Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial

Shifting Paradigms in Minimally Invasive Surgery: Applications of Transanal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Surgery

Since the advent of laparoscopy, minimally invasive techniques such as single port laparoscopy, robotics, endoscopically assisted laparoscopy, and transanal endoscopic surgery continue to revolutionize the field of colorectal surgery. Transanal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) represents a further paradigm shift by combining the advantages of these earlier techniques to reduce the size and number of abdominal incisions and potentially optimize rectal dissection, especially with respect to performance of an oncologically adequate total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Since the first experimental report of transanal rectosigmoid resection in 2007, the potential impact of transanal NOTES in colorectal surgery has been extensively investigated in experimental models and recently transitioned to clinical application. There have been 14 clinical trials of transanal TME (taTME) for rectal cancer that have demonstrated the feasibility and preliminary oncologic safety of this approach in carefully selected patients, with results comparable to outcomes after laparoscopic and open TME, including cumulative intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 5.5 and 35.5%, respectively, 97.3% rate of complete or near-complete specimens, and 93.6% rate of negative margins. Transanal NOTES has also been safely applied to proctectomy and colectomy for benign indications. The consensus among published series suggests that taTME is most safely performed with transabdominal assistance by surgeons experienced with laparoscopic TME, transanal endoscopic surgery, and sphincter-preserving techniques including intersphincteric resection. Future applications of transanal NOTES may include evolution to a pure endoscopic transanal approach for TME, colectomy, and sentinel lymph node biopsy for rectal cancer, with a potential role for robotic assistance.

The feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic extended pelvic surgery for primary or recurrent rectal cancer.

METHODS

The data on 77 patients, who underwent extended pelvic surgery between February 2008 and June 2014, were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided, based on their treatment history, into an open surgery (OS) group (n = 41) and a laparoscopic surgery (LS) group (n = 36).

RESULTS

The operative time in the LS group was significantly longer than that in the OS group (766 vs. 561 min; p < 0.001). In contrast, the LS group was associated with a significantly lower volume of intraoperative blood loss (195 vs. 923 ml; p < 0.001), fluid balance (5.38 vs. 8.23 ml/kg/h; p < 0.001) and rate of complications (40.0 vs. 68.3 %; p = 0.035), and a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay. The postoperative levels of colloid osmotic pressure and albumin were significantly higher in the LS group.

CONCLUSION

The operative time of the LS group was longer than that of the OS group; however, the LS group experienced less blood loss and fewer complications. Moreover, LS was associated with a reduction in intraoperative infusions and a reduced fluid balance, which maintained homeostasis.

Emerging and Evolving Technology in Colon and Rectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery has changed the way we manage many colon and rectal pathologies. Multiple techniques, from straight laparoscopic procedures, to hand-assisted and single-port techniques are available, requiring surgeons to go through various learning curves. Robotic surgery is a relatively novel technique in general surgery which appears to hold most promise for rectal resection. Laparoscopic rectal procedures are difficult, and even in experienced hands, conversion rates are around 17%. Robotic surgery may be a point of difference in these cases, despite a long learning curve and higher costs. This article will describe the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. Room set up, port placement, and docking strategies will be described for common procedures, with emphasis on a hybrid robotic low anterior resection.

Comparison of symptomatic anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic and open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis of 1014 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

This observational study was conducted to compare the rate of symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL), as defined by precise criteria, between laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer using a relatively novel statistical technique.

METHODS

A total of 1014 consecutive low anterior resection (LAR) patients were registered, of whom 936 were included in this prospective, multicenter, and cohort study (UMIN-CTR, Number 000004017). Patients with rectal cancer within 10 cm from the anal verge underwent either open or laparoscopic LAR at one of the 40 institutions in Japan from June 2010 to February 2013. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the rate of symptomatic AL between the two groups before and after propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoint was to analyze the risk factors for symptomatic AL in open and laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

After PSM, the incidence of symptomatic AL in open and laparoscopic surgery was 12.4 and 15.3 %, respectively (p = 0.48). AL requiring relaparotomy occurred after 3.8 % of open surgeries and 6.2 % of laparoscopic surgeries (p = 0.37). Multivariate analysis identified male gender as an independent risk factor for symptomatic AL following laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.001; odds ratio 5.2; 95 % CI 2.0-13.8), and male gender (p = 0.004; odds ratio 2.6; 95 % CI 1.3-5.6), tumor size (p = 0.002; odds ratio 1.2; 95 % CI 0.7-0.9), and number of stapler firing (p = 0.04; odds ratio 4.1; 95 % CI 1.0-15.0) following open surgery.

CONCLUSION

The rate of symptomatic AL was comparable following laparoscopic and open LAR in this large, multicenter, cohort study after PSM. Male gender was associated with an increased risk of symptomatic AL after laparoscopic LAR.

Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration for pelvic malignancies: the technique and short-time outcome of 11 cases

BACKGROUND

Previous reports about laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration (LTPE) are still limited. In the present study, we described our single-center experience of the initial 11 cases.

