Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Evaluation of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients aged over 75 years old: a multi-institutional study (YSURG1401)

BACKGROUND

The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer (LAC) have not been fully evaluated in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short term surgical outcomes of LAC between the patients older than 75 years and those with non-elderly patients.

METHODS

This retrospective multi-institutional study selected patients who underwent LAC between April 2013 and March 2014 at Yokohama City University Hospital and its related general hospitals. The patients were categorized into two groups: elderly patients (>75 years of age: group A) and non-elderly patients (<75 years of age: group B). Surgical outcomes and post operative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 237 patients were evaluated in the present study. Eighty-four patients were classified into group A, and 153 into group B. Preoperative clinicopathological outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the ASA score. When comparing the surgical outcomes between group A and group B, the rate of conversion to open procedure (3.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.750), median operation time (232 min vs 232 min, P = 0.320), median blood loss (20 ml vs 12 ml, P = 0.350). The differences were not significantly different in the surgical outcomes. The incidences of > grade 2 post operative surgical complications were similar between two groups ((19.0% vs 15.7%, p = 0.587). No mortality was observed in this study. The length of postoperative hospital stay was also similar (10 days vs 10 days, p = 0.350).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggested that LAC is safe and feasible, regardless of the age of the patient, especially for elderly patients who may be candidates for colon cancer surgery.

Combined laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Initial experience and early results

INTRODUCTION

Incomplete specimens resulting in residual mesorectum in the patient and an increased risk of local recurrence remains a problem. We have introduced transanal-total mesorectal excision (Ta-TME) in our department to potentially overcome this problem due to more direct access to the lower pelvis in patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer and this article presents our initial experience with the new procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a T1-T3 mid or low rectal cancer eligible for TME or intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision were selected for a combined transanal and transabdominal laparoscopic resection. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of the method with a special focus on the quality of the specimen.

RESULTS

During a 9-month period, 11 patients were operated with this technique. All procedures resulted in complete or nearly complete specimen. We did, however, find the procedure technically demanding and experienced several complications with three anastomotic leaks (all with preserved intestinal continuity) and a urethral lesion.

CONCLUSION

Ta-TME is feasible and might be the answer to obtaining good quality specimens and overcome some of the technical difficulties that can be encountered in the obese narrow male pelvis. The procedure however is technically demanding.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Total Mesenteric Excision for Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Rectum

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, no studies to date have assessed the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesenteric excision in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the rectum.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal resection plus total mesenteric excision for rectal neuroendocrine tumors at our institution.

DESIGN

This was a single center, retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary care facility.

PATIENTS

Eight-two patients with neuroendocrine tumors who underwent rectal resection with total mesenteric excision, 77 laparoscopically, between June 2005 and August 2015 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic rectal resection and total mesenteric excision were the study interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographic characteristics and surgical and postoperative outcomes were measured.

RESULTS

Median tumor size was 8.8 mm (range, 3.0-35.0 mm); 63.6% of tumors were located in the lower rectum, with the median distance from the tumor to the anal verge being 50.0 mm (range, 20.0-130.0 mm). Anal preservation was achieved in all of the patients. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 5 patients (6.5%), but there were no deaths. Seventy-one patients (92.2%) had tumor invasion confined to the submucosa. Lymph node metastasis was present in 29 patients (37.7%), including 26 (33.8%) with perirectal and 5 (6.5%) with lateral lymph node metastasis. The median follow-up period in 59 patients was 42 months (range, 11-113 months), and the 3-year overall survival rate was 97.8%.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its single-center, retrospective analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal resection with total mesenteric excision is safe in patients with rectal neuroendocrine tumors, with good short- and long-term outcomes. Because rectal neuroendocrine tumors are smaller and show superficial invasion, the rate of anal preservation may be high.

The future for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery

Use the technology to drive standardization

Surgical Results and Oncologic Outcomes for Rectal Cancer with Tailored Mesorectal Excision over Two Decades

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the characteristics of the tumors, the management strategy, and oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer surgery in these two periods: period 1 (1993-2001) and period 2 (2002-2011).

METHODS

All patients who underwent radical resection of rectal cancer from 1993 to 2011 were included. Comparisons of the patients' demographics, characteristics, operating results, and oncologic outcome between the two periods were undertaken.

RESULTS

Radical resection for rectal cancer was performed in 1611 patients (993 men). Patients were significantly older and more had comorbid medical diseases in period 2. More laparoscopic resections were performed and more patients had preoperative chemoradiation in period 2. The postoperative mortality was significantly lower and the hospital stay was significantly shorter in period 2. In those with non-metastatic cancer, the 5-year local recurrences of patients in period 1 and period 2 were 11.9 and 5.9 %, respectively. (p = 0.002) The patients in period 2 had significantly better 5-year overall (68.1 vs. 60.2 %, p = 0.003) and 5-year cancer-specific survival (76.1 vs. 69.4 %, p < 0.001) when compared with those treated in period 1. The improvement occurred mainly in patients with abdominoperineal resection and those with stage III diseases. In the multivariate analysis, among the other histological factors, operations performed in period 2 and laparoscopic surgery were independent factors associated with better overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement in the surgical outcomes in terms of a lower recurrence rate and better survival was achieved in the recent years with the increase in neoadjuvant therapy and the application of laparoscopic surgery.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

Pathologic complete response and disease-free survival are not surrogate endpoints for 5-year survival in rectal cancer: an analysis of 22 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

We performed a literature-based analysis of randomized clinical trials to assess the pathologic complete response (pCR) (ypT0N0 after neoadjuvant therapy) and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) as potential surrogate endpoints for 5-year overall survival (OS) in rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (CT)RT.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Treatment effects on 3-year DFS and 5-year OS were expressed as rates of patients alive (%), and those on pCR as differences in pCR rates (∆^pCR%). A weighted regression analysis was performed at individual- and trial-level to test the association between treatment effects on surrogate (∆^pCR% and ∆^3yDFS) and the main clinical outcome (∆^5yOS).

