Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An evaluation of the mesorectum’s macroscopic quality

Comparative Outcomes of Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy and Selective Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Clinical Stage T3N0 Low and Mid Rectal Cancer

Purpose/aim: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pre-CRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) have become the standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Nevertheless, it is a controversial issue whether pre-CRT in cT3N0M0 patients would result in potential overtreatment. Materials and methods: In total, 183 clinical stage IIA rectal cancer patients treated with and without pre-CRT between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Capecitabine/FOLFOX/CAPOX chemotherapy was co-administered with preoperative radiotherapy. Surgical resection with laparoscopic or open TME was conducted 8-12 weeks after completion of the pre-CRT. Postoperative radiotherapy was routinely given to patients with pT4 lesion or circumferential margin (CRM) and/or distal resection margin (DRM) involvement. Results: In total, 108 (59%) patients received pre-CRT and 75 (41%) underwent surgery first. The pre-CRT patients presented with less-advanced pathological T stage tumors compared with the surgery-first patients (p < 0.001). However, the pathological N stage was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.065). The 3-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and 2-year local recurrence (LR) rate were similar in the pre-CRT and surgery-first patients (88.4 versus 88.7%, p = 0.552; 79.6 versus 83.3%, p = 0.797; 2.8 versus 2.7%, p = 0.960, respectively). Cox regression analysis showed that pN stage and CRM/DRM involvement were independently correlated with an unfavorable DFS. Conclusions: In this study, the omission of pre-CRT in cT3N0M0 patients did not translate into a worse oncological outcome. Postoperative radiotherapy should remain a standard option for patients with CRM/DRM involvement and pathological T4 tumors. A generalized indication for pre-CRT in cT3N0 patients is likely to result in overtreatment.

Using cadaveric simulation to introduce the concept and skills required to start performing transanal total mesorectal excision

AIM

The aim was to document the outcomes of surgeons attending a cadaveric simulation course designed to provide an introduction to transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME).

METHOD

This was a prospective observational study documenting the outcomes from classroom and wet lab activities. Follow-up questionnaires were used to monitor clinical activity after the course.

RESULTS

Outcomes of 65 delegates from 12 different countries attending seven cadaveric simulation courses are described. Median time to insert and close the rectal purse-string was 15 min (range 7-50 min) and median time to complete the transanal mesorectal dissection was 105 min (range 60-260 min). Objective assessment of specimen quality showed that 42% of specimens were complete, 47% nearly complete and 11% were incomplete. Failure of the intraluminal rectal purse-string was the most common difficulty encountered. Within 6 months of attending the course, nearly half (26/55; 47%) of the surgeons who responded had performed between 1 and 13 TaTMEs. Only 8/26 (31%) of the surgeons had arranged mentoring for their first case.

CONCLUSION

This training model provides high levels of trainee satisfaction and the knowledge and technical skills to enable them to start performing TaTME. There is still work to do to provide adequate supervision and mentorship for surgeons early on their learning curve that is essential for the safe introduction of this new technique.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Single-Center Results of 587 Cases

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the short-term and long-term results of laparoscopic and open rectal resections.

METHODS

A total of 587 rectal cancer patients were included. The main measures were demographic data, duration of surgery, early postoperative results, pathologic data, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic data, morbidity rate, tumor location, and sphincter-preservation rates between the 2 groups. The duration of surgery (155 vs. 173 min, P<0.001), time to gas passage, defecation, and solid food intake and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than the open group (P<0.05). According to the univariate and multivariate analysis, laparoscopic surgery did not have an effect on local recurrence but had a favorable effect on survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has advantages over open surgery with respect to short-term and long-term clinical results and when performed in high-volume centers.

Comparison between the perioperative results of single-access and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has low rates of morbidity and mortality and achieves comparable pathologic outcomes. With improved instruments and surgical techniques, many surgeons have recently begun using single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) to minimize scars and pain. Since 2011, most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown comparable pathologic outcomes to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SALS is said to be superior to CLS in reducing complications, producing less discomfort, and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the technical feasibility and early postoperative outcomes of these approaches.

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2014, 78 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled in the study. Anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections were performed. Data collected included technical feasibility and outcomes of operation, such as morbidity, mortality, severity of pain, analgesic usage, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

SALS was performed on 35 patients, and CLS was performed in 36 cases. Demographic data, including age, sex, BMI, ASA classification and clinical staging, were similar between the groups. Operative time, blood loss, and conversion rate were similar (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, the only significant difference between the groups was pain score, which was significantly lower in the SALS group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had the same intraoperative, pathologic, and early postoperative results. However, SALS patients had slightly better pain scores in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively.