METHODS

Between April 2011 and September 2015, eight males and three females diagnosed as pelvic malignancies underwent LTPE by the same operation team. We retrospectively collected all cases' parameters about surgical technique. Thirty-seven patients who received open surgery were also retrospectively collected. A comparison between LTPE and open surgery was performed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LTPE.

RESULTS

Eleven cases successfully underwent the LTPE without any intraoperative complication. No open conversion was required. Eight patients underwent Bricker's procedure. Three patients were performed with the cutaneous ureterostomy. Anus preservation operation was performed in three patients. Compared with open surgery, LTPE had longer mean operative time (565.2 vs 468.2 min, p = 0.004) but less mean blood loss (547.3 vs 1033.0 ml, p < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospitalization time (15.3 vs 22.4 days, p = 0.004). One patient died of pulmonary embolism in the 7th month of follow-up time. One patient died of recurrence in the 12th month of follow-up time. Nine patients are still alive without recurrence and metastasis. The mean follow-up time was 11.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique of LTPE seems to be feasible and safe in the treatment of carefully selected patients of pelvic malignancies. LTPE can also decrease the blood loss, the recovery time, and the hospital stay. But the oncological safety and long-term outcome of LTPE still need to be explored.

Review of single incision laparoscopic surgery in colorectal surgery

As surgical techniques continue to move towards less invasive techniques, single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), a hybrid between traditional multiport laparoscopy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. The safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease has been proven. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative pain, recovery time, and quality of life at the drawback of higher technical skill required. In this article, we review the history, describe the available technology and techniques, and evaluate the benefits and limitations of SILS for colorectal surgery in the published literature.

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection.

INTERVENTIONS

Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P < .001). Length of stay (7.3 vs 7.0 days; mean difference, 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1), readmission within 30 days (3.3% vs 4.1%; difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%), and severe complications (22.5% vs 22.1%; difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%) did not differ significantly. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in 462 operated and analyzed surgeries was complete (77%) and nearly complete (16.5%) in 93.5% of the cases. Negative circumferential radial margin was observed in 90% of the overall group (87.9% laparoscopic resection and 92.3% open resection; P = .11). Distal margin result was negative in more than 98% of patients irrespective of type of surgery (P = .91).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

Laparoscopic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (taTME) for Rectal Cancer

Proper treatment of adenocarcinoma of the rectum demands a systematic, multidisciplinary approach where surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment. An evolving shift toward minimally invasive surgical approaches for rectal cancer continues to be hampered by the challenges of reliable pelvic exposure and adequate instrumentation for rectal dissection, distal rectal division, and low pelvic anastomosis. The laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision surgery has been developed as a novel alternative that provides solutions to many of the limitations of conventional open, laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy. This manuscript will describe the procedure in detail and attempt to define its role as the optimal surgical approach for rectal resection.

Technique for a stapled anastomosis following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an emerging and exciting new technique in rectal cancer surgery. As with all novel techniques, new challenges arise, requiring small modifications of the technique. Here we present a simple technique that we have devised to facilitate a stapled anastomosis using standard circular staplers following a taTME.

METHOD

We describe the technique in a stepwise fashion with picture - and video illustration. Our experience with this anastomosis in a small cohort of patients is reported.

RESULTS

No anastomotic leaks occurred in 12 consecutive patients using this technique following taTME. In one patient a small defect was noticed on direct visualisation of the anastomosis intra-operative, and was closed transanally. So far 8/12 patient had their protective ileostomy reversed with satisfactory function.

CONCLUSION

We believe that this technique for a transanal, stapled anastomosis after a transanal TME procedure is safe and reproducible. Objective assessment of longterm functional outcome is required and outcomes need to be compared to other stapled techniques and handsewn anastomoses.

Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers

AIM

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes

The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80%) and incomplete in 13 (20%) cases (p = 0.109). R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid-low RC after NCRT.

Spin Is Common in Studies Assessing Robotic Colorectal Surgery: An Assessment of Reporting and Interpretation of Study Results

BACKGROUND

Spin has been defined previously as "specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers."

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and extent of misrepresentation of results in robotic colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Publications referenced in MEDLINE or EMBASE between 1992 and 2014 were included in this study.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies comparing robotic colorectal surgery with other techniques with a nonsignificant difference in the primary outcome(s) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions included robotic versus alternative techniques.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency, strategy, and extent of spin, as previously defined, were the main outcome measures

RESULTS

: A total of 38 studies (including 24,303 patients) were identified for inclusion in this study. Evidence of spin was found in 82% of studies. The most common form of spin was concluding equivalence between surgical techniques based on nonsignificant differences (76% of abstracts and 71% of conclusions). Claiming improved benefits, despite nonsignificance, was also commonly observed (26% of abstracts and 45% of conclusions). Because of the small sample size, we did not find evidence of an association between spin and study design, type of funding, publication year, or study size. Acknowledging the equivocal nature of the study happened rarely (47% of abstracts and 34% of conclusions). The absence of spin predicted whether authors acknowledged equivocal results (p = 0.02). A total of 50% of studies did not disclose whether they received funding, whereas 39% of studies failed to state whether a conflict of interest existed.

