Laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on long-term oncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1971-1976. [PMID: 22237758 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2137-8]

Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on conversion to laparotomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in Japan (a secondary analysis of the EnSSURE study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conversion to laparotomy is among the serious intraoperative complications and carries an increased risk of postoperative complications. In this cohort study, we investigated whether or not the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) affects the conversion rate among patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of data collected from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for cStage II and III rectal cancer from 2014 to 2016 across 56 institutions affiliated with the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Data from the original EnSSURE study were analyzed to investigate risk factors for conversion to laparotomy by performing univariate and multivariate analyses based on the reason for conversion.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 3,168 cases, including 65 (2.1%) involving conversion to laparotomy. Indicated conversion accounted for 27 cases (0.9%), while technical conversion accounted for 35 cases (1.1%). The multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors for indicated conversion to laparotomy: tumor diameter [mm] (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, p = 0.0002), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 7.92, 95% CI 3.14-19.97, p < 0.0001), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 4.46, 95% CI 2.01-9.90, p = 0.0002). The multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for technical conversion to laparotomy: registered case number of institution (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.0029), institution type [non-university/university hospital] (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.54-8.04, p = 0.0028), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 5.96, 95% CI 2.15-16.53, p = 0.0006), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 6.26, 95% CI 3.01-13.05, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation of ESSQS-certified physicians may reduce the risk of both indicated and technical conversion. Referral to specialized institutions, such as high-volume centers and university hospitals, especially for patients exhibiting relevant background risk factors, may reduce the risk of conversion to laparotomy and lead to better outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000040645.

Current Controversies in the Management of Locally Advanced Colon Cancer

n/a.

Oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open multivisceral resection for local advanced colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Laparoscopic (lap) colectomies for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) often require resection of other organs. We systematically reviewed currently available literature on lap multi-visceral resection for CRC, with regard to short- and long-term oncological outcomes, and compared them with open procedures. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and PubMed from inception to November 30, 2020. The aim of this study was to synthesize short-term and oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic versus open surgery. Pooled proportions and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using an inverse variance method. We included six observational cohort studies published between 2012 and 2020 (lap procedures: n = 262; open procedures: n = 273). Collectively, they indicated that postoperative complications were significantly more common after open surgeries than lap surgeries (RR: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.72; P < 0.00001), but the two approaches did not significantly differ in positive resection margins (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.38-1.50; P = 0.42), local recurrence (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.28-1.62; P = 0.37), or (based on two evaluable studies) 5-year OS (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.46-1.04; P = 0.08) or 5-year DFS (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.67-1.11) for T4b disease. In conclusion, laparoscopic and open multi-visceral resections for advanced CRC have comparable oncologic outcomes. Although a randomized study would be ideal for further research, no such studies are currently available.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: an observational single hospital study of 300 cases

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery attempts to facilitate rectal surgery in the narrow space of the pelvis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Monocentric retrospective study including 300 patients who underwent robotic (n = 178) or laparoscopic (n = 122) resection between Jan 2009 and Dec 2017 for high, mid and low rectal cancer. The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, except for sex and ASA status. There were no statistical differences between groups in the conversion rate to open surgery. Surgical morbidity and oncological quality did not differ in either group, except for the anastomosis leakage rate and the affected distal resection margin. There were no differences in overall survival rate between the laparoscopic and robotic group. Robotic surgery could provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as three-dimensional views, articulated instruments, lower fatigue, lower conversion rate to open surgery, shorter hospital stays and lower urinary and sexual dysfunctions. On the other hand, robotic surgery usually implies longer operation times and higher costs. As shown in the ROLARR trial, no statistical differences in conversion rate were found between the groups in our study. When performed by experienced surgeons, robotic surgery for rectal cancer could be a safe and feasible option with no significant differences in terms of oncological outcomes in comparison to laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic approach for T4 colon cancer can be associated with poor prognosis in right-sided T4b tumours

INTRODUCTION

Although recent studies have demonstrated the safety of laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer, some patients could have poor prognosis. In this study, we aimed to analyse the risk factors affecting oncologic outcome of laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among the 1033 T4 colon cancer patients collected from a multicentre database (2004-2017), 584 patients (458 T4a and 126 T4b) underwent laparoscopic approach for radical surgery. Risk factors associated with 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated through multivariate analysis. In addition, subgroups were classified using a combination of risk factors, and the survival rate was evaluated.