RESULTS

Twenty-two trials involving 10,050 patients, were included in the analysis. The individual level surrogacy showed that the pCR% and 3-year DFS were poorly correlated with 5-year OS (R=0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91; P=0.002; and R=0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-1; P=0.002). The trial-level surrogacy analysis confirmed that the two treatment effects on surrogates (∆^pCR% and ∆^3yDFS) are not strong surrogates for treatment effects on 5-year OS % (R=0.2; 95% CI, -0.29-0.78; P=0.5 and R=0.64; 95% CI, 0.29-1; P=0.06). These findings were confirmed in neoadjuvant CTRT studies but not in phase III trials were 3-year DFS could still represent a valid surrogate.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis does not support the use of pCR and 3-year DFS% as appropriate surrogate endpoints for 5-year OS% in patients with rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy.

Management of rectal cancer: the 2016 French guidelines

AIM

Rectal cancer is a malignant disease requiring multidisciplinary management. In view of the increasing number of studies published over the past decade, a comprehensive update is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice mandated by the French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery and the French National Coloproctology Society.

METHOD

Seven questions summarizing the treatment of rectal cancer were selected. A search for evidence in the literature from January 2004 to December 2015 was performed. A drafting committee and a large group of expert reviewers contributed to validate the statements.

RESULTS

Recommendations include the indications for neoadjuvant therapy, the quality criteria for surgical resection, the management of postoperative disordered function, the role of local excision in early rectal cancer, the place of conservative strategies after neoadjuvant treatment, the management of synchronous liver metastases and the indications for adjuvant therapy. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement.

CONCLUSION

The current clinical practice guidelines are useful for the treatment of rectal cancer. Some statements require a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and high-quality Nonrandomized Studies in the last 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality published reports comparing laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Studies that compared LRR and ORR and were published within the last 5 years were identified. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) were evaluated based on the Jadad score, the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and modified Methodological Indices for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS). The mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to compare the operative time, blood loss, mortality, complications, harvested lymph nodes, hospital stay, distal resection margin, and circumferential resection margin. The risk ratio (RR) method was used to examine recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified and included 7 RCTs and 7 NRCTs and 4353 patients (2251 LRR, 2102 ORR). Although the operation time of the LRR group was obviously longer than that of the conventional surgery group (MD = 25.64, 95%CI = [5.17,46.10], P = 0.01), LRR was associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.52,0.87], P = 0.002), less blood loss (MD = -66.49, 95%CI = [-88.31, -44.66], P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (OR = -1.26,95%CI = [-2.45, -0.07],P = 0.004) and shorter bowel function recovery times (MD = -0.93, 95%CI = [-1.27,-0.58], P < 0.00001). Moreover, the difference in the DRM was statistically clear (MD = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02,0.27], P = 0.03). However, no significant differences between the LRR and ORR groups were observed in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, positive CRM, local and distal recurrence, or overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that there are no significant differences between LRR and ORR in terms of survival and pathological outcomes with the exception of the DRM. Moreover, this study suggests that LRR can be performed safely and elicits faster recovery times compared with conventional surgery.

Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction With Single Stapling Colorectal Anastomosis for Laparoscopic Anterior Resection: Feasibility, Outcomes, and Technical Considerations

BACKGROUND

Double and triple stapling techniques to close the rectal stump in laparoscopic anterior resection are fraught with technical drawbacks that could possibly be avoided with the use of the single stapling technique. However, little is known of its safety in laparoscopic surgery or outcomes when combined with natural orifice specimen extraction.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze the feasibility and the operative and immediate postoperative outcomes of single-stapled anastomosis and natural orifice specimen extraction with conventional techniques. It intends to evaluate technical variations related to colon, mesentery, and pelvic anatomy characteristics.

DESIGN AND PATIENTS

A consecutive series of 188 patients underwent elective surgery for benign or malignant lesions between 10 and 40 cm from the anal verge, 5 cm or less in diameter on radiological examination, stage T1 to T3, Nx, M0, with 2 different methods of rectal stump closure (pursestring vs linear-stapled closure) associated with single or double stapling and per anus vs conventional specimen extraction.

SETTING

This study was conducted at China Medical University Hospital, Taiwan, a tertiary referral center, between January 2012 and April 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes measured are feasibility and operative and immediate postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Single-stapled resection with natural orifice specimen extraction was feasible in 94% patients with an 11% perioperative morbidity rate. The patients required statistically significantly less analgesia, had earlier return of bowel movements, and shorter hospital stay, whereas there was no statistically significant difference in the overall readmission rate and overall morbidity, including anastomotic leakage.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center, retrospective case-matched study.

CONCLUSION

Anatomic variations (short colon and short mesentery) can be managed adequately with intracorporeal anvil head fixation. The single stapling technique is feasible and as safe as conventional double stapling techniques, although it is technically more demanding. The transanal endoscopic operation platform can be useful when the rectal stump is long.

