, frequent bowel movements, emptying difficulties and incontinence, and occurs in up to 50-75% of patients on a long-term basis. Known risk factors are low anastomosis, use of radiotherapy, direct nerve injury and straight anastomosis. The pathophysiology seems to be multifactorial, with elements of anatomical, sensory and motility dysfunction. Use of validated instruments for evaluation of LARS is essential. Currently, there is a lack of evidence for treatment of LARS. Yet, transanal irrigation and sacral nerve stimulation are promising.

Conclusion LARS is a common problem following sphincter-preserving resection. All patients should be informed about the risk of LARS before surgery, and routinely be screened for LARS postoperatively. Patients with severe LARS should be offered treatment in order to improve QoL. Future focus should be on the possibilities of non-resectional treatment in order to prevent LARS.

Is my life going to change?-a review of quality of life after rectal resection

Rectal resection is a common practice for colorectal surgeons. The causes of this procedure are varied. The most frequent is cancer, but also inflammatory bowel disease, endometriosis, and rectovaginal or rectourethral fistulas. The loss of the normal rectal reservoir function, urinary problems, sexual dysfunction or pelvic pain are frequently reported in patients after rectal surgery and these disorders markedly affect the overall quality of life (QoL). In the last decades, rectal surgery has radically changed, with the development of surgical techniques, and it has progressed from abdominoperineal resection (APR) with a permanent colostomy to sphincter-saving procedures. Nowadays, the use of sphincter-preserving surgery has increased, but all these surgical techniques can have important sequels that modify the QoL of the patients. Historically, surgical outcomes, such as complications, survival and recurrences, have been widely studied by surgeons. In the present day, surgical outcomes have improved, rectal cancer recurrence rate has decreased and survival has increased. For these reasons, it has begun to gain importance in aspects of the QoL of patients, such as body image, fecal continence and sexuality or urinary function. Therefore, physicians should know the influence of different techniques and approaches on functional outcomes and QoL, to be able to inform patients of the treatment benefits and risk of postoperative dysfunctions. The aim of our study is to review the current literature to determine to what degree the QoL of patients who underwent a rectal resection decreases, which domains are the most affected and, in addition, to establish the influence of different surgical techniques and approaches on functional outcomes.

Construct Validity and Responsiveness of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale in the Context of Recovery After Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale is a patient-reported outcome measure that evaluates quality of life after abdominal surgery. Evidence supporting its measurement properties is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to contribute evidence for the construct validity and responsiveness of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale as a measure of recovery after colorectal surgery in the context of an enhanced recovery pathway.

DESIGN

This is an observational validation study designed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

Included were 100 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery (mean age, 65; 57% male).

INTERVENTION

There were no interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Construct validity was assessed at 2 days and 2 and 4 weeks after surgery by testing the hypotheses that Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale scores were higher 1) in patients without vs with postoperative complications, 2) with higher preoperative physical status vs lower, 3) without vs with postoperative stoma, 4) in men vs women, 5) with shorter time to readiness for discharge (≤4 days) vs longer, and 6) with shorter length of stay (≤4 days) vs longer. To test responsiveness, we hypothesized that scores would be higher 1) preoperatively vs 2 days postoperatively, 2) at 2 weeks vs 2 days postoperatively, and 3) at 4 weeks vs 2 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

The data supported 3 of the 6 hypotheses (hypotheses 1, 5, and 6) tested for construct validity at all time points. Two of the 3 hypotheses tested for responsiveness (hypotheses 1 and 2) were supported.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the risk of selection bias due to the use of secondary data from a randomized controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale was responsive to the expected trajectory of recovery up to 2 weeks after surgery, but did not discriminate between all groups expected to have different recovery trajectories. There remains a need for the development of recovery-specific, patient-reported outcome measures with adequate measurement properties. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A814.

With widespread adoption of MIS colectomy for colon cancer, does hospital type matter?

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that hospital type impacts patient outcomes, but no studies have examined hospital differences in outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for segmental colectomies.