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.

Transanal versus traditional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

After total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, patients with an incomplete mesorectum have an increased risk of local and overall recurrence. With the introduction of laparoscopic TME, an improved quality of the specimen was expected. However, the quality-related results were comparable to the results after traditional open surgery. Transanal TME is a new technique in which the rectum is mobilised by using a single-port and endoscopic instruments through the so called 'down to up' procedure. This new technique potentially leads to an improved specimen quality. This study was designed to investigate the pathological quality of specimens after transanal (TME) and to compare these with specimens after traditional laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

This matched case control study compared the specimens of a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent transanal TME with the specimens after traditional laparoscopic TME. The pathological quality of the mesorectum was determined by the definitions of Quirke as 'complete', 'nearly complete', or 'incomplete'.

RESULTS

From June 2012 until July 2013, 25 consecutive patients underwent transanal TME because of a rectum carcinoma. Within the transanal TME group, 96% of the specimens had a complete mesorectum, while in the traditional laparoscopic group, 72% was deemed complete (p < 0.05). Other pathological characteristics, such as the circumferential resection margin, were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal TME appears associated with a significant higher rate of completeness of the mesorectum. Further studies are necessary to evaluate this novel technique.

Long-term prognostic value of mesorectal grading after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Mesorectal grading was reported to be a valuable prognostic factor in rectal cancer surgery. Previous studies were retrospective, and had short follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term influence of total mesorectal excision quality on disease recurrence in mid and low rectal cancer patients who received preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and postoperative chemotherapy.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-one patients with rectal cancer had either low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection. All patients received neoadjuvant CRT and postoperative chemotherapy. Main outcome measures included TNM staging, involvement of the circumferential resection margin (ICRM), mesorectal grading, local and systemic recurrences were recorded.

RESULTS

Follow-up was done for at least 5 years or up to disease recurrence whatever comes first. Mean follow-up time was 59.4 months. Twenty-nine patients had abdominoperineal resection and 92 had low anterior resection. About 7.5% had positive CRM which was significantly correlated with mesorectal grading. Grade 3 mesorectal specimens were obtained in approximately 60% of patients, 27% had grade 2, and only 13% had grade 1 (poor) mesorectal specimens. Poorer mesorectal grading increased with APR and lower rectal tumors. Recurrences occurred in 20% of patients (40% in the first 2 years, 32% in the 3rd year, and 28% in the 4th and 5th years); factors affecting recurrence included lymphovascular invasion, ICRM, and N stage. Mesorectal grading was not a valuable prognostic factor for recurrence unless it resulted in ICRM. Recurrences occurred earlier with poorer mesorectal grade, yet this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesorectal grading is a pathologic description that reflects the quality of surgery. However, in patients who received neoadjuvant CRT and postoperative chemotherapy, grading had no long-term prognostic value regarding recurrences unless it resulted in ICRM.

Short-term follow-up after laparoscopic versus conventional total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer in a large teaching hospital

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer remains controversial, and large randomized studies on oncologic outcome are lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the short-term results of laparoscopic resection versus conventional total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer (≤10 cm from the anal verge).

METHODS

The institutional colorectal surgery database was reviewed, and 166 consecutive patients operated for low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2011 were included in this analysis which focuses on the first 18 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty patients underwent conventional TME, whereas 86 patients underwent laparoscopic TME. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups. Conversion rate was 17 %. Laparoscopic rectal resection resulted in significantly less blood loss (200 versus 475 ml, p = <0.001) and a 3-day shorter hospital stay (median, 7 versus 10 days; p = 0.06). Oncologic results from resected specimens were comparable, although significantly more lymph nodes were harvested in laparoscopic resections (median, 13 versus 11; p = 0.005). Disease-free survival after curative resection was better in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.04), but this was no longer significant after correction for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of short-term results of laparoscopic versus conventional TME for low rectal cancer demonstrates that laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe, resulting in similar oncologic outcomes with less blood loss, a trend towards less postoperative complications and shorter duration of hospital stay. Further randomized studies are needed to attribute to the body of evidence of equivalence or even superiority of laparoscopic resections compared to conventional resections for distal rectal cancer.