RESULTS

During this period, 188 (32.2%) had recurrence, and 151 (25.9%) died. In the multivariate analysis for oncologic outcome, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen level (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37) and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.60) were associated with poor DFS. T4b (HR 1.56, 1.46), right-sided location (HR 1.52, 1.42), and open conversion (HR 2.70, 2.12) were independently associated with both poor DFS and OS. When four subgroups were analysed through the combination of tumour location and T stage, the DFS and OS rates were significantly lower in patients with right-sided T4b cancer than in other groups (log-rank p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Right-sided T4b colon cancer for laparoscopic surgery may lead to poor oncologic outcome. This approach could be a caution in suspected cases preoperatively.

Impact of Conversion from Laparoscopy to Open Surgery in Patients with Right Colon Cancer

Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 20 per cent of laparoscopic colectomies for cancer. This study aims to compare postoperative outcomes and survival between converted and successful laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer. Records of patients who underwent laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer between 2005 and 2015 were retrieved from the CLermontFerrand Ircad Mondor Hopital European Tours (CLIMHET) database. Perioperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes were evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for conversion. Overall, 445 patients underwent a successfully completed laparoscopic right colectomy and 28 (5.9%) were converted to open surgery. A higher rate of minor complications was found in the conversion group, whereas patient recovery outcomes were similar. Previous open and laparoscopic surgeries were significant predictors of conversion. No significant difference was found in overall and disease-free survival rates between converted and nonconverted procedures. In the setting of laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer, the conversion rate is low and does not have an impact on patient survival. Conversion is associated with higher rates of minor postoperative complications but recovery and survival outcomes are comparable with successful laparoscopic colectomies. The present results support the use of laparoscopy for right colon resection even in patients at risk of conversion.

Optimizing Patient Selection for Laparoscopic and Open Colorectal Cancer Resections: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program–Matched Analysis

The aim of this study was to identify patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) resection who might benefit specifically from either an open or laparoscopic approach. From the NSQIP database (2012–2013), patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (LC) or open colectomy (OC) for CRC were identified. The two groups were matched and compared in terms of any, medical, and surgical complications. A wide range of patient characteristics were collected and analyzed. Interaction analysis was performed in a multivariable regression model to identify risk factors that may make LC or OC more beneficial in certain subgroups of patients. Overall, OC (n = 6593) was associated with a significantly higher risk of any [odds ratio (OR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.87–2.20], surgical (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.82–2.16), and medical (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.51–1.94) complications than LC (n = 6593). No subgroup of patients benefited from an open approach. Patients with obesity (BMI > 30) (P = 0.03) and older age (>65 years) (P = 0.01) benefited more than average from a laparoscopic approach. For obese patients, LC was associated with less overall complications (OC vs LC: OR 1.92 obese vs 1.21 nonobese patients). For elderly patients, LC was more preferable regarding the risk of medical complications (OC vs LC OR of 1.91 vs 1.34 for younger patients). No subgroup of CRC patients benefited specifically more from an open colorectal resection. This supports that the laparoscopic technique should be performed whenever feasible. For the obese and elderly patients, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach were more pronounced.

Influence of Conversion and Anastomotic Leakage on Survival in Rectal Cancer Surgery; Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Conversion and anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery have been suggested to have a negative impact on long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study in a large Dutch national cohort was to analyze the influence of conversion and anastomotic leakage on long-term oncologic outcome in rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients were selected from a retrospective cross-sectional snapshot study. Patients with a benign lesion, distant metastasis, or unknown tumor or metastasis status were excluded. Overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between laparoscopic, converted, and open surgery as well as between patients with and without anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

Out of a database of 2095 patients, 638 patients were eligible for inclusion in the laparoscopic, 752 in the open, and 107 in the conversion group. A total of 746 patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent low anterior resection with primary anastomosis, including 106 (14.2%) with anastomotic leakage. OS and DFS were significantly shorter in the conversion compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.025 and p = 0.001, respectively) as well as in anastomotic leakage compared to patients without anastomotic leakage (p = 0.002 and p = 0.024, respectively). In multivariable analysis, anastomotic leakage was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 2.167, 95% confidence interval 1.322-3.551) and DFS (1.592, 1077-2.353). Conversion was an independent predictor of DFS (1.525, 1.071-2.172), but not of OS.

