Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open emergency resection for colon cancer: an observational propensity score-matched study

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

LapEmerge trial: study protocol for a laparoscopic approach for emergency colon resection-a multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Due to faster recovery and lower morbidity rates, laparoscopy has become the gold standard in elective colorectal surgery for both the benign and malignant forms of the disease. A substantial proportion of colorectal operations are, however, carried out in emergency settings, and most of the emergency resections are still performed open. The aim of this study is to compare the laparoscopic versus open approach for emergency colorectal surgery.

METHOD/DESIGN

This is a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial including adult patients presenting with a condition requiring emergency colorectal resection.

DISCUSSION

Previous studies cautiously recommend wider use of laparoscopy in emergency colorectal resections, but all earlier reports are retrospective, are mostly single-center studies, and have limited numbers of patients. Laparoscopy may involve some unpredictable risks that have not yet been reported because of the infrequent use of the techniqueded to assess the safety of laparoscopy as well as the advantages and disadvantages of open compared with laparoscopic emergency surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number:  ClinicalTrials.gov   NCT05005117 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Emergency Resection of Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy for emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer remains unclear, especially regarding impact on survival.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer.

DESIGN

This observational cohort study compared patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection to those who underwent open emergency resection between 2009 and 2016 by using 1:3 propensity-score matching. Matching variables included sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, cT4, cM1, multivisceral resection, small-bowel distention on CT, and subtotal colectomy.

SETTING

This was a nationwide, population-based study.

PATIENTS

Of 2002 eligible patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer, 158 patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection were matched with 474 patients who underwent open emergency resection.

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention was laparoscopic versus open emergency resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were 90-day mortality, 90-day complications, permanent stoma, disease recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

Intentional laparoscopy resulted in significantly fewer 90-day complications (26.6% vs 38.4%; conditional OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87) and similar 90-day mortality. Laparoscopy resulted in better 3-year overall survival (81.0% vs 69.4%; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79) and disease-free survival (68.3% vs 52.3%; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). Multivariable regression analyses of the unmatched 2002 patients confirmed an independent association of laparoscopy with fewer 90-day complications and better 3-year survival.

LIMITATIONS

Selection bias was the limitation that cannot be completely ruled out because of the retrospective nature of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study with propensity score-matched analysis suggests that intentional laparoscopic emergency resection might improve outcomes in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer compared to open emergency resection. Management of those patients in the emergency setting requires proper selection for intentional laparoscopic resection if relevant expertise is available, thereby considering other alternatives to avoid open emergency resection (ie, decompressing stoma). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 .

RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN LAPAROSCPICA DE EMERGENCIA EN CNCER DE COLON IZQUIERDO OBSTRUCTIVO UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN A NIVEL NACIONAL

ANTECEDENTES:El papel de la laparoscopia en la resección de emergencia en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo sigue sin estar claro, especialmente con respecto al impacto en la supervivencia.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los resultados a corto y largo plazo después de la resección de emergencia laparoscópica versus abierta en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional de cohortes comparó pacientes que se sometieron a resección de laparoscópica de emergencia versus resección abierta de emergencia entre 2009 y 2016, mediante el uso de emparejamineto por puntaje de propensión 1: 3. Las variables emparejadas incluyeron sexo, edad, IMC, puntaje ASA, cirugía abdominal previa, ubicación del tumor, cT4, cM1, resección multivisceral, distensión del intestino delgado en la TAC y colectomía subtotal.ENTORNO CLINICO:A nivel nacional, basado en la población.PACIENTES:De 2002 pacientes elegibles con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo, 158 pacientes con resección laparoscópica s de emergencia e emparejaron con 474 pacientes con resección abierta de emergencia.INTERVENCIONES:Resección laparoscópica de emergencia versus abierta.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las medidas primarias fueron la mortalidad a 90 días, complicaciones a 90 días, estoma permanente, recurrencia de la enfermedad, supervivencia general y supervivencia libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La laparoscopia intencional dió como resultado significativamente menos complicaciones a los 90 días (26,6 % vs 38,4 %, cOR 0,59, IC del 95 %: 0,39-0,87) y una mortalidad similar a los 90 días. La laparoscopia resultó en una mejor supervivencia general a los 3 años (81,0 % vs 69,4 %, HR 0,54, IC del 95 % 0,37-0,79) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (68,3 % vs 52,3 %, HR 0,64, IC del 95 % 0,47-0,87). Los análisis de regresión multivariable de los 2002 pacientes no emparejados confirmaron una asociación independiente de la laparoscopia con menos complicaciones a los 90 días y una mejor supervivencia a los 3 años.LIMITACIONES:El sesgo de selección no se puede descartar por completo debido a la naturaleza retrospectiva de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Estudio poblacional con análisis emparejado por puntaje de propensión sugiere que la resección laparoscópica de emergencia intencional podría mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo en comparación con resección abierta de emergencia, lo que justifica la confirmación en estudios futuros. El manejo de esos pacientes en el entorno de emergencia requiere una selección adecuada para la resección laparoscópica intencional si se dispone de experiencia relevante, considerando así otras alternativas para evitar la resección abierta de emergencia (es decir, ostomia descompresiva). Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon & Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Emergent colectomy for colorectal cancer: A comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive approach