LIMITATIONS

A limited number of randomized controlled trials were available.

CONCLUSIONS

Spin occurred in >80% of included studies. Many studies concluded that robotic surgery was as safe as more traditional techniques, despite small sample sizes and limited follow-up. Authors often failed to recognize the difference between nonsignificance and equivalence. Failure to disclose financial relationships, which could represent potential conflict(s) of interest, is concerning. Readers of these articles need to be critical of author conclusions, and publishers should ensure that conclusions correspond with the study methods and results.

Laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection is achievable and offers advantages as a minimally invasive surgery over the open approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLD) is a minimally invasive alternative to open surgical therapy for advanced low rectal cancer patients. This study assessed potential risk factors for lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis (LPLM) and evaluated the feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic LPLD compared with the conventional open approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 90 patients with advanced low rectal cancer who underwent LPLD following total mesorectal excision at Kyushu University Hospital between January 2001 and July 2014. We compared the clinicopathological features between the patients with and without LPLM and the surgical outcomes between patients who underwent laparoscopic LPLD (LL) and open LPLD (OL).

RESULTS

Fourteen (15.6 %) patients had LPLM. Univariate analysis revealed that undifferentiated cancer, positive lymphatic invasion, >50 % circumferential cancer extent, mesorectal lymph node metastases (MLM), and distant metastasis were associated with LPLM. In the multivariate analysis, MLM was the only independent risk factor for LPLM. Forty-six (51.1 %) patients underwent LL, and 44 (48.9 %) patients underwent OL. The mean surgical duration was longer in the LL group than in the OL group (641.0 vs. 312.0 min, P < 0.001). The LL group also had less hemorrhage (252.0 vs. 815.0 mL, P < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (22.9 vs. 29.1 days, P = 0.04) than the OL group. The mean number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes was larger in the LL group than in the OL group (19.5 vs. 15.8, P < 0.05). The morbidity rate and overall survival (3-year OS: 94.7 vs. 82.9 %, P = 0.25) did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced low rectal cancer presenting MLM are good candidates for LPLD. Laparoscopic LPLD enables retrieval of more lymph nodes and may be acceptable for the treatment of advanced low rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic simultaneous resection of colorectal primary tumor and liver metastases: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Preliminary series have shown the feasibility of combined laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM). The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes for matched patients undergoing combined resections.

METHODS

An international multicenter database of 142 patients that underwent combined laparoscopic resection of CRC and SCRLM between 1997 and 2013 was compared to a database of 241 patients treated by open during the same period. Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes was performed after propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS

After matching, 89 patients were compared in each group including mostly ASA I-II patients, presenting with mean number of 1.5 CRLM, with a mean diameter of 30 mm, and resectable by a wedge resection or a left lateral sectionectomy. A rectal resection was required in 46 and 43 % of laparoscopic and open procedures, respectively (p = 0.65). There was no difference in global operative time, blood loss and transfusion rates between the two groups. A conversion was required in 7 % of the laparoscopic procedures. Morbidity rates were similar in the two groups (p = 1.0). The 3-year overall survival in the laparoscopy and open groups were 78 and 65 %, respectively (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without severe comorbidities presenting with one, small (≤3 cm), CRLM resectable by a wedge resection or a left lateral sectionectomy, combined laparoscopic resection of CRC and SCRLM allowed similar short- and long-term outcomes compared with the open approach.

Laparoscopic simultaneous resection of colorectal primary tumor and liver metastases: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Preliminary series have shown the feasibility of combined laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM). The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes for matched patients undergoing combined resections.

METHODS

An international multicenter database of 142 patients that underwent combined laparoscopic resection of CRC and SCRLM between 1997 and 2013 was compared to a database of 241 patients treated by open during the same period. Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes was performed after propensity score adjustment.

RESULTS

After matching, 89 patients were compared in each group including mostly ASA I-II patients, presenting with mean number of 1.5 CRLM, with a mean diameter of 30 mm, and resectable by a wedge resection or a left lateral sectionectomy. A rectal resection was required in 46 and 43 % of laparoscopic and open procedures, respectively (p = 0.65). There was no difference in global operative time, blood loss and transfusion rates between the two groups. A conversion was required in 7 % of the laparoscopic procedures. Morbidity rates were similar in the two groups (p = 1.0). The 3-year overall survival in the laparoscopy and open groups were 78 and 65 %, respectively (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without severe comorbidities presenting with one, small (≤3 cm), CRLM resectable by a wedge resection or a left lateral sectionectomy, combined laparoscopic resection of CRC and SCRLM allowed similar short- and long-term outcomes compared with the open approach.

Comparison of clinical outcome between laparoscopic and open right hemicolectomy: a nationwide study

Background

This study aimed to compare clinical outcome between laparoscopic and open right hemicolectomy.

