Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients

Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review was designed to determine postoperative complication rates of radical surgery for rectal cancer (abdominal perineal resection and anterior resection).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lack of accepted complication rates for rectal cancer surgery may hinder quality improvement efforts and may impede the conception of future studies because of uncertainty regarding the expected event rates.

METHODS

All prospective studies of rectal cancer receiving radical surgery published between 1990 and August 2008 were obtained by searching Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, as well as ASCO GI, CAGS, and ASCRS meeting abstracts between 2004 and 2008. There was no language restriction. The outcomes extracted were anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, postoperative death, wound infection, and fecal incontinence. Summary complication rates were obtained using a random effects model; the Z-test was used to test for study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fifty-three prospective cohort studies and 45 randomized controlled studies with 36,315 patients (24,845 patients had an anastomosis) were eligible for inclusion. Most of the studies found were based in continental Europe (58%), followed by Asia (25%), United Kingdom (10%), North America (5%), and Australia/New Zealand. The anastomotic leak rate, reported in 84 studies, was 11% (95% CI: 10, 12); the pelvic sepsis rate, in 29 studies, was 12% (9, 16); the postoperative death rate, in 75 studies, was 2% (2, 3); and the wound infection rate, in 50 studies, was 7% (5, 8). Fecal incontinence rates were reported in too few studies and so heterogeneously that numerical summarization was inappropriate. Year of publication, use of preoperative radiation, use of laparoscopy, and use of protecting stoma were not significant variables, but average age, median tumor height, and method of detection (clinical vs. radiologic) showed significance to explain heterogeneity in anastomotic leak rates. Year of publication, study origin, average age, and use of laparoscopy were significant, but median tumor height and preoperative radiation use were not significant in explaining heterogeneity among observed postoperative death rates. With multivariable analysis, only average age for anastomotic leak and year of publication for postoperative death remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark complication rates for radical rectal cancer surgery were obtained for use in sample size calculations in future studies and for quality control purposes. Postoperative death rates showed improvement in recent years.

Laparoscopic TME in rectal cancer--electronic supplementary: op-video

Background

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has been proved in various studies. The minimal invasive procedure is feasible and safe which was demonstrated in many studies. However, the results of prospective, randomized studies providing valuable evidence are still not available. Compared to conventional surgery, the laparoscopic technique has short-term advantages including less pain, shorter duration of postoperative ileus, less fatigue, better pulmonary function, and less blood loss (Leung et al., Lancet 363:1187–1192, 2004; Braga et al., Dis Colon Rectum 48:217–223, 2005; Jayne et al., J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068, 2007; Agha et al., Surg Endosc 22:2229–2237, 2008).

Methods

The autonomic nerve sparing TME technique is the gold standard in rectal cancer resection even in conventional or laparoscopic procedure. With regard of the oncological dimension, the laparoscopic TME technique is not different compared to the open procedure. However, a standardized laparoscopic step-by-step procedure may simplify the operation and can reduce operation time.

Results

There are no studies available which compare different types of TME procedures. Most surgeons start the operation left laterally mobilizing the sigmoid colon first. In the laparoscopic technique, we recommend the medial to lateral approach starting the operation at the right side of the rectum and sigmoid colon. A nerve sparing TME technique can be performed easier, and the identification of the left ureter may be simplified. After multiple workshops and extensive discussion with national and international experts, we developed a standardized laparoscopic “10 step TME procedure.” Reviewing the results of laparoscopic TME the studies do not allow firm conclusions as to the questions of whether the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic TME is equal or superior to open TME (Breukink et al. 2006). Actually, we are waiting for large prospective randomized studies comparing laparoscopic TME with the traditional open procedure (Bonjer et al., Dan Med Bull 56:89–91, 2009).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic TME appears to have clinically measurable short-term advantages in patients with primary resectable rectal cancer based on evidence mainly from nonrandomized studies (Breukink et al. 5). In nearly all published studies, the efficacy and technical feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer could be demonstrated regarding perioperative morbidity and oncological outcome. A standardized laparoscopic TME technique can be strongly recommended.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00423-009-0556-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectal transection carries the risk of anastomotic leakage because of its technical difficulty and long staple line with an inadequate cutting angle. Our objective was to investigate the risk factors affecting anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Between November 2006 and September 2008, 270 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy and anterior resection with double stapling technique for distal sigmoid and rectal cancer. Data were collected prospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Additionally, we evaluated the relationship between the number of stapler firings and clinical parameters.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage was noted in 17 (6.3%) of 270 patients. In univariate analyses, tumor location (p = 0.021), operation time (p = 0.025), number of stapler firings (p = 0.040), and diameter of the circular stapler (p = 0.022) were significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Multivariate analyses showed that middle or lower rectal cancer was an independent factor affecting anastomotic leakage (p = 0.013). The number of stapler firings increased significantly in men (p = 0.023), in patients with a tumor at a lower level (p = 0.034), and in those with longer operation times (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A reduction in the number of linear stapler firings is necessary to avoid anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. We recommend that a diverting ileostomy is mandatory in patients with middle and lower rectal cancer where multiple linear staplers were used.

Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer is controversial. This study compared surgical outcomes after laparoscopic and open approaches for mid and low rectal cancers.

METHODS

Some 204 patients with mid and low rectal adenocarcinomas were allocated randomly to open (103) or laparoscopic (101) surgery. The surgical team was the same for both procedures. Most patients had stage II or III disease, and received neoadjuvant therapy with oral capecitabine and 50-54 Gy external beam radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 78.6 and 76.2 per cent of patients in the open and laparoscopic groups respectively. Blood loss was significantly greater for open surgery (P < 0.001) and operating time was significantly greater for laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.020), and return to diet and hospital stay were longer for open surgery. Complication rates, and involvement of circumferential and radial margins were similar for both procedures, but the number of isolated lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group (mean 13.63 versus 11.57; P = 0.026). There were no differences in local recurrence, disease-free or overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has a similar complication rate to open surgery, with less blood loss, rapid intestinal recovery, shorter hospital stay, and no compromise of oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a review

Despite increasing evidence on the success of laparoscopic resection in colorectal diseases, clinicians remain skeptical about the application of laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer, although it may benefit patients by resulting in early return of bowel function, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay. Rectal cancer surgery has been regarded as a technically demanding procedure. Deviation from the oncologic principle of mesrectal dissection will lead to a higher local recurrence rate. Therefore, rectal cancer was not included in earlier studies on laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer. However, many colorectal surgeons who practice laparoscopic surgery soon appreciated that the improved optics of laparoscopy can provide a much better view of the pelvis, and the Heald principle of meticulous sharp dissection for total mesorectal excision could be performed without compromise. In recent years, there has been increasing number of reports on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancers. Apart from the issues on postoperative outcomes and long-term results, laparoscopic resection has generated interest in its impact on the preservation of sexual and bladder function. We summarize the current evidence on laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic or open surgery for the cancer of the middle and lower rectum short-term outcomes of a comparative non-randomised study

INTRODUCTION

The study compares the short-term results of the laparoscopic and open approach for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Consecutive cases with rectal cancer operated upon with laparoscopy from 2004 to 2007 were compared to open rectal cancer cases. Total mesorectal excision (TME) was attempted in all cases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two cases were included in the OPEN and 45 in the LAP group and were matched for age, gender, disease stage and operation type.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Duration of surgery was longer and blood transfusion requirements were less in the LAP group. Higher blood loss was observed in patients with neoadjuvant treatment in both groups. Patients with neoadjuvant treatment in the OPEN group had higher operation time, but that was not the case in the LAP group. There were three conversions (7%).

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was higher in the OPEN group. LAP group patients were found to recover faster. R0 resection was achieved in 88% in the OPEN and 94% in the LAP group.

DISCUSSION

Less morbidity and faster recovery is offered after laparoscopic TME. Quality of surgery assessed by histopathology is similar between the approaches. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation seems to have significant impact on blood loss but results in longer operation times of the OPEN group.

Comparison of laparoscopic vs. open access surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a prospective analysis

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery of colon cancer has been accepted to be oncologically adequate compared with open resection. However, the situation in rectal cancer remains unclear, because anatomy and complex surgical procedures might specifically influence the long-term outcome. This study was designed to analyze perioperative and long-term outcome of patients with rectal cancer after laparoscopic vs. open access surgery.

METHODS

A total of 389 patients (1998-2005) were prospectively analyzed; 114 patients had laparoscopic beginning, and 25 patients had conversion and were separately analyzed. Eighty-nine patients remained in the laparoscopic group and 275 had open access surgery.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable regarding age, gender, tumor localization, stage, and complications. Differences were found in harvested lymph nodes (laparoscopic 13.5/open access 16.9; P = 0.001) and hospitalization (15.1/18.7 days; P = 0.037). Local recurrence rate and metachronous metastasis were comparable. In patients with deep anterior resection with total mesenteric excision, favorable long-term survival in the laparoscopic group was found (P = 0.035, log-rank).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery is equivalent in the treatment of rectal cancer and shows advantages of shorter hospitalization and faster recovery. Especially in patients with low rectal cancer, minimally invasive surgery with exact preparation of the total mesenteric excision seems to be favorable compared with open access surgery.

Oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

AIM

To review and compare the oncologic outcomes in patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic vs. open rectal surgery.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed for trials reporting oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic rectal resections. Variables of interest were survival, recurrence rates, margin status and nodal retrieval. Trials were excluded if variables were not specifically analysed for rectal resections. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the difference in oncologic outcomes between the two treatment approaches.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 1403 laparoscopic (LG) and 1755 open (OG) rectal resections were gathered from 24 publications. Overall survival at 3 years (LG=76%, OG=69%) was not statistically different between the two treatment groups. The mean local recurrence rates were 7% for laparoscopic and 8% for open procedures (NS). There was no difference in radial margin positivity, 5% of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery compared to 8% for open surgery. Laparoscopic procedures harvested a mean of 10 nodes as compared to 12 for open procedures, p=0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Data gathered in this meta-analysis indicate that there are no oncologic differences between laparoscopic and open resections for treatment of primary rectal cancer.