INTRODUCTION

Emergent surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality and outcomes differ by surgical approach.

METHODS

Our study compares short-term surgical outcomes of patients undergoing emergent colectomy for CRC using the open vs minimally invasive (MIS) approach. We performed a four-year review (2012-2015) of the ACS-NSQIP Colectomy dataset and included all adult patients with CRC who underwent emergent surgical intervention. Patients were stratified into groups based on surgical approach: Open and MIS (including laparoscopic and robotic).

RESULTS

A total of 1855 (MIS: 279, Open: 1576) patients were included. Outcome measures were operative time, 30-day complications, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. Multivariate Regression analysis was performed. Patients in the open group were more likely to be older (70y vs. 61y, p < 0.01), have higher ASA class, and were less likely to have received mechanical bowel preparation. On univariate analysis, patients in the MIS group had longer operative time (189 ± 41 min vs. 161 ± 69 min, p < 0.01). Patients in the open group had higher rates of mortality (6.7% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.01) and 30-day complications (28.1% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.01). On regression analysis, the open approach was independently associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality and 30-day complications.

CONCLUSION

Given the lower overall mortality and complications, MIS colectomy may be a safer approach in the emergent treatment of patients with colorectal cancer.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare published outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open emergency colorectal surgery, with mortality as primary outcome.

Background

In contrast to the elective setting, the value of laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until January 6, 2021. Only comparative studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effect model. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment.

Results

Overall, 28 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included, comprising 7865 laparoscopy patients and 55,862 open surgery patients. Quality assessment revealed 'good quality' in 16 of 28 observational studies, and low to intermediate risk of bias for the randomized trial. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower postoperative mortality compared to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.54). Laparoscopy resulted in significantly less postoperative overall morbidity (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65), wound infection (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.77), ileus (OR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.91), pulmonary (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78) and cardiac complications (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90), and shorter length of stay. No meta-analyses were performed for long-term outcomes due to scarcity of data.

Conclusions

The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a benefit of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery, with a lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the almost exclusive use of retrospective observational study designs with inherent biases should be taken into account.