CONCLUSION

Technical difficulties during laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, as reflected by conversion, as well as anastomotic leakage have a negative prognostic impact, underlining the need to improve both aspects in rectal cancer surgery.

Effect of cancer characteristics and oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic colorectal resection converted to open surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection is an oncologically safe procedure equivalent to open resection,the effects of conversion of a laparoscopic approach to an open approach remain unclear.This study evaluated the cancer characteristic and oncological outcomes associated with conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection to open surgery.

METHOD

We conducted searches on PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included the literature published until 2018 that examined the impact of laparoscopic conversion to open colorectal resection. Only randomized control trials and prospective studies were included. Each study was reviewed and the data were extracted. Fixed-effects methods were used to combine data, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve studies with 5427 patients were included. Of these, 4672 patients underwent complete laparoscopic resection with no conversion (LAP group), whereas 755 underwent conversion to an open resection (CONV group). The meta-analysis showedsignificant differences between the LAP group and converted (CONV) group with respect to neoadjuvant therapy (P = .002), location of the rectal cancer (P = .01), and recurrence (P = .01). However, no difference in local recurrence (P = .17) was noted between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of laparoscopic to open colorectal cancer resection is influenced by tumor characteristics. Conversion of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a worse oncological outcome.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-term Oncologic Outcome After Laparoscopic Converted or Primary Open Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to critically review the current evidence regarding the oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic converted or open resection for colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed in Pubmed. Study selection and data acquisition were independently performed by 2 reviewers.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded a total of 746 articles, resulting in 7 studies eligible for inclusion. A total of 9190 (57 to 8307) patients were included in the open and 238 (17 to 56) in the converted group. In none of the studies, differences were found in disease stage between both groups. There were no significant differences between both groups with regard to overall survival, local recurrence and distant metastasis rate.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence that patients who had a laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer converted to open surgery have a worse oncologic outcome than patients who were primarily treated by an open approach.

Reevaluation of laparoscopic surgery's value in pathological T4 colon cancer with comparison to open surgery: A retrospective and propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

In spite of the unique advantages of minimally invasive treatment, laparoscopic surgery is not recommended in T4 colon cancer patients with the concern of technical feasibility and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. We used the database of our center to reevaluate laparoscopic surgery's value in T4 colon cancer and compared with open surgery in both short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective and propensity score-matched study of pathological T4 colon cancer patients who received laparoscopic surgery or open surgery from March 2011 to August 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 411 pathological T4 colon cancer patients were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in 86 patients in laparoscopic group and 86 patients in open group. Our study showed longer operation time, less blood loss and less length of postsurgical stay compared with open surgeries (167 ± 56 min vs. 111 ± 50.1 min, P < 0.001; 72 ± 61.5 mL vs. 113 ± 113.9 mL, P = 0.004; 7.3 ± 2.1 days vs. 7.9 ± 2.1 days, P = 0.046, respectively). 7 (8.2%) patients underwent conversions to open surgery. 5-years of DFS and OS showed no statistic difference between the two groups. The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.4%, 77.5% and 73.2% for laparoscopic surgery and 95.2%, 82.7% and 73.9% for open surgery (P = 0.618). The 1-, 3-, and 5-years OS rates were 89.5%, 77.2% and 61.7% for laparoscopic surgery and 91.7%, 75.3% and 66.8% for open surgery (P = 0.903).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates that there is no statistic difference in short- and long-oncologic outcomes in our center and it is a reliable evidence to support the clinical application of laparoscopic surgery in T4 colon cancer patients. Still, considering the lack of randomized controlled trails, conducting large prospective multi-center population-based studies is not only required, but also pressing.

