The long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248:1-7. [PMID: 18580199 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e31816a9d65]

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for colon cancer in an older population: a cohort study

Background

Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer has been compared with open colectomy in randomized controlled trials, but these studies may not be generalizable because of strict enrollment and exclusion criteria which may explicitly or inadvertently exclude older individuals due to associated comorbidities. Previous studies of older patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy have generally focused on short-term outcomes. The goals of this cohort study were to identify predictors of laparoscopic colectomy in an older population in the United States and to compare short-term and long-term outcomes.

Methods

Patients aged 65 years or older with incident colorectal cancer diagnosed 1996-2002 who underwent colectomy within 6 months of cancer diagnosis were identified from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Laparoscopic and open colectomy patients were compared with respect to length of stay, blood transfusion requirements, intensive care unit monitoring, complications, 30-day mortality, and long-term survival. We adjusted for potential selection bias in surgical approach with propensity score matching.

Results

Laparoscopic colectomy cases were associated with left-sided tumors; areas with higher population density, income, and education level; areas in the western United States; and National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. Laparoscopic colectomy cases had shorter length of stay and less intensive care unit monitoring. Although laparoscopic colectomy patients (n = 424) had fewer complications (21.5% versus 26.3%), lower 30-day mortality (3.3% versus 5.8%), and longer median survival (6.6 versus 4.8 years) compared with open colectomy patients (n = 27,012), after propensity score matching these differences disappeared.

Conclusions

In this older population, laparoscopic colectomy practice patterns were associated with factors which likely correlate with tertiary referral centers. Although short-term and long-term survival are comparable, laparoscopic colectomy offers shorter hospitalizations and less intensive care.

A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer

PURPOSE

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term results of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) and open colectomy (OC) for colon cancer.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for relevant papers published between January 1990 and October 2011 by using the search terms "laparoscopy," "laparoscopy-assisted," "surgery," "colectomy," "colon cancer," and "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)". We analyzed the outcomes of each type of surgery over short- and long-term periods.

RESULTS

We selected 12 papers reporting RCTs that compared LAC with OC for colon cancer. Our meta-analysis included 4614 patients with colon cancer; of these, 2444 had undergone LAC and 2170 had undergone OC. In the short-term period, we found that the rates of overall postoperative complications and ileus in LAC were lower than in OC groups. LAC was associated with a reduction in intraoperative blood loss, a shorter duration of time to resumption and hospital stay, and lower rates of overall complication and ileus over the short-term, but with similar long-term oncologic outcomes such as overall and cancer-related mortality, overall recurrence, local recurrence, distant metastasis, and wound-site recurrence, compared to OC.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that LAC may be preferred to OC for colon cancer.

The short-term outcomes of conventional and single-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to show the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) by comparing its short-term outcomes with those following conventional laparoscopic surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Single-port laparoscopic surgery maximizes the advantages of laparoscopic surgery, and therefore it can be an ultimate attainment of laparoscopic surgery. However, no comparative study has addressed its role in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 106) or SPLS (n = 73) for colorectal cancer between March 2006 and May 2010 were analyzed retrospectively. The short-term outcomes of these 2 operative modalities were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 179 study subjects, 103 (57.5%) had colon cancer and 76 (42.5%) had rectal cancer. Various operative methods, from right hemicolectomy to abdominoperineal resection, were used according to location through either conventional laparoscopic or SPLS approach. In its comparison, mean surgical time was greater in the SPLS group (255 vs 276 minutes, P < 0.008). Acquired length of sufficient surgical margins and the number of harvested lymph nodes were comparable. Postoperative recovery was faster in the SPLS group, in terms of shorter time duration before first flatus (SPLS vs conventional laparoscopic surgery; 2.5 ± 1.2 vs 3.2 ± 1.8 days, P = 0.004), earlier initiation of free oral fluids (1.8 ± 2.2 vs 2.6 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.000) and of a solid diet (4.2 ± 2.9 vs 6.5 ± 2.7 days, P = 0.000), less frequent usage of parenteral narcotics (2.2 ± 3.2 vs 3.5 ± 4.0 times, P = 0.029), and shorter hospital stay (9.6 ± 9.6 vs 15.5 ± 9.8 days, P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that SPLS is both safe and feasible in colorectal cancer, and that it has equivalent or better short-term outcomes than conventional laparoscopic surgery. Accordingly, the authors conclude that SPLS can be an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has undergone tremendous advancement in the last two decades, with maturation of techniques and integration into current practice.

SOURCES OF DATA

Worldwide English-language literature on laparoscopic surgery for the management of colon and rectal cancer was reviewed.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

A large body of evidence has attested to the improved short-term outcomes and long-term oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Laparoscopic colectomy can be recommended to suitable patients where expertise is available. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is feasible, with good evidence of faster post-operative recovery and adequate surgical quality, but requires more data on long-term oncological outcomes. This review examines the evidence and current practice of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Does laparoscopic surgery confer a survival advantage for colorectal cancer patients?

GROWING POINTS

The role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery in colorectal cancer.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Barriers to the adoption of the laparoscopic technique.

Survival following laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the overall and disease specific survivals of patients who underwent laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer in a high volume tertiary center.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective resection for colorectal cancer (open resection, n = 1,197; laparoscopic resection, n = 814) from January 2000 to December 2009 were included. The operative details, postoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and survival data were collected prospectively. Comparison was made between patients who had laparoscopic and open surgery.

RESULTS

The age, gender, medical morbidity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists status were similar in the two groups. Laparoscopic resection was associated with significantly less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The operating mortality and morbidity were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The qualities of the specimens in terms of the distal resection margin and the number of lymph nodes examined were not inferior in the laparoscopic group. With the median follow-up of 40.3 months, the 5-year overall survival (74.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001) and disease specific survival (81.9% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.002) were significantly better in patients with non-disseminated disease in the laparoscopic group. The operative approach was an independent prognostic factor in the overall (risk ratio 1.36, 95% CI 1.093-1.700, p = 0.006) and disease specific (risk ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.005-1.738, p = 0.048) survivals in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer is associated with more favorable overall and disease specific survivals when compared with open resection in a high volume tertiary center.