Procedural and post-operative complications associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the procedural and post-operative complications (POC) associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google scholar for English studies comparing the POC in patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery (OS) for right colonic cancer. Data were assessed by the Cochrane-based RevMan 5.4 software (The Cochrane Community, London, UK). Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to represent the results for continuous variables, whereas risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs were used for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies involving a total number of 3410 participants with right colonic carcinoma were included in this analysis. One thousand five hundred and fifteen participants were assigned to undergo invasive laparoscopic surgery whereas 1895 participants were assigned to the open abdominal surgery. Our results showed that the open resection was associated with a shorter length of surgery (MD: 48.63, 95% CI: 30.15-67.12; P = .00001) whereas laparoscopic intervention was associated with a shorter hospital stay [MD (-3.09), 95% CI [-5.82 to (-0.37)]; P = .03]. In addition, POC such as anastomotic leak (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.60-1.55; P = .88), abdominal abscess (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.52-2.49; P = .75), pulmonary embolism (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.09-1.69; P = .21) and deep vein thrombosis (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.39-2.28; P = .89) were not significantly different. Paralytic ileus (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67-1.11; P = .26), intra-abdominal infection (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.15-4.48; P = .82), pulmonary complications (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.57-1.20; P = .32), cardiac complications (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.42-1.27; P = .27) and urological complications (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.52-1.33; P = .44) were also similarly manifested. Our analysis also showed 30-day re-admission and re-operation, and mortality to be similar between laparoscopic versus OS for right colonic carcinoma resection. However, surgical wound infection (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50-0.86; P = .002) was significantly higher with the OS.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, laparoscopic surgery was almost comparable to OS in terms of post-operative outcomes for right-sided colonic cancer resection and was not associated with higher unwanted outcomes. Therefore, laparoscopic intervention should be considered as safe as the open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection, with a decreased hospital stay.

Laparoscopy improves failure to rescue compared to open surgery for emergent colectomy

Emergent colectomy is performed in thousands of Americans each year and carries significant morbidity and mortality. Although laparoscopy has gained favor in the elective setting, its impact on failure to rescue has not been studied on a population level for emergent colectomy. The purpose of this study was to compare failure to rescue following laparoscopic versus open colectomy in the emergency setting. This was a retrospective cohort study of The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Adult patients undergoing emergent colectomy between 2005 and 2018 were selected and stratified into laparoscopic or open surgery groups using the Current Procedural Terminology codes. Propensity matching was performed based on the demographic and comorbidity data. Main outcomes were failure to rescue, mortality, overall morbidity, individual complications, and length of hospital stay. After matching, 11,484 cases were included for analysis, of which 3829 were laparoscopic. Overall, open colectomy conferred higher odds of failure to rescue (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.42-2.08), mortality (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.44-2.07), and morbidity (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.60-1.88) vs laparoscopic cases. Open surgery significantly increased the risk of nearly all measured postoperative complications including return to operating room (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.45), ventilator use > 48 h (OR 2.43, 95% CI 2.03-2.93), and septic shock (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.97-2.80). Hospital length of stay was shorter for patients undergoing laparoscopic (10.4 days) vs open (12.3 days) colectomy (p < 0.0001). This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for emergent colectomy vs open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with improved complications rates, mortality, and failure to rescue, indicating that it is a promising option to improve patient outcomes during emergent colectomy.

Role and Outcome of Laparoscopic/Minimally Invasive Surgery for Variety of Colorectal Emergencies

BACKGROUND

Recently, the laparoscopic or minimally invasive approach has become common practice for planned colorectal malignancies. Its use in the emergency setting is limited by various factors, including resource availability and surgical expertise. However, more recent evidence suggests a laparoscopic approach to colorectal emergencies, which is comparable with laparoscopic routine work, and often promising. In this study, authors have investigated the outcome of the laparoscopic approach in both benign and malignant colorectal emergencies.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (theater records, histology database, and discharge records) over the course of 9 years. The standard surgical approach included conventional laparoscopic and single-port technique (single-incision laparoscopic surgery). The outcome variables included in the final analysis were: success of the minimally invasive approach, conversion rate, postoperative complications, return to theater, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 202 (males, 110 and females, 92) emergency patients with a median age of 59 years underwent surgery between December 2009 and 2019. The mean operating time was 169 minutes and median American Society of Anesthesiology grade III. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery was used in 19 patients (9.4%). The conversion to open surgery was 12.3% (n=25). The majority of them had primary anastomosis (n= 132, 65.3%).The complications from most to least frequent were: CONCLUSION:: The favorable results obtained in this study underline the theme that with the availability of resources and expertise, it is possible to offer minimal invasive approach to emergency colonic pathology.