METHODS

The 2010-2014 National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients undergoing segmental colectomy for non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma. Descriptive statistics characterized MIS utilization by hospital type. Multivariable models were used to examine the effect of hospital type on outcomes after MIS. Survival probability was plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

80,922 patients underwent MIS segmental colectomy for colon cancer from 2010 to 2014. From 2010 to 2014, the number of MIS segmental colectomies increased by 157% at academic hospitals, 151% at comprehensive hospitals, and 153% at community hospitals. Compared to academic hospitals, community and comprehensive hospitals had greater adjusted odds of positive margins (Community OR 1.525, 95% Confidence Interval 1.233-1.885; Comprehensive OR 1.216, 95% CI 1.041-1.42), incomplete number of lymph nodes analyzed (< 12 LNs) from surgery (Community OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.98-2.32; Comprehensive OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.34-1.51), and greater 30-day mortality (Community OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.78; Comprehensive OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17-1.59). Patient survival probability was higher at academic hospitals at 5 years (Academic 69% vs. Comprehensive 66% vs. Community 63%, p < 0.001). Community hospitals and comprehensive hospitals had significantly higher risk of adjusted long-term mortality (Community HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.19-1.37; p < 0.001; Comprehensive HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09-1.20; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread use of laparoscopic oncologic surgery, short- and long-term outcomes from MIS for segmental colectomy are superior at academic hospitals. This difference may be due to superior perioperative oncologic technique and surgical outcomes at academic hospitals. Our data provide important information for patients, referring physicians, and surgeons about the significance of hospital type in management of colon cancer.

Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Laparoscopic versus Open Approach

Aims and background

To evaluate the oncologic safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Methods and study design

Patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 256) or open (n = 173) total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between June 2005 and June 2011 were included. Long-term survival operative data and postoperative recovery were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database.

Results

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of age, sex, tumor stage and preoperative comorbidities. Twelve patients were converted to open procedures. Differences were found in blood loss (55 ± 14.1 vs 152 ± 29.2 ml P <0.05), infection of incision (3.1% vs 12.7%, P <0.05) and postoperative stay (8.1 ± 3.0 vs 12.4 ± 6.3 days, P <0.05). Both groups were comparable regarding lymph node clearance specimen length and distal margin. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups by the life-table method. However, operative time in the laparoscopic group was longer than in the open group (168 ± 27.6 vs 141 ± 21.9 min, P <0.05).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer offers oncologic results similar to those obtained with the open procedure with a favorable short-term outcome. Continued use of the procedure in these patients is supported.

C-reactive protein as a marker of the surgical stress reduction within an ERAS protocol (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) in colorectal surgery: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol (ERAS) in relation to reduce the Systemic Inflammatory Response (SIR) to surgery using C-reactive protein (CRP) in the first (POD1), second (POD2) and third (POD3) postoperative day.

METHODS

We enrolled 121 patients (ERAS group) that underwent elective colorectal surgery with ERAS, and compared them with 135 patients (preERAS group) that had undergone surgery prior to the implementation. We made a univariate analysis to compare the CRP values in POD1, POD2, and POD3 between preERAS/ERAS group, laparoscopic/open surgery and the presence or not of Clavien Dindo complications. Multivariable lineal regression was used to assess if the ERAS had a decreasing effect on the CRP in POD1, POD2, and POD3, and was adjusted by age, male sex, use of laparoscopy, and complications.

RESULTS

The presence of complications was independently associated with an increase in CRP values ​​in POD1, POD2, and POD3. Laparoscopy in POD1 and POD2, and ERAS in POD2 was independently associated with a decrease in CRP values.

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows an increase in SIR measured as a CRP value in those patients that had complications. The SIR decreased with laparoscopy in POD1 and POD2 and with ERAS in POD2.

Short-term surgical outcomes and patient quality of life between robotic and laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision for adenocarcinoma of the rectum

Introduction Some studies advocate a laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (l-ELAPE) approach for low rectal cancer. The da Vinci™ robot (r-ELAPE) technique has potential to overcome some limitations of l-ELAPE, such as reduction of the learning curve and more precise tissue handling. It is unknown whether this approach results in improved surgical or quality of life outcomes compared with l-ELAPE. This study aimed to address this issue. Methods Consecutive patients having undergone either robotic or laparoscopic ELAPE for adenocarcinoma were studied. All operations were performed by two surgeons experienced in laparoscopic and recently introduced robotic surgery. Surgical outcomes were determined by postoperative histology and short-term complications. Quality of life was prospectively assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLC-CR30 and QLC-CR29 questionnaires. Results A total of 22 patients (11 r-ELAPE) with a median follow-up of 13 months (8 months robotic; 22 months laparoscopic) were studied. The groups were similarly matched for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, preoperative chemoradiotherapy and tumour height. All had R0 resection. There was no significant difference in short-term surgical outcomes between groups. There was no significant difference in mean global health scores between the two groups (74 ± 14 r-ELAPE vs. 73 ± 10 l-ELAPE). The r-ELAPE group had a lower mean impotence score compared with the I-ELAPE group (55.5 ± 40 vs. 72.2 ± 44), although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions The newly introduced r-ELAPE was non-inferior to l-ELAPE in either patient quality of life or surgical outcomes. Robotic surgery could be particularly beneficial in the technically challenging area of low rectal cancer surgery with a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy.