Clinical outcome of laparoscopic and open colectomy for right colonic carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has gained widespread acceptance. While many studies have compared laparoscopic and open left-sided resections, there is limited literature on right colonic resections. We aimed to analyse the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRH) and open right hemicolectomy (ORH) in our unit.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing elective right hemicolectomies over a period of 28 months were included in the study. No selection criteria were used to allocate the surgical approach. Study parameters included surgical technique, demographic details, ASA grade, body mass index (BMI), length of hospital stay (LOS), post-operative mortality and morbidity, readmission rate and histopathological data.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients underwent right hemicolectomies during the study period (LRH: 89, ORH: 75). Both groups were comparable in age, sex, BMI, ASA grade, tumour stage and lymph node harvest. Four patients (4.5%) in the laparoscopic group required conversion to open surgery. In resections with curative intent, microscopic margins were positive in two patients (3%) in the ORH group compared with one (1%) in the LRH group. Seven ORH patients had an adverse post-operative outcome (three anastomotic leaks, four deaths); there were no deaths/immediate complications in the LRH group (p<0.05). The median LOS for LRH patients (4 days, range: 2-21 days) was significantly shorter than for ORH patients (8 days, range: 3-38 days) (p<0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test). By day 5, 77% of LRH patients were discharged compared with only 21% of patients in the ORH group. There were two readmissions (2.7%) in the ORH group and nine (10.1%) in the LRH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate advantages in favour of LRH in terms of a shorter hospital stay and reduced post-operative major complications. LRH is safe and should therefore be available to all patients requiring colonic resection.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy without using special articulating instruments: an initial experience

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) was introduced as a novel minimally invasive technique. The benefits of this technique include reducing number of the incision and cosmetic improvement. Unlike the conventional laparoscopic colectomy, majority of previously reported SILC need to be performed using special curved or articulated instruments. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate our initial experience of SILC, which could be performed using the standard laparoscopic instruments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 14 patients who underwent SILC at Siriraj Hospital from May to December 2010, patient's demographic data, perioperative outcomes, early postoperative complications and pathological data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of all patients was 60 years. The most common operation with SILC was sigmoidectomy (n = 9), followed by right hemicolectomy (n = 2), left hemicolectomy (n = 1), anterior resection (n = 1), and total colectomy (n = 1). The trocar insertion techniques were multi-fascial incision using regular port (n = 11) and GelPOINT(®) (n = 3). The mean operative time was 155 minutes (range 90-280) and the mean estimate blood loss was 32.1 mL (range 10-100). All patients were successfully operated without conversion. The mean length of hospital stay was 9 days (range 5-20). There was no mortality. The pathological results revealed colorectal cancer (n = 12), neoplastic polyp (n = 1) and Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) (n = 1). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieval was 16.6 (range 3-34).

CONCLUSION

SILC can successfully and safely be performed with standard laparoscopic instruments. This technique might be an alternative procedure to conventional laparoscopic colectomy with better cosmetic result.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: assessment of oncologic resection and short-term outcomes in a case-matched comparison with standard laparoscopy

PURPOSE

To compare single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) with multiport laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy in patients with colon cancer to assess oncologic resection and 1-year outcomes.

METHODS

We compared patients who underwent SIL colectomy for colon cancer with an equal number of case-matched LAP colectomy patients based on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, previous abdominal operations, and operation type. Results of oncologic resection included lymph node (LN) yield and margins. One-year outcomes included cancer recurrence and death.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were identified for SIL and LAP colectomy groups with no differences in case matching (age, P = .70; gender, P > .99; BMI, P = .74; ASA score, P > .99; previous abdominal operation, P > .99; and operation-type, P > .99). Oncologic resection was similar for both groups. Mean LN yield was 17 (P = .88). There were no positive margins and 2 (8%) patients had proximal/distal margin of <5 cm in each group. The mean follow-up was 13 and 21 months for the SIL and LAP groups, respectively (P < .001), with 2(8%) recurrences in each group, and no port-site recurrences or deaths. Disease-free survival at 1 year was 92% for both groups.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that SIL colectomy for cancer provides equivalent oncologic resection and 1-year outcomes compared with a standard LAP technique. Further studies are required to determine long-term oncologic outcomes, including recurrence and survival rates.

Comparison of survival of patients receiving laparoscopic and open radical resection for stage II colon cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to compare the survival of patients receiving laparoscopic vs. open radical resection for stage II colon cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and twenty patients with stage II colon cancer were enrolled from Beijing Chaoyang Hospital of Capital Medical University from January 2000 to December 2009, including 61 patients in the laparoscopic radical resection group and 159 patients in the open radical resection group. The survival data in both groups were compared using the log rank test based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year survival (88.5% vs. 80.5%; X(2)=1.98, P=0.159) and the 5-year survival (81.9% vs. 69.2%; X(2)=1.98, P=0.159) between both groups. However, statistically significant difference was found in median overall survival (mOS), which was 102.6 (95% CI: 76.8-122.7) months in the laparoscopic group and 90.0 (95% CI: 70.4-109.6) months in the open radical resection group (X(2)=4.183, P=0.041). mOS was 96 (95% CI: 68.6-111.4) months and 92.6 (95% CI: 56.8-107.2) months in those with and without postoperative chemotherapy, respectively (X(2)=6.389, P=0.011). For patients older than 75 years the mOS was 90.0 (95% CI: 25.3-105.0) months and 83.4 (95% CI: 13.1-96.9) months in the laparoscopic and open group, respectively. The difference between the both groups was statistically significant (X(2)=6.191, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The mOS of patients receiving laparoscopic radical resection was better than open radical resection for stage II colon cancer, especially for patients over 75 years old.