Role of Emergency Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Study in England

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors associated with the use of laparoscopic surgery and the associated postoperative outcomes for urgent or emergency resection of colorectal cancer in the English National Health Service.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopy is increasingly used for elective colorectal cancer surgery, but uptake has been limited in the emergency setting.

METHODS

Patients recorded in the National Bowel Cancer Audit who underwent urgent or emergency colorectal cancer resection between April 2010 and March 2016 were included. A multivariable multilevel logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of undergoing laparoscopic resection and postoperative outcome according to approach.

RESULTS

There were 15,516 patients included. Laparoscopy use doubled from 15.1% in 2010 to 30.2% in 2016. Laparoscopy was less common in patients with poorer physical status [American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) 4/5 vs 1, OR 0.29 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.23-0.37), P < 0.001] and more advanced T-stage [T4 vs T0-T2, OR 0.28 (0.23-0.34), P < 0.001] and M-stage [M1 vs M0, OR 0.85 (0.75-0.96), P < 0.001]. Age, socioeconomic deprivation, nodal stage, hospital volume, and a dedicated colorectal emergency service were not associated with laparoscopy. Laparoscopic patients had a shorter length of stay [median 8 days (interquartile range (IQR) 5 to 15) vs 12 (IQR 8 to 21), adjusted mean difference -3.67 (-4.60 to 2.74), P < 0.001], and lower 90-day mortality [8.1% vs 13.0%; adjusted OR 0.78 (0.66-0.91), P = 0.004] than patients undergoing open resection. There was no significant difference in rates of readmission or reoperation by approach.

CONCLUSION

The use of laparoscopic approach in the emergency resection of colorectal cancer is linked to a shorter length of hospital stay and reduced postoperative mortality.

Factors Associated With Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Emergency Settings

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with improved colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, but it is used less frequently in emergency settings. We aimed to assess patient-level factors associated with emergency presentation for CRC and the use of MIS in emergency versus elective settings.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined the clinical data of patients who underwent emergency and elective resections for CRC from 2013 to 2015 using the Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences in gender, age, race, urbanization, region, insurance, and clinical characteristics associated with mode of presentation and surgical approach. In-hospital mortality and length of stay by mode of presentation were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 16,277 patients identified, 10,224 (61%) had elective surgery and 6503 (39%) had emergency surgery. Emergency presentations were more likely to be black (14.2% versus 9.5%), Hispanic (18.9% versus 15.4%), Medicaid-insured (9.7% versus 4.2%), and have metastatic cancer (34.4% versus 20.2%) or multiple comorbidities (12.6% versus 4.0%). MIS was the surgical approach in 31.8% of emergency cases versus 48.1% of elective cases. Factors associated with lower odds of MIS for emergencies include Medicaid (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.99), metastases (OR 0.56, CI 0.5-0.63), and multiple comorbidities (OR 0.53, CI 0.4-0.7). Emergency cases experienced higher in-hospital mortality (3.7% versus 1.0%) and a longer median length of stay (10 d versus 5 d).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency CRC presentations are associated with racial minorities, Medicaid insurance, metastatic disease, and multiple comorbidities. Odds of MIS in emergency settings are lowest for patients with Medicaid insurance and highest clinical disease burden.

Enhanced recovery after surgery in emergency colorectal surgery: Review of literature and current practices

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), a multidisciplinary program designed to minimize stress response to surgery and promote the recovery of organ function, has become a standard of perioperative care for elective colorectal surgery. In an elective setting, ERAS program has consistently been shown to decrease postoperative complication, reduce length of hospital stay, shorten convalescence, and lower healthcare cost. Recently, there is emerging evidence that ERAS program can be safely and effectively applied to patients with emergency colorectal conditions such as acute colonic obstruction and intraabdominal infection. This review comprehensively covers the concept and application of ERAS program for emergency colorectal surgery. The outcomes of ERAS program for this emergency surgery are summarized as follows: (1) The ERAS program was associated with a lower rate of overall complication and shorter length of hospital stay - without increased risks of readmission, reoperation and death after emergency colorectal surgery; and (2) Compliance with an ERAS program in emergency setting appeared to be lower than that in an elective basis. Moreover, scientific evidence of each ERAS item used in emergency colorectal operation is shown. Perspectives of ERAS pathway in emergency colorectal surgery are addressed. Finally, evidence-based ERAS protocol for emergency colorectal surgery is presented.