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer in the elderly

Recent published trials have failed to demonstrate that laparoscopic resection is not inferior to open resection of rectal cancer in terms of pathologic outcomes. However, there have been numerous studies showing the benefit of laparoscopic resection in terms of short-term complications and quality of life. Fewer complications and shorter hospital stays improve the chance of maintaining functional status, which is very important for the elderly population. Thus, laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer remains a viable option for the elderly.

C-reactive protein as early predictor of complications after minimally invasive colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and enhanced recovery programs have been increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the usefulness of the C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration measured on postoperative day 3 (POD-3) as an early predictor of severe complications after minimally invasive colorectal resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2015, 160 patients underwent resection of colorectal disease by MIS at the Division of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University of Verona Hospital Trust. Among these, CRP measurement was available on POD-3 in 143 patients.

RESULTS

Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery was necessary in 18 patients (12.6%). The mean POD-3 CRP concentration was significantly higher in patients who did than did not require conversions (205.6 ± 89.6 mg/L versus 104.6 ± 85.8 mg/L, respectively; P < 0.001), even in the absence of postoperative complications, and these patients were therefore excluded from the subsequent analysis. No deaths occurred during the study period, but complications occurred in 39 patients (31.2%). Among these, 24 patients (61.5%) developed surgery-related complications. A POD-3 CRP concentration of 120 mg/L was highly reliable for excluding the occurrence of surgery-related and severe complications. The negative predictive values for excluding surgery-related and severe complications was 86.8% and 97.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of the POD-3 CRP concentration after colorectal MIS is clinically significant for excluding the occurrence of surgery-related and severe complications. This measurement is a largely available, inexpensive, and easy-to-use tool that allows early and safe discharge in the setting of colorectal MIS and enhanced recovery programs.

Clinical outcomes and case volume effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve quality of TME for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. However, despite enthusiastic uptake and teaching facilities, concern exists for safe introduction. TaTME is a complex procedure and potentially a learning curve will hamper clinical outcome. With this systematic review, we aim to provide data regarding morbidity and safety of TaTME. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library. Case reports, cohort series and comparative series on TaTME for rectal cancer were included. To evaluate a potential effect of case volume, low-volume centres (n ≤ 30 total volume) were compared with high-volume centres (n > 30 total volume). Thirty-three studies were identified (three case reports, 25 case series, five comparative studies), including 794 patients. Conversion was performed in 3.0% of the procedures. The complication rate was 40.3, and 11.5% were major complications. The quality of the mesorectum was "complete" in 87.6%, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved in 4.7%. In low- versus high-volume centres, the conversion rate was 4.3 versus 2.7%, and major complication rates were 12.2 versus 10.5%, respectively. TME quality was "complete" in 80.5 versus 89.7%, and CRM involvement was 4.8 and 4.5% in low- versus high-volume centres, respectively. TaTME for mid and low rectal cancer is a promising technique; however, it is associated with considerable morbidity. Safe implementation of the TaTME should include proctoring and quality assurance preferably within a trial setting.

Transanal approach for intersphincteric resection of rectal cancer in a patient with a huge prostatic hypertrophy

The gold standard of surgical technique for rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME). Laparoscopic TME has been proven to provide surgical safety and oncological outcomes equivalent to open TME. However, dissection of the lower rectum has some inherent difficulties related to a narrow pelvic space. The challenge of TME in the lower rectum was confirmed by the Colorectal Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) II trial showing a 9% positive circumferential margin (CRM) rate in laparoscopic TME and a 22% positive CRM rate in open TME. Recently, transanal TME has attracted intense attention as a promising alternative to laparoscopic TME. In this video article, we show the performance of a transanal approach for intersphincteric resection (ISR) of rectal cancer in a patient with a huge prostatic hypertrophy.

Right lower transverse incision versus vertical transumbilical incision for laparoscopic specimen extraction in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer: a comparative study of two mini-laparotomy techniques

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of a right lower transverse incision with a vertical transumbilical incision for laparoscopic specimen extraction in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer.

Methods

One hundred eighty-three patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for rectosigmoid colon or upper rectal cancer were included. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias caused by differences between the right lower transverse incision (RLT group) and vertical transumbilical incision (VTU group).

Results

After matching, 57 patients in the RLT group and 57 patients in the VTU group were found to be equivalent regarding baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Median follow-up time was 31 months. The RLT group showed comparable results to those of the VTU group in terms of perioperative outcomes, postoperative course, and postoperative complications. However, the proportion of patients requiring an additional incision for diverting stoma was significantly lower in the RLT group (p = 0.003).

Conclusions

A right lower transverse incision appears to be as effective as a vertical transumbilical incision regarding short-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer and may be a preferred extraction site because of its lowered risk of additional mini-laparotomy for diverting stoma.

Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is a technically challenging procedure, and there are limitations in conventional laparoscopy. A surgical robotic system may help to overcome some of the limitations. This study aimed to compare the short-term operative as well as oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection.

METHODS

This study was based on a prospectively collected database of patients with mid- to distal rectal cancer (up to 12 cm from the anal verge) undergoing either laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection from January 2008 to June 2015. Data on patient demographics, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Patient survival and recurrence were also compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 171 and 220 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection, respectively. The median age was 65 years (range 23-96). The median tumor distance was 8 and 7 cm from the anal verge in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.06). Significantly more male patients and more patients with comorbidities and preoperative radiation underwent robotic surgery. The median operating time for robotic resection was significantly longer, 260 versus 225 min (p < 0.001). Conversion rates of laparoscopic and robotic resection were 3.5 and 0.8 %, respectively (p = 0.308). The median hospital stay was 6 days in both groups (p = 0.29). There was no difference in the overall complication rate, but the incidence of urinary retention was significantly less in the robotic group (4.1 vs. 10.5 %, p = 0.024). With a median follow-up of 31 months, there was no difference in local recurrence, overall survival and disease-specific survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of mid- to low rectal cancer, robotic resection can achieve operative results and oncologic outcomes comparable to laparoscopic resection. The postoperative urinary retention rate is lower following robotic surgery.