Surgical treatment for colorectal cancer

The rapid in development of surgical technology has had a major effect in surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery has been proven to provide better short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes. However this quickly accepted surgical approach is still performed by a minority of colorectal surgeons. The more technically challenging procedure of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is also on its way to demonstrating perhaps similar short-term benefits. This article reviews current evidences of both short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, including the overall costs comparison between laparoscopic surgery and conventional open surgery. In addition, different surgical techniques for laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer are compared. Also the relevant future challenge of colorectal cancer robotic surgery is reviewed.

Totally transrectal endoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME)

Surgical treatment has been in constant evolution in the search for minimizing incisions regardless of the complexity of the operation. Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) represents this progression of surgery to less invasive procedures. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is an ideal NOTES platform to access the peritoneal cavity endoscopically through the anus and specifically to allow colorectal resections be performed through smaller, or indeed without, abdominal incisions. Transanal rectosigmoidectomy with total mesorectal excision (TME) using TEM is a feasible and oncologically safe option. Such use of currently available combined hybrid laparoendoscopic systems provides a safe platform to define future clinical applications and advantages of NOTES. Furthermore, it stimulates the active development of technologies that will support and enable it.

Toll-like receptors in the inflammatory response during open and laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions activate a cascade of reactions that result in an aseptic inflammatory reaction. This inflammatory response initiates the organism's innate immunity. Laparoscopic surgery reduces the trauma, and patients benefit from diminished surgical trauma and maintained immune function. Cytokine levels and C-reactive protein (CRP) are related to the magnitude of surgical trauma and surgical stress. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) 2 and 4 are the first sensor-recognition receptors of the invading pathogens for the innate immune response. This study aimed to compare the inflammatory response and then the stress response during laparoscopic and open colectomy for cancer by calculating TLR-2 and TLR-4 as the first sensor-recognition receptors together with interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP).

METHODS

A total 40 patients with colorectal cancer were randomized in two groups: group A (open colectomy, n = 20) and group B (laparoscopic colectomy, n = 20). An epidural catheter was placed in all patients 1 h preoperatively. Rupivocaine was administered perioperatively and 48 h postoperatively. Blood samples were taken for calculation of IL-6, TNF-α, hsCRP, TLR-2, and TLR-4 preoperatively and 5 min after deflation of pneumoperitoneum (group B) or 5 min after division of the colon (group A), then 6 and 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 115 for group A and 142 min for group B. The mean blood loss was respectively 240 and 105 ml (P < 0.001), and the mean hospital stay was respectively 8 and 5 days (P < 0.05). The IL-6 level was significant higher in group A than in group B at 6 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.0001), and the hsCRP level was significant higher in group A than in group B at 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.001). The TNF-α values did not differ between the two groups. The TLR-2 level was significantly higher in group A than in group B at 5 min (P = 0.013) and 24 h (P = 0.007) postoperatively. The TLR-4 level was significant higher in group A than in group B at 5 min postoperatively (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The inflammatory response and the resultant stress response are significantly less during laparoscopic colectomy than during open colectomy for colorectal cancer. This is an obvious short-term clinical benefit for the patient, providing tinder for further study to investigate the long-term results of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy for colorectal cancer.

Laparoscopic colectomy for colonic carcinoma

AIM

The aim of this study is to present our experience with the laparoscopic treatment approach for colonic carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2010, laparoscopic colectomy was performed in 13 patients; 9 patients underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, 3 sigmoidectomy and 1 patient underwent laparoscopic caecectomy.

RESULTS

With regards to the right hemicolectomies, the average operative time was 168 min and the average hospital stay 5.3 days. In patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy, the average operative time was 176 min, while the average hospital stay was 10.2 days. Finally, the laparoscopic caecectomy was performed in 85 min. There was one conversion (7.7%) to an open procedure, as well as one case (7.7%) of anastomotic leakage, which was treated with re-laparotomy and a Hartmann's procedure. Up to today, all patients remain healthy with no signs of tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer, in the hands of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon, is a safe and efficient procedure.

Laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer: evaluation of oncological efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic resection of low rectal cancer poses significant technical difficulties for the surgeon. There is a lack of published follow-up data in relation to the surgical, oncological and survival outcomes in these patients.

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical, oncological and survival outcomes in all patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancers were included in the study. Clinical, pathological and follow-up data were recorded over a 4-year period. The mean follow-up was 25 months

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients were included in the study, 30 of whom were males. The mean age was 64.14 years (range, 34-86 years). The mean hospital stay was 8.2 days (range, 4-42 days). Fifty were completed laparoscopically and three were converted to an open procedure. Thirty-eight were anterior resections and 15 were abdominoperineal resections. Twenty-four patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The total mesorectal excision was optimal in 51 (98%) cases. There were no anastomotic sequelae and no surgical mortality. There was no local recurrence detected. The overall survival (mean follow-up, 25 months) was 93.5%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancers permits optimum oncological control. In our series, this technical approach is associated with excellent 4-year survival and clinical outcomes.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic techniques have induced a tremendous revolution in the field of general surgery. Recent multicenter trials have demonstrated similar patient-oriented and oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic colon and rectal resections compared with their open counterparts. Meanwhile, robotic technology has gradually entered the field of general surgery, allowing increased dexterity, improved operative view, and optimal ergonomics. The objective of this study was to review the current status of clinical robotic applications in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed search engine was undertaken to identify relevant articles. The keywords used in all possible combinations were: surgical robotics, robotic surgery, computer-assisted surgery, colectomy, sigmoid resection, sigmoidectomy, and rectal resection.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine case series or comparative nonrandomized studies were identified. A specific interest for robot-assisted rectal surgery during the past few years was recorded in the literature. The retrieved articles included 13 ileocecal resections, 220 right colectomies, 190 left colectomies/sigmoid resections, 440 anterior resections, 149 abdominoperineal/intersphincteric resections, and 11 total/subtotal colectomies. The clinical application of the da Vinci robotic system in right and left/sigmoid colectomies yielded satisfactory results in terms of open conversion (1.1 and 3.8%, respectively) and operative morbidity (13.4 and 15.1%, respectively). Robot-assisted anterior resection was accompanied by a considerably low conversion rate (0.4%), morbidity (9.7%), and adequate number of harvested lymph nodes (14.3, mean).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic applications in colorectal surgery are feasible with low conversion rates and favorable morbidity. Further studies are required to evaluate its oncologic and patient-oriented outcomes.