Methods

The data were sourced from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. This study included 14,320 and 1313 patients who underwent open and laparoscopic right hemicolectomies, respectively. The study outcome included “intensive care unit (ICU) admission,” “over 2 h of general anesthesia,” “use of mechanical ventilation,” “acute respiratory failure,” “in-hospital death,” and “hospitalization for pneumonia.” Separate conditional logistic regressions were performed for each clinical outcome.

Results

The results showed that patients who underwent an open right hemicolectomy had significantly higher likelihood of ICU admission (31.4 vs. 13.4 %, p < 0.001), acute respiratory failure (3.6 vs. 0.8 %, p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (12.8 vs. 4.1 %, p < 0.001), in-hospital death (3.7 vs. 0.9 %, p < 0.001), over 2 h of general anesthesia (4.6 vs. 1.2 %, p < 0.001), and hospitalization for pneumonia (5.8 vs. 3.1 %, p < 0.001) than patients who underwent a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Adjusted conditional logistic regression analyses revealed that patients who underwent an open right hemicolectomy were 2.96, 4.98, 3.41, 4.01, 3.44, and 1.78 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, to have acute respiratory failure, the use of mechanical ventilation, in-hospital death, over 2 h of general anesthesia, and hospitalization for pneumonia, respectively, than patients who underwent a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy reduced risk of post-operative pulmonary complications.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Laparoscopic and open rectum surgery for rectal cancer remains controversial. This systematic review compared the short-term and long-term efficiency and complications associated with laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge and the China Biology Medicine Database to identify potential randomized controlled trials from their inception to March 31, 2014 without language restriction. Additional articles were identified from searching bibliographies of retrieved articles. Two reviewers independently assessed the full-text articles according to the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the methodological quality of included trials. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 3,045 participants (laparoscopic group, 1,804 cases; open group, 1,241 cases) were reviewed. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, earlier return of bowel movement and reduced length of hospital stay as compared to open surgery, although with increased operative time. It also showed an obvious advantage for minimizing late complications of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. Importantly, there were no significant differences in other postoperative complications, oncological clearance, 3-year and 5-year or 10 year recurrence and survival rates between two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this meta-analysis we conclude that laparoscopic surgery has advantages of earlier postoperative recovery, less blood loss and lower rates of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. In addition, oncological outcome is comparable after laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in the older person: A systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is being increasingly offered to the older person.

Objective

To systematically review the literature regarding laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in older people and compare to younger adult populations.

Study selection

We included randomized controlled trials that compared open to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Older people were defined as being 65 years and above.

Outcome measures

Overall survival and post-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, wound recurrence, disease-free survival and conversion rate.

Results

Seven trials included older people, average age of approximately 70 years. Two reported data specific to older patients (over 70 years): The ALCCaS study reported reduced length of stay and short-term complication rates in the laparoscopic group when compared to open surgery (8 versus 10 days, and 36.7% versus 50.6% respectively) and the CLASICC study reported equivalent 5 year survival between arms and a reduction of 2 days length of stay following laparoscopic surgery in older people. In trials which considered data on older and younger participants all five trials reported comparable overall survival and showed comparable or reduced complication rates; two demonstrated significantly shorter length of stay following laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery.

Conclusion

Large numbers of older people have been included in well-conducted, multi-centre, randomized controlled trials for laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery. This systematic review suggests that age itself should not be a factor when considering the best surgical option for older patients.

•

Seven well conducted randomised controlled trials of open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery have included older people.

•

Age alone should not be a barrier to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

•

The effect of comorbidity in older people undergoing laparoscopic surgery is less clear and warrants further study.

Comparison of single-incision plus one additional port laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection with conventional laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is the latest innovation in minimally invasive surgery. We performed single-incision plus one additional port laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection (SILS + 1-AR) starting in August 2010. This study aimed at evaluating the feasibility of SILS + 1-AR and comparing it with that of conventional laparoscopy-assisted anterior resection (C-AR).

METHODS

Patients with preoperative clinical stage 0 to stage III rectal cancer were included. Demographic, intraoperative, and pathological examination data, as well as short-term outcome data, of 20 patients who underwent SILS + 1-AR were retrospectively compared with that of 20 patients who underwent C-AR. Invasiveness of the two procedures was also evaluated through a vital signs diary and hematological examination on postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, and 7.

RESULTS

Operating time, mean estimated blood loss, the number of lymph nodes dissected, the number of lymph node metastases, and the mean distal resection margin length were not significantly different. However, postoperative neutrophil counts in the SILS + 1-AR group were lower than those in the C-AR group (P = 0.085). A significant difference in body temperature was observed in the SILS + 1-AR group on POD 1 (P = 0.028). No significant differences were observed in perioperative and overall morbidity between the two groups. Conversion to open surgery was required in 2 (10 %) of the 20 patients in the SILS + 1-AR group. The mean postoperative length of stay and recurrence rates were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

SILS + 1-AR for rectal cancer is similar to C-AR in safety, feasibility, and provision of oncological radicality.

