Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a case-control study

OPEN, LAPAROSCOPIC AND TRANSANAL TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND NETWORK META ANALYSIS

AIM: to compare the effectiveness of different methods of total mesorectumectomy (TME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: the systematic review performed in accordance with PRISMA practice and recommendations.

RESULTS: Forty-one papers were included in the analysis. Fourteen studies were for transanal total mesorectumectomy (TA TME) (n=480) compared with laparoscopic (LA TME), 26 – for LA TME vs open (n=6820), 1 – for open vs TA TME. There was no significant difference between open TME, LA TME and TA TME in grade 3 quality of mesorectumectomy by Quirke. The positive circular resection margin (CRM) is less often in TA TME group, then LA TME (OR=2.58, CI 1.34-4.97, p=0.005). There was significantly lower positive CRM rate in LA TME then open TME (OR=0.73, CI 0.63-0.85, p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications rates between LA TME and TA TME (p=0.72). Network meta-analysis showed less postoperative complications followed LA TME than open TME (OR=0.75, CI 0.65-0.84).

CONCLUSION: TA TME is comparable with laparoscopic and open TME in short term results. Rates of positive CRM, the quality of Grade 1 mesorectal excision, the conversion rate, the postoperative urinary dysfunction, may have better results in TA TME.

Surgical resection for rectal cancer. Is laparoscopic surgery as successful as open approach? A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, it has been questioned if minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was surgically successful. We decided to perform a meta-analysis to determine if minimally invasive surgery is adequate to obtain a complete resection for curable rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search pertaining to evaluation between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for rectal cancer was performed until 30th November 2016 in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive and open surgery. Outcomes analyzed were number of clear Distal Resection Margins (DRM or DM), complete Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) and complete, nearly complete and incomplete Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) and of patients who received laparoscopic or open treatment for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

12 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of successful surgical resection was similar between open and laparoscopic surgery. About distance from distal margin of the specimen, clear CRM and complete TME there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD = -0.090 cm, p = 0.364, 95% CI -0.283, 0.104; OR = 1.032, p = 0.821, 95% CI 0.784, 1.360; OR = 0.933, p = 0.720, 95% CI 0.638, 1.364, respectively). The analysis of nearly complete TME showed a significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.407, p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.103, 1.795), while the analysis of incomplete TME showed a non-significant difference (OR = 1.010, p = 0.964, 95% CI 0.664, 1.534).

CONCLUSIONS

By pooling together data from 5 RCTs and 7 nRCTs, we are able to provide evidence of safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery. Waiting for further randomized clinical trials, our results are encouraging to introduce laparoscopic rectal resection in daily practice.

The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer was reported as advantageous compared to laparotomy resection. However, this finding remains controversial, especially given the two recent randomized controlled trials published on The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Objective

To perform a meta-analysis that compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

Data source

To identify clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer published by August 2016, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Springer Link and Clinicaltrials.gov databases by combining various key words. Data were extracted from every identified study to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 43 articles from 38 studies with a total of 13408 patients were included. Although laparoscopic radical rectectomy increased operation time (MD = 37.23, 95% CI: 28.88 to 45.57, P < 0.0001), it can significantly decrease the blood loss (MD = –143.13, 95% CI: –183.48 to –102.78, P < 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (MD = –0.97, 95% CI: –1.35 to –0.59, P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD = –2.40, 95% CI: –3.10 to –1.70, P < 0.0001), postoperative complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86, P < 0.0001), mortality (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.57, P < 0.0001) and the CRM positive rate (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75, P < 0.0001). No significant difference were noted between the groups regarding intraoperative complications, TME completeness and harvesting of lymph nodes. Regarding the long-term survival data, the laparoscopic group was not inferior to laparotomy. Some pooled data, such as 3-year DFS, 5-year OS and 5-year local recurrence were even superior for the laparoscopic group.

Conclusions

Given the definite benefits in short-term outcomes and trending benefits in long-term outcomes that were observed, we recommend laparoscopic surgery be used for rectal cancer resection.

Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in less post-operative pain, faster recovery, shorter length of stay and reduced morbidity compared with open procedures. Less or minimally invasive techniques have been developed to further minimise surgical trauma and to decrease the size and number of incisions. This study describes the safety and feasibility of using an umbilical multi-instrument access (MIA) port (Olympus TriPort+) device with the placement of just one 12-mm suprapubic trocar in laparoscopic (double-port) abdominoperineal resections (APRs) in rectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 20 patients undergoing double-port APRs for rectal cancer between June 2011 and August 2013. Preoperative data were gathered in a prospective database, and post-operative data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

The 20 patients (30% female) had a median age of 67 years (range 46-80 years), and their median body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/m2 (range 20-31 kg/m2). An additional third trocar was placed in 2 patients. No laparoscopic procedures were converted to an open procedure. Median operating time was 195 min (range 115-306 min). A radical resection (R0 resection) was achieved in all patients, with a median of 14 lymph nodes harvested. Median length of stay was 8 days (range 5-43 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic APR using a MIA trocar is a feasible and safe procedure. A MIA port might be of benefit as an extra option in the toolbox of the laparoscopic surgeon to further minimise surgical trauma.

Meta-analysis of the risk of small bowel obstruction following open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

One of the potential advantages of laparoscopic compared with open colorectal surgery is a reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction events. Early reports support this proposal, but accumulated evidence is lacking.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials and observational studies by searching the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases from 1990 to August 2015. The primary outcomes were early and late postoperative bowel obstruction following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. Both ileus and bowel obstruction were defined as a postoperative bowel obstruction. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed, and a random-effects model was used to account for the heterogeneity among the studies.

Results

Twenty-four randomized clinical trials and 88 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis; 106 studies reported early outcome and 12 late outcome. Collectively, these studies reported on the outcomes of 148 392 patients, of whom 58 133 had laparoscopic surgery and 90 259 open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced rates of early (odds ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·54 to 0·72; P &lt; 0·001) and late (odds ratio 0·61, 0·41 to 0·92; P = 0·019) postoperative bowel obstruction. Weighted mean values for early postoperative bowel obstruction were 8 (95 per cent c.i. 6 to 10) and 5 (3 to 7) per cent for open and laparoscopic surgery respectively, and for late bowel obstruction were 4 (2 to 6) and 3 (1 to 5) per cent respectively.

Conclusion

The reduction in postoperative bowel obstruction demonstrates an advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal disease.

Single-access laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery using the glove technique

INTRODUCTION

Single-access laparoscopic surgery has been widely adopted in many kinds of surgery including laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Performing single-access rectal surgery, however, has technical drawbacks such as instrument collision and endostaple application issues. The glove technique is likely to mitigate these problems.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with anal canal to mid-rectum cancers were recruited and underwent single-access laparoscopic surgery via the glove technique. An incision was made at the paraumbilicus to insert a wound protector with surgical gloves. The operation was medial to lateral and inferior mesenteric artery and inferior mesenteric vein were identified and controlled. Total mesorectal excision was performed while keeping traction and countertraction down to the pelvic floor.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 251.66 min (range, 180-300 min). Hospital stay ranged from 5 to 8 days (median, 7 days). No serious early postoperative surgical problems related to complications were observed. The pathologic results showed good mesorectal capsule grading. The mean lymph node harvest was 14 nodes (range, 7-26 nodes), and the mean wound length was 5 cm (range, 4-6 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

In rectal surgery, the glove technique for single-access laparoscopic surgery is feasible and is comparable to commercial single-port techniques in terms of oncologic results.

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

This review of cancer outcomes is based on key literature searches of the medical databases and meta-analysis of short-term benefits of laparoscopy in rectal cancer treatment.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) published between January 2000 and September 2013 listed in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42013005076). The primary endpoint was clearance of the circumferential resection margin. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model, and sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model; subgroup analysis was performed on subsets of patients with extraperitoneal cancer of the rectum. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used as outcome measures.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (10,861 patients) met the inclusion criteria; eight were RCTs (2,659 patients). The RCTs reported involvement of the circumferential margin in 7.9 % of patients who underwent laparoscopic and in 6.9 % of those undergoing open surgery; the overall RR was 1.00 (95 % confidence interval 0.73-1.35) with no heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis of patients with extraperitoneal cancer showed equivalent involvement of the circumferential margin in the two treatment groups. Although significantly more lymph nodes were retrieved in the surgical specimen after open surgery, the MD of -0.56 was of marginal clinical significance. The sensitivity and subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the rate of R0 resections, distal margin clearance, mesorectal fascia integrity, or local recurrence at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence from RCTs and non-RCTs, the short-term benefit and oncological adequacy of laparoscopic rectal resection appear to be equivalent to open surgery, with some evidence potentially pointing to comparable long-term outcomes and oncological adequacy in selected patients with primary resectable rectal cancer.

Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in safety of laparoscopic rectal resection for extraperitoneal cancer, compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review from 2000 to July 2012 was performed searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and morbidity. Then a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, representing 1684 patients, met the inclusion criteria: four were randomized for a total of 814 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.2% of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.3% of patients in the open group, with an RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.19-1.64, p = 0.287). The overall incidence of short-term complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.5%) compared to the open group (38.2%), with an RR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.94, p = 0.004). Surgical complications, wound complications, blood loss and the need for blood transfusion, time for bowel movement recovery, food intake recovery, and hospital stay were significantly lower or less frequent in the laparoscopic group. The incidence of intra-operative injuries, anastomotic leakages, and surgical re-interventions was similar in the two groups. Only operative time was in favour of the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality was lower after laparoscopy although not significantly so, while the short-term morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, was significantly lower after laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer compared to open surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short-term and pathological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus open surgery (OS) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature databases were searched for eligible studies published up to July 2013. The rates of postoperative complication, positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), and the number of lymph nodes harvested were evaluated.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs enrolling 953 patients were included. Compared to OS, LS had similar rate of postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 to 1.22], comparable rate of positive CRM (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02), and smaller number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference -0.8; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.5). LS also had significantly less blood loss, faster bowel movement recovery, and shorter postoperative hospitalization than those of OS.

CONCLUSION

LS is associated with favorable short-term benefits, similar postoperative complication rate, and comparable pathological outcomes for rectal cancer after NCRT compared to OS despite a slight difference in the number of lymph nodes. Additional high-quality studies are needed to validate long-term outcomes of LS following NCRT.

Surgical margins and short-term results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer

It is suggested that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of low-lying rectal cancer has advantages over an open procedure with less blood loss, reduced hospital stay, and a shorter disability period. Complete macroscopic surgical resection appears to be aided by improved pelvic view offered by laparoscopy.

Background and Objectives:

The confines of the narrow bony pelvis make laparoscopic surgery more challenging in the treatment of low rectal cancer. Macroscopic evaluation of the completeness of the mesorectum provides detailed information about the quality of surgery. This study was performed to observe the short-term outcomes and evaluate the macroscopic quality of specimens acquired from laparoscopic total mesorectal excision versus open total mesorectal excision in patients with low rectal cancer.

Methods:

A total of 177 patients with low rectal cancer underwent total mesorectal excision by either a laparoscopic (n = 87) or open (n = 90) approach. In all cases the surgical time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative bowel opening, and hospital stay were assessed. Special attention was given to the macroscopic judgment concerning the cut edge of peritoneal reflection, Denonvilliers fascia, completeness of the mesorectum, and bowel wall below the mesorectum.

Results:

The surgical time was 160 ± 40 minutes in the laparoscopic group. It was not significantly different from that in the open group (P = .782). The operative blood loss was 28 ± 5 mL in the group undergoing laparoscopic surgery and 80 ± 20 mL in the group undergoing open surgery (P < .01). Intraoperative injuries to the pelvic autonomic nervous system were recorded in 4 cases in the laparoscopic group compared with 12 cases in the open group (P < .05). The incidences of chest infection and anastomotic leakage were similar between the 2 approaches. The postoperative bowel opening time was 2.1 ± 1.5 days in the laparoscopic group and 3.5 ± 1.6 days in the open group (P < .01), whereas the hospital stay was 5.2 ± 1.8 days and 7.0 ± 2.1 days, respectively (P < .01). Intact Denonvilliers fascia and complete total mesorectal excision were more likely to be achieved by the laparoscopic approach than the open approach (P < .01). Colorectal anastomoses were located significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P < .01).