Cancer recurrence following conversion during laparoscopic colorectal resections: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Evidence regarding long-term oncological outcomes following conversion to open surgery (COS) during laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) is controversial. The aim of this study is to assess the impact on cancer recurrence of a failed laparoscopic attempt.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge databases were searched for articles reporting data on cancer recurrence in patients undergoing completed LCR and COS. Data were pooled by fixed or random effect modeling, according to the presence of heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were local recurrence (LR) and distance recurrence (DR).

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 2493 patients (completed LCR, n 2201 and COS, n 292) were included. The pooled analysis showed that COS resections have an higher risk of LR (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14-3.42, p = 0.1); no difference was found in DR (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67-1.77, p = 0.71). However, an higher rate of T4 tumor was present in the converted group (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.71-4, p = 0.0). Subgroup analysis including studies with T stage matched populations showed no significant statistical difference in LR rate; however, a trend toward higher recurrence was still clear.

CONCLUSION

There is no consistent evidence that a failed laparoscopic attempt does not result in a poorer oncological outcome; therefore, a careful selection of patients for LCR for cancer is required.

Oncologic Outcomes Following Laparoscopic versus Open Resection of pT4 Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for laparoscopic resection, and clinical trials addressing the oncologic safety are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to synthesize the oncologic outcomes associated with laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for locally advanced colon cancers.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened the literature for controlled trials or observational studies comparing curative-intent laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer. Studies were included if it was possible to determine outcomes for the T4 colon cancers separately, either reported in the article or calculated with individual patient data.

INTERVENTIONS

Included studies were systematically reviewed and assessed for risk of bias. Meta-analyses were done by using random-effects models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes of interest were disease-free survival, overall survival, resection margins, and lymph node harvest.

RESULTS

Of 2878 identified studies, 5 observational studies met eligibility criteria with a total of 1268 patients (675 laparoscopic, 593 open). There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.94-1.72), disease-free survival (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61), or positive surgical margins (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58-2.32) between the groups. The open group had a larger lymph node retrieval (pooled mean difference, 2.26 nodes; 95% CI, 0.58-3.93). The pooled rate of conversion from laparoscopy to an open procedure was 18.6% (95% CI, 9.3%-27.9%).

LIMITATIONS

These results are limited by the inherent selection bias in the included nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available literature, minimally invasive resection of selected locally advanced colon cancer is oncologically safe. There is a small increase in lymph node harvest with open resections, but it is unclear whether this is clinically significant. Surgeons should be prepared for a significant rate of conversion to laparotomy as required to perform en bloc resection.

Laparoscopy and laparotomy for colorectal cancer: a comparative single-center study

Laparoscopy has been studied as an alternative to laparotomy in colorectal cancer treatment. This retrospective study analyzed postoperative and 2-year oncological outcomes of 205 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer in a Portuguese center. There were no major significant differences between patients submitted to laparoscopy or laparotomy. Operating time was significantly shorter and length of stay significantly longer with laparotomy (135.09 vs 189.29 min [p < 0.001]; 20.32 vs 11.44 days [p < 0.001]). Mean 2-year survival was not significantly different between laparoscopy and laparotomy (overall: 1.96 vs 1.96 [p = 0.866]; disease-free: 1.93 vs 1.89 [p = 0.411]). Port-site metastasis prevalence was 1.56%. In this retrospective study, laparoscopy showed its noninferiority in colorectal cancer treatment, although it should be complemented by controlled prospective studies.

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: What is the impact on short-term outcomes and survival?

Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer is associated with quicker return of bowel function, reduced postoperative morbidity rates and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, with no differences in long-term survival. Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 30% of patients enrolled in randomized control trials comparing open and laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer. In this review, reasons for conversion are anatomical-related factors, disease-related-factors and surgeon-related factors. Body mass index, local tumour extension and co-morbidities are independent predictors of conversion. The current evidence has shown that patients with converted resection for colon cancer have similar outcomes compared to patients undergoing a laparoscopic completed or open resection. The few studies that have assessed the outcomes after conversion of laparoscopic rectal resection reported significantly higher rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay in converted patients compared to laparoscopically treated patients. No definitive conclusions can be drawn when converted and open rectal resections are compared. Early and pre-emptive conversion appears to have more favourable outcomes than reactive conversion; however, further large studies are needed to better define the optimal timing of conversion. With regard to long-term oncologic outcome, overall and disease-free survival in the case of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery seems to be worse than those achieved in patients in whom resection was successfully completed by laparoscopy. Although a worse long-term oncologic outcome has been suggested, it remains difficult to draw a proper conclusion due to the heterogeneity of the long-term outcomes as well as the inclusion of both colon and rectal cancer patients in most of the studies. Therefore, we discuss the currently available evidence of the impact of conversion in laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer on both short-term outcomes and long-term survival.