Current considerations in colorectal cancer surgery

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. The last decades improvement in survival in all stages of the disease has been achieved. Many factors contributes to this improvement; earlier diagnosis, better pre-operative staging, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, better surgical method and approach, introduction of pre- and post-operative multidisciplinary team conferences and adjuvant chemotherapy. Currently, new modalities are developing; robotics and organ preserving through wait-and-watch will give colorectal surgeons even more treatment options. This article highlights important aspects of colorectal cancer management now and in the future.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Mid-Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The safety of laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer treatment has remained controversial, especially regarding the long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible.

METHODS

We searched all of studies that compared the short- or long-term outcomes regarding laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgeries (the tumour distance from anal verge within 10 cm). The data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The combined outcome of the dichotomous variables was expressed as an estimation of the odds ratios and continuous variables were presented in the form of weighted mean differences with 95% credible intervals. Subgroup, publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n = 3,678). 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 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery appear to be equivalent to open surgery for treatment of mid- low rectal cancer, with the more favourable short-term benefits, fewer complications, comparable pathological outcomes and long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial)

BACKGROUND

For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy.

METHODS

The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02248519.

Transanal total mesorectal excision assisted by single-port laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

We have combined the minimally invasive single-port laparoscopic surgery and the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer with the goal to standardize the approach and improve the quality of rectal cancer resection.

METHODS

By using two single-port platforms, selected patients were first operated by TaTME, and then a single-port laparoscopic surgery was introduced to assist and complete the abdominal portion. Short-term outcomes including perioperative outcome and pathologic results of these patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between July 2014 and March 2015, six patients with low rectal cancer (five males and one female) at a median age of 68 years were successfully operated in a median time of 360 min (range 310-420). The median estimated blood loss was 150 ml (range 50-800). In one patient, the spleen was removed because of a lesion identified preoperatively. Their postoperative recovery was uneventful except one acute myocardial infarction on postoperative day 3. Pathologic specimens showed negative margins and a complete excision of the mesorectum in all cases. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 11.5 (range 4-12). At a median follow-up of 4 months (range 3-9), after ileostomy closure, none of the patients suffered from fecal incontinence.

CONCLUSION

TaTME assisted by abdominal single-port may be safely achieved in selected rectal cancer patients.

Variation in circumferential resection margin: Reporting and involvement in the South-Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of total mesorectal surgery the outcome of rectal cancer patients has improved significantly. Involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) is an important predictor of increased local recurrence, distant metastases and decreased overall survival. Abdomino perineal excision (APE) is associated with increased risk of CRM involvement. Aim of this study was to analyze reporting of CRM and to identify predictive factors for CRM involvement.

METHODS

A population-based dataset was used selecting 2153 patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2013 with primary rectal cancer undergoing surgery. Variation in CRM reporting was assessed and predictive factors for CRM involvement were calculated and used in multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Large variation in CRM reporting was found between pathology departments, with missing cases varying from 6% to 30%. CRM reporting increased from 77% in 2008 to 90% in 2012 (p < 0.001). CRM involvement significantly decreased from 12% to 6% over the years (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis type of operation, low anterior resection or APE, did not influence the risk of CRM involvement. Clinical T4-stage [odds ratio (OR) = 3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.85-6.65) was associated with increased risk of CRM involvement, whereas neoadjuvant treatment (5 × 5 gray radiotherapy [OR 0.39; CI 0.25-0.62] or chemoradiation therapy [OR 0.30; CI 0.17-0.53]) were associated with significant decreased risk of CRM involvement.

CONCLUSION

Although significant improvements are made during the last years there still is variation in reporting of CRM involvement in the Southern Netherlands. In multivariate analysis APE was no longer associated with increased risk of CRM involvement.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for colorectal cancer in Japan

Background

Japan has one of the highest five-year relative survival rates for colorectal cancer in the world, with its own traditions of perioperative care and a unique insurance system. The benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in the Japanese population have yet to be clarified.

Methods

We evaluated 352 consecutive cases of colorectal cancer resection at Tokyo Metropolitan Bokutoh Hospital between July 2009 and November 2012. Of these, 95 cases were performed according to traditional protocols (traditional group), and 257 according to ERAS protocols (ERAS group), which were introduced to the hospital in July 2010. Primary endpoints included length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative short-term morbidity, and rate of readmission within 30 days. Intensive pre-admission counselling, no pre- and postoperative fasting (provision of oral nutrition), avoidance of sodium/fluid overload, intraoperative warm-air body heating, enforced postoperative mobilization, and multimodal team care were among the main changes brought about by the introduction of ERAS protocols.

Results

The median (interquartile range) length of postoperative hospital stay was 10 (10–12.75) days in the traditional group and seven (6–8) days in the ERAS group, i.e., a three-day reduction (p < 0.05) in the ERAS group. Moreover, the proportion of patients discharged within one week dramatically increased from 1 % to 77 % in the ERAS group. The overall incidence of grade 2 and 3 postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification was 9.5 % in the traditional group and 9.3 % in the ERAS group, and 30-day readmission rates were 8.3 % and 6.6 % in the traditional and ERAS groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Although operative time and blood loss did not differ significantly between the two groups, the volume of intraoperative infusion was significantly decreased in the ERAS group (p < 0.05), possibly due to ERAS recommendations to avoid dehydration (i.e., avoidance of sodium/fluid overload, no preoperative fasting).