Network meta-analysis of protocol-driven care and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approaches and standardized recovery protocols have reduced morbidity following colorectal cancer surgery. As the optimal regimen remains inconclusive, a network meta-analysis was undertaken of treatments for the development of postoperative complications and mortality.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries and related reviews were searched for randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery within protocol-driven or conventional perioperative care for colorectal cancer resection, with complications as a defined endpoint. Relative odds ratios (ORs) for postoperative complications and mortality were estimated for aggregated data.

RESULTS

Forty trials reporting on 11 516 randomized patients were included with the network. Open surgery within conventional perioperative care was the index for comparison. The OR relating to complications was 0·77 (95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 0·91) for laparoscopic surgery within conventional care, 0·69 (0·48 to 0·99) for open surgery within protocol-driven care, and 0·43 (0·28 to 0·67) for laparoscopic surgery within protocol-driven care. Sensitivity analyses excluding trials of low rectal cancer and those with a high risk of bias did not affect the treatment estimates. Meta-analyses demonstrated that mortality risk was unaffected by perioperative strategy.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery combined with protocol-driven care reduces colorectal cancer surgery complications, but not mortality. The reduction in complications with protocol-driven care is greater for open surgery than for laparoscopic approaches. Registration number: CRD42015017850 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Short-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Along with an aging society, the number of elderly patients with colorectal cancer treated with a surgical modality has gradually increased. Our purpose is to verify the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer in elderly patients.

METHODS

We compared the short-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients aged 80 years or older with colorectal cancer between 2007 and 2014.

RESULTS

Of 150 elderly colorectal patients, 62 patients received laparoscopic surgery, and 88 patients, open surgery. In the laparoscopic surgery group, two patients were converted to open surgery due to extensive adhesion. The amount of blood loss was smaller in patients treated with laparoscopic surgery than those with open surgery (44.0 ± 86.5 vs. 329.9 ± 482.1 ml, P < 0.01). In the laparoscopic surgery group, days until oral intake (5.3 ± 1.9 vs. 7.0 ± 3.0 days, P < 0.01) and hospital stay (17.2 ± 6.8 vs. 22.0 ± 14.0 days, P < 0.01) were shorter. Morbidity (30.6 vs. 42.0 %) and mortality (1.6 vs. 1.1 %) in laparoscopic and open surgery groups were similar.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer was a safe and less invasive alternative to open surgery, with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer: the impact of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for lower rectal cancer and for visceral obesity cases, which have been regarded as challenging situations in rectal cancer surgery, comparing their surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. Surgical outcomes including perioperative, postoperative, and pathological data were compared between the RALS and CLS groups. Patients were stratified into obese and non-obese groups according to visceral fat area (VFA). Obesity was defined by VFA ≥130 cm(2).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled, including 127 cases in the RALS group and 109 cases in the CLA group. A total of 82 (34.7 %) cases were categorized as VFA obese, including 52 cases in the RALS and 30 cases in the CLS groups. RALS for lower rectal cancer was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.007), a lower overall complication rate (9.4 % in RALS vs 23.9 % in CLS, p = 0.003), and shorter postoperative stay (p < 0.01) than CLS, with similar operative time and pathological results. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the RALS group with VFA obesity; blood loss was significantly less and the postoperative stay was shorter in the RALS group with visceral obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that RALS has some advantages in terms of surgical outcomes over CLS in challenging situations of rectal cancer surgery, such as lower rectal cancer cases and visceral obesity cases.

Feasibility of transanal endoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: results of a pilot study

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility of transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

This study enrolled 12 patients with clinically node negative rectal cancer located 4–12 cm from the anal verge who underwent transanal endoscopic TME with the assistance of single port laparoscopic surgery between September 2013 and August 2014. The primary endpoint was TME quality; secondary endpoints included number of harvested lymph nodes and postoperative complications within 30 days (NCT01938027).

Results

The 12 patients included 7 males and 5 females, of median age 59 years and median body mass index 24.2 kg/m². Tumors were located on average 6.7 cm from the anal verge. Four patients (33.3%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Median operating time was 195 minutes and median blood loss was 50 mL. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. TME was complete or nearly complete in 11 patients (91.7%). Median distal resection and circumferential resection margins were 18.5 mm and 10 mm, respectively. Median number of harvested lymph nodes was 15. Median length of hospital stay was 9 days. There were no postoperative deaths. Six patients experienced minor postoperative complications, including urinary dysfunction in 2, transient ileus in 3, and wound abscess in 1.

Conclusion

This pilot study showed that high-quality TME was possible in most patients without serious complications. Transanal TME for patients with rectal cancer may be feasible and safe, but further investigations are necessary to evaluate its long-term functional and oncologic outcomes and to clarify its indications.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Open Surgery Against Laparoscopic Surgery for Mid-Rectal or Low-Rectal Cancer of Male Patients: Better Postoperative Genital Function of Laparoscopic Surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate retrospectively the postoperative genital function, the local recurrence, and the survival rate impacted by laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer (RC) in male patients.