Effects of laparoscopic surgery on survival, quality of care and utilization in patients with colon cancer: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective treatment for colon cancer. However, its effects on short- and long-term health outcomes and medical utilization are not fully elucidated. This study aimed to compare short- and long-term utilization and health outcomes of colon cancer patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

This study was conducted by linking data from Taiwan Cancer Registry, National Health Insurance claims and Death Registry. Patients aged 18 and older with colon cancer between 2009 and 2012 were included in the study. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias between laparoscopic and open surgery groups. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear mixed logistic regression were used to test hypotheses.

RESULTS

Among the 11,269 colon cancer patients who underwent colectomy, 3236 (28.72%) received laparoscopy and 8033 (71.28%) underwent open surgery. Patients who received laparoscopic surgery had better overall survival (HR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97). These patients also had lower 30 day mortality (0.44% vs. 0.91%), lower 1 year mortality (2.83% vs. 4.68%), lower overall occurrence of complications (6.16% vs. 8.77%), shorter mean length of stay (12.53 vs. 14.93 days) and lower cost for index hospitalization (US$4325.34 vs. US$4453.90). No significant differences were observed in medical utilization over a period of 365 days after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that, in both the short- and long-term post-operation periods, laparoscopic surgery reduced the likelihood of postoperative complications, 30 day, and 1 year mortality while being no more expensive than open surgery for colon cancer.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

ᅟ

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).

METHODS

The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.

RESULTS

CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann's procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Lymphatic Permeation Predicts Systemic Recurrence in Combination with Vascular Involvement in Laparoscopically Resected N0 Colon Cancer

High-risk patient selection is required in N0 colon cancer. Although a number of studies have suggested high-risk clinicopathological predictors, most of these are based on analyses in heterogeous patients in terms of surgical procedures. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is becoming a standard procedure worldwide because of its less invasiveness. Accordingly, we aimed to identify bona fide high-risk factors of recurrence in homogeneous N0 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Two hundred and twenty-five patients who underwent laparoscopic curative resection for N0 colon cancer were analyzed. Clinicopathological parameters were tested for their relation to survival. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rate (RFS) was 96.1 per cent. Lymphatic involvement (P < 0.001), vascular involvement (P = 0.007), and size of tumor (P = 0.023) were significantly associated with worse prognosis in the univariate analyses. Lymphatic involvement was the independent prognostic factor associated with RFS in the multivariate analysis (P = 0.013). Importantly, lymphatic involvement predicts detrimental prognosis only when vascular involvement is present. The RFS of the patients with both lymphatic and vascular involvement was 88.9 per cent, whereas it was 100 per cent in the counterpart. Differentiation, vascular involvement preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen, and CA 19-9 levels were significantly associated with lymphatic involvement in a multivariate logistic regression analyses. The present study concludes that lymphatic involvement in the presence of vascular involvement may be a high risk for systemic recurrence in the laparoscopically resected N0 colon cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for obstructing right colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemicolectomy is the treatment of choice for intestinal obstruction from right colon cancer. This review compares the laparoscopic vs open access in hemicolectomy for patients with right colon cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies published after January 2017 was performed according to the Prisma guidelines. The study has been recorded on the Prospero register (CRD42016044108).

RESULTS

Five studies were included for review. Only one anastomotic leak was reported in conventional open anastomosis group (1.9%) and none of the studies included in the meta-analysis reported re-operations during the first 30 postoperative days. The 30-day postoperative mortality did not differ between the two groups. The length of incision, blood loss, early mobilization after surgery, the 30-day postoperative overall complication rate and hospital length of stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group. The difference in the duration of procedure was statistically significant in favor of the open group. The number of dissected lymph nodes, the overall survival at 5 years and time to flatus were described only in one study, without any significant difference. Finally, none of the trials reported any information concerning differences in the costs between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The better outcomes described in this study achieved with laparoscopy, must be interpreted with caution because of the small number of patients involved, the selection and publication bias and the low level of evidence of the analysed trials. Indeed, the advantages of a minimally invasive approach, which have been demonstrated by the present meta-analysis, should encourage the use of laparoscopy also in emergency setting.

Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer does not affect nodal harvest comparing elective procedures: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

About 30% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) present with acute symptoms. The adequacy of oncologic resections is a matter of concern since few authors reported that emergency surgery in these patients results in a lower lymph node harvest (LNH). In addition, emergency resections have been reported with a longer hospital stay and higher morbidity rate. We thus conducted a propensity score-matched analysis with the aim of investigating LNH in emergency specimens comparing with elective ones. Secondary aim was the comparison of morbidity and hospital stay.

METHODS

Eighty-seven consecutive R0 emergency surgical procedures were matched with elective CRCs using the propensity score method and the following covariates: age, sex, stage, and localization. Groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses. Outcome measures were LNH, nodal ratio, Clavien's morbidity grades, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Emergency patients presented more metastatic nodes compared with elective ones (p 0.017); however, both presented a comparable mean LNH. Multivariate analysis documented that a T stage ≥3 was the only variable correlated with a nodal positivity (OR 6.3). On univariate analysis, emergency CRCs had a longer mean hospital stay compared with elective resections (p 0.006) and a higher rate of Clavien ≥4 events (p 0.0173). Finally, emergency resection and an age >66 years were variables independently correlated with a mean hospital stay >10 days (OR, respectively, 3.7 and 3.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency CRC resections were equivalent to the elective procedures with respect to LNH. However, emergency surgery correlated with a longer mean hospital stay. Graphical abstract Emergency and Elective resections for CRC provide similar LNH.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer in rural hospitals

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Various randomized clinical studies have suggested that short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LAP) for colorectal cancer are comparable with those of open surgery (OP). However, these studies were performed in high-volume hospitals. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of LAP versus OP for colorectal cancer in rural hospitals.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched case-control study of patients who underwent colorectal surgery from January 2004 to April 2009 in 10 hospitals in Japan. All patients underwent curative surgery for pathologically diagnosed stage II or III colorectal cancer. The primary end point was 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In total, 319 patients who underwent LAP and 1020 patients who underwent OP were balanced to 261 pairs. There was no significant difference in the OS and DFS between two groups. The operation time was significantly shorter for OP than for LAP. Blood loss was significantly lower in LAP than in OP. There was no difference in intraoperative morbidity between the two groups. The postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in LAP than in OP. The hospital stay was significantly shorter in LAP than in OP. There was no significant difference in 90-day postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery may be a feasible option for colorectal cancer in rural hospitals.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy is increasingly being adopted for the treatment of colon cancer; however, the long-term effectiveness of this approach in a real-world clinical setting has yet to be verified. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and costs associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy from the perspective of the National Health Insurance (NHI) system in Taiwan.

METHODS

A nationwide population-based colon cancer cohort was observed by linking the Taiwan Cancer Registry, claims data from NHI system, and the National Death Registry. Adult patients with Stage I to Stage III colon cancer who underwent primary cancer resection using either laparoscopy or open colectomy between 2009 and 2011 were included. A propensity score-matched cohort (1745 pairs) was applied to examine three clinical endpoints: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival within 2 years after the operation. To comply with the perspective as well as the analytic horizon of the study, we limited the research to NHI claims from the study population for the corresponding time period. The health outcomes and net monetary benefits were verified by multivariate mixed-effect models.

RESULTS

This analysis revealed that laparoscopy resulted in longer overall survival (adjusted difference 16.8 days, 95 % CI 7.3-26.2), recurrence-free survival (16.8 days, 5.0-28.6) and disease-free survival (26.4 days, 7.4-45.4), compared to open colectomy at 2 years post-op. Laparoscopy also led to a significantly shorter length of stay (3.2 days, 2.4-3.9) and lower index hospitalization costs (US$ 455, 181-729) than open colectomy; however, no differences in costs were observed over the long term. Overall, laparoscopy was more cost-effective than open colectomy under various willingness-to-pay thresholds in the setting of the Taiwan NHI.