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

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

Laparoscopic converted to open colectomy: predictors and outcomes from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Early in their learning curve, surgeons need to appropriately select patients to avoid conversion from laparoscopic to an open colectomy.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, laparoscopic and laparoscopic converted to open colectomies performed between 2002 and 2007 were compared. We evaluated patient and institutional characteristics to find significant predictors and outcomes of conversion.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2007, the rate of conversion was high, ranging from 35.7% to 38.0%. Multivariate predictors of conversion included obesity, diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease, constipation, metastatic disease, nonelective admission, left or transverse colectomy, intraoperative complication, lower socioeconomic status, uninsured status, and rural hospital location. A colectomy for benign colon polyps was less likely to be converted. Conversion to an open colectomy did not increase inpatient mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictors of conversion from open to laparoscopic colectomy were found from a national database reflecting all US laparoscopic colectomies. Conversion did not increase inpatient mortality.

Laparoscopic procedures for colon and rectal cancer surgery

After over a decade of debate and controversy, it is now well established that laparoscopic colon surgery for cancer when compared with open surgery, results in short-term benefits while maintaining at least equivalent long-term outcomes. Consequently, more and more patients are undergoing laparoscopic colon surgery, but the adoption rate still remains relatively low in the United States. Similarly, there are many potential benefits to performing rectal surgery laparoscopically. Although not well documented, laparoscopic rectal surgery is under active investigation and may result in the usual short-term benefits associated with laparoscopic surgery. In this article, short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer are reviewed. In addition, different technical options for laparoscopic approaches to colon and rectal cancer are compared.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: early experience with 31 cases

BACKGROUND

Transumbilical single-port surgery has been developed with the aim to further reduce the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to report our experience with 31 patients who were treated with transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of prospectively gathered data.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at the Department of Surgery of Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital between April 2009 and April 2010. Data were obtained from a prospectively maintained single-institution laparoscopic colon cancer database.

PATIENTS

Thirty-one consecutively selected patients (mean BMI, 22.5 ± 2.3) were evaluated.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. Two different approaches were used for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: the trocar insertion method and the SILS port method. The trocar insertion method was adopted in 22 of 31 patients, and the SILS port method was used in 9 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main measures of outcomes were intraoperative findings, postoperative course, and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

The most common procedure was sigmoid colon resection performed in 12 of 31 (39%) patients. The mean skin incision was 2.72 ± 0.79 (range, 3-5) cm. The operating time ranged from 101 to 263 (mean, 156 ± 45) minutes. The volume of bleeding ranged from 5 to 60 (mean, 27 ± 19) mL. No intraoperative complications were observed in this series. Postoperatively, there was no mortality. Wound infection was observed in 1 patient. The number of harvested lymph nodes was 18 ± 2.1, and the mean tumor-free resection margin was 11 ± 4.8 cm.

CONCLUSION

Our experience indicates that single-incision laparoscopic colectomy is feasible for selected patients with colon cancer.

Reduction in mortality after epidural anaesthesia and analgesia in patients undergoing rectal but not colonic cancer surgery: a retrospective analysis of data from 655 patients in central Sweden

BACKGROUND

There is some evidence that epidural analgesia (EDA) reduces tumour recurrence after breast and prostatic cancer surgery. We assessed whether EDA reduces long-term mortality after colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

All patients having colorectal cancer surgery between January 2004 and January 2008 at Linköping and Örebro were included. Exclusion criteria were: emergency operations, laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection, and stage 4 cancer. Statistical information was obtained from the Swedish National Register for Deaths. Patients were analysed in two groups: EDA group or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA group) as the primary method of analgesia.

RESULTS

A total of 655 patients could be included. All-cause mortality for colorectal cancer (stages 1-3) was 22.7% (colon: 20%, rectal: 26%) after 1-5 yr of surgery. Multivariate regression analysis identified the following statistically significant factors for death after colon cancer (P<0.05): age (>72 yr) and cancer stage 3 (compared with stage 1). A similar model for rectal cancer found that age (>72 yr) and the use of PCA rather than EDA and cancer stages 2 and 3 (compared with stage 1) were associated with a higher risk for death. No significant risk of death was found for colon cancer when comparing EDA with PCA (P=0.23), but a significantly increased risk of death was seen after rectal cancer when PCA was used compared with EDA (P=0.049) [hazards ratio: 0.52 (0.27-1.00)].

CONCLUSIONS

We found a reduction in all-cause mortality after rectal but not colon cancer in patients having EDA compared with PCA technique.

Benefits of Laparoscopy: Does the Disease Condition that Indicated Colectomy Matter?