METHODS

A total of 398 male RC patients after laparoscopic or open total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectomy (205 patients in the TME with laparoscopy group, and 193 patients in the control group) were included in our study, between October 1997 and December 2013. Postoperative genital function, local recurrence, and the 5-year survival rate were analyzed, retrospectively.

RESULTS

The rate of erection dysfunction was lower in the laparoscopic group (60.0%) than in the open group (82.4%, P<0.05); the rate of ejaculation dysfunction in the laparoscopic group (56.6%) was also lower than in the open group (82.4%, P<0.05). No significant difference was found regarding the local recurrence (P=0.87) and the survival rate (P=0.17). Interestingly, for patients with preoperative obstruction, the survival rate was lower in the laparoscopy group compared with the control group (P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery should be recommended for mid-RC or low-RC patients to preserve the postoperative genital function. However, for patients with preoperative obstruction, laparoscopy surgery was not recommended.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative morbidity

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery addresses many of the technical and ergonomic limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but the literature regarding clinical outcomes in colorectal surgery is limited. We sought to compare robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify all patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colorectal surgery in 2013. We performed a logistic regression analysis to compare intraoperative variables and 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 8392 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery and 472 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery. The robotic cohort had a lower incidence of unplanned intraoperative conversion (9.5% v. 13.7%, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgery with respect to other intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, such as operative duration, length of stay, postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, venous thromboembolism, wound infection, cardiac complications and pulmonary complications. On multivariable analysis, robotic surgery was protective for unplanned conversion, while male sex, malignancy, Crohn disease and diverticular disease were all associated with open conversion.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery has comparable 30-day perioperative morbidity to laparoscopic surgery and may decrease the rate of intraoperative conversion in select patients.

Impact of Conversion to Open Surgery on Early Postoperative Morbidity After Laparoscopic Resection for Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The impact of conversion to open surgery after a laparoscopic resection for rectal adenocarcinoma on postoperative morbidity is still unclear. Most previous studies included colon and rectal carcinomas and produced conflicting results. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative morbidity in patients who underwent a laparoscopic resection for rectal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This was a retrospective bicentric study. It included all consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic resection for nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma between January 2005 and December 2013. The impact of conversion to open surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity was analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Risk factors for conversion were also investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one patients were included. The conversion rate was 26.7%. The global 30-day morbidity rate was 31.3% (41 patients). The conversion to open surgery was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications, anastomotic leaks, and reoperations. It was also an independent predictive factor to postoperative morbidity in the multivariate analysis (P = .01; odds ratio 2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-6.63), in addition to T4 tumors (P = .04; odds ratio 3.92; 95% CI 1.05-14.61). Risk factors for conversion in the multivariate analysis were T4 tumors (P = .006; odds ratio 6.09; 95% CI 1.66-22.32) and the height of the tumor (P = .025; odds ratio 2.7; 95% CI 1.13-6.43).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that conversion to open surgery after laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma was associated with higher rates of early postoperative complications. It also showed that T4 tumors and the height of the tumor were independent factors associated with the conversion to open surgery. Reducing postoperative morbidity could be achieved by a better patient selection and a policy of early conversion.

Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with double stapling technique anastomosis

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most devastating complications after rectal cancer surgery. The double stapling technique has greatly facilitated intestinal reconstruction especially for anastomosis after low anterior resection (LAR). Risk factor analyses for AL after open LAR have been widely reported. However, a few studies have analyzed the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR. Laparoscopic rectal surgery provides an excellent operative field in a narrow pelvic space, and enables total mesorectal excision surgery and preservation of the autonomic nervous system with greater precision. However, rectal transection using a laparoscopic linear stapler is relatively difficult compared with open surgery because of the width and limited performance of the linear stapler. Moreover, laparoscopic LAR exhibits a different postoperative course compared with open LAR, which suggests that the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR may also differ from those after open LAR. In this review, we will discuss the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an emerging surgical technique for rectal cancer. However, the oncological and perioperative outcomes are controversial when compared with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. All original studies published in English that compared taTME with laTME were included for critical appraisal and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies including 573 patients (taTME group = 270; laTME group = 303) were included in our meta-analysis. Concerning the oncological outcomes, no differences were observed in harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM) and positive DRM between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed a higher rate of achievement of complete grading of mesorectal quality (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.02-3.01, P = 0.04), a longer circumferential resection margin (CRM) and less involvement of positive CRM (CRM: WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.60-1.31, P <0.01; positive CRM: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17-0.86, P = 0.02). Concerning the perioperative outcomes, the results for hospital stay, intraoperative complications and readmission were comparable between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed shorter operation times (WMD = -23.45, 95% CI = -37.43 to -9.46, P <0.01), a lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.11-0.81, P = 0.02) and a higher rate of mobilization of the splenic flexure (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 0.99-5.54, P = 0.05). Although the incidence of anastomotic leakage, ileus and urinary morbidity showed no difference between the groups, a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45-0.95, P = 0.03) was observed in the taTME group.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with laTME, taTME seems to achieve comparable technical success with acceptable oncologic and perioperative outcomes. However, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of taTME.

Critical appraisal of laparoscopic vs open rectal cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and the impact of conversion in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS: An analysis was performed on a prospective database of 633 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Patients were compared in three groups: Open surgery (OP), laparoscopic surgery, and converted laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and survival analysis were compared.