Conclusion

ERAS protocols for colorectal surgery helped reduce the length of postoperative hospital stay without adversely affecting morbidity, indicating that ERAS protocols are feasible and effective in Japanese settings as well.

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between robotic, laparoscopic, and open rectal cancer surgery: early experience at a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained popularity in surgical oncology. Rectal cancer surgery, known to be technically challenging, may benefit from robotics in achieving better mesorectal dissection and may contribute to improved perioperative outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare early experience in robotic surgery to conventional approaches with regard to clinicopathologic and economic parameters.

METHODS

A retrospective review using a prospectively maintained database of rectal cancer surgeries performed at a tertiary cancer center from 2007 to 2013 was conducted. These resections included those performed via laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotic-assisted operations. Perioperative demographic and tumor characteristics were collected, and short-term clinicopathologic outcomes were compared. Additionally, economic variables were evaluated for each patient's episode of care.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine cases were identified. Twenty-six were completed via open approach, 27 laparoscopically, and 26 via robotic assistance. Demographic characteristics were similar between all groups including age, gender, BMI, and Charlson score. Comparison of intraoperative characteristics showed a lower rate of conversion to laparotomy (12 vs. 37%, p = 0.05), and lower estimated blood loss (mean 296 vs. 524 cc, p = 0.04), in the robotic group compared to laparoscopy or open resection. There was no significant difference in quality of total mesorectal excision and number of lymph nodes harvested between the three cohorts. Postoperative complication rate, mean length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality were comparable among the cohorts. Median cost per episode of care was lower in laparoscopic surgery ($11,493), compared to open ($12,558) and robotic approach ($18,273); p = 0.029.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate similar perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic surgery and conventional approaches. Robotic assistance is associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and fewer conversions, albeit at an increased overall cost. Given these benefits, and as data and experience mature, future study is needed to fully define the value of the robotic approach.

Genetics, diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (Review)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and a leading cause of cancer death. Surgery represents the mainstay of treatment in early cases but often patients are primarily diagnosed in an advanced stage of disease and sometimes also distant metastases are present. Neoadjuvant therapy is therefore needed but drug resistance may influence response and concur to recurrent disease. At molecular level, it is a very heterogeneous group of diseases with about 30% of hereditary or familial cases. During colorectal adenocarcinomas development, epithelial cells from gastrointestinal trait acquire sequential genetic and epigenetic mutations in specific oncogenes and/or tumour suppressor genes, causing CRC onset, progression and metastasis. Molecular characterization of cancer associated mutations gives valuable information about disease prognosis and response to the therapy. Very early diagnosis and personalized care, as well as a better knowledge of molecular basis of its onset and progression, are therefore crucial to obtain a cure of CRC. In this review, we describe updated genetics, current diagnosis and management of CRC pointing out the extreme need for a multidisciplinary approach to achieve the best results in patient outcomes.

The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques

The conventional laparoscopic approach to rectal surgery has several limitations, and therefore many colorectal surgeons have great expectations for the robotic surgical system as an alternative modality in overcoming challenges of laparoscopic surgery and thus enhancing oncologic and functional outcomes. This review explores the possibility of robotic surgery as an alternative approach in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The da Vinci® Surgical System was developed specifically to compensate for the technical limitations of laparoscopic instruments in rectal surgery. The robotic rectal surgery is associated with comparable or better oncologic and pathologic outcomes, as well as low morbidity and mortality. The robotic surgery is generally easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery, improving the probability of autonomic nerve preservation and genitourinary function recovery. Furthermore, in very complex procedures such as intersphincteric dissections and transabdominal transections of the levator muscle, the robotic approach is associated with increased performance and safety compared to laparoscopic surgery. The robotic surgery for rectal cancer is an advanced technique that may resolve the issues associated with laparoscopic surgery. However, high cost of robotic surgery must be addressed before it can become the new standard treatment.

Multicenter Analysis of Long-Term Oncologic Impact of Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: The Korean Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group

This study aims to validate the oncologic outcomes of anastomotic leakage (AL) after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in a large multicenter cohort. The impact of AL after laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer surgery has not yet been clearly described. This was a multicenter retrospective study of 1083 patients who underwent laparoscopic TME for nonmetastatic rectal cancer (stage 0-III). AL was defined as an anastomotic complication within 30 days of surgery irrespective of requiring a reoperation or interventional radiology. Estimated local recurrence (LR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the leakage group and the no leakage group using the log-rank method. Multivariate Cox-regression analysis was used to adjust confounding for survival. The incidence of AL was 6.4%. Mortality within 30 days of surgery occurred in 1 patient (1.4%) in the leakage group and 2 patients (0.2%) in the no leakage group. The leakage group showed a higher LR rate (6.4% vs 1.8%, P = 0.011). Five-year DFS and OS were significantly lower in the leakage group than the no leakage group (DFS 71.7% vs 82.1%, P = 0.016, OS 81.8% vs 93.5%, P = 0.007). Multivariate analysis showed that AL was an independent poor prognostic factor for DFS and OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.6; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.0-2.6; P = 0.042, HR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.0-4.2; P = 0.028, respectively). AL after laparoscopic TME was significantly associated with an increased rate of LR, systemic recurrence and poor OS.