The benefits of laparoscopic (LC) over open colectomy (OC) have been well characterized for a variety of conditions. Whether the relative benefits of LC differ for different conditions has not been previously investigated. The aim of this study was to identify whether there are differences in benefits of LC for colon cancer (CC), Crohn's disease (CD), and diverticular disease (DD). Data of patients with CC, CD, and DD undergoing elective colectomy from January 2000 to December 2007 were identified from departmental databases. Patients with CC, CD, and DD undergoing LC were matched 1:1 for diagnosis, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologists scale, and date of surgery to patients undergoing OC. TNM stage was also matched for patients with CC. Two hundred eighty-nine patients undergoing LC (CC, 93; CD, 140; DD, 56) were matched 1:1 to 289 patients undergoing OC. Median age was 49 years (range, 14 to 91 years) in LC and 52 years (range, 14 to 98 years) in OC ( P = 0.35). All other matched criteria were also similar in both groups. The conversion rate to OC was 13 per cent (n = 36). Patients undergoing LC had significantly shorter lengths of stay (LOS) (3 days [range, 1 to 70 days] vs 6 days [range, 1 to 37 days], P < 0.001) and lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 mL [range, 10 to 1750 mL] vs 200 mL [range, 10 to 1700 mL], P < 0.001). Median operative time was similar in both groups (LC: 145 minutes [range, 35 to 431 minutes] vs OC: 135 minutes [range, 23 to 485 minutes], P = 0.54). The conversion rate was lower for DD (2%) when compared with CC (18.9%) and CD (13.4%). Improvement in EBL with LC was least pronounced in patients with CD and most pronounced in patients with DD ( P interaction < 0.001). In the LC group, patients with DD presented less postoperative complications ( P = 0.009). LC results in reduced LOS and EBL with similar complications rates when compared with OC. The benefits of LC are more pronounced in DD when compared with CD and CC.

Hybrid approach for left-sided colonic carcinoma obstruction; a case report

Traditionally, there are several approaches to manage left-sided colonic carcinoma obstruction, such as tumor resection with primary anastomosis, tumor resection with end-colostomy and loop-colostomy. Recently, colonic stent insertion was introduced as a bridge prior to definite surgery. We demonstrated a hybrid approach for obstructed sigmoid carcinoma using colonic stent, followed by single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC). A 58 year-old man presented with complete left-sided colonic obstruction. He underwent emergency colonoscopy with metallic stent placement. One week later, he was performed SILC. He recovered well after the operation without any postoperative complications. The pathological result showed adequacy of oncologic resection. This hybrid approach of colonic stent insertion and SILC can be safely performed.

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy due to colon cancer

AIM

The aim of this study is to present our patients with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy due to cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2009, laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer was performed in 9 patients.

RESULTS

The average operative time was 168 min. The average hospital stay was 5.3 days. There was one conversion (11.1%) to an open procedure. There were no postoperative complications. All the patients remain so far with no signs of tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer in the hands of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon is a safe and efficient procedure.

Long-term follow-up and individual item analysis of quality of life assessments related to laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in the COST trial 93-46-53 (INT 0146)

BACKGROUND

Postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) have shown modest improvements in recovery but only minimal differences in quality of life (QOL) compared with open colectomy. We therefore sought to assess the effect of LAC on QOL in the short and long term, using individual item analysis of multi-item QOL assessments.

METHODS

QOL variables were analyzed in 449 randomized patients from the COST trial 93-46-53 (INT 0146). Both cross-sectional single-time and change from baseline assessments were run at day 2, week 2, month 2, and month 18 postoperatively in an intention-to-treat analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Stepwise regression models were used to determine predictors of QOL.

RESULTS

Of 449 colon cancer patients, 230 underwent LAC and 219 underwent open colectomy. Subdomain analysis revealed a clinically moderate improvement from baseline for LAC in total QOL index at 18 months (P = 0.02) as well as other small symptomatic improvements. Poor preoperative QOL as indicated by a rating scale of ≤ 50 was an independent predictor of poor QOL at 2 months postoperatively. QOL variables related to survival were baseline support (P = 0.001) and baseline outlook (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Eighteen months after surgery, any differences in quality of life between patients randomized to LAC or open colectomy favored LAC. However, the magnitude of the benefits was small. Patients with poor preoperative QOL appear to be at higher risk for difficult postoperative courses, and may be candidates for enhanced ancillary services to address their particular needs.

Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy

AIM: To evaluate long-term outcomes in a large series of patients who randomly received laparoscopic or open colorectal resection.

METHODS: From February 2000 to December 2004, six hundred sixty-two patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (LPS, n = 330) or open (n = 332) colorectal resection. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Long-term follow-up was carried out every 6 mo by office visits. In 526 cancer patients five-year overall and disease-free survival were evaluated. Median oncologic follow-up was 96 mo.

RESULTS: Eight (4.2%) LPS group patients needed conversion to open surgery. Overall long-term morbidity rate was 7.6% (25/330) in the LPS vs 11.1% (37/332) in the open group (P = 0.17). In cancer patients, five-year overall survival was 68.6% in the LPS group and 64.0% in the Open group (P = 0.27). Excluding stage IV patients, five-year local and distant recurrence rates were 32.5% in the LPS group and 36.8% in the Open group (P = 0.36). Further, no difference in recurrence rate was found when patients were stratified according to cancer stage.

CONCLUSION: LPS colorectal resection was associated with a slightly lower incidence of long-term complications than open surgery. No difference between groups was found in overall and disease-free survival rates.

Short-term outcomes following laparoscopic resection for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has been proven to have a similar oncological efficacy compared to open resection. Despite this, it is performed by a minority of colorectal surgeons. The aim of our study was to evaluate the short-term clinical, oncological and survival outcomes in all patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colon cancer.

METHODS

From July 2005 to December 2008, 202 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic resection for colon cancer. Surgery was analysed on an intention to treat basis. The mean follow-up was 24.3 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-two patients underwent resection for colon cancer. Two hundred two underwent laparoscopic resection (91%). One hundred sixteen were male patients. Mean age was 65.9 years (range = 24-91). The median length of stay was 6.6 days (mean = 7.1 days). One hundred eighty-eight of 202 (93.1%) were completed laparoscopically. Fourteen (6.9%) were converted. The overall morbidity rate was 15.8%. There were three clinically apparent anastomotic leaks. The 30-day mortality was 1 (0.5%). The mean nodal yield was 13.4 (range = 8-37) nodes. There were no positive margins detected. Overall survival in laparoscopically treated colon cancer was 88.1%. In those patients with non-metastatic disease, the overall survival was 90.7% (165/182).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer is achievable in 85% (188/222) of patients. This facilitates adequate oncological clearance. It is associated with a low morbidity rate and favourable short-term survival outcomes. This data reflects the potential outcomes dedicated MIS colorectal units will have to offer colon cancer patients once laparoscopic colorectal surgery becomes the de facto surgical approach.