Critical appraisal of laparoscopic vs open rectal cancer surgery

AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and the impact of conversion in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS: An analysis was performed on a prospective database of 633 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Patients were compared in three groups: Open surgery (OP), laparoscopic surgery, and converted laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and survival analysis were compared.

RESULTS: Among 633 patients studied, 200 patients had successful laparoscopic resections with a conversion rate of 11.1% (25 out of 225). Factors predictive of survival on univariate analysis include the laparoscopic approach (P = 0.016), together with factors such as age, ASA status, stage of disease, tumor grade, presence of perineural invasion and vascular emboli, circumferential resection margin < 2 mm, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.148). Neither 5-year overall survival (70.5% vs 61.8%, P = 0.217) nor 5-year cancer free survival (64.3% vs 66.6%, P = 0.854) were significantly different between the laparoscopic group and the converted group.

CONCLUSION: LRR has equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to OP. Laparoscopic conversion does not confer a worse prognosis.

Conversion during laparoscopic colorectal resections: a complication or a drawback? A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

Several studies compared the outcomes of laparoscopically completed colorectal resections (LCR) to those requiring conversion to open surgery (COS). However, a comparative analysis between COS patients and patients undergoing planned open surgery (POS) would be useful to clarify if the conversion can be considered a simple drawback or a complication, being cause of additional postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis of current evidences comparing postoperative outcomes of COS patients to POS patients.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus was performed to identify studies reporting short-term outcomes of COS and POS patients. Primary outcomes were 30-day overall morbidity and length of postoperative hospital stay. Data were analyzed with fixed-effect modeling, and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Twenty studies involving 30,656 patients undergoing POS and 1935 COS patients were selected. The mean conversion rate was 0.17. Similar 30-day overall morbidity and length of postoperative hospital stay were found in COS and POS patients. Wound infection (OR 1.43, 95 % CI 1.12 to 1.83, p < 0.01) was higher in the COS group. Other results were robust. Outcomes were comparable for patients undergoing resection for different natures of the disease (benign vs. malignant) and at different sites (colon vs. rectum).

CONCLUSION

Conversions from laparoscopic to open procedure during colorectal resection are not associated with a poorer postoperative outcome compared to patients undergoing planned open surgery, except for a higher risk of wound infection.

The short-term and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 colon cancer

PURPOSE

To compare R0 resection rates and short-term and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopy and open surgery for T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients with non-metastatic T4 colon cancer (n = 117) underwent treatment either through laparoscopy (n = 51) or open surgery (n = 66). Conversion to open surgery occurred in seven cases (13.7%).

RESULTS

History of abdominal surgery (2.0 vs. 12.1%) and emergency operation (2.1 vs. 24.2%) were less frequent in the laparoscopy group. Conversion to open surgery occurred in seven cases (13.7%). Resection of adjacent organs was less frequently performed in the laparoscopy group (27.5 vs. 53.0%, p = .005). The mean operative time (189 vs. 210 min) and rate of 30-day postoperative complications (12 vs. 24%) were similar between the two groups. Shorter time to soft diet (7 vs. 9 days, p = .018) and hospital stay (14 vs. 18 days, p = .044) were observed in the laparoscopy group. T4b tumor was also less frequent in the laparoscopy group (3.9 vs. 18.2%, p = .018), while R0 resection rates were similar between the laparoscopy (96.1%) and open surgery group (95.5%). The mean number of lymph nodes was 22 in the laparoscopy group and 27 in the open surgery group (p = .021). No differences in 3-year overall survival rate (82.5 vs. 75.7%), recurrence-free survival rate (61.9 vs. 63.5%), and local recurrence-free survival rate (89.8 vs. 88.5%) were observed between the groups. Operation time, blood loss, 30-day complication rate, time to diet, duration of hospital stay, R0 resection rate, 3-year overall and local recurrence-free survival rates showed no difference between the converted and open surgery groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that laparoscopy is a surgically safe and oncologically acceptable approach and thus could be considered for well-selected patients with T4 colon cancer in order to allow faster short-term recovery.