Colon and rectal cancer: laparoscopic or open?

Early experiences with laparoscopic colectomy were unfavorable, with higher than expected rates of wound tumor implants and concerns about short and long-term compromised oncologic outcomes. Several international randomized controlled trials were initiated to address concerns regarding compromised oncologic outcomes. Each of the trials was designed to test the hypothesis that level 1 evidence supports the general feasibility and recovery advantage as well as cancer equivalence of laparoscopic colectomy in curable colon cancer. The following four phase III randomized controlled trials have completed accrual and reported early data on recovery benefits for laparoscopic colectomy: Barcelona, Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (COSTSG), Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR), and Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (CLASICC). These trials have uniformly and consistently shown a significant reduction in the use of narcotics and oral analgesics and length of hospital stay, as well as a faster return of diet and bowel function, with laparoscopic colectomy. Two of the trials, Barcelona and COSTSG, have sufficient maturation and follow-up to report recurrence and survival data, and neither has found a survival disadvantage in patients treated with laparoscopic colectomy. Results of the Barcelona trial suggest a cancer-related survival advantage in patients treated with laparoscopic colectomy, based solely on differences in patients with stage III disease; this is not confirmed by the COSTSG trial. Results of the CLASICC and COLOR trials, as well as 5-year data from the COSTSG trial, should definitively address survival results. The investigational experience with laparoscopic rectal cancer is not as mature; the subset of rectal cancer patients (n = 253) in the CLASICC trial provides the only available randomized controlled trial data. Laparoscopic colectomy in patients with curable cancer is accepted as an alternative to open colectomy, whereas the viability of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection requires further investigation.

Laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a prospective analysis of patient survival and outcomes

PURPOSE

The role of laparoscopic resection in the management of rectal cancer is still controversial. We prospectively evaluated patient survival and outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer at a single institution.

METHODS

From November 1999 to November 2005, 107 patients with rectal cancer were treated by laparoscopy. Exclusion criteria were: metastatic disease, advanced disease with invasion of adjacent structures, clinical or radiologic involvement of the external anal sphincter, previous colonic resection, synchronous colonic adenocarcinoma, and contraindications to laparoscopy. All patients were followed prospectively for survival and complications. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A laparoscopic sphincter-saving procedure was performed in 104 patients, 2 patients had a laparoscopic Miles operation, and 1 underwent a laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure. Mean operating time was 278 (range, 135-430) minutes. Conversion to open surgery was required in 20 of 107 patients (18.7 percent). Overall morbidity was 27 percent, anastomotic leakage occurred in 14 of 104 patients (13.5 percent). There was no postoperative mortality. A mean of 18 (range, 1-49) lymph nodes was removed. Mean distance of distal margin from tumor was 2.6 (range, 0.5-10) cm; in two patients there was microscopic invasion of the distal margin. Mean hospital stay was nine (range, 4-43) days. Mean follow-up was 35.8 months. There was local recurrence in 1 of 107 patients (0.95 percent); there were no port site metastases. Actuarial five-year and disease-free survival rates are 81.4 and 79.8 percent, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is feasible and oncologically radical but also technically demanding (conversion rate, 18.7 percent), time-consuming (mean operating time, 278 minutes), and associated with specific intraoperative complications. At present, the technique should only be performed in specialist centers by teams experienced in laparoscopic surgery.

A classical technique applied to laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: transillumination of the inferior mesenteric root and its tributaries

One of the major concerns associated with current techniques of laparoscopic rectal resections is the accurate, safe identification of the inferior mesenteric root and its tributaries, especially in patients with thickened, fatty mesentery. The classical technique of transillumination was applied successfully by the use of two telescopes, each with a different light source in laparoscopic rectal procedures. Therefore, this approach can decrease conversion and morbidity rates during the learning curve.

Clinical comparison between hand-assisted laparoscopy and open radical resection in the treatment of rectal cancer

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and short-term efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopy and open radical resection in the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS: From January 2005 to January 2007, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and open radical resection (ORR) were performed in 31 cases of rectal cancer, respectively. The curative effect and clinical data were collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS: No cases were converted to open surgery after HALS. The mean blood loss (150 ± 42.5 mL vs 250 ± 34.6 mL, P < 0.05), restoration time of intestinal function (2 ± 1.0 d vs 4 ± 1.0 d, P < 0.05) and post-operative complication rate (3.2% vs 12.9%, P < 0.05) were significantly different between HALS and ORR group. However, the operation time, local recurrence rate and lymph node harvest had no marked difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: Both HALS and ORR are feasible and safe for the patients with rectal cancer, but the former can provide a better bowel function restoration and less blood loss.

Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic rectal resection on short-term postoperative morbidity and costs.

METHODS

A total of 168 patients with rectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 83) or open (n = 85) resection. Outcome parameters were: postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, quality of life, long-term survival, and local recurrences. The mean follow-up period was 53.6 months. Cost-benefit analysis was based on hospital costs.

RESULTS

Operative time was 53 minutes longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity rate was 28.9 percent in the laparoscopic vs. 40 percent in the open group (P = 0.18). The mean length of hospital stay was 10 (4.9) days in the laparoscopic group and 13.6 (10) days in the open group (P = 0.004). Local recurrence rate and five-year survival were similar in both groups; however, the limited number of patients does not allow firm conclusions. Quality of life was better in the laparoscopic group only in the first year after surgery (P < 0.0001). The additional charge in the laparoscopic group was $1,748 per patient randomized ($1,194 the result of surgical instruments and $554 the result of longer operative time). The saving in the laparoscopic group was $1,396 per patient randomized ($647 the result of shorter length of hospital stay and $749 the result of the lower cost of postoperative complications). The net balance resulted in $351 extra cost per patient randomly allocated to the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term postoperative morbidity was similar in the two groups. Laparoscopic resection reduced length of hospital stay, improved first-year quality of life, and slightly increased hospital costs.

Outcomes of laparoscopic Miles’ operation in very low rectal adenocarcinoma. Analysis of 32 cases

AIMS

Minivasive techniques for excision of low rectal tumours have spread worldwide with good results, but their employment is still under discussion. The purpose of this study is to assess short term results and survival of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in very low rectal cancers.

METHODS

The charts of 32 patients undergoing LAPR for very low rectal adenocarcinoma (0-2cm from dentata line) were reviewed retrospectively. Outcomes were evaluated considering surgical procedure, short and long-term results and survival.

RESULTS

A thorough LAPR was performed in 31 patients and conversion to laparotomy was required in 1 patient. Mean operating time was 244min. The length of hospital stay (LOS) was 13,3days. The mean number of nodes collected was 12 and the distal margin was 3,6cm on average. There was 1 post-operative death. In the follow up no pelvic recurrence was observed, while metachronous metastases were observed in 5 patients and peritoneal carcinosis in 2 patients. No port site metastasis was registered. Cumulative 5year survival probability was 0,50.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of this study suggest that LAPR in very low rectal cancer is a reliable procedure, operating time and LOS were acceptable. Oncologic principles were respected: length of specimen, distal margin and number of nodes retrieved were quite acceptable. Pelvic recurrence frequency was nil. Long term results were comparable with those of other series.

Short-term outcome after laparoscopic or open restorative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative cohort study

PURPOSE

The laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer is still a controversial procedure. A comparative cohort study was conducted to assess short-term results of laparoscopic restorative mesorectal excision.

METHODS

From January 1998 to December 2000, laparotomy was performed on all primary rectal cancer undergoing radical excision. From January 2002 to September 2004, all cases about to undergo radical excision were considered for laparoscopy. Patients with fixed tumor or T4, indications for synchronous hepatectomy, emergencies, and medical contraindications were not included. The study was based on the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Short-term outcome was compared between the laparoscopy group (n=104) and the laparotomy group (n=68). Demographic, general and tumor data, and rates of preoperative irradiation were comparable, as were surgical procedures and perioperative management. Hospital mortality (1 and 2.9 percent, P=0.33) and three-month overall morbidity (43.3 and 48.5 percent, P=0.49) were comparable between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups. Surgical complication rates were comparable (39.3 and 35.5 percent, P=0.58), but a significantly lower medical complication rate was observed in laparoscopy patients (8.7 and 20.6 percent, P=0.025), mainly because this group had fewer respiratory complications. Hospital stay was shorter in laparoscopy patients (10 and 14 days, P<0.001). Oncologic quality criteria were comparable, in terms of number of lymph nodes, lateral and distal margins, and delivery of postoperative chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach to restorative mesorectal excision for cancer does not increase postoperative morbidity or reduce oncologic quality. Our results suggest that the short-term outcome is probably improved with this procedure.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer remains controversial. However, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether there are any relevant differences in safety and efficacy after elective LTME, for the resection of rectal cancer, compared with OTME.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Current Contents from 1990 to December 2005. Searches were conducted using MESH terms: "laparoscopy", "minimally invasive","colorectal neoplasms". Furthermore we used the following text words: laparoscopy, surgical procedures, minimally invasive, rectal cancer, rectal carcinoma, rectal adenocarcinoma, rectal neoplasms, anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection, total mesorectal excision.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials and case series comparing LTME versus OTME. Furthermore case reports which describe LTME were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. All relevant studies have been categorized according to the evidence they provide according to the guidelines for "Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation" supplied by the "Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine". Disagreements were solved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

80 studies were identified of which 48 studies, representing 4224 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of most of the included studies was poor; three studies were grade 1b (individual randomised trial), 12 grade 2b (individual cohort study), 5 grade 3b (individual case-control study) and 28 grade 4 (case-series). As only one RCT described primary outcome, 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival rates, no meta-analyses could be performed. No significant differences in terms of disease-free survival rate, local recurrence rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, resection margins, or recovered lymph nodes were found. There is evidence that LTME results in less blood loss, quicker return to normal diet, less pain, less narcotic use and less immune response. It seems likely that LTME is associated with longer operative time and higher costs. No results of quality of life were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence mainly from non-randomized studies, LTME appears to have clinically measurable short-term advantages in patients with primary resectable rectal cancer. The long-term impact on oncological endpoints awaits the findings from large on-going randomized trials.