Oncologic and Clinicopathologic Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery is challenging and technically difficult. Robotic technology offers a stable surgical platform with magnified 3-dimensional vision and endowristed instruments, which may facilitate the minimally invasive procedure. Data on short-term and long-term outcomes indicate results comparable to laparoscopic and open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study was a review of a prospective database of patients over a 7-year period.

SETTINGS

Procedures took place in the colorectal division at a tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

From August 2005 to October 2012, 101 patients with rectal cancer were operated on using the robotic approach. Rectal cancers were defined as tumors within 15 cm from the anal verge.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either a totally robotic or a hybrid laparoscopic-robotic operation with rectal dissection performed robotically.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative and perioperative data, pathologic outcomes, and disease-free and overall survival were examined.

RESULTS

There were 63 men (62.4%) and 38 women (37.6%) in the study; the mean age was 61.5 years. Mid rectal and low rectal cancers composed 74.2% of cases. Preoperative chemoradiation was given to 74.3% of patients. Four conversions to open surgery occurred. Circumferential margin positivity was 5%, and median lymph node yield was 15. At a mean follow-up of 34.9 months, the disease-free survival was 79.2% and overall survival 90.1%. The mean cost of robotic surgery was $22,640 versus $18,330 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic approach (p = 0.005).

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-institution study with no head-to-head comparative group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer extirpation is safe and feasible. It has a low conversion rate, satisfies all measures of pathologic adequacy, and offers acceptable oncologic outcomes. Robotic surgery is significantly more expensive than hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The absence of randomized data limits recommending it as the standard of care at present.

Perineal or Abdominal Approach First During Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Which Is the Best Strategy?

BACKGROUND

Intersphincteric resection during total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer can be performed through a primary abdominal or a primary perineal approach.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the results of a primary perineal approach with those of a primary abdominal approach in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a case-matched retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center.

PATIENTS

From 2005 to 2013, among 138 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision with intersphincteric resection, 34 patients with a primary abdominal approach (abdominal group) were matched with 51 identical patients with a primary perineal approach (6-cm perineal dissection along the mesorectal plane; perineal group), according to TNM stage, sex, BMI, and age.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Postoperative morbidity, oncologic outcomes, and 3-year overall and disease-free survivals were measured.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the perineal group (269 minutes in perineal vs 240 minutes in abdominal group; p = 0.01). Overall morbidity (47% vs 47%; p = 1.00), severe morbidity (16% vs 15%; p = 0.90), and clinical anastomotic leakage (24% vs 12%; p = 0.17) rates showed no differences when comparing the 2 groups. The overall R1 resection rate was similar in the 2 groups (16% vs 9%; p = 0.36), including a 10% vs 9% positive circumferential margin (p = 0.88) and a 8% vs 0% positive distal margin (p = 0.15). After a median follow-up of 39 months, 3-year overall (100% vs 93% (95% CI, 88%-98%); p = 0.26) and disease-free (63% (95% CI, 56%-71%) vs 62% (95% CI, 53%-71%); p = 0.58) survival rates showed no differences between the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its nonrandomized nature and limited sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer, the primary perineal approach appears to reduce operative time and is associated with similar short- and long-term outcomes as compared with the primary abdominal approach. The primary perineal approach should thus be considered as the standard strategy.

The new approach to the rectal cancer: 'down-to-up' double endolaparoscopic pelvic access. Preliminary evaluation of outcomes

Laparoscopic access in low anterior rectal resection is widely adopted, performing an 'up-to-down' dissection. The aim of this study is to present and analyze the outcomes of a novel surgical 'down-to-up' total mesorectal excision technique that could obviate to the well-known issues of the standard treatment. 18 suitable patients underwent double endolaparoscopic pelvic access (DEPA) 'down-to-up' technique. DEPA TME was completed in all patients, with intact mesorectum. Mean operative time was 365 min (range 280-510 min). The morbidity rate was 22%, including three radiologically detected leakage (grade A) and one pelvic abscess, requiring only a conservative management. Mortality rate at 30 and 90 days was 0%. Resection margins were negative in all patients. A median of 11 nodes (range 5-19) was retrieved per specimen. Mean length of hospital stay was 9 days (range 7-19 days). Patients were followed for an average of 14 months (range 0-42 months), with no recurrence. Despite exiguous patient's sample in this pilot study, transanal endoscopic TME with laparoscopic assistance seems to be feasible and safe, and is a promising alternative to open and laparoscopic TME. However, a conspicuous functional and oncologic long-term evaluation is required, before the widespread adoption could be recommended.