Risk prediction score in laparoscopic colorectal surgery training: experience from the English National Training Program

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim was to develop and validate a risk prediction score for laparoscopic colorectal surgery training cases.

BACKGROUND

Published risk prediction scores are not transferable between hospitals because they are derived from a single institution's data and are not designed for use in training situations.

METHODS

Cases from the prospectively collected database of the National Training Programme in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, between July 2008 and July 2012, were analyzed. Independent risk factors for conversion were identified by the logistic regression. Converting the odds ratios into integers created a risk prediction score for conversion. The clinical impact of this score was investigated by comparing postoperative complications and the level of trainer input in high- and low-risk cases. To study whether adverse outcomes in predicted high-risk cases occur outside the National Training Programme in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, 2 external data sets were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 2341 cases carried out in 42 hospitals were analyzed. Significant risk factors for conversion were body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology classification, male sex, prior abdominal surgery, and resection type. At a risk score of more than 6, complication rates increased, including mortality (2.9% vs 0.5%, P < 0.001), anastomotic leak (4.3% vs 1.4%, P = 0.002), and a higher level of trainer input (32.2% vs 19.9% of cases, P < 0.001). Analysis of 786 external cases showed that high-risk cases had higher conversion (18.8% vs 7.1%, P < 0.001), overall complication (36.4% vs 15.0%, P < 0.001), and leak rates (4.0% vs 1.3%, P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

A risk predication score to facilitate case selection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery training was developed and validated.

Comparing oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer: Analysis of a large prospective clinical database

BACKGROUND

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery have been shown to be equivalent to those of open surgery, but only in the setting of randomized controlled trials on highly selected patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether this finding is generalizable to real world practice.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data from the BioGrid Australia database was undertaken. Overall and cancer specific survival rates were compared with cox regression analysis controlling for the confounders of age, sex, BMI, ASA score, hospital site, year surgery performed, procedure, tumor stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2009, 1,106 patients underwent elective colon cancer resection. There were differences between the laparoscopic and open cohorts in BMI, procedure, post-operative complication rate, and tumor stage. When baseline confounders were accounted for using cox regression analysis, there was no difference in 5 year overall survival (χ(2) test 1.302, P = 0.254), or cancer specific survival (χ(2) test 0.028, P = 0.866).

CONCLUSION

This large prospective clinical study validates previous trial results, and confirms that there is no difference in oncological outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer.

The impact of laparoscopic converted to open colectomy on short-term and oncologic outcomes for colon cancer

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic converted to open colectomy on short-term and oncologic outcomes and to identify risk factors for long-term survival in patients undergoing colectomy for non-metastatic colon cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive operations for non-metastatic colon cancer was reviewed. Patients were grouped as conversion (CONV) group, completed laparoscopic resection (LAP) group, or open resection (OPEN) group. The clinical and perioperative parameters, pathologic features, and oncologic outcomes were collected. Univariate analysis was performed for comparing these data. Patients without evidence of recurrence at last follow-up or still alive at the end of study period were censored. Kaplan-Meier curves were utilized to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 15.2 %. The most common reason for conversion was locally advanced cancer (45.5 %). Converted patients were associated with a longer operative time (188 ± 29.1 min, P < 0.001), greater blood loss (147 ± 14 mL, P < 0.001), and a higher rate of intra-operative complications (15.2 %, P = 0.042) compared to the completely laparoscopic or open patients. Days to flatus, early ambulation, and length of hospitalization were significantly shorter in completed laparoscopic resection (LAP) group (P < 0.001); however, the outcomes were comparable between conversion (CONV) and open resection (OPEN) groups. The incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in the OPEN group than in the LAP group (P = 0.005), whereas there were no significant differences observed between the CONV group and the OPEN group (P = 1.000) or between the LAP group and the CONV group (P = 0.073). The 5-year DFS in CONV patients (46.5 %) was comparable to LAP patients (55.5 %, P = 0.138) and OPEN patients (59.1 %, P = 0.113). Moreover, there were no significant differences noted in terms of the 5-year OS in the CONV group (56.7 %) compared to the LAP group (67.3 %, P = 0.317) or the OPEN group (66.3 %, P = 0.420). The multivariate analysis showed that pT3-4 cancer (P < 0.001) and poor differentiation (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of both lower OS and lower DFS, whereas leakage (P = 0.008) and lack of adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.023) were independent risk factors only of lower DFS.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open colectomy from an initial laparoscopic approach does not worsen the long-term survival in patients with non-metastatic colon cancer.