A comparative clinical study of short-term results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer during the learning curve

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal carcinoma (LSRC) during the learning curve throughout the introduction of this technique at our medical center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2003 to April 2004, 40 patients undergoing surgery were assigned to laparoscopic surgery group (LSG) (n=20) or conventional surgery group (CSG) (n=20). Data were prospectively collected to statistically analyze clinical, anatomopathological, and economic variables.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, surgical technique performed, tumor size and distance, Dukes' stage, and proportion of patients with previous abdominal surgery and radiotherapy. There was no difference in operative time. LSG blood loss was lower (p<.0001). LSG peristalsis and oral intake began earlier (p<.0001). LSG hospital stay was shorter (p<.0001). Intraoperative complications (10% LSG vs 15% CSG) and overall morbidity (35% LSG vs 45% CSG) were no different. LSG did not record any anastomotic leakages. Two patients (10%) were converted to open surgery. Regarding oncologic adequacy of resection, specimen length and number of nodes harvested were no different. LSG distal and radial resection margins were greater (p<.0001; p=.03). LSG operative costs were greater (p<.0001). However, CSG hospitalization costs were higher (p<.001). There was no overall difference (p=0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

LSRC has been a reliable and efficient technique during the learning curve at our hospital.

Laparoscopic and open anterior resection for upper and mid rectal cancer: an evaluation of outcomes

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic anterior resection with open operation for mid and upper rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 265 patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or open anterior resection for cancer of the mid and upper rectum from June 2000 to December 2004 were included. Data about the patients' demographics, operative details, postoperative outcome, and disease status were collected prospectively. Comparison of the outcome between laparoscopic and open resection was performed.

RESULTS

The median age of the 265 patients was 69 (range, 27-91) years, and laparoscopic anterior resection was performed in 98 patients (37 percent). There was no difference in the age, gender, comorbidities, and level of tumor between the two groups. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group (200 vs. 127 minutes; P < 0.01), but the blood loss was less (200 vs. 250 ml; P = 0.027). The overall operative mortality was 1.8 percent, and the complication rate was 27.9 percent. Significantly more patients with early diseases (Stage I and Stage II) were operated with laparoscopic approach. There was no difference in the mortality or morbidity between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in five patients with open resection and one with laparoscopic resection (P = 0.418). Patients with laparoscopic resection had an earlier return of bowel function and earlier resumption of diet as well as a shorter median hospital stay (7 vs. 8 days; P < 0.001). With the median follow-up of the surviving patients for 21.2 months, the three-year local recurrence rates for those with open and laparoscopic resection were 4.9 and 3.3 percent, respectively (P = 0.513). In patients with Stage I and Stage II disease, the three-year cancer-specific survivals for open and laparoscopic resection were 89.8 and 88.6 percent, respectively (P = 0.882), whereas those of patients with Stage III disease were 65.6 and 55.5 percent, respectively (P = 0.911).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic anterior resection for mid and proximal rectal cancer is a safe option with short-term advantages compared with open operation. The oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection were not compromised, with similar local recurrence rate and the cancer-specific survival rate as patients who underwent open resection.

[Implementation of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery]

INTRODUCTION

The integration of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in clinical practice is one of the challenges faced by surgical societies. The aim of the present study was to analyze the results obtained during the implementation phase of this technique.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

From January 2003 to June 2005, 40 patients with rectal carcinoma underwent laparoscopic surgery in our center. Clinical and pathological variables were prospectively collected for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 27 men and 13 women underwent surgery: 11 high (HAR) and 20 low anterior resections (LAR) and 9 abdominoperineal resections (APR) were performed. Operative time was 240.4 +/- 200 min and was greater in the LAR group (259.7 vs 201.5 min; p=.02). The intraoperative complication rate was 22.5% (9% HAR vs 25% LAR; p=NS). The mean length of hospital stay was 8.7 +/- 4.8 days. The rate of postoperative complications was 32.5%. The conversion rate was 15% (6 patients), and was greater in the LAR group (25% vs 0% HAR vs 11.1% APR; p=0.02). The most common intraoperative complication and the most frequent cause of conversion consisted of stapling problems (4 patients). Surgery was considered curative in 34 patients (85%). One case of positive radial margins was encountered (3.3%). The mean distal and radial margins were 3.6 +/- 2.7 cm and 1.1 +/- 0.9 cm respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results during the implementation stage of laparoscopic surgery for rectal surgery were satisfactory. Conversion rates were highest in LAR, which proved to be the most demanding procedure.