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.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer is a safe and established alternative to traditional open colectomy. The potential advantages of shorter length of stay, faster recovery and fewer operative complications are well documented. The last 5 years has seen an increase in the number of laparoscopic colorectal operations as more surgeons learn this technique. Short and medium term results have been encouraging with respect to oncological outcomes. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remains a contentious issue. The increased complexity of operating within the confines of the pelvis and the greater risk of oncological compromise, have led to some surgeons urging caution. We present the challenges associated with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and explain that appropriate patient selection, surgical planning and laparoscopic experience are the key to successful outcomes.

Outcome of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer: a critical appraisal

Despite the wide application of laparoscopic surgery for various common surgical conditions, the development of laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been slow. The obstacle for its advancement is formed by a steep learning curve and concerns about the oncologic safety in cases of malignant diseases. With refinement in instrumentation and improvement in surgical techniques in recent years, laparoscopic colectomy has become a safe and feasible procedure. The short-term advantages in terms of quicker recovery of bowel function, less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay of laparoscopic colectomy over conventional treatment seem to be indisputable. Results from large prospective randomized trials revealed the oncologic outcome to be comparable between the two treatments. Furthermore, the incidence of port-site metastasis was shown to be similar between the two approaches. For rectal cancer, laparoscopic-assisted total mesorectal excision has been shown to be a safe and feasible procedure. The incidence of postoperative morbidity including anastomotic leakage appears to be comparable between the two treatments. However, the long-term outcome especially for local recurrence and overall survival remains uncertain. Prospective randomized study with long follow-up is required to elucidate this issue.

Total laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal surgery in combination with transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a preliminary evaluation in China

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of total laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal surgery without abdominal incision in combination with transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

METHODS

From May 2010 to October 2011, 34 patients with colon and rectal tumors were treated by total laparoscopic surgery without abdominal incision, and the clinical data of these patients were reviewed.

RESULTS

All operations could be successfully accomplished without conversion to open surgery. No diverting ileostomy was created. The average operative time was 151.60 (range, 125-185) minutes. The average blood loss was 200.20 (range, 55-450) ml. All resection margins were negative. Six patients developed postoperative anastomotic leakage. There were no reports of other complications in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study indicated that total laparoscopic sigmoid and rectal surgery in combination with TEM was a safe, feasible, and minimally invasive technique. This advanced surgical technique was developed by combining laparoscopy with the concept of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

The Importance of the Pathologist's Role in Assessment of the Quality of the Mesorectum

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered standard of care for rectal cancer treatment. Failure to remove the mesorectal fat envelope entirely may explain part of observed local and distant recurrences. Several studies suggest quality of the mesorectum after TME surgery as determined by pathological evaluation may influence prognosis. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of the plane of surgery as well as factors influencing the likelihood of a high-quality specimen by reviewing the literature. A pooled meta-analysis of relevant outcome data was performed where appropriate. A muscularis propria resection plane was found to increase the risk of local recurrence (RR 2.72 [95 % CI 1.36 to 5.44]) and overall recurrence (RR 2.00 [95 % CI 1.17 to 3.42]) compared to an (intra)mesorectal plane. Plane of surgery is an important factor in rectal cancer treatment and the documentation by pathologists is essential for the improvement of TME quality and patient outcome.

The Importance of the Pathologist's Role in Assessment of the Quality of the Mesorectum

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered standard of care for rectal cancer treatment. Failure to remove the mesorectal fat envelope entirely may explain part of observed local and distant recurrences. Several studies suggest quality of the mesorectum after TME surgery as determined by pathological evaluation may influence prognosis. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of the plane of surgery as well as factors influencing the likelihood of a high-quality specimen by reviewing the literature. A pooled meta-analysis of relevant outcome data was performed where appropriate. A muscularis propria resection plane was found to increase the risk of local recurrence (RR 2.72 [95 % CI 1.36 to 5.44]) and overall recurrence (RR 2.00 [95 % CI 1.17 to 3.42]) compared to an (intra)mesorectal plane. Plane of surgery is an important factor in rectal cancer treatment and the documentation by pathologists is essential for the improvement of TME quality and patient outcome.

Factors influencing the quality of total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care for rectal cancer. Incomplete TME may lead to local recurrence.

METHODS

Data from the multicentre observational German Quality Assurance in Rectal Cancer Trial were used. Patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009 were included. Multivariable analysis using a stepwise logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of suboptimal TME.