Patient quality of life and short-term surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic anterior resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum

PURPOSE

To compare patient quality of life (QoL) and short-term surgical outcomes between robotic anterior resection (r-AR) and laparoscopic (l-AR) approach.

METHODS

Consecutive patients having undergone either robotic or laparoscopic AR for adenocarcinoma were studied. All operations were performed by two surgeons experienced in laparoscopic and recently introduced robotic surgery. Surgical outcomes were determined by post-operative histology and short-term complications. QoL was prospectively assessed using the EORTC QLC-CR30 and QLC-CR29 questionnaires.

RESULTS

In total, 36 patients (18 r-AR) with a median follow-up of 12 months following surgery (9-month robotic and 20-month laparoscopic) were studied. The two groups were similarly matched for age and gender. Laparoscopic patients had a lower ASA grade (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in surgical outcomes between groups. r-AR patients reported lower pain scales (2 ± 6 vs. 11 ± 13) (p = 0.04), lower levels of insomnia 0 vs. 8 ± 15 (p = 0.04) and a lower abdominal pain scale (2 ± 9 vs. 17 ± 27) (p = 0.04). Male impotence scores were higher in l-AR 33 ± 35 compared to r-AR 7 ± 21 (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite its recent introduction to our centre, the quality of oncological resection using the robotic surgery is comparable to laparoscopy. Lower impotence and QoL scores in patients after robotic procedure may be explained on the basis of better visualisation and precise tissue handling.

Long-term functional outcome of colonic resections: how much does faecal impairment influence quality of life?

AIM

Older data suggest that colonic resection has a negative impact on continence and quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of colonic resections for colonic cancer and diverticulitis and its influence on quality of life.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colonic resection between 2005 and 2013 were identified from a prospective database. A survey with two questionnaires [Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL) scale, Short Form 12 (SF-12)] and additional questions concerning bowel function was sent to all patients.

RESULTS

Colonic resection was performed in 362 patients in the study period; 297 patients returned the questionnaires (response rate 82.0%). Faecal urgency or incontinence more than once a month was present in 15% of patients and 25% of patients reported that bowel symptoms limited their quality of life. The mean total FIQL score for all patients was 3.58. The SF-12 score was comparable to a reference population without prior colonic resection. Patients after right-sided resections had liquid stool more often than others (45.3% vs 38.7%, P = 0.011). No differences in bowel function and quality of life were detected between resections for colonic cancer and diverticulitis.

CONCLUSION

Most patients experience no limitation in bowel function after segmental colectomy. Those with limitations in bowel function still seem to cope well, as the quality of life is not severely affected. Nevertheless, most patients with lower functional scores also had lower quality of life scores. Whether surgery is a relevant factor has to be questioned, as the prevalence of faecal incontinence in a comparable population without prior surgery is almost identical.

Synthesis and summary of patient-reported outcome measures to inform the development of a core outcome set in colorectal cancer surgery

AIM

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are standard measures in the assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, but the range and complexity of available PROMs may be hindering the synthesis of evidence. This systematic review aimed to: (i) summarize PROMs in studies of CRC surgery and (ii) categorize PRO content to inform the future development of an agreed minimum 'core' outcome set to be measured in all trials.

METHOD

All PROMs were identified from a systematic review of prospective CRC surgical studies. The type and frequency of PROMs in each study were summarized, and the number of items documented. All items were extracted and independently categorized by content by two researchers into 'health domains', and discrepancies were discussed with a patient and expert. Domain popularity and the distribution of items were summarized.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight different PROMs were identified from the 104 included studies. There were 23 generic, four cancer-specific, 11 disease-specific and 16 symptom-specific questionnaires, and three ad hoc measures. The most frequently used PROM was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (50 studies), and most PROMs (n = 40, 69%) were used in only one study. Detailed examination of the 50 available measures identified 917 items, which were categorized into 51 domains. The domains comprising the most items were 'anxiety' (n = 85, 9.2%), 'fatigue' (n = 67, 7.3%) and 'physical function' (n = 63, 6.9%). No domains were included in all PROMs.