RESULTS: Among 633 patients studied, 200 patients had successful laparoscopic resections with a conversion rate of 11.1% (25 out of 225). Factors predictive of survival on univariate analysis include the laparoscopic approach (P = 0.016), together with factors such as age, ASA status, stage of disease, tumor grade, presence of perineural invasion and vascular emboli, circumferential resection margin < 2 mm, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.148). Neither 5-year overall survival (70.5% vs 61.8%, P = 0.217) nor 5-year cancer free survival (64.3% vs 66.6%, P = 0.854) were significantly different between the laparoscopic group and the converted group.

CONCLUSION: LRR has equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to OP. Laparoscopic conversion does not confer a worse prognosis.

Is the benefit of laparoscopy maintained in elderly patients undergoing rectal cancer resection? An analysis of 446 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Several studies showed that age is significantly associated with impaired outcomes after open colorectal surgery. However, very few data exist on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to assess operative results of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery according to age.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2014, 446 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal cancer resection were identified from a prospective database. Five groups were defined: age <45 (n = 44), 45-54 (n = 80), 55-64 (n = 166), 65-74 (n = 95) and ≥75 years (n = 61).

RESULTS

Elderly patients presented significantly higher ASA score (p = 0.004), higher Charlson comorbidity index (p < 0.0001) and more frequent cardiovascular, pulmonary (p < 0.0001) and neurological (p = 0.03) comorbidities. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was similar between groups (34-35-37-43-43 %, p = 0.70). Medical morbidity slightly increased with age (14-9-14-19-26 %, p = 0.06), but there was no significant difference regarding clinical anastomotic leakage, surgical morbidity, major morbidity (Dindo ≥3), cardiopulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. In multivariate analysis, age was not an independent factor for postoperative morbidity, unlike ASA score ≥3 (p = 0.039), neoadjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.034) and operative time ≥240 min (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection might safely be performed irrespective of age.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Reoperative Abdomen or Pelvis

Laparoscopy has become widely accepted as the preferred surgical approach in the management of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Once considered a relative contraindication in patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS), as surgeons have continued to gain expertise in advanced laparoscopy, minimally invasive approaches have been increasingly incorporated in the reoperative abdomen and pelvis. Although earlier studies have described conversion rates, most contemporary series evaluating the impact of PAS in laparoscopic colorectal resection have reported equivalent conversion and morbidity rates between reoperative and non-reoperative cases, and series evaluating the impact of laparoscopy in reoperative cases have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopy. The data overall highlight the importance of case selection, careful preoperative preparation and planning, and the critical role of surgeons' expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques. Challenges to the widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in reoperative colorectal cases include the longer learning curve and longer operative time. However, with the steady increase in adoption of minimally invasive techniques worldwide, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is likely to continue to be applied in the management of increasingly complex reoperative colorectal cases in an effort to improve patient outcomes. In the hands of experienced MIS surgeons and in carefully selected cases, laparoscopy is both safe and efficacious for reoperative procedures in the abdomen and pelvis, with measurable short-term benefits.

Robotic surgery with high dissection and low ligation technique for consecutive patients with rectal cancer following preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

We present the preliminary experiences with and short-term outcomes of 50 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) followed by robotic surgery by using the high dissection and low ligation technique.

METHODS

Between October 2013 and August 2015, 50 patients with rectal cancer underwent robotic surgery after preoperative CCRT at a single institution. We performed D3 lymph node dissection and low tie ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA); this technique is referred to as the high dissection and low ligation technique. Clinicopathological features, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

FOLFOX regimen was used for preoperative CCRT in 26 (52 %) patients. Long-course radiotherapy was concurrently administered. A pathological complete response (pCR) was obtained in 14 (28 %) patients. Of the 50 patients, 23 (46 %) patients received intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis, 25 (50 %) patients received lower anterior resection (LAR), and 2 (4 %) patients received abdominoperineal resection (APR). Apical nodes were pathologically harvested in 47 (94 %) patients, and the median number of harvested apical lymph nodes was 2 (range, 0-10). The overall complication rate was 24 % (10 patients with 12 episodes), and most complications were mild.

CONCLUSION

Roboic rectal surgery combined with appropriate preoperative CCRT helps in achieving a favorable pCR, circumferential resection margin, and sphincter preservation. Moreover, high dissection and low ligation of the IMA can be safely performed using the da Vinci(®) Surgical System safely which yield favorable short-term clinical outcomes.

Comparative analysis focusing on surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted approaches in rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Because there are few comparative studies of open, laparoscopy-assisted (LA), and robot-assisted (RA) total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, we aimed to compare these three procedures in terms of sphincter-saving operation (SSO) achievement, surgical complications, and early oncological outcomes.

METHODS

The short-term outcomes of 2114 patients with rectal cancer consecutively enrolled between July 2010 and February 2015 at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) were retrospectively evaluated. Patients underwent either open, LA, or RA TME (n = 1095, 486, and 533, respectively) performed by experienced surgeons.

RESULTS

RA TME was a significant determinant of SSO in multivariate analysis that included potential variables such as tumor location and T4 category (odds ratio, 2.458; 95 % confidence interval, 1.497-4.036; p < 0.001). The cumulative rates of 3-year local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival did not differ among the three groups: 2.5-3.4, 91.9-94.6, and 82.2-83.1 % (p = 0.85, 0.352, and 0.944, respectively). Early general surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open group than in the LA and RA groups (19.3 versus 13.0 versus 12.2 %, p < 0.001), specifically ileus and wound infection.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in 3-year survival outcomes and local recurrence among open, LA, and RA TME. RA TME is useful for SSO achievement, regardless of advanced stage and location of rectal cancer. The open procedure had a slightly but significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications than LA and RA.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes Regarding Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

It is to disclose whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible or not in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, Science Direct, SpringerLink, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library databases for the eligible studies. Review Manager 5.2 was used to test the heterogeneity and to evaluate the overall test performance.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n=2973). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival, and overall survival were similar between both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectal resection is technically challenging, with outcomes dependent upon technical performance. No robust objective assessment tool exists for laparoscopic rectal resection surgery. This study aimed to investigate the application of the objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) technique for assessing technical performance of laparoscopic rectal surgery and explore the validity and reliability of this technique.