The anatomical significance and techniques of laparoscopic rectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Because there are difficulties associated with the technique of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, thorough knowledge of the anatomy is particularly important. We pay close attention to anatomical features during laparoscopic rectal surgery. In this study, we analyze the association of the anatomy with the operative procedure.

METHODS

Laparoscopic rectal surgery was performed on 117 patients (66 men) with benign and malignant diseases in the rectum by the complete laparoscopy or hand-assisted technique. All operations were mainly performed by the first author. The association between anatomy and the operation was analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 144 min (range, 87-235). The hand-assisted technique was performed in two patients. Four patients required conversion to laparotomy due to the amount of fat in three patients and disruption of the Endo-stapler in one patient, for a conversion rate of 1.7%. Operative blood loss was small, averaging 126 ml (range, 50-350). No injury of the ureters, major bleeding in front of the sacrum, or other operation-related severe complications occurred during or after operation. In one case, dissecting disrupted the anterior left wall of the rectum.

CONCLUSION

By mastering the anatomical features of laparoscopic rectum surgery, operative mistakes and complications can be reduced. Particular attention must be paid to the anatomy of the obese patient undergoing laparoscopy. It is very convenient that the corresponding skills can be applied in the course of dissection and exposure.

Ressecção laparoscópica pós terapia neo-adjuvante no tratamento do câncer no reto médio e baixo

Desde o início da década de 90, diversas publicações têm reportado equivalência de resultados entre as ressecções colorretais laparoscópicas e convencionais de neoplasias, seja quanto ao número de linfonodos, extensão da ressecção, margens e implantes parietais. Quanto às neoplasias colônicas, séries recentes demonstraram não haver alteração dos índices de recidiva e sobrevida. Entretanto, a avaliação dos resultados oncológicos nas ressecções retais ainda suscita controvérsias. Este trabalho visou apresentar a experiência do Hospital de Câncer de Barretos no tratamento vídeo-laparoscópico do câncer do reto e discutir o impacto do tratamento neo-adjuvante nos resultados intra e pós-operatórios imediatos. PACIENTES E MÉTODOS: a presente casuística é constituída por série de pacientes operados consecutivamente no período de janeiro de 2000 a janeiro de 2003, submetidos a ressecções pretensamente curativas para tumores T3 ou T4 no reto médio e baixo. Esses pacientes receberam tratamento neoadjuvante e foram operados por videolaparoscopia (LAP) ou laparotomia (CONV) 4 a 6 semanas após. Analisaram-se dados clínicos, cirúrgicos, patológicos, recidiva e sobrevida após seguimento mínimo de 24 meses. RESULTADOS: foram computados 43 pacientes (20 LAP, 23 CONV), que não apresentaram diferença em relação ao gênero, IMC, estadio clínico, tipo de procedimento, tempo de internação, morbidade pós-operatória, linfonodos, tamanho de espécime e margens. A recidiva global foi semelhante entre os grupos (35% LAP vs. 26% CONV, p = 0,43). A curva de sobrevida avaliada pelo método de Kaplan Meier para um período de seguimento médio de 45,6 meses no grupo LAP e 39,8 meses no grupo CONV (p = 0,86) mostrou sobrevida global de 76,7% (85% LAP e 70% CONV; p = 0,761) sem diferença entre os grupos. CONCLUSÕES: Os dados apresentados indicam equivalência nos índices de recidiva e sobrevida de pacientes portadores de câncer no reto médio e distal, tratados pelas vias de acesso laparoscópica e convencional. A realização de terapia neoadjuvante parece não dificultar a dissecação laparoscópica do reto extra-peritonial, favorecendo a obtenção de resultados oncológicos adequados.

Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open colorectal resections for cancer in 235 patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection for cure of colorectal cancer is controversial. More investigations on long-term results are required. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcome with a minimum follow-up of 5 years between laparoscopic or open approach for the treatment of colo-rectal cancer.

METHODS

The treatment modality (laparoscopic or open) was related to the patients (pts) choice. The following parameters between the two groups (laparoscopic and open) were assessed: wound recurrences rate, local recurrences rate, incidence of distant metastases and survival probability analysis.

RESULTS

We report the long term outcome of 149 pts with colon cancer of which 85 treated by Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) and 64 by Open Surgery (OS) and of 86 patients with rectal cancer of which 52 treated by LS and 34 by OS. In the pts with colonic cancer, mean follow-up was 82.8 months. No Statistically Significant Difference (SSD) was observed in the local recurrences rate (3.5% after LS and 6.2% after OS) and in the incidence of distant metastases (10.5% after LS and 10.9% after OS). Cumulative survival probability in LS was 0.882 as compared to 0.859 after OS. In the pts with rectal cancer, mean follow-up was 78.5 months. No SSD was observed in the local recurrences rate (19.2% after LS and 17.6% after OS) and in the incidence of distant metastases (15.3% after LS and 20.5% after OS). Cumulative survival probability in LS was 0.711 as compared to 0.617 after OS. We report an interesting data about the time of recurrences between LS and OS: the recurrences were delayed after LS, both after colonic (22.6 months vs 6.5) and rectal (25.7 months vs 13.0) resections, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We suppose that laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colo-rectal cancer is quite safe. However, further investigation is needed.