CONCLUSION

There is major heterogeneity of PRO measurement and a wide variation in content assessed in the PROMs available for CRC. A core outcome set will improve PRO outcome measurement and reporting in CRC trials.

Short-term results of quality of life for curatively treated colorectal cancer patients in Lithuania

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment options for colorectal cancer patients create the need to assess the quality of life (QoL) of colorectal cancer patients in the early postoperative period when changes are potentially greatest. The aim of the current study was to assess the QoL of colorectal cancer patients following open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 82 consecutive patients requiring elective open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery were recruited to the study for 3 months in the three colorectal surgery centers of Lithuania. Patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) questionnaire before surgery, 2 and 5 days, 1 and 3 months after operation. The EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire was completed before surgery and at 1 and 3 months after operation. Analysis was done according to the manual for each instrument.

RESULTS

EORTC QLQ-C30 reflected the postoperative recovery of QoL. The global health status, cognitive and emotional functioning came back to the preoperative level in one month after operation. Physical and role functioning for laparoscopic group was significantly improved in 1 month after operation and in 3 months for open surgery group respectively. Colorectal module EORTC-QLQ-CR29 found that future perspective increased significantly in laparoscopic group 1 month after operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that majority of functional scale scores came back to the preoperative level during the first 3 months after colorectal cancer surgery. Differences in QoL according to surgical approach are mostly expressed on this period.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer and polyps: a cost-effectiveness study

Background

Available evidence that compares outcomes from laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer shows no difference in disease free or survival time, or in health-related quality of life outcomes, but does not capture the short term benefits of laparoscopic methods in the early postoperative period.

Aim

To explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, compared to open methods, using quality of life data gathered in the first 6 weeks after surgery.

Methods

Participants were recruited in 2006–2007 in a district general hospital in the south of England; those with a diagnosis of cancer or polyps were included in the analysis. Quality of life data were collected using EQ-5D, on alternate days after surgery for 4 weeks. Costs per patient, from a National Health Service perspective (in British pounds, 2006) comprised the sum of operative, hospital, and community costs. Missing data were filled using multiple imputation methods. The difference in mean quality adjusted life years and costs between surgery groups were estimated simultaneously using a multivariate regression model applied to 20 imputed datasets. The probability that laparoscopic surgery is cost-effective compared to open surgery for a given societal willingness-to-pay threshold is illustrated using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Results

The sample comprised 68 laparoscopic and 27 open surgery patients. At 28 days, the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained from laparoscopic surgery was £12,375. At a societal willingness-to-pay of £30,000, the probability that laparoscopic surgery is cost-effective, exceeds 65% (at £20,000 ≈60%). In sensitivity analyses, laparoscopic surgery remained cost-effective compared to open surgery, provided it results in a saving ≥£699 in hospital bed days and takes no more than 8 minutes longer to perform.

Conclusion

The study provides formal evidence of the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic approaches and supports current guidelines that promote use of laparoscopy where suitably trained surgeons are available.

Quality of life after laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate quality of life (QOL) outcomes after colorectal surgery for cancer from a 6-month perspective at a single institution.

METHODS

Cohort study to prospectively assess postoperative QOL in patients who underwent elective colorectal resection at the University Hospital Ostrava. QOL was assessed using the validated Short Form 36 (SF-36v2™) questionnaire at fixed time points.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients were enrolled in the study (83 and 65 patients underwent laparoscopic and open colorectal resection, respectively). Operative time was significantly longer (161 vs. 133 min; p = 0.0073) and length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (10.7 vs. 13.1 days; p = 0.0451) in the laparoscopic group. Overall 30-day morbidity rates were lower in the laparoscopic group, but the difference was not significant (27.7 vs. 33.8%; p = 0.2116). QOL scores were comparable in both study groups before surgery (p ≥ 0.05). QOL was statistically significantly lower 2 days and 1 week after open colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery. One month and 6 months after surgery, there were no statistically significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests a higher postoperative QOL during the first month after laparoscopic colorectal resection could be one of the benefits of laparoscopy.