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has consistent advantages over open total mesorectal excision, including similar surgical time, less blood loss, reduced hospital stay, and shorter disability period. A complete macroscopic specimen is more likely to be acquired by laparoscopy because of the better pelvic view offered by the approach.

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer results in higher lymph node yield and better short-term outcomes than open surgery: a large single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

Prognosis in rectal cancer is closely related to mesorectal integrity, margin status, and adequate lymph node dissection. The impact of laparoscopy on the pathologic and short-term outcomes remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare the pathologic and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This is a large single-center retrospective comparative study using a prospective database.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent primary resections for rectal cancer from January 2007 to September 2011 were identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pathologic (nodal harvest, mesorectal integrity, circumferential, and distal margins) and operative outcomes were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four (mean age, 61 years; 65% male) patients underwent resections for primary rectal cancer, including 118 laparoscopic (99 restorative proctectomies, 19 abdominoperineal resections) and 116 open (69 restorative proctectomies, 47 abdominoperineal resections) resections. Both groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics. The laparoscopic group had significantly more lymph nodes (26 vs 21, p = 0.02) than the open group, with no differences in circumferential margins, proportion of distal resection margins <l cm, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. The impact of laparoscopic resection on lymph nodes was also observed for restorative proctectomy (27 vs 21, p = 0.03). Furthermore, obese and laparoscopic-converted patients had equivalent pathologic outcomes for laparoscopic and open resection. Laparoscopy was associated with longer operative time (245 vs 213 minutes, p = 0.002); less blood loss (284 vs 388 mL, p = 0.01); shorter incisions (8 vs 20 cm, p = 0.0001) and hospital stay (7 vs 8 days, p = 0.05); and lower rates of 30-day morbidity (25% vs 43%, p = 0.04) and wound infections (9 vs 20%, p = 0.04). On multivariate regression, laparoscopic resection and year of surgery were the only independent predictors of greater lymph node harvest.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy for primary rectal cancer is associated with a greater number of lymph nodes as well as short-term benefits.

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer reduces short-term mortality and morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer treatment remains controversial. We evaluated differences in the safety of laparoscopic rectal resection versus open surgery for cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review from 2000 to 2011 was performed searching the Medline and Embase databases (prospero registration CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and overall morbidity. Then a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR of less than 1.0 was in favor of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on surgical and medical complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies, representing 4,539 patients, met the inclusion criteria; eight were randomized for a total of 1,746 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.0 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.46 (95 % confidence interval 0.21-0.99, p = 0.048). The raw incidence of overall complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.8 %) compared to the open group (35.4 %). The overall RR was 0.83 (95 % confidence interval 0.76-0.91, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality and morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, were significantly lower after laparoscopic compared to open surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare LTME and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) as the primary treatment for patients with middle and low rectal cancer with regard to short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches up to October 30, 2011 were performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated by LTME versus OTME. Fixed and random effects models were used. Review Manager version 5.1 software was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Four RCTs enrolling 624 participants (LTME group, 308 cases; OTME group, 316 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. LTME for rectal cancer was associated with a significantly longer operative time but significantly less intraoperative blood loss and earlier time to pass first flatus. We found no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, overall morbidity, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups. Time to resume liquid diet, time to resume normal diet, and length of hospital stay, although not significantly different between the two groups, did suggest a positive trend toward LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be concluded that LTME is a safe and effective alternative to OTME and is justifiable under the setting of clinical trials. Additional RCTs that compare LTME and OTME and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of LTME are required to determine the advantages of LTME over OTME.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a matched case-control study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) currently is commonly incorporated into the multimodal treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer after nCRT.

METHODS

A series of 72 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group) for rectal cancer after nCRT were matched for type of surgery, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class with 72 patients who underwent conventional surgery during the same time period (Open group). The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of age, distance of tumor from the anal verge, body mass index, or posttreatment pathologic stage of the disease. There were significant differences between the Lap and Open groups in terms of blood loss (median: 200 vs 400 ml; P < 0.001), duration of surgery (median: 270 vs 240 min; P < 0.001), time to passing of first flatus (median: 2 vs 3 days; P < 0.001), time to start of normal diet (median: 5 vs 6 days; P < 0.001), and hospital stay (median: 12 vs 15 days; P < 0.001). A significant difference in the number of lymph nodes harvested was not identified between the two groups, although more patients in the Open group had a positive circumferential resection margin than in the Lap group (10 vs 1%; P = 0.03). The short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery also were observed when the 64 patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) in each of the two groups were compared separately.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, especially laparoscopic APR, after nCRT is safe and associated with earlier recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, and an oncologically adequate specimen compared with conventional open surgery.

Laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision: 10-year report

AIM

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is currently the gold standard for resection of mid or low rectal cancer and is associated with a low local recurrence rate. However, few studies have reported the long-term oncological outcome following use of a laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological outcome after laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME with a median follow up of about 4 years.

METHOD

Patients with mid or low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME with curative intent between March 1999 and March 2009 were prospectively recruited for analysis.

RESULTS

During the 10-year study period, 177 patients underwent laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME with curative intent for rectal cancer. Conversion was required in two (1%) patients. There was no operative mortality. At a median follow-up period of 49 months, local recurrence had occurred in nine (5.1%) patients. The overall metastatic recurrence rate after curative resection was 22%. The overall 5-year survival and 5-year disease-free survival in the present study were 74% and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that laparoscopic sphincter-preserving TME is safe with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those of open surgery.

Motilin levels and evaluation of gastrointestinal function

Motilin, first discovered by Brown in 1966, is a 22-amino acid polypeptide hormone secreted by Mo cells in a regular and cyclic pattern during the interdigestive period. The main function of motilin is to increase the migrating myoelectric complex component of gastrointestinal motility and stimulate the production of pepsin. This article gives an overview of the physiological function of motilin and summarizes the latest advances in understanding the relationship between motilin levels and evaluation of gastrointestinal function.

Laparoscopic and open resection for colorectal cancer: an evaluation of cellular immunity

Background

Colorectal cancer is one kind of frequent malignant tumors of the digestive tract which gets high morbidity and mortality allover the world. Despite the promising clinical results recently, less information is available regarding the perioperative immunological effects of laparoscopic surgery when compared with the open surgery. This study aimed to compare the cellular immune responses of patients who underwent laparoscopic(LCR) and open resections(OCR) for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Between Mar 2009 and Sep 2009, 35 patients with colorectal carcinoma underwent LCR by laparoscopic surgeon. These patients were compared with 33 cases underwent conventional OCR by colorectal surgeon. Clinical data about the patients were collected prospectively. Comparison of the operative details and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open resection was performed. Peripheral venous blood samples from these 68 patients were taken prior to surgery as well as on postoperative days(POD) 1, 4 and 7. Cell counts of total white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocyte subpopulations, natural killer(NK) cells as well as CRP were determined by blood counting instrument, flow cytometry and hematology analyzer.

Results

There was no difference in the age, gender and tumor status between the two groups. The operating time was a little longer in the laparoscopic group (P > 0.05), but the blood loss was less (P = 0.039). Patients with laparoscopic resection had earlier return of bowel function and earlier resumption of diet as well as shorter median hospital stay (P < 0.001). Compared with OCR group, cell numbers of total lymphocytes, CD4⁺T cells and CD8⁺T cells were significant more in LCR group (P < 0.05) on POD 4, while there was no difference in the CD45RO⁺T or NK cell numbers between the two groups. Cellular immune responds were similar between the two groups on POD1 and POD7.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colorectal resection gets less surgery stress and short-term advantages compared with open resection. Cellular immune respond appears to be less affected by laparoscopic colorectal resection when compared with open resection.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery produces better outcomes for high risk cancer patients compared to open surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The excellent outcomes reported for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in selected patients could also be potentially advantageous for high risk patients. This prospective study was designed to examine the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic resection in high risk patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2008 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for colorectal cancer were stratified into high and low risk groups. High risk was defined as >or=80 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists >or=3, preoperative radiotherapy, T4 tumor and BMI >or=30. Outcomes included median length of stay, lymph node yield, resection margins, 30-day hospital readmission, postoperative mortality and major postoperative complications requiring reoperation within 30 days of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 424 patients underwent elective laparoscopic (224) and open (200) resections. Overall mortality rate for laparoscopic resection was 1 of 224 (0.4%) versus 4 of 200 (2%) for open resection. Median length of stay was 4 (2-33) versus 10 (1-69) days (P < 0.0001), and rate of complications requiring reoperation was 2 of 224 (0.8%) compared with 10 of 200 (5%) (P = 0.02).Among the 280 (66%) "high risk" patients, 146 had laparoscopic resection (8 conversions; 5%) and 134 had open resections. Median hospital stay was 4 (2-33) days in the laparoscopic group versus 11 (1-69) days in the open group (P < 0.0001). Complications requiring reoperation were 2 of 146 (1.4%) after laparoscopic resection versus 7 of 134 (5.2%) after open resection (P < 0.09). Readmission rate after laparoscopic resection was 12.3% versus 5.2% after open resection (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer can achieve excellent results even in "high risk" patients and is associated with significant reductions in length of stay compared with open resection.