Optimizing surgical care of colon cancer in the older adult population

OBJECTIVE

We have undertaken the current study to evaluate factors that correlate with postoperative complications in older patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The database of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) from years 2005 to 2008 was accessed. Patients age 65 and older were included according to Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Disease-9 codes. Preoperative and operative variables were examined and postoperative complications assessed using a combination of univariate and multivariate statistical models. Propensity score matching was used to control for nonrandomization of the database.

RESULTS

We found that patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 2113) and open (n = 3801) surgery for the diagnosis of colon cancer were similar in age and gender. However, patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were generally at lower risk for developing postoperative complications (16.1% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.005). Statistical models controlling for preoperative and operative variables demonstrated patients with elevated body mass index (odds ratio [OR] = 1.26), a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.63), over age 85 (OR = 1.35), a surgery lasting longer than 4 hours (OR = 1.48), or having undergone an open operation (OR = 1.53) to have increased risk for developing postoperative complications. Propensity score match analysis confirmed these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of preoperative factors that predispose patients to postoperative complications could allow for the institution of protocols that may decrease these events. Furthermore, expanding the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of older patients with colon cancer may decrease rates of postoperative complications.

Novel procedure, SILSOID colectomy, is a bridge between conventional and single-incisional laparoscopic colectomy

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is a widely accepted treatment for various diseases of the colon. Transumbilical single-incisional laparoscopic surgery (SILS) offers excellent cosmetic results compared with standard multi-port laparoscopic surgery. We describe a new hybrid laparoscopic procedure, SILSOID colectomy, which combines conventional LC with SILS.

METHODS

We performed SILSOID colectomy to treat four patients with colorectal disease. Three ports were inserted through the single transumbilical incision, and an additional port was inserted in the flank at a site that depended on the location of the lesion. Division and anastomosis of the colon were performed extracorporeally.

RESULTS

SILSOID colectomy was carried out uneventfully in all four cases. The median operation time was 220 minutes (range, 179-320 min), and the median blood loss was negligible (range, negligible-285 mL), respectively. Although one patient experienced a postoperative wound infection, no other postoperative complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

SILSOID colectomy is safe and feasible and it can be used as an alternative to conventional LC. We consider this procedure to be a bridge between conventional LC and more advanced laparoscopic procedures, such as SILS.

Laparoscopy for colon cancer: state of the art

As a result of several years of trials and investigations, laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer is now considered an acceptable and safe alternative to traditional open techniques. Four large randomized trials (Barcelona, COST, COLOR, CLASSIC) have shown the noninferiority of laparoscopic colectomy in overall survival, disease-free survival, and overall and local recurrences. Laparoscopic surgery is associated with better short-term outcomes, such as shorter hospital stay, shorter duration of ileus, less narcotic usefulness and postoperative pain, and a faster postoperative recovery. The procedures are also safe and feasible in elderly patients. Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy is a recent hybrid technique that could reduce learning time, and its role has been established in more challenging procedures. Future prospects include robotic and natural-orifice surgery.

Robotic-assisted single-incision laparoscopic partial cecectomy

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is an emerging approach in the field of minimally invasive colon and rectal surgery. This modality utilizes a 'scarless' incision concealed within the umbilicus, and results in improved cosmesis with the potential for reduced trauma, pain and length of hospital stay. However, unique technical challenges have curbed its adaptation. Robotic-assisted technique may help overcome these limitations when applied to the single-incision approach.

METHODS

A robotic-assisted single-incision laparoscopic partial cecectomy was performed using the da Vinci robot and the GelPOINT access device. Modifications of the robotic set-up were utilized to optimize the technique. The robotic instruments were crossed below the abdominal wall to minimize internal conflict and maximize range of motion. Control of the robotic arms was reassigned on the robotic console to create a more intuitive surgical approach. The robotic camera was rotated and positioned vertically to reduce external conflict and enhance visualization.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted single-incision laparoscopic partial cecectomy was performed in a 53 year-old male without complication or need for conversion. The procedure required 120 min with an estimated blood loss of < 50 ml. Pathology revealed a sessile tubular adenoma of the cecum. The length of hospital stay was 2 days and no complications were encountered. The patient returned with a well-healed 2.5 cm incision and no postoperative complications at 6 weeks follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate modifications, robotic-assisted single-incision laparoscopic surgery may be applicable as a minimally invasive modality for partial colectomy. Further studies are warranted to establish the safety, efficacy, benefits, and limits of this technique.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy can be safely performed with colorectal surgery for synchronous colorectal liver metastasis

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for resectable synchronous colorectal liver metastases remains controversial. Although some authors advocate a staged treatment, an increasing number of studies have reported that combined colorectal and liver resection is safe. Laparoscopic combined resection in primary colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases has been reported but there are no specific data for major liver resections. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility of a simultaneous entirely laparoscopic procedure, in the light of the benefits of laparoscopy in both colon and liver surgery, and discussed the benefits of this strategy.

METHODS

Two cases are presented of totally laparoscopic major liver resections associated with laparoscopic colorectal resections for synchronous liver metastases with the emphasis on the technical aspects. Duration of surgery, blood loss and post-operative outcome were evaluated.

RESULTS

  Laparoscopic right hepatectomy or left hepatectomy with simultaneous colon resection for liver metastasis was feasible and safe with only one suprapubic 5-mm trocar added to the usual trocar sites. The mean duration of surgery was 327 min with a mean estimated blood loss of 200 ml. The post-operative course was uneventful.