METHODS

Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection operations were described in the format of a hierarchical task analysis. Potential technical errors were defined. The OCHRA technique was used to identify technical errors enacted in videos of twenty consecutive laparoscopic rectal cancer resection operations from a single site. The procedural task, spatial location, and circumstances of all identified errors were logged. Clinical validity was assessed through correlation with clinical outcomes; reliability was assessed by test-retest.

RESULTS

A total of 335 execution errors identified, with a median 15 per operation. More errors were observed during pelvic tasks compared with abdominal tasks (p < 0.001). Within the pelvis, more errors were observed during dissection on the right side than the left (p = 0.03). Test-retest confirmed reliability (r = 0.97, p < 0.001). A significant correlation was observed between error frequency and mesorectal specimen quality (r s = 0.52, p = 0.02) and with blood loss (r s = 0.609, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

OCHRA offers a valid and reliable method for evaluating technical performance of laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Single-center Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Laparoscopic surgery has been proven to be an effective alternative to open surgery in patients with colon cancer. However, data on laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer are insufficient. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 307 patients with rectal cancer who were treated by open and laparoscopic curative resection at Kosin University Gospel Hospital (Busan, Korea) between January 2002 and December 2011 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Regarding treatment, 176 patients underwent an open procedure and 131 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure. The local recurrence rate after laparoscopic resection was 2.3%, compared with 5.7% after open resection (p = 0.088). Distant metastases occurred in 6.9% of the laparoscopic surgery group, compared with 24.4% in the open surgery group (p < 0.001). In univariate analysis, age (≥ 75 years vs. ≤ 60 years), preoperative staging, surgical approach (open vs. laparoscopic), elevated initial CEA level, elevated follow-up CEA level, number of positive lymph nodes, and postoperative chemotherapy affected overall survival and disease free survival. However, in multivariate analysis, the surgical approach apparently did not affect long-term oncologic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, long-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were not inferior to those after open surgery. Therefore, laparoscopic surgery would be an alternative operative tool to open resection for rectal cancer, although further investigation is needed.

Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Recent randomized controlled data have shown possible limitations to laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer. The retrospective data, used as the basis for designing the trials, and which showed no problems with the technique, are discussed. The design of the randomized trials is discussed relative to the future meta-analysis of the recent data. The implications of the current findings on practice are discussed as surgeons try to adjust their practice to the new findings. The possible next steps for clinical and research innovations are put into perspective as new technology is considered to compensate for newly identified limitations in the laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer.

Impact of Type of Surgery on Survival Outcome in Patients With Early Gallbladder Cancer in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery: Oncologic Safety of Laparoscopic Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery has been widely accepted as a feasible and safe treatment modality in many cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. However, most guidelines on gallbladder cancer (GBC) regard laparoscopic surgery as a contraindication, even for early GBC. This study aims to evaluate and compare recent surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for T1(a,b) GBC and to determine the optimal surgical strategy for T1 GBC.The study enrolled 197 patients with histopathologically proven T1 GBC and no history of other cancers who underwent surgery from 2000 to 2014 at 3 major tertiary referral hospitals with specialized biliary-pancreas pathologists and optimal pathologic handling protocols. Median follow-up was 56 months. The effects of depth of invasion and type of surgery on disease-specific survival and recurrence patterns were investigated.Of the 197 patients, 116 (58.9%) underwent simple cholecystectomy, including 31 (15.7%) who underwent open cholecystectomy and 85 (43.1%) laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The remaining 81 (41.1%) patients underwent extended cholecystectomy. Five-year disease-specific survival rates were similar in patients who underwent simple and extended cholecystectomy (96.7% vs 100%, P = 0.483), as well as being similar in patients in the simple cholecystectomy group who underwent open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (100% vs 97.6%, P = 0.543). Type of surgery had no effect on recurrence patterns.Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for T1 gallbladder cancer can provide similar survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Considering less blood loss and shorter hospital stay with better cosmetic outcome, laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be justified as a standard treatment for T1b as well as T1a gallbladder cancer when done by well-experienced surgeons based on exact pathologic diagnosis.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients who underwent previous abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be impeded by intraperitoneal adhesions caused by previous abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of previous abdominal surgery on short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 3188 patients with primary colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery between January 2004 and December 2013. Patients with a history of abdominal surgery (n = 593, 18.6 %) were compared to those without such history (n = 2595, 81.4 %).

RESULTS

Patients who had undergone previous abdominal surgery exhibited acceptable intraoperative outcomes, including conversion to open surgery, operative time, estimated blood loss, and the number of harvested lymph nodes. Overall, postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups (10.8 vs. 10.6 %, p = 0.885). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with history of major abdominal surgery (n = 165) had higher rates of conversion to open surgery (4.2 vs. 1.7 %, p = 0.033), prolonged postoperative ileus (5.5 vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.008), and wound complications (4.2 vs. 1.2 %, p = 0.006), when compared to those without prior abdominal surgery. Previous major abdominal surgery was an independent risk factor for conversion to open surgery [adjusted odds ratio = 2.740; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.197-6.269]. Disease-free survival [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.847; 95 % CI 0.532-1.346] and overall survival (adjusted HR = 0.846; 95 % CI 0.432-1.657) were not observed to differ between the previous major abdominal surgery group and those without previous abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with a history of abdominal surgery exhibited acceptable short- and long-term outcomes. Patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery had relatively higher rate of conversion to open surgery as well as higher incidences of prolonged postoperative ileus and wound complications compared to patients without such history.