Laparoscopic vs open extended right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic extended right hemicolectomy (LERH) for colon cancer.

METHODS: Since its establishment in 2009, the Southern Chinese Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgical Study (SCLCSS) group has been dedicated to promoting patients’ quality of life through minimally invasive surgery. The multicenter database was launched by combining existing datasets from members of the SCLCSS group. The study enrolled 220 consecutive patients who were recorded in the multicenter retrospective database and underwent either LERH (n = 119) or open extended right hemicolectomy (OERH) (n = 101) for colon cancer. Clinical characteristics, surgical outcomes, and oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), history of previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, and tumor stage between the two groups. The blood loss was lower in the LERH group than in the OERH group [100 (100-200) mL vs 150 (100-200) mL, P < 0.0001]. The LERH group was associated with earlier first flatus (2.7 ± 1.0 d vs 3.2 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.0001) and resumption of liquid diet (3.6 ± 1.0 d vs 4.2 ± 1.0 d, P < 0.0001) compared to the OERH group. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LERH group (11.4 ± 4.7 d vs 12.8 ± 5.6 d, P = 0.009) than in the OERH group. The complication rate was 11.8% and 17.6% in the LERH and OERH groups, respectively (P = 0.215). Both 3-year overall survival [LERH (92.0%) vs OERH (84.4%), P = 0.209] and 3-year disease-free survival [LERH (84.6%) vs OERH (76.6%), P = 0.191] were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: LERH with D3 lymphadenectomy for colon cancer is a technically feasible and safe procedure, yielding comparable short-term oncologic outcomes to those of open surgery.

Laparoscopic and converted approaches to rectal cancer resection have superior long-term outcomes: a comparative study by operative approach

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes for rectal cancer resection by operative approach. Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic (LAP) and LAP converted to open (OPEN) rectal cancer resections have excellent patient and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified curative rectal cancer resections. Patients were stratified by operative approach: LAP, OPEN, or CONVERTED. Oncologic and clinical outcomes data was examined for each operative approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 294 patients were analyzed-116 LAP (39.5%), 153 OPEN (52.0%), and 25 (8.5%) CONVERTED. Groups were comparable in demographics. Mean distal margin, circumferential resection margin, and lymph nodes harvested were comparable. The median length of stay was 4 days (range 1-20) LAP, 6 days (range 3-13) CONVERTED, and 8 days (range 1-35) OPEN (p < 0.01). More OPEN had postoperative complications (p < 0.01)-complication rates were 43.8% OPEN, 32.0% CONVERTED, and 21.5 % LAP. Unplanned readmissions and reoperations were similar (21.6% OPEN, 16.0% CONVERTED, 12.1% LAP). Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 98.3%, and local recurrence rate was 2.0%. By approach, DFS was 100% CONVERTED, 93.1% LAP, and 87.6% OPEN (p = 0.31). Overall survival (OS) was 100 % CONVERTED, 99.1% LAP, and 97.4%. OPEN. Local recurrence was 0% CONVERTED, 2% OPEN, and 2.6% LAP. 3-year DFS for LAP and CONVERTED was superior to OPEN (p = 0.05), with comparable local recurrence (p = 0.07) and OS rates (0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

LAP and converted procedures have comparable or superior clinical and oncologic outcomes. More procedures should be approached through a LAP approach. If the procedure cannot be completed laparoscopically, outcomes are not compromised for converted patients.