Small bowel obstruction, incisional hernia and survival after laparoscopic and open colonic resection (LAFA study)

BACKGROUND

Short-term advantages to laparoscopic surgery are well described. This study compared medium- to long-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open colonic resection for cancer.

METHODS

The case notes of patients included in the LAFA study (perioperative strategy in colonic surgery; LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care) were reviewed 2-5 years after randomization for incisional hernia, adhesional small bowel obstruction (SBO), overall survival, cancer recurrence and quality of life (QoL). The laparoscopic and open groups were compared irrespective of fast-track or standard perioperative care.

RESULTS

Data on incisional hernias, SBO, survival and recurrence were available for 399 of 400 patients: 208 laparoscopic and 191 open resections. These outcomes were corrected for duration of follow-up. Median follow-up was 3·4 (i.q.r. 2·6-4·4) years. Multivariable regression analysis showed that open resection was a risk factor for incisional hernia (odds ratio (OR) 2·44, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·12 to 5·26; P = 0·022) and SBO (OR 3·70, 1·07 to 12·50; P = 0·039). There were no differences in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·10, 95 per cent c.i. 0·67 to 1·80; P = 0·730) or in cumulative incidence of recurrence (P = 0·514) between the laparoscopic and open groups. There were no measured differences in QoL in 281 respondents (P > 0·350 for all scales).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colonic surgery led to fewer incisional hernia and adhesional SBO events.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR222 (http://www.trialregister.nl).

Evolution of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery: An evidence-based review

Open surgery for colorectal disease has progressed significantly over the past century from humble beginnings to form the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer and a number of benign conditions. Following the introduction of laparoscopic abdominal surgery, the next stage in the evolution of the specialty began in the 1990s with the first laparoscopic colonic resection. Following some early concerns regarding its safety and oncological efficacy during the latter part of that decade, laparoscopic colorectal surgery rapidly came into mainstream use in the early part of the current century with evidence supporting its use being made available from large scale randomised controlled trials. This article provides an evidence-based summary of this evolutionary process as it relates to both benign and malignant colorectal disease, as well as discussion of the next phase of new technologies such as robotic surgery.

Short term and long term results after open vs. laparoscopic appendectomy in childhood and adolescence: a subgroup analysis

Background

A comparative study was performed to compare quality of life after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children and adolescents in a German General Hospital. The same study population was re-evaluated regarding their quality of life several years after operation.

Methods

Children and adolescents (n = 158) who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis between 1999 and 2001 were retrospectively analysed. Seven years after surgery those patients were interviewed applying a SF-36 questionnaire regarding their quality of life.

Results

For short term outcomes there was a trend towards reduced specific postoperative complications in the laparoscopically operated group (9.3 vs. 10.7%). Significantly more patients in the laparoscopic group would recommend the operation procedure to family members or friends than in the open group. Among the evaluated patients there was a significantly higher satisfaction concerning size and appearance of their scars in the laparoscopic group. The results of the evaluation in the eight categories of the SF-36 showed similar results in both groups.

Conclusions

More patients with laparoscopic appendectomy appeared to be satisfied with their operation method as becomes evident by a higher recommendation rate and a higher satisfaction concerning their scars.

Influence of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways and laparoscopic surgery on health-related quality of life

AIM

This study set out to compare the postoperative health related quality of life (HQoL) of patients undergoing elective open colorectal surgery using a well-established enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway with those undergoing laparoscopic surgery without an established an ERAS pathway.

METHOD

Using a power calculation, it was estimated that 40 patients would be required in each group. HQoL of the two groups was prospectively assessed using SF-12 (Short Form 12) and EORTC QLQ 30 (European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire) preoperatively, and at 2 and 6 weeks after discharge.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 83 patients, 41 in the laparoscopic group and 42 in the open-ERAS group. There was a significant difference between the median length of stay of the open-ERAS (5 days) and laparoscopic (7 days, P = 0.028) groups. There were no significant differences between the HQoL score of the two groups at any stage. In both groups, the majority of HQoL scores had improved considerably by 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and open-ERAS surgery have a similar impact on postoperative HQoL. HQoL tends to improve by the 6-week stage.

Quality of life in the first 6 weeks following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery

OBJECTIVES

Evidence of how health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in the first 6 weeks of postoperative recovery is needed to inform cost-effectiveness evaluations.