CONCLUSIONS

The continued adoption of laparoscopy in primary curable colon cancer resection is expected to reduce health care costs over the short term while providing considerable health benefits over the long term.

Urgent surgery after emergency presentation for colorectal cancer has no impact on overall and disease-free survival: a propensity score analysis

Background

It remains a matter of debate whether colorectal cancer resection in an emergency setting negatively impacts on survival. Our objective was therefore to assess the impact of urgent versus elective operation on overall and disease-free survival in patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer by using propensity score adjusted analysis.

Methods

In a single-center study patients operated for colorectal cancer between 1989 and 2013 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Median follow-up was 44 months. Patients with neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. The impact of urgent operation on overall and disease-free survival was assessed using both Cox regression and propensity score analyses.

Results

Of 747 patients with colorectal cancer, 84 (11 %) had urgent and 663 elective cancer resection. The propensity score revealed strongly biased patient characteristics (0.22 ± 0.16 vs. 0.10 ± 0.09; P < 0.001). In unadjusted analysis urgent operation was associated with a 35 % increased risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio(HR) of death = 1.35, 95 % confidence interval(CI):1.02–1.78, P = 0.045). In risk-adjusted Cox regression analysis urgent operation was not associated with poor overall (HR = 1.08, 95 %CI:0.79–1.48; P = 0.629) or disease-free survival (HR = 1.02, 95 %CI:0.76–1.38; P = 0.877). Similarly in propensity score analysis urgent operation did not influence overall (HR = 0.98, 95 % CI:0.74–1.29), P = 0.872) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.89, 95 %CI:0.68 to 1.16, P = 0.387).

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that worse oncologic outcomes after urgent operation for colorectal cancer are caused by clinical circumstances and not due to the urgent operation itself. Urgent operation is not a risk factor for colorectal cancer resection.

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.

Emergent Laparoscopic Colectomy Is an Effective Alternative to Open Resection for Benign and Malignant Diseases: a Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open resections performed for colonic emergencies. A systematic search of the literature identified previously published comparative studies regarding emergent laparoscopic colectomy (ELC) and emergent open colectomy (EOC). Meta-analysis was performed utilizing a pooled odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables and a weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven studies involving 752 patients were identified. Although operation time was noted to be significantly shorter for EOC, patients post-ELC had significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.30, 0.66; P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, recovery time for post-ELC patients was significantly shorter, as was the length of hospital stay (WMD -2.78 days; 95 % CI -3.17, -2.38; P < 0.00001), the time to regular dietary habits (WMD -1.32 days; 95 % CI -2.51, -0.13; P = 0.03), and the time to recover bowel movement (WMD -0.55 days; 95 % CI -0.89, -0.22; P = 0.001). Reoperation rate and mortality were found to be comparable between ELC and EOC. The R0 resection rate and the number of lymph nodes harvested were also comparable between ELC and EOC for malignant diseases. Whether for benign or malignant disease, ELC is a safe and feasible procedure for colonic emergencies compared with EOC, despite being relatively time-consuming.

Emergency laparoscopy: Role and implementation

Laparoscopic surgery has emerged over the past two decades as the surgical approach of choice in the treatment of many digestive disorders. Laparoscopy has its place in the management of abdominal surgical emergencies since it provides the same benefits: less postoperative pain and shorter length of hospital stay when compared to laparotomy. However, its role in the management of abdominal emergencies has not yet been fully clarified. In this review, we focus on what has been validated concerning the role of emergency laparoscopy in the management of abdominal diseases.

The current status of emergent laparoscopic colectomy: a population-based study of clinical and financial outcomes

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies evaluating laparoscopic colectomy and outcomes compared with open surgery have concentrated on elective resections. As such, data assessing non-elective laparoscopic colectomies are limited. Our goal was to evaluate the current usage and outcomes of laparoscopic in the urgent and emergent setting in the USA.