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Social and racial disparities have been identified as factors contributing to differences in access to care and oncologic outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate national disparities in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), both laparoscopic and robotic, across different racial, socioeconomic and geographic populations of patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We utilized the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database to identify patients with rectal cancer from 2004 to 2011 who had undergone definitive surgical procedures through either an open, laparoscopic or robotic approach. Inclusion criteria included only one malignancy and no adjuvant therapy. Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate differences in age, gender, race, income, education, insurance coverage, geographic setting and hospital type in relation to the surgical approach.

RESULTS

A total of 8633 patients were identified. The initial surgical approach included 46.5% open (4016), 50.9% laparoscopic (4393) and 2.6% robotic (224). In evaluating type of insurance coverage, patients with private insurance were most likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery [OR (odds ratio) 1.637, 95% CI 1.178-2.275], although there was a less statistically significant association with robotic surgery (OR 2.167, 95% CI 0.663-7.087). Patients who had incomes greater than $46,000 and received treatment at an academic center were more likely to undergo MIS (either laparoscopic or robotic). Race, education and geographic setting were not statistically significant characteristics for surgical approach in patients with rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer comprise approximately 53% of surgical procedures in patients not treated with adjuvant therapy. Robotics is associated with patients who have higher incomes and private insurance and undergo surgery in academic centers.

Robotic technology: Optimizing the outcomes in rectal cancer?

Minimally invasive rectal resection remains a challenging procedure, even in experienced hands. Technical limitations explain at least in part the reasons of a relatively poor adoption of laparoscopy for rectal resection, in particular for low tumors in a deep and narrow pelvis. Robotics is intended to overcome these limitations. Potentially better short-term outcomes have been published: reduced conversion rates, better functional outcomes, shorter learning curve, reduction of positive margins, better specimen… However, robotic surgery has not yet taken over as the gold standard approach for low anterior resection. Several drawbacks might indeed discourage the most fervent surgeon: the size of the robot, the lack of tactile feedback, the risk and difficulties during multiquadrant surgery, and, of course, costs. Whilst new systems might overcome most of these drawbacks, it seems obvious that the development of robotic surgery is underway. Robotics is not just another interesting technical tool, but more a new concept, which should play a role in the future.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with open resection for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the long-term surgical outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer after open or hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

A case-matched controlled prospective analysis of 116 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for stage I to III mid and low rectal cancer from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Contemporary patients who underwent open rectal surgery were matched to the HALS group at the ratio of 1:1. The perioperative clinical outcomes, postoperative pathology, and survival outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Ninety patients in the open group and 85 in the HALS group received sphincter-preserving surgery. HALS resulted in less blood loss and wound infection, faster return to oral diet, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and longer operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Lymph node retrieval and involvement of circumferential and distal margins were similar for both procedures. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence, disease-free, or overall survival rates were statistically similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that HALS for mid and low rectal cancer is acceptable in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival results.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes: a propensity score-matching analysis

Although the total cost of robotic surgery (RS) is known to be higher than that of laparoscopic surgery (LS), the cost-effectiveness of RS has not yet been verified. The aim of the study is to clarify the cost-effectiveness of RS compared with LS for rectal cancer.From January 2007 through December 2011, 311 and 560 patients underwent totally RS and conventional LS for rectal cancer, respectively. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed with a ratio of 1:1 to reduce the possibility of selection bias. Costs and perioperative short-term outcomes in both the groups were compared. Additional costs due to readmission were also analyzed.The characteristics of the patients were not different between the 2 groups. Most perioperative outcomes were not different between the groups except for the operation time. Complications within 30 days of surgery were not significantly different. Total hospital charges and patients' bill were higher in RS than in LS. The total hospital charges for patients who recovered with or without complications were higher in RS than in LS, although their short-term outcomes were similar. In patients with complications, the postoperative course after RS appeared to be milder than that of LS. Total hospital charges for patients who were readmitted due to complications were similar between the groups.RS showed similar short-term outcomes with higher costs than LS. Therefore, cost-effectiveness focusing on short-term perioperative outcomes of RS was not demonstrated.

The effect of surgical approach on short-term oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Although evidence to support the use of laparoscopic and robotic approaches for the treatment of rectal cancer is limited, these approaches are being adopted broadly. We sought to investigate national practice patterns and compare short-term oncologic outcomes of different approaches for rectal cancer resections.

METHODS

The 2010 National Cancer Database was queried for operative cases of rectal cancer. Approach was classified as open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics and surgical margin status were evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes across approaches.

RESULTS

We identified 8,712 patients. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were more common in privately insured and wealthier patients at high-volume centers (P < .001). Open approaches were used for tumors with higher histologic grade and pathologic stage (P < .001). A minimally invasive approach was associated with fewer positive margins and shorter hospital stays. After propensity score matching, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a 2.0% lesser (P = .01) and robotic surgery with a 3.8% lesser (P = .004) incidence of positive margins compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

An open approach is often used in rectal cancers with higher pathologic stages. Matched patient analysis suggests minimally invasive approaches are associated with improved R0 resections.