Decreased Morbidity of Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy Compared With Open Distal Gastrectomy for Stage I Gastric Cancer: Short-term Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (KLASS-01)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) compared with open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer in Korea.

BACKGROUND

There is still a lack of large-scale, multicenter randomized trials regarding the safety of LADG.

METHODS

A large-scale, phase 3, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. The primary end point was 5-year overall survival. Morbidity within 30 postoperative days and surgical mortality were compared to evaluate the safety of LADG as a secondary end point

RESULTS

: A total of 1416 patients were randomly assigned to the LADG group (n = 705) or the ODG group (n = 711) between February 1, 2006, and August 31, 2010, and 1384 patients were analyzed for modified intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) and 1256 were eligible for per protocol (PP) analysis (644 and 612, respectively). In the PP analysis, 6 patients (0.9%) needed open conversion in the LADG group. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the LADG group (LADG vs ODG; 13.0% vs 19.9%, P = 0.001). In detail, the wound complication rate of the LADG group was significantly lower than that of the ODG group (3.1% vs 7.7%, P < 0.001). The major intra-abdominal complication (7.6% vs 10.3%, P = 0.095) and mortality rates (0.6% vs 0.3%, P = 0.687) were similar between the 2 groups. Modified ITT analysis showed similar results with PP analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LADG for patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer is safe and has a benefit of lower occurrence of wound complication compared with conventional ODG.

Present laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in Japan

In many clinical studies, laparoscopic surgery (LS) for colon cancer has been shown to be less invasive than open surgery (OS) while maintaining similar safety. Furthermore, there are no significant differences between LS and OS in long-term outcomes. Thus, LS has been accepted as one of the standard treatments for colon cancer. In the treatments of rectal cancer as well, LS has achieved favorable outcomes, with many reports showing long-term outcomes comparable to those of OS. Furthermore, the magnification in laparoscopy improves visualization in the pelvic cavity and facilitates precise manipulation, as well as providing excellent educational effects. For these reasons, rectal cancer has seemed to be well indicated for LS, as has been colon cancer. The indication for LS in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, which is relatively unresectable (e.g., cancer invading other organs), remains an open issue. In recent years, new techniques such as single-port and robotic surgery have begun to be introduced for LS. Presently, various clinical studies in our country as well as in most Western countries have demonstrated that LS, with these new techniques, are gradually showing long-term outcomes.

A Systematic Review of Outcomes After Transanal Mesorectal Resection for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal mesorectal resection has been developed to facilitate minimally invasive proctectomy for rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the evidence regarding technical parameters, oncological outcomes, morbidity, and mortality after transanal mesorectal resection.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION

Systematic review of the literature from January 2005 to September 2015 was used for study selection.

INTERVENTION

Intervention included transanal mesorectal resection for rectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Technical parameters, histological outcomes, morbidity, and mortality were the outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Fifteen predominately retrospective studies involving 449 patients were included (mean age, 64.3 years; 64.1% men). Different platforms were used. The operative mortality rate was 0.4% and the cumulative morbidity rate 35.5%. Circumferential resection margins were clear in 98%, and the resected mesorectum was grade III in 87% of patients. Median follow-up was 14.7 months. There were 4 local recurrences (1.5%) and 12 patients (5.6%) with metastatic disease. No study followed patients long enough to report on 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates. Functional outcome was only reported in 3 studies.

LIMITATIONS

A low number of procedures were performed by expert early adopters. There are no comparative or randomized data included in this study and inconsistent reporting of outcome variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal mesorectal resection for rectal cancer may enhance negative circumferential margin rates with a reasonable safety profile. Contemporary randomized, controlled studies are required before there can be universal recommendation.

Effect of Visceral Obesity on Surgical Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Visceral obesity has been known to be more pathogenic than body mass index (BMI). There have been a few reports about the association between visceral obesity and surgical outcomes in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Between January 2005 and December 2012, a total of 543 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer and had available computed tomography (CT) scans were included in this retrospective study. Visceral fat volumes (VFVs) were measured in preoperative CT scans from S1 to 12.5 cm above. Patients were divided into an obese group and a non-obese group according to VFV and BMI. Obesity was defined by VFV ≥1.92 dm(3) (75% value of VFV) or BMI ≥25 kg/m(2).

RESULTS

There were 136 (25.0%) and 150 (27.6%) obese patients according to VFV and BMI, respectively. The high VFV group had a longer operative times (165.2 ± 84.4 vs. 146.1 ± 58.9 min; P = 0.016), higher blood loss during surgery (132.5 ± 144.8 vs. 98.3 ± 109.6 ml; P = 0.012), more frequent conversion to laparotomy (5.9 vs. 1.5%; P = 0.010), and more frequent major complications (Dindo score ≥3; 11.0 vs. 4.7%; P = 0.008), whereas there was no significant difference between the high and low BMI groups. High VFV was a significant independent risk factor for open conversion (odds ratio 4.964, 95% confidence interval 1.336-18.438, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Visceral obesity can be a more clinically useful predictor than BMI in predicting surgical outcomes for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.