RESULTS

From a total of 6179 patients, complete data sets for 4606 patients were available for analysis. Pathological tumour category higher than T2 (pT3 versus pT1/2: odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.01 to 1.47), tumour distance from the anal verge less than 8 cm (OR 1.27, 1.05 to 1.53), advanced age (65-80 years: OR 1.25, 1.03 to 1.52; over 80 years: OR 1.60, 1.15 to 2.22), presence of intraoperative complications (OR 1.63, 1.15 to 2.30), monopolar dissection technique (OR 1.43, 1.14 to 1.79) and low case volume (fewer than 20 procedures per year) of the operating surgeon (OR 1.20, 1.06 to 1.36) were independently associated with moderate or poor TME quality.

CONCLUSION

TME quality was influenced by patient- and treatment-related factors.

Laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection for the cure of rectal cancer is still a matter of debate. Laparoscopic approach is more complex and with a long learning curve, which may results in an increase in morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the impact of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer on operative outcome of a hospital in a developing country.

METHODS

All patients presenting with rectal cancer surgically managed by laparoscopic approach were enrolled. Exclusion criteria were total coloproctectomy, palliative procedures, and metastatic disease. The following parameters were accessed: general characteristics, technical details, mortality, and the outcome.

RESULTS

From January 2000 to January 2008, 60 patients with histologically proven rectal cancer were enrolled, and 43 were excluded. Mean age, 58.5 +/- 15.9 years. A 76.6% of patients had cancer-advanced stages. There were 20 anterior resections, 31 abdomino-perineal resections, and nine pull-through procedures. Conversion rate was 3.3%, and there had 3.3% of operative complications. No procedure-related death. With the mean follow-up of 33 months, 77.8% patients are alive and disease-free, 5.6% are alive with disease: distant metastasis in 2.8%, and local recurrence in 2.8%. About 16.7% have died from cancer-related causes. No port site or wound metastasis have occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed the favorable short-term operative results in patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. The low conversion rate of 3.3%, 3.3% complication rate, and 0% of a 30-day mortality attributed to confirm the feasibility of laparoscopic approach in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Operative Behandlung von Rektumkarzinomen im Vergleich

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer shows morbidity and oncological safety comparable to the open approach, but morbidity increases after conversion to open resection. No oncological long-term results are available for the latter patients.

METHODS

From 01/01/2000-31/12/2002, patients with curatively resected rectal cancer enrolled in a observational study were evaluated for morbidity, mortality, tumor- and local recurrence rate, paying attention to patients with conversion from laparoscopic to open resection.

RESULTS

237 (3.3%) of 7,189 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (ITT). These patients showed significantly more T1/2 tumors (P<0.001) in earlier UICC stages (P<0.001) than open resected patients. 35 (14.8%) of 237 laparoscopic procedures were converted. Compared with patients receiving complete laparoscopic or open resection, these patients showed significantly higher frequencies of intraoperative (P<0.001) and general postoperative complications (P=0.003) as well as the highest overall morbidity (P=0.031). After a median follow-up of 30.1 months, the highest 5-year local recurrence rate was found in the converted group (16.0%). The laparoscopically resected patients showed a local recurrence rate of 3.3%, patients with open resection of 12.4% (P=0.082). The disease-free survival rate did not differ between the groups (P=0.585).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer provides oncological results similar to open resection. After conversion, the short and oncological long-term outcomes were worse. Considering a conversion rate of 15%, only a strict indication for the laparoscopic approach can be allowed, and laparoscopic resection should be performed at centers.

Technique for laparoscopic autonomic nerve preserving total mesorectal excision

With the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME) for treatment of rectal cancer, the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer is improved. With this better prognosis, there is a growing awareness about the quality of life of patients after rectal carcinoma. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer offers several advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME), including greater patient comfort and an earlier return to daily activities while preserving the oncologic radicality of the procedure. Moreover, laparoscopy allows good exposure of the pelvic cavity because of magnification and good illumination. The laparoscope seems to facilitate pelvic dissection including identification and preservation of critical structures such as the autonomic nervous system. The technique for laparoscopic autonomic nerve preserving total mesorectal excision is reported. A three- or four-port technique is used. Vascular ligation, sharp mesorectal dissection and identification and preservation of the autonomic pelvic nerves are described.