Laparoscopic colorectal surgery using low-pressure pneumoperitoneum combined with abdominal wall lift by placement of anchoring sutures around the camera port

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer in Light of the LACC Trial: What Have We Learned?

Cervical cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Over the last two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) emerged as the mainstay in the surgical management of cervical cancer, bringing advantages such as lower operative morbidity and shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery while maintaining comparable oncologic outcomes in numerous retrospective studies. However, in 2018, a prospective phase III randomized controlled trial, “Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix (LACC)”, unexpectedly reported that MIS was associated with a statistically significant poorer overall survival and disease-free survival compared to open surgery in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Various hypotheses have been raised by the authors to try to explain these results, but the LACC trial was not powered to answer those questions. In this study, through an exhaustive literature review, we wish to explore some of the potential causes that may explain the poorer oncologic outcomes associated with MIS, including the type of MIS surgery, the size of the lesion, the impact of CO2 pneumoperitoneum, prior conization, the use of uterine manipulator, the use of protective measures, and the effect of surgical expertise/learning curve.

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with abdominal wall lift in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Initial experience

AIM

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of a new technology combining low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) and abdominal wall lift (AWL) in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

From November 2015 to July 2017, 26 patients underwent laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer using LPP (6-8 mmHg) with subcutaneous AWL in Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China. Clinical data regarding patients’ demographics, intraoperative monitoring indices, operation-related indices and pathological outcomes were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic TME was performed in 26 cases (14 anterior resection and 12 abdominoperineal resection) successfully, without conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery with standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. Intraoperative monitoring showed stable heart rate, blood pressure and paw airway pressure. The mean operative time was 194.29 ± 41.27 min (range: 125-270 min) and 200.41 ± 20.56 min (range: 170-230 min) for anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection, respectively. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 16.71 ± 5.06 (range: 7-27). There was no positive circumferential or distal resection margin. No local recurrence was observed during a median follow-up period of 11.96 ± 5.55 mo (range: 5-23 mo).

CONCLUSION

LPP combined with AWL is safe and feasible for laparoscopic TME. The technique can provide satisfactory exposure of the operative field and stable operative monitoring indices.

Technique of last resort: characteristics of patients undergoing open surgery in the laparoscopic era

BACKGROUND

The utilization rates for minimally invasive colorectal resection techniques (MICR) continue to increase. In some centers MICR methods are the preferred approach, however, open methods continue to be utilized for select patients. In this study, the profile and short-term outcomes of open colorectal resection (CR) and MICR patients are determined and compared.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent elective CR over 11 years at two institutions was performed. The MICR group contained both laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted cases. The past medical and surgical histories, indications, operations performed, and short-term outcomes were assessed. The Charlson co-morbidity index (CMI) was used to assess risk.

RESULTS

During the study period 1080 patients underwent CR (Open, 141; MICR, 939). As judged by the CMI, there were more high-risk patients (score ≥2) in the Open group (34.38%) versus MICR (22.11%) p = 0.0029. Significantly more open patients had prior abdominal surgery and specifically CRs (Open, 15.60% vs. MICR, 2.13%, p < 0.001). Intraoperative transfusion (Open 25.7%; MICR 6.8%, p < 0.001) and diversion (25.53 vs. 11.50%, p < 0.001) were more common in the Open group. Not surprisingly, recovery of bowel function and length of stay were longer for the Open group. The overall complication rate was also higher for the Open patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

When MICR is the procedure of choice, patients selected for Open CR are higher risk and more complex as judged by the CMI and past operative history. Not surprisingly, this translates into a longer length of stay, higher rates of transfusion, diversion, and complications. This disparity in patients undergoing CRs makes direct comparison of MICR and Open resection outcomes not reasonable.

Anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic protectomy can be managed by a minimally invasive approach

PURPOSE

This study was designed to identify the clinical features of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer and to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic management for this problem.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were obtained from 307 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic proctectomy and primary anastomosis. Age, sex, tumor location, tumor stage, body mass index, comorbidities, ileostomy, conversion, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, previous abdominal operation, and hospital stay were analyzed for patients with or without anastomotic leakage. Management and outcome of anastomotic leakage also were analyzed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 29 patients (9.4 percent). Diverting ileostomy was initially fashioned in 65 patients (21.2 percent). Leakage was related to young age, male sex, lower tumor location, and longer operation time. Ten patients (34.5 percent) were successfully managed with conservative treatment. Seventeen patients (58.6 percent) were managed via a laparoscopic approach. Open surgery was performed in two patients who showed diffuse fecal soiling or had previous conversion, respectively. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

When leakage occurs, laparotomy or colostomy is not needed routinely. For surgical intervention, the abdominal cavity should be explored first by laparoscopic visualization because the majority of patients can be successfully managed with laparoscopy and ileostomy.