DISCUSSION

In selected patients, laparoscopic major hepatectomies for unilobular synchronous metastases can be safely performed simultaneously with colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopic colectomy and restorative proctocolectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis

BACKGROUND

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a dominantly inherited syndrome. Risk of cancer begins to increase after age 20 years if not treated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic prophylactic surgery for FAP.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with FAP were identified through the Hereditary Colorectal Tumor Registry from 2003 to 2009. Patients with laparoscopic total colectomy (TC)/IRA or proctocolectomy (TPC)/ileal pouch-anal anastomosis IPAA were included. Patients with previous colon or abdominal major surgery, malignancy, and desmoids before surgery were excluded. Main outcomes were: 30 days anastomotic leak and pouch failure; long-term desmoids and malignant recurrence.

RESULTS

Of the 55 patients, 32 were men, median age was 28 years, and mean body mass index was 23. Median follow-up time was 36 (range, 5-77) months. Forty-four patients had laparoscopic TC/IRA and ten had laparoscopic TPC/IPAA. One patient was converted to open surgery and received an open TPC/IPAA. Incision length was 7 (range, 5-14) cm. Anastomotic leak was 3 (5.4%: 2 laparoscopic and 1 open), and pouch failure was 0. Median postsurgical length of stay was 7 (range, 4-24) days. Desmoids occurred in three patients (5.4%), and there was no malignant recurrence within the follow-up period. Pathology revealed severe dysplasia in ten patients and adenocarcinoma in nine (8 laparoscopic and 1 open). Long-term small-bowel obstruction was 2 (3.6%). One mortality due to liver metastases occurred at 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic prophylactic treatment of FAP appears to be safe and feasible and may be an appealing alternative to open surgery. If the goal of prophylactic FAP surgery is to avoid cancer occurrence, laparoscopic surgery could be an important advancement.

Minimally invasive sequential treatment of synchronous colorectal liver metastases by laparoscopic colectomy and robotic right hepatectomy

PURPOSE

The ideal timing for patients with colorectal cancer to undergo surgery for resectable synchronous liver metastases remains under debate. We describe a new sequential approach using laparoscopic/robotic surgery for the treatment of synchronous liver metastases.

METHODS

A 73-year-old man presented with sigmoid cancer and a single 8-cm right liver metastasis. A staged sequential minimally invasive approach was planned. A laparoscopic left colectomy was performed first, followed by a robotic right hepatectomy 10 days later.

RESULTS

The left colectomy lasted 120 min with a negligible blood loss (<10 mL). The right hepatectomy was completed robotically with an operating time of 330 min and intraoperative blood loss of 300 mL. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged at postoperative day 8 of the liver resection. Three weeks later, the patient received adjuvant chemotherapy. At 26-months follow up, the patient was alive without recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

This report suggests the technical feasibility and safety of a sequential totally minimally invasive approach for synchronous colorectal liver metastases. In selected patients, this approach can avoid the risk of a synchronous associate major liver/colonic resection using the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

Short-term Outcomes of a Laparoscopic Left Hemicolectomy for Descending Colon Cancer: Retrospective Comparison with an Open Left Hemicolectomy

Purpose

Many randomized clinical trials have been performed to treat a colorectal neoplasm with the exclusion of descending colon cancer. The aim of the present study was to investigate the difference in surgical outcomes between a laparoscopic left hemicolectomy and a conventional open left hemicolectomy for descending colon cancer.

Methods

A retrospective study of ninety patients with descending colon cancer, who underwent a laparoscopic (LAP) or open left hemicolectomy (OS) between May 1998 and December 2009 at Kyungpook National University Hospital, was performed. Clinicopathological and surgical outcomes were compared between the LAP and the OS for descending colon cancer.

Results

The baseline characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index, history of prior abdominal surgical history and tumor location, were similar between the two groups. The mean operation time was 156.2 minutes for the LAP group and 223.2 minutes for the OS group (P < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly greater in the OS group (37.5 mL vs. 80.4 mL; P = 0.039). The postoperative recovery in the LAP group was faster, as reflected by the shorter time to pass gas and the shorter hospital stay. Pathological examinations showed the surgery to be equally radical in the two groups. The median follow-up was 21 months and there were 3 distant metastases (8.5%) during follow-up in the LAP group, but no port-site or local recurrence.

Conclusion

A laparoscopic left hemicolectomy is a technically safe and feasible procedure for treating descending colon cancer. Prospective multi-center trials are necessary to establish the LAP as the standard treatment for descending colon cancer.

Five-year long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

AIM: To perform a meta-analysis to answer whether long-term recurrence rates after laparoscopic-assisted surgery are comparable to those reported after open surgery.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE database, EMBASE database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991-2010 was performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were eligible if they included patients with colon cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery and followed for more than five years.

RESULTS: Three studies involving 2147 patients reported long-term outcomes based on five-year data and were included in the analysis. The overall mortality was similar in the two groups (24.9%, 268/1075 in the laparoscopic group and 26.4%, 283/1072 in open group). No significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery were found in overall mortality during the follow-up period of these studies [OR (fixed) 0.92, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.76-1.12, P = 0.41]. No significant difference in the development of overall recurrence was found in colon cancer patients, when comparing laparoscopic and open surgery [2147 pts, 19.3% vs 20.0%; OR (fixed) 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78-1.19, P = 0.71].

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that laparoscopic surgery was as efficacious and safe as open surgery for colon cancer, based on the five-year data of these included RCTs.

Intraoperative technical difficulty during laparoscopy-assisted surgery as a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted surgery has technical drawbacks compared with open surgery, although laparoscopic surgery has become widely adopted with evidence of oncological safety for colon cancer treatment. The oncological risk of technical difficulties during laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has not been previously reported. We aimed to investigate whether a technical difficulty encountered during laparoscopic surgery can be considered a recurrence-related factor for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data from 427 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer between May 2003 and December 2007 were analyzed. An intraoperative technical difficulty was defined as a significant deviation from the ordinary surgical procedure. All conversions to open surgery and iatrogenic bowel perforation during laparoscopic surgery were included as technical difficulties. The Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to evaluate the recurrence-related factor in the various risk factors including technical difficulty.