Total mesorectal excision: what are we doing?

The introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer has reduced local recurrence rates and improved oncologic outcomes, although complication rates such as anastomotic leak have also been a consequence. With the advent of neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, many are questioning how this development may change the role of TME. This review presents a history of how TME evolved and a description of this technique. Complication rates, the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on local recurrence, variations of TME such as nerve-sparing proctectomy and cancer-specific mesorectal excision, and a review of functional outcomes for various methods of reconstruction are presented.

Is laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery equal to open surgery? An evidence based perspective

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is an evolving subject. Recent studies show that LCS can not only offer safe surgery but evidence is growing that this new technique can be superior to classical open procedures. Fewer perioperative complications and faster postoperative recovery are regularly mentioned when studies of LCS are presented. Even though the learning curve of LCS is frequently debated when limitations of laparoscopic surgeries are reviewed, studies show that in experienced hands LCS can be a safe procedure for colorectal cancer treatment. The learning curve however, is associated with high conversion rates and economical aspects such as higher costs and prolonged hospital stay. Nevertheless, laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery (LCCR) offers several advantages such as less co-morbidity and less postoperative pain in comparison with open procedures. Furthermore, the good exposure of the pelvic cavity by laparoscopy and the magnification of anatomical structures seem to facilitate pelvic dissection laparoscopically. Moreover, recent studies describe no difference in safety and oncological radicalness in LCCR compared to the open total mesorectal excision (TME). The oncological adequacy of LCCR still remains unproven today, because long-term results do not yet exist. To date, only a few studies have described the results of laparoscopic TME combined with preoperative adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer. The aim of this review is to examine the various areas of development and

controversy of LCCR in comparison to the conventional open approach.

Quality of mesorectum after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer - results of an audited teaching programme in Spain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective observational study was to compare the quality of total mesorectal excision between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

METHOD

In April 2006, the Spanish Association of Surgeons started an audited teaching programme. The project was similar to the Norwegian one and several training courses were arranged. Patients were classified into two groups: laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and open rectal resection (OR). The quality of the mesorectum was scored: complete, nearly complete or incomplete. The circumferential margin (CRM) was considered positive, if tumour was located 1 mm or less from the surface of the specimen.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2008, 604 patients underwent rectal resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: 209 patients were included in the LR group and 395 patients in the OR group. There were no differences in terms of number of lymph nodes affected, distance of the tumour from CRM. The mesorectum was complete in 464 (76.8%), nearly complete in 91 (15.1%) and incomplete in 49 patients (8.1%). CRM was negative in 534 patients (88.4%). No differences were observed between the two groups. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 38.8% in LR group and 44.6% in OR group (P = 0.170). Overall postoperative mortality rate was 2.5%. One patient died (0.5%) in the LR group and 14 patients died (3.5%) in the OR group (P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is feasible with the quality of mesorectal excision and postoperative outcomes similar to those of open surgery.

Mortality risk analysis following routine vs selective defunctioning stoma formation after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question whether a defunctioning stoma (DS) should be constructed routinely after total mesorectal excision or whether it could be used selectively to ensure patient safety.

METHOD

A PubMed search was performed. All randomized trials on the role of a DS were included. Also, observational articles published between January 1997 and August 2007 were reviewed. Sensitivity analysis of the mortality risk was performed.