Influencia del factor cirujano en el tratamiento quirúrgico del cáncer de recto con radioquimioterapia preoperatoria. Estudio comparativo

INTRODUCTION

In the last few years, changes have been introduced in rectal cancer surgery that have improved its results. These changes include autosuture devices, total mesorectal excision, and neoadjuvant treatment. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the surgeon influences the results of surgical treatment for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comparative, retrospective study was performed in 194 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent preoperative radiotherapy. The patients were divided into two groups according to the type of surgeon performing the intervention: group I: 3 surgeons with 101 patients; group II: 16 surgeons with 93 patients.

RESULTS

Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 77% of patients in group I and in 52% of those in group II (p < 0.001). In group I anterior resection was performed in 100%, 100% and 58% when the tumor was between 11-15 cm, 6-10 cm and 1-5 cm, respectively, compared with 100%, 69% and 23.5% in group II. Complications occurred in 41% of patients in group I and in 48% of those in group II (p = 0.037). Length of hospital stay was 9.9 days in group I and 13.9 days in group II (p < 0.001). Local recurrence occurred in 3.5% of patients in group I and in 11.3% of those in group II (p = 0.054). Survival was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgeon is a key factor in rectal cancer, despite the introduction of autosuture devices, neoadjuvant treatment, and total mesorectal excision. These patients should be operated on by experts in this type of surgery and not by surgeons who perform these interventions only occasionally.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery aims to provide patients with curative resection while minimizing postoperative morbidity and mortality. This study used meta-analytical techniques to compare laparoscopic and open surgery as the primary treatment for patients with rectal cancer with regard to short-term and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on all studies between 1993 and 2004 comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. The following end points were evaluated: operative outcomes, postoperative recovery, and early and late adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 2071 subjects, of whom 909 (44%) underwent laparoscopic and 1162 (56%) underwent open surgery for rectal cancer. Time to stomal function (weighted mean difference [WMD], -1.52; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -2.20, -1.01), first bowel movement (WMD, -.72; 95% CI, -1.21, -.22), feeding solids (WMD, -.92; 95% CI, -1.35, -.50), and length of hospital stay (WMD, -2.67; 95% CI, -3.81, -1.54) were all significantly reduced after laparoscopic surgery. In patients who underwent abdominoperineal excision of the rectum, wound infection (odds ratio, .15; 95% CI, .03, .73) and requirement for postoperative parenteral analgesia (WMD, -.63; 95% CI, -1.22, -.04) were also significantly reduced. There was no difference between groups in the extent of oncological clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery results in an earlier postoperative recovery and a resected specimen that is oncologically comparable to open surgery. Results from randomized trials reporting long-term outcomes such as cancer recurrence (local and metastatic) and 5-year survival are eagerly awaited.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: outcomes in 194 patients and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

There are few reports on laparoscopic rectum resection demonstrating its feasibility and efficacy in patients with rectal cancer. Most patient series are small, and results must be considered preliminary and medium-term. Our large prospective conducted study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a totally laparoscopic resection for rectum carcinoma with emphasis on perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Between November 1992 and July 2003, 194 unselected patients were resected laparoscopically for rectal carcinoma. Patients with locally advanced rectum carcinoma (uT3/uT4) and no evidence of distant metastases were candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Adjuvant treatment was administered to patients with UICC stage II/III disease. All patients were followed up prospectively to evaluate complications and late outcomes. Survival probability analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Study selection was made by Medline search using the following key words: rectal cancer, rectal neoplasms, laparoscopy, and resection. Single case reports and abstracts were excluded. When surgical series were reported more than once, only the most recent reports were considered and listed.