RESULTS

Technical difficulties were found in 44 (10.3%) patients, which included 17 (3.9%) conversions to open surgery and 10 (2.4%) with iatrogenic bowel injury. Technical difficulties were encountered more frequently in men compared with women (13.5% vs 6.0%, P = .013), and for cancers located in the mid and low rectum, splenic flexure, and descending colon. The recurrence rates were higher in patients with technical difficulties (local recurrence, 2.6% vs 6.7%, P < .05; systemic recurrence, 6.3% vs 13.6%, P < .05) with a mean follow-up duration of 45.9 months. Multivariate analysis by the Cox proportional-hazards regression model showed that a technical difficulty was an independent factor related to recurrence after laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio, 2.374; 95% CI, 1.006-5.600; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that a technical difficulty during laparoscopy-assisted surgery jeopardizes oncological safety. It is suggested that surgeons should be prepared to minimize technical difficulties during laparoscopy-assisted surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: The state of the art

At present time, there is evidence from randomized controlled studies of the success of laparoscopic resection for the treatment of colon cancer with reported smaller incisions, lower morbidity rate and earlier recovery compared to open surgery. Technical limitations and a steep learning curve have limited the wide application of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer. The present article discusses the current status of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. A review of the more recent retrospective, prospective and randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer including the role of trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery and robotics was performed. A particular emphasis was dedicated to mid and low rectal cancers. Few prospective and RCT trials specifically addressing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are currently available in the literature. Improved short-term outcomes in term of lesser intraoperative blood loss, reduced analgesic requirements and a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated. Concerns have recently been raised in the largest RCT trial of the oncological adequacy of laparoscopy in terms of increased rate of circumferential margin. This data however was not confirmed by other prospective comparative studies. Moreover, a similar local recurrence rate has been reported in RCT and comparative series. Similar findings of overall and disease free survival have been reported but the follow-up time period is too short in all these studies and the few RCT trials currently available do not draw any definitive conclusions. On the basis of available data in the literature, the mini-invasive approach to rectal cancer surgery has some short-term advantages and does not seem to confer any disadvantage in term of local recurrence. With respect to long-term survival, a definitive answer cannot be given at present time as the results of RCT trials focused on long-term survival currently ongoing are still to fully clarify this issue.

Randomized clinical trial comparing inflammatory and angiogenic response after open versus laparoscopic curative resection for colonic cancer

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that laparoscopy might confer an oncological advantage in patients undergoing surgery for colonic cancer. A decreased inflammatory and angiogenic response has been proposed. This study compared the local and systemic inflammatory and angiogenic responses after open and laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer.

METHODS

Some 122 patients with colonic cancer were randomized to open or laparoscopic colectomy. Levels of interleukin (IL) 6 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were measured in serum and peritoneal fluid at baseline, then at 4, 12, 24 and 48 h and on day 4 after surgery. Samples obtained on day 4 were tested in an in vitro angiogenesis assay, with measurement of number of capillaries per field and capillary length.

RESULTS

The serum IL-6 level was lower in the laparoscopic group at 4 h (mean(s.d.) 124(110) versus 244(326) pg/dl after open colectomy; P = 0·027). The serum VEGF concentration was also lower in the laparoscopic group at 48 h and day 4 (430(435) versus 650(686) pg/dl; P = 0·001). Overall, local IL-6 and VEGF levels were significantly higher than serum levels but there were no differences between groups. In vitro, postoperative serum and peritoneal fluid samples were potently angiogenic but there were no differences between open surgery and laparoscopy. Rates of tumour recurrence and survival were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in postoperative serum levels of IL-6 and VEGF after open and laparoscopic surgery in patients with colonic cancer, the angiogenic response is comparable in both surgical approaches.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN55624793 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for colon cancer

The aim of this study is to report our experience with laparoscopic sigmoidectomy due to cancer. Between 2007 and 2009, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for cancer was performed in 3 patients. The average operative time was 176 min. The average hospital stay was 10.2 days. There was one anastomotic leak. The patient was subjected to laparotomy and a Hartmann's procedure and drainage of the peritoneal cavity was performed. In conclusion, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for cancer is a safe and efficient procedure.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open left colonic resection

BACKGROUND

The main aim of this study was to compare short-term results and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open left colonic resection.

METHODS

Between February 2000 and December 2004, all adult patients undergoing elective left colonic resection were assessed for eligibility to the study. The protocol for postoperative care was the same in both groups. Cost-benefit analysis was based on hospital costs. Quality of life, long-term morbidity and 5-year survival were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Some 268 patients undergoing left colonic resection were assigned randomly to the laparoscopic (n = 134) or open (n = 134) approach. The short-term morbidity rate was 20.1 per cent in the open group and 11.9 per cent in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.094). Hospital stay was longer in the open group (8.7 versus 7.0 days for the laparoscopic approach; P = 0.002). Cost-benefit analysis showed an additional cost of euro66 per patient randomly allocated to the laparoscopic group. Quality of life was significantly improved in the laparoscopic group 6 months after surgery, but no difference was found subsequently. The long-term morbidity rate was 11.9 per cent in the open group and 7.5 per cent in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.413). The 5-year survival rate of patients with cancer was 66 and 72 per cent for open and laparoscopic groups respectively (P = 0.321).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic left colonic resection resulted in an earlier recovery after surgery. As cost-benefit analysis and long-term follow-up showed similar results, the laparoscopic approach should be preferred to open surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to traditional open surgery, has been accepted by an increasing number of surgeons and patients. In this paper, we review the advances in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer and summarize its pros and cons by comparing with open surgery, including patient inclusion and exclusion, intraoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we provide an initial overview of the Da Vinci robotic system and the single-port laparoscopic surgery.