RESULTS

The clinical anastamotic leak (CAL) rate was 17% in 358 patients from four randomized trials and 9.6% in 4059 patients from 39 observational studies. The CAL rate increased significantly from 9.6% with DS to 24.4% without DS in four randomized trials, and from 7.9% with DS to 13.2% without DS in 17 observational studies. The re-operation rate as a result of anastomotic leakage was lower in patients with DS than in patients without DS in both study types. Leak-related mortality was not significantly different: 7.2% with vs 7.7% without DS in observational studies, and 0% with vs 4.6% without DS in randomized trials. Sensitivity analysis indicated that a selective DS strategy is acceptable if the CAL rate without DS is less than 16.6% with a CAL-related mortality of no more than 4.6%.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review support the routine construction of a protective stoma. However, selective use of a DS is justified from a patient safety point of view if the CAL-rate and its related mortality are limited. Each unit should audit its performance.

The role of minimally invasive treatments in surgical oncology

This article reviews the use of minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic techniques in the field of surgical oncology. It reviews the indications and techniques of the use of minimally invasive surgery for several oncologic indications in general surgery. In particular, it reviews the currently published literature discussing the oncologic outcomes of these techniques.

Male sexual function and lower urinary tract symptoms after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate sexual function and the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in male patients with rectal cancer following short-term radiotherapy and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) by physical and psychological measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sexual function and LUTS were assessed by the use of questionnaires [International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), International Prostate Symptom Score]. Sexual function was further assessed by the use of pharmaco duplex ultrasonography of the cavernous arterial blood flow and nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity monitoring (NPTR). All investigations were performed prior to the start of preoperative radiotherapy and 15 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Nine patients (mean age 60 years) participated. Erectile function was maintained in 71% and ejaculation function in 89%. Compared with pre-operative scores on the IIEF, a significant deterioration in intercourse satisfaction was seen following radiotherapy and LTME (7.9 vs 10.3, p = 0.042), but overall satisfaction remained unchanged (8.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.246). NPTR parameters (duration of erectile episodes, duration of tip rigidity > or =60%) decreased following radiotherapy and LTME. Patients reported a deterioration in micturition frequency (2.0 vs 1.0, p = 0.034) and quality of life due to urinary symptoms (8.0 vs 1.8, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Based on these first preliminary findings, data suggest that 15 months after short-term radiotherapy and LTME in men with rectal cancer, objectively assessed sexual dysfunction was considerable, but overall sexual satisfaction had not changed.

Robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies

BACKGROUND

This report describes our initial experience with the use of robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies.

METHODS

Between November 2004 and July 2007, 73 robotic procedures (26 female, 47 male) for GI cancer were performed and retrospectively reviewed. Procedures included 25 oesophagectomies, 11 gastrectomies and 37 rectal resections. The median body mass index (BMI) for this patient population was 26.

RESULTS

The median operative times for rectal, oesophageal and gastric resections were 285, 482 and 430 min, respectively. There were three conversions. Major postoperative morbidity was 16% for rectal, 32% for oesophageal and 9% for gastric procedures. The leak rate was 11% for rectal, 16% for oesophageal and 9% for gastric anastomoses. Median length of stay was 4, 11 and 5 days, respectively. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 13, 22, and 26 for rectal, oesophageal and gastric lymphadenectomies, respectively. At a median follow-up of 9 months, one patient developed a port site recurrence; 30 day mortality was zero.

CONCLUSION

This initial experience suggests that the robotic approach is safe and feasible for a variety of radical oncological surgical procedures.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

What Is the Role for the Circumferential Margin in the Modern Treatment of Rectal Cancer?

Purpose

Treatment of rectal cancer has changed dramatically over the last decade. The worldwide introduction of total mesorectal excision in combination with the increasing use of radio(chemo)–therapy has led to an improved prognosis. One of the main prognostic factors in rectal cancer is the circumferential resection margin (CRM). Since the initial description of its clinical importance in 1986, the involvement of this margin (also called lateral or radial resection margin) has been associated with a poor prognosis.

Methods

In the current review, the evidence for the importance of the CRM in more than 17,500 patients is reviewed, and the relevance of this assessment to modern treatment is assessed.