RESULTS

The most common procedures were low anterior resection with total mesorectum excision in 65.5% of patients and high anterior resection in 25.3%. Average operative time was 174 min. Average number of lymph nodes removed was 25.4 and length of specimen resected was 27.6 cm. Resection was curative in 145 patients and palliative in 49 cases. UICC tumor stages were as follows: stage I: 25.2%, stage II: 27.3%, stage III: 30.4%, and stage IV: 17%. Intraoperative complications were <1% for lesions of the ureter, urinary bladder, and deferent duct. Conversion to conventional surgery was necessary in two cases (1%). The most common postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage in 13.5% of patients. There was no postoperative mortality. Follow-up evaluation ranged from 1 to 128 months with a mean of 46.1 months. The most common late complication was incisional hernia in 3.6% of patients. Port-site metastases occurred in one patient (0.5%). Tumor recurrence developed in 23 of the 145 curative resected patients (11.7% distant metastases and 4.1% local recurrence). Overall local recurrence rate was 6.7% (4.1% after curative resection and 14.3% after palliative resection). Overall survival rate was 90.6% at 1 year, 74.5% at 3 years, and 66.3% at 5 years. Overall 5-year survival rate was 76.9% after curative resection and 31.8% after palliative resection. Cancer-related survival rate was 94% at 1 year, 82.4% at 3 years, and 78.9% at 5 years. At 5 years it was 87.7% after curative resection and 48.5% after palliative resection. At 5 years, the survival rate was 100% for stage I, 94.4% for stage II, 66.6% for stage III, and 44.6% for stage IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results and the literature review clearly demonstrate that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is not associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Established oncological and surgical principles are respected and long-term outcomes are at least as good as those after open surgery.

Safety of Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Rectal Transection With Double-Stapling Technique Anastomosis

To assess the feasibility and analyze the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection with double-stapling technique anastomosis, a review was performed of a prospective registry of 67 patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy and anterior resection with intracorporeal rectal transection and double-stapling technique anastomosis between July 2001 and January 2004. Patients were divided into 3 groups: sigmoid colon/rectosigmoid carcinoma, upper rectal carcinoma, and middle/lower rectal carcinoma. A comparison was made of the short-term outcomes among the groups. The number of cartridges required in bowel transection was significantly increased in patients with middle/lower rectal carcinoma, and significant differences were observed in the length of the first stapler cartridge fired for rectal transection. Furthermore, mean operative time and blood loss were also significantly greater in the middle/lower rectum group; however, complication rates and postoperative course were similar among the 3 groups. No anastomotic leakage was observed. Laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection with double-stapling technique anastomosis can be performed safely without increased morbidity or mortality.

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

The present scarcity of literature on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery makes it premature to determine whether laparoscopic surgery should be the standard of care for rectal cancer. Notwithstanding that, the available evidence proves its safety and adequate oncological clearance. Moreover, current data do not suggest any detrimental effect on the postoperative and early oncological outcomes. On the contrary, there is level three evidence showing that laparoscopic technique results in less blood loss, shorter length of stay, and reduced abdominal wound disorders and pulmonary complications, albeit the overall morbidity remains similar to that of open surgery. Long-term survival outcomes remain largely unclear, however. Hence, it is high time that laparoscopic technique should be further evaluated, preferably by means of large-scale randomized trials, to define its exact role in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Current status of laparoscopic therapy of colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic colorectal resections offer several benefits postoperatively, including minimal impairment of gastrointestinal and pulmonary function, less immunosuppression, shorter hospital stay and improved reconvalescence. Since the introduction of laparoscopic surgery for the therapy of curable colorectal cancer, some concern was voiced in terms of oncologic radicality, the issue of port-site metastases and tumor cell distribution. However, the clinical reality has demonstrated that oncologic radicality is equivalent to open surgery, and the incidence of port-site metastases is not increased when compared to wound recurrence at the laparotomy site. Focusing on colon and rectum, various indications of laparoscopic-endoscopic 'rendezvous' procedures exist including laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic transluminal resection, endoscopic-assisted wedge or anatomical resections, and, finally, intraoperative tumor location by colonoscopy to achieve oncologic resection margins in laparoscopic curative resections. In terms of colorectal curative resections, long-term results provide level I evidence that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is oncologically adequate and can be performed with equivalent morbidity and mortality rates when compared to conventional surgery. In terms of rectal cancer, no level I evidence is available. However, short-term data from experienced centers do not report inferior oncologic outcome particularly related to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

A comparison of the complication rates between laparoscopic colectomy and laparoscopic low anterior resection

BACKGROUND

This study compared the short-term outcomes, including the complication rate and minimum surgical invasiveness, between patients with colon and rectal carcinomas, who underwent laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

A review evaluated 151 patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (Lap-colectomy; n = 120) and laparoscopic low anterior resection (Lap-LAR; n = 31) between July 2001 and December 2003. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean operative time and blood loss were significantly greater in the Lap-LAR group. However, the complication rates and postoperative course between the two approaches were similar, and no anastomotic leakage was observed. There was no significant difference in the serum C-reactive protein level and white blood cell count between the two groups in the early postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Lap-LAR for rectal carcinoma can be performed safely without increased morbidity or mortality, and its short-term benefits are comparable with those conferred by Lap-colectomy.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: the state of the art

Laparoscopic techniques have expanded since their introduction 15 years ago. The laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has been slower to develop than other fields of surgery. However, this approach does provide significant benefits for colorectal resection, although concerns regarding the ability to satisfy oncological criteria have restricted its use in the past. This review studies the published data on the use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer including the short- and long-term outcomes. New long-term outcome data is now available which is likely to encourage the use of this technique for colon cancer resection. Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection is also discussed including the more limited outcome data that is available.