METHODS

Pragmatic prospective cohort study design. Consecutive patients requiring elective colorectal surgery were allocated to either laparoscopic or open surgery by administrative staff in a district general hospital in England, 2006-2007. Patients completed two validated, generic measures of HRQOL at baseline (preoperatively) and on multiple occasions in the first 6 weeks postsurgery using diaries (EuroQol five-dimensional [EQ-5D] questionnaire: 16 times; short-form 36 health survey [SF-36]: 4 times; HRQOL was compared between groups at each time point, and overall using repeated-measures analysis.

RESULTS

Of 201 consecutive patients recruited, 32 (15.1%) were unable to complete diaries. Of the remaining 169 patients, 120 (71%) returned completed diaries at 28 days and 105 (62.1%) at 42 days. There was no difference in preoperative HRQOL scores between surgical groups, but the postoperative EQ-5D questionnaire and SF-36 scores were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (EQ-5D questionnaire P = 0.005, SF-36 P = 0.007). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with a stoma have worse HRQOL than those without. HRQOL did not differ between the laparoscopic and open stoma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents unique prospective data demonstrating that laparoscopic surgery confers HRQOL benefits for patients in the early recovery period following colorectal surgery, compared with open surgery. Consideration of these data in the context of a cost-effectiveness analysis will be reported separately.

Integration of clinical and patient-reported outcomes in surgical oncology

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide information about the patient perspective and experience of undergoing surgery for cancer, but evidence suggests that they are not used widely to influence practice. This review considers key challenges and opportunities for using PROs effectively in gastrointestinal surgical oncology, drawing on principles learnt from surgical oncology in general.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgical oncology reporting PROs as primary or secondary outcomes, and studies examining methods to communicate PRO information, were identified. Common themes are summarized and the future of PRO studies considered.

RESULTS

Reviews highlighted the need for improved design, conduct and reporting of PROs in RCTs in surgical oncology. Main issues related to the multiplicity of PRO measures hindering data synthesis and clinical understanding, problems with missing data risking bias, and limited integration of clinical and PRO data undermining the role of PRO data in practice. Reviews indicated that patients want PRO data to meet information needs and early work shows that graphically displayed PROs are understood by patients.

CONCLUSION

PROs have a role in the evaluation of surgical oncology, but increased consensus and collaboration between surgeons and methodologists is needed to improve the design, conduct and reporting of PROs with clinical outcomes in trials. Possible solutions include investing more effort and systematic thought into the PRO rationale in RCTs, the development and use of 'core outcome sets' with PROs, and implementation of the extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting PROs in RCTs.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery: outcomes from 224 colonic resections performed at a single center using SILS

BACKGROUND

Compared with single-incision laparoscopy, multiport laparoscopy is associated with greater risk of postoperative wound pain, infection, incisional hernias, and suboptimal cosmetic outcomes. The feasibility of minimally invasive single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal procedures is well-established, but outcome data remain limited.

METHODS

Patients with benign diverticular disease, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis admitted to Klinikum Leverkusen, Germany, for colonic resection between July 2009 and March 2011 (n = 224) underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery using the SILS port system. Surgeons had ≥7 years' experience in laparoscopic colon surgery but no SILS experience. Patient demographic and clinical data were collected prospectively. Pain was evaluated by using a visual analog scale (0-10). Data were analyzed by using the SPSS PASW Statistics 18 database.

RESULTS

The majority of patients underwent sigmoid colectomy with high anterior resection (AR) or left hemicolectomy (n = 150) for diverticulitis. Our conversion rate to open surgery was 6.3 %, half in patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy with high AR or left hemicolectomy, 95 % of whom had diverticulitis. Mean operating time was 166 ± 74 (range, 40-441) min in the overall population, with shorter times for single-port transanal tumor resection (SPTTR; 89 ± 51 min; range, 40-153 min) and longer times for proctocolectomy (325 min; range, 110-441 min). Mean hospital stay was approximately 10 days, longer after abdominoperineal rectal resection or proctocolectomy (12-16 days). Most complications occurred following sigmoid colectomy with high AR or left hemicolectomy [19/25 (76 %) of early and 4/5 (80 %) of late complications, respectively]. Pain was <4 on a scale of 0-10 in all cases on postoperative day 1, and typically decreased during the next 2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the feasibility and tolerability of colorectal surgery, conducted by experienced laparoscopic surgeons without specific training in use of the SILS port.