Integration of open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer resection: oncologic and short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is increasingly used for rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is not attempted for some suitable patients because of concerns for conversion or technical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate oncologic and short-term outcomes for patients undergoing curative resection for rectal cancer via laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed to identify rectal cancer resections from 2005 to 2011. Patients who had primary rectal cancer within 15 cm of the anal verge were included in the study. Those with recurrent or metastatic disease were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic or open approaches preoperatively based on clinical criteria and imaging. All patients underwent a standard total mesorectal excision and followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. The oncologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by approach.

RESULTS

The analysis included 81 patients. The preoperative assignments consisted of 62 laparoscopic (77%) and 19 open (23%) procedures. Nine laparoscopic procedures (14.5%) were converted to open procedures. After a median follow-up period of 25 months, all oncologic outcomes were comparable. Three patients (two laparoscopic, one open) had a positive circumferential margin (≤1 mm). The laparoscopic and open groups were similar in terms of their 3-year disease-free periods (93.6 vs. 88.2%; P = 0.450) and overall survival periods (93.5 vs. 90.9%; P = 0.766). The local recurrence rate was 2.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer can be attempted for most patients. Conversion to open procedure does not compromise clinical or oncologic outcomes. In practice, combining laparoscopic and open surgery optimizes resource use and results in at least equivalent outcomes.

Does conversion affect short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy for colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) for cancer has been associated with adverse short-term and oncologic outcomes. However, most studies have had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative outcomes and survival among patients undergoing LCR for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive LCRs for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer was reviewed. Patients who required conversion (CONV group) were compared with those who had completed laparoscopic resection (LAP group). Only patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up period were included in the oncologic analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 10.9%. The most common reason for conversion was a locally advanced tumor (48.4%). Conversion was associated with a significantly longer operative time and a greater blood loss. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay between the CONV and LAP patients. During a median follow-up period of 120 months (range, 60-180 months), the CONV group had a significantly worse 5-year overall survival (OS) (79.4 vs 87.4%; p = 0.016) and disease-free survival (DFS) (65.4 vs 79.6%; p = 0.013). Univariate analysis showed that conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, pT4 cancer, stage 3 disease, and adjuvant chemotherapy were significant risk factors for OS and DFS. On multivariate analysis, pT4 cancer and a lymph node ratio (LNR) of 0.25 or greater were the only independent predictors of DFS and OS, whereas a LNR of 0.01 to 0.24 showed a trend that did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery per se is not associated with worse early postoperative outcomes and does not adversely affect long-term survival per se.

Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection is used widely in the management of colorectal cancer; however, the data on long-term outcomes, particularly those related to rectal cancer, are limited. The results of long-term follow-up of the UK Medical Research Council trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer are presented.

METHODS

A total of 794 patients from 27 UK centres were randomized to laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio between 1996 and 2002. Long-term follow-up data were analysed to determine differences in survival outcomes and recurrences for intention-to-treat and actual treatment groups.

RESULTS

Median follow-up of all patients was 62·9 (interquartile range 22·9 - 92·8) months. There were no statistically significant differences between open and laparoscopic groups in overall survival (78·3 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 65·8 to 106·6) versus 82·7 (69·1 to 94·8) months respectively; P = 0·780) and disease-free survival (DFS) (89·5 (67·1 to 121·7) versus 77·0 (63·3 to 94·0) months; P = 0·589). In colonic cancer intraoperative conversions to open surgery were associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 2·28, 95 per cent c.i. 1·47 to 3·53; P < 0·001) and DFS (HR 2·20, 1·31 to 3·67; P = 0·007). In terms of recurrence, no significant differences were observed by randomized procedure. However, at 10 years, right colonic cancers showed an increased propensity for local recurrence compared with left colonic cancers: 14·7 versus 5·2 per cent (difference 9·5 (95 per cent c.i. 2·3 to 16·6) per cent; P = 0·019).

CONCLUSION

Long-term results continue to support the use of laparoscopic surgery for both colonic and rectal cancer.

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery may be comparable with open techniques when considering oncological and long-term follow-up outcomes; however, there are a few operative complications specific to laparoscopic colorectal surgery. This article reviews the array of complications and discusses them in detail.