Results

We demonstrate that, after neoadjuvant therapy (both radiotherapy and radiochemotherapy), the predictive value of the CRM for local recurrence is significantly higher than when no preoperative therapy has been applied (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.3 v 2.0, respectively; P < .05). Furthermore, involvement of the CRM is a powerful predictor of both development of distant metastases (HR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.3) and survival (HR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.3). In addition to the prognostic data, this review describes different modes of margin involvement, exact definitions, and factors influencing its presence.

Conclusion

CRM involvement is one of the key factors in rectal cancer treatment.

Prospective evaluation of quality of life and sexual functioning after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

PURPOSE

This study was designed to investigate how the quality of life of patients with rectal cancer changes with time after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Patients completed the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and a colorectal-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire before laparoscopic total mesorectal excision, on discharge from the hospital and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Patients were treated by laparoscopic low anterior resection or laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (mean age, 64 years; 29 males (57 percent)) participated in this study, of whom 38 (75 percent) underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection and 13 (25 percent) laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. Compared with preoperative scores on the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36, patients reported a deterioration in physical functioning (74 vs. 80; P = 0.009), and improved mental functioning (76 vs. 70; P = 0.007) at three months. Improvement in emotional well-being was reported both on the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (78 vs. 53; P = 0.006) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (84 vs. 69; P < 0.001). At one year, improvements in global quality of life (82 vs. 68; P = 0.001) and symptoms, such as fatigue (18 vs. 32; P < 0.001), pain (5 vs. 12; P = 0.009), and appetite loss (3 vs. 13; P = 0.01), were reported. Sexual functioning was worse from three months onward until one year after surgery (47 vs. 66; P = 0.004). Patients who underwent low anterior resection experienced less sexual dysfunction than patients after abdominoperineal resection (21 vs. 56; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

One year after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, patients reported improvement in some important quality of life outcomes, including global quality of life, despite a decrease in sexual functioning.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection (LR) has become increasingly popular for the management of rectal cancer. Despite a decade of experience, the safety and efficacy of LR for rectal cancer remains to be established. This report performs a meta-analysis to compare LR with conventional open resection (CR) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Using a defined search strategy, studies directly comparing CR with LR for rectal cancer were identified. The data for patients with rectal cancer treated with both approaches were extracted and used in our meta-analysis. Open surgery and laparoscopic surgery were compared in terms of postoperative mortality, morbidity, complications, oncological clearance, operating time, and time before recovery to a normal diet.

RESULTS

Compared with CR, LR is associated with lower morbidity rates [OR 0.63 (0.41, 1.96) P=0.03], longer operating times [weighted mean difference 1.59 (1.20, 1.98) P<0.00001], similar mortality rates, wound healing disorder rates, urinary disorder rates, cardiopulmony disease rates, all leakage rates, all abscess rates and a positive rate of margin.

CONCLUSION

LR is associated with less postoperative morbidity, but longer operation time. A prospective randomized controlled trial is warranted to fully investigate these and other outcome measures.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a prospective analysis of thirty-month follow-up outcomes in 312 patients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to prospectively evaluate operative safety and mid-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

Three hundreds twelve patients (male, 181) were enrolled in this analysis. 257 patients (82.4%) had tumors located below 12 cm from the anal verge. Distribution of TNM stages was 0:I:II:III:IV = 4.2%:17.9%:32.4%:37.2%:8.3%. 225 patients (71.1%) had T3/T4 lesions. Pre- and post-operative radiation was given in 6 and 20 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

Sphincter-preserving operation was performed in 85.9%. Mean operating time was 212 minutes. Conversion rate was 2.6%. Overall morbidity rate was 21.1%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 6.4%. Operative mortality rate was 0.3%. Mean number of harvested nodes was 23. Mean distal tumor-free margin was 2.8 cm. The circumferential resection margin was positive in 13 patients (4.2%). With a mean follow-up of 30 months in the stage I-III patients, the local recurrence rate was 2.9%. Systemic recurrence occurred in 11.7%. No port-site recurrence was observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer provided safe operative parameters and adequate mid-term oncologic outcomes. When considering a high volume of advanced and low-lying cancers but rather narrow indication to radiotherapy, the 2.9% local recurrence rate seems promising data. Long-term follow-up is mandatory to draw conclusion.