METHODS

A national inpatient database was reviewed from 2008 to 2011 for right, left, and sigmoid colectomies in the non-elective setting. Cases were stratified by approach into open or laparoscopic groups. Demographics, perioperative clinical variables, and financial outcomes were compared across each group.

RESULTS

A total of 22,719 non-elective colectomies were analyzed. The vast majority (95.8 %) was open. Most cases were performed in an urban setting at non-teaching hospitals by general surgeons. Colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to perform a case laparoscopic than general surgeons (p < 0.001). Demographics were similar between open and laparoscopic groups; however, the disease distribution by approach varied, with significantly more severe cases in the open colectomy arm (p < 0.001). Cases performed laparoscopically had significantly better mortality and complication rates. Laparoscopic cases also had significantly improved outcomes, including shorter length of stay and hospital costs (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed less than 5 % of urgent and emergent colectomies in the USA are performed laparoscopically. Colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach a case laparoscopically than general surgeons. Outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy in this setting resulted in reduced length of stay, lower complication rates, and lower costs. Increased adoption of laparoscopy in the non-elective setting should be considered.

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.

Systematic review of emergent laparoscopic colorectal surgery for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopic surgery has become well established in the management of both and malignant colorectal disease. The last decade has seen increasing numbers of surgeons trained to a high standard in minimally-invasive surgery. However there has not been the same enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopy in emergency colorectal surgery. There is a perception that emergent surgery is technically more difficult and may lead to worse outcomes. The present review aims to provide a comprehensive and critical appraisal of the available literature on the use of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) in the emergency setting. The literature is broadly divided by the underlying pathology; that is, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticulitis and malignant obstruction. There were no randomized trials and the majority of the studies were case-matched series or comparative studies. The overall trend was that LCS is associated with shorter hospital stay, par or fewer complications but an increased operating time.Emergency LCS can be safely undertaken for both benign and malignant disease providing there is appropriate patient selection, the surgeon is adequately experienced and there are sufficient resources to allow for a potentially more complex operation.

Robotic right colectomy for hemorrhagic right colon cancer: a case report and review of the literature of minimally invasive urgent colectomy

Right colon cancer rarely presents as an emergency, in which bowel occlusion and massive bleeding are the most common clinical presentations. Although there are no definite guidelines, the first line treatment for massive right colon cancer bleeding should ideally stop the bleeding using endoscopy or interventional radiology, subsequently allowing proper tumor staging and planning of a definite treatment strategy. Minimally invasive approaches for right and left colectomy have progressively increased and are widely performed in elective settings, with laparoscopy chosen in the majority of cases. Conversely, in emergent and urgent surgeries, minimally invasive techniques are rarely performed. We report a case of an 86-year-old woman who was successfully treated for massive rectal bleeding in an urgent setting by robotic surgery (da Vinci Intuitive Surgical System®). At admission, the patient had severe anemia (Hb 6 g/dL) and hemodynamic stability. A computer tomography scanner with contrast enhancement showed a right colon cancer with active bleeding; no distant metastases were found. A colonoscopy did not show any other bowel lesion, while a constant bleeding from the right pre-stenotic colon mass was temporarily arrested by endoscopic argon coagulation. A robotic right colectomy in urgent setting (within 24 hours from admission) was indicated. A three-armed robot was used with docking in the right side of the patient and a fourth trocar for the assistant surgeon. Because of the patient's poor nutritional status, a double-barreled ileocolostomy was performed. The post-operative period was uneventful. As the neoplasia was a pT3N0 adenocarcinoma, surveillance was decided after a multidisciplinary meeting, and restoration of the intestinal continuity was performed 3 months later, once good nutritional status was achieved. In addition, we reviewed the current literature on minimally invasive colectomy performed for colon carcinoma in emergent or urgent setting. No study on robotic approach was found. Seven studies evaluating the role of laparoscopic colectomy concluded that this technique is a safe and feasible option associated with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. It may require longer operative time, but morbidity and mortality rates appeared comparable to open colectomy. However, the surgeon's experience and the right selection of candidate patients cannot be understated.