Quality training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: does it improve clinical outcome?

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS) is a safe, effective and cost-efficient option for the treatment of various benign and malignant conditions. However, its implementation to surgical practice is still limited. That is mainly due to its association with a steep learning curve. We performed a review of the literature to determine whether quality training in LCRS can reduce that learning curve and lead to better clinical outcomes. We concluded that a structured training program with pre-clinical phase focused on basic skill acquisition and a clinical phase focused on mentoring from experts can shorten the learning curve and improve clinical outcomes.

Minimal access maximal success; a myth or a reality

Minimal invasive surgery is one of the most challenging advances in the craft of surgery in last 2 decades. In our country the advanced craft has been in practice for more than one and a half decade and some of our committed surgeons have mastered this craft and made an impact not only on national level but also on international level. Many times we may get impressed by watching the masters in the craft but forgetting the efforts the master has put in to reach the Zenith and in a bid to imitate the master we may ignore the awaiting disaster. In this article I will be discussing the overall impact of this surgical craft globally and its various evidence based pros and cons with a particular reference to colorectal surgery to ascertain whether the craft of minimal access with maximal success is a myth or a reality.

Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits of robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for rectal cancer.

METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for RS and LS for rectal cancer. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model.

RESULTS: Eight studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 661 subjects, of whom 268 underwent RS and 393 underwent LS for rectal cancer. Compared the perioperative outcomes of RS with LS, reports of RS indicated favorable outcomes considering conversion (WMD: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.58; P = 0.001). Meanwhile, operative time (WMD: 27.92, 95% CI: -13.43 to 69.27; P = 0.19); blood loss (WMD: -32.35, 95% CI: -86.19 to 21.50; P = 0.24); days to passing flatus (WMD: -0.18, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.60; P = 0.65); length of stay (WMD: -0.04; 95% CI: -2.28 to 2.20; P = 0.97); complications (WMD: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.71-1.55; P = 0.82) and pathological details, including lymph nodes harvested (WMD: 0.41, 95% CI: -0.67 to 1.50; P = 0.46), distal resection margin (WMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.58; P = 0.46), and positive circumferential resection margin (WMD: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.12-2.39; P = 0.42) were similar between RS and LS.

CONCLUSION: RS for rectal cancer is superior to LS in terms of conversion. RS may be an alternative treatment for rectal cancer. Further studies are required.

Fast track multi-discipline treatment (FTMDT trial) versus conventional treatment in colorectal cancer--the design of a prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted surgery, fast-track perioperative treatment are both increasingly used in colorectal cancer treatment, for their short-time benefits of enhanced recovery and short hospital stays. However, the benefits of the integration of the Laparoscopy-assisted surgery, fast-track perioperative treatment, and even with the Xelox chemotherapy, are still unknown. In this study, the three treatments integration is defined as "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment Model" for colorectal cancer and this model extends the benefits to the whole treatment process of colorectal cancer. The main purpose of the study is to explore the feasibility of "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment" model in treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The trial is a prospective randomized controlled study with 2 × 2 balanced factorial design. Patients eligible for the study will be randomized to 4 groups: (I) Laparoscopic surgery with fast track perioperative treatment and Xelox chemotherapy; (II) Open surgery with fast track perioperative treatment and Xelox chemotherapy; (III) Laparoscopic surgery with conventional perioperative treatment and mFolfox6 chemotherapy; (IV) Open surgery with conventional perioperative treatment and mFolfox6 chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of this study is the hospital stays. The secondary endpoints are the quality of life, chemotherapy related adverse events, surgical complications and hospitalization costs. Totally, 340 patients will be enrolled with 85 patients in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

The study initiates a new treatment model "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment" for colorectal cancer, and will provide feasibility evidence on the new model "Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment" for patients with colorectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01080547.

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: past, present, and future

A rapid progression from conventional open surgery to minimally invasive approaches in the surgical management of colorectal cancer has occurred over the last 2 decades. Initial concerns that this new approach was oncologically inferior to open surgery were ultimately refuted when several prospective randomized trials concluded that laparoscopic colectomy could achieve similar oncologic outcomes to open surgery. On the contrary, level 1 data has not yet matured regarding the oncologic safety of minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer. We review the published literature pertaining to the evolution of minimally invasive techniques used to treat colorectal cancer surgery, including barriers to adoption, and the prospects for future advances related to innovative techniques.