Laparoscopic and converted approaches to rectal cancer resection have superior long-term outcomes: a comparative study by operative approach. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1940-1948. [PMID: 24515259 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3419-8]

Comparative analysis of the oncologic outcomes and risk factors for open conversion in laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colon surgery is now commonly used for colorectal cancer (CRC) resection. The objective of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes between open conversion and laparoscopic surgery, and to identify risk factors for open conversion.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent curative resection for stage 0-III CRC at five Hallym University-affiliated hospitals between January 2011 and June 2021. The patients were divided into the conversion and laparoscopic groups according to whether laparoscopic surgery was completed.

RESULTS

Out of 2231 patients, laparoscopic surgery was completed in 2131 patients and 100 (4.5 %) converted to open surgery. The operation time (P = 0.028) and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.036) were longer in the conversion group than in the laparoscopic group. Overall (P = 0.022) and severe (Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥3) (P = 0.048) complications were more frequent in the conversion group than in the laparoscopic group. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was worse in the conversion group than in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.002). In the multivariable analysis, open conversion was not a prognostic factor for RFS (P = 0.082). Abdominal surgery history (P = 0.021), obstruction (P < 0.001), and T4 stage (P < 0.001) were independently associated with open conversion.

CONCLUSION

The conversion group had worse perioperative and oncologic outcomes. History of abdominal surgery, obstruction, and T4 stage were associated with open conversion. However, conversion itself was not associated with RFS.

Comparison of Early Clinical and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Converted Rectal Cancer Resection: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Aim The effects of conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer on perioperative clinical and long-term oncological outcomes are still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the impact of conversion to laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer on perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. Material and methods Between January 2019 and December 2023, 84 consecutive patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal cancer at a single academic center were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were classified and compared as the laparoscopic (LAP-G) and converted (CONV-G) groups. Perioperative, pathological, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared. Results Of the 84 consecutive patients included, 18 were converted to open surgery, leading to a 21.4% conversion rate. Intraoperative blood loss was higher in CONV-G (180 ml vs. 80 ml, p<0.001), but early clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The median follow-up period was 23.5 (range 3-65) and 30.5 (range 6-61) months in the LAP-G and CONV-G, respectively, and recurrence occurred in 11 (16.7%) and 3 (16.6%) patients, respectively. Three-year overall survival was 96.9% and 89.4% (p=0.609) and 3-year disease-free survival was 92.4% and 83.3% (p=0.881) in LAP-G and CONV-G, respectively, and the results were similar. Conclusion Conversion from laparoscopic rectal resection to open surgery does not have a significant negative impact on morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes.

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.

National disparities in use of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in older adults

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is safe and improves outcomes in older persons with rectal cancer but may be underutilized. As older persons are the largest surgical population, investigation of the current use and factors impacting MIS use is warranted. Our goal is to investigate the trends and disparities that affect utilization of MIS in older persons with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was reviewed for persons 65 years and older who underwent curative resection for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2017. Cases were stratified by surgical approach (open or MIS [laparoscopic or robotic]). Univariate analysis compared patient and provider demographics across approaches. Multivariate analysis investigated variables associated with MIS use. Main outcome measures were trends and factors associated with MIS use in older persons.

RESULTS

Of 31,910 patients analyzed, 51.9% (n = 16,555) were open and 48.1% (n = 15,355) MIS. The MIS cohort was 66.7% (n = 10,236) laparoscopic and 33.3% (n = 5119) robotic. MIS increased from 29% in 2010 (n = 1197; 25% laparoscopic, 4% robotic) to 65% in 2017 (n = 2382; 35% laparoscopic, 30% robotic), likely from annual increases in robotics (OR 1.24/year, p < 0.0001). In the unadjusted analysis, there were significant differences in MIS use by age, race, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and facility type. In multivariate analysis, patients with advancing age (OR 0.93, p < 0.001), major comorbidity (OR 0.75, p < 0.001), total proctectomy (OR0.78, p < 0.001), and advanced pathologic stage (OR 0.51, p < 0.001) were less likely to undergo MIS.

CONCLUSION

Nationwide, less than half of rectal cancer cases in older persons were performed with MIS, despite steady robotic growth. Patient and facility factors impacted MIS use. Further work on regionalizing rectal cancer care and ensuring equitable MIS access and training could improve utilization.

Operative Approach Does Not Impact Radial Margin Positivity in Distal Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.

Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer.

METHODS

From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41-4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57-5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34-17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362).

CONCLUSION

Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure.

Are oncological long-term outcomes equal after laproscopic completed and converted laparoscopic converted rectal resection for cancer?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival after laproscopic completed and laparoscopic converted rectal resection for cancer.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent curative laparoscopic rectal surgery for cancer at our institution between January 2001 and December 2016 were included in a single-center retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: the converted (CONV) group and the totally laparoscopic (LAP) group. The primary outcomes were long-term oncologic outcomes including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), as well as local and distant recurrence (LR, DR). The secondary outcomes included postoperative mortality and morbidity as defined as death or any complication occurring within 90 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Of 214 consecutive patients included, 57 were converted to open surgery (CONV group), leading to a 26.6% conversion rate. Mean length of follow-up was 68 ± 42 months in the LAP group and 70 ± 41 months in the CONV group. Five-year OS was significantly shorter in the CONV group compared to the LAP group (p = 0.0016). On multivariate analysis, rectal tumor location (middle and low) and conversion to open surgery were predictors of both OS and DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that conversion to open surgery after laparoscopic rectal resection appears to significantly reduce OS without having a significant impact on DFS and recurrence rates.

Long-term oncologic outcome and risk factors after conversion in laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic converted surgery for patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective database of consecutive curative-intent laparoscopic-assisted surgery for primary stage I-III colon cancer was reviewed from 2000 to 2013. The patients were divided into non-conversion and conversion groups. The patient characters, operative features, perioperative parameters, pathologic features, and oncologic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 4010 patients were included in the study: 3929 in the non-conversion group and 81 (2%) in the conversion group. The median follow-up period was 63.9 months. There were significant differences in age, preoperative clinical T-stage, and tumor size between the groups. In operative details between the two groups, there were also significant differences in access to surgery, tumor location, cancer obstruction, cancer perforation, and estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). The two most common reasons for conversion were adhesion (n = 37, 46%) and bleeding (n = 21, 26%). Multivariate analysis showed that conversion was an independent predictor of both overall survival (OS) (P < 0.001) and disease-free survival (P = 0.003). The 5-year OS rate of the conversion group was 79.6%, and that of the non-conversion group was 96.2% (P < 0.001). The multivariate predictors of conversion were age, type of surgery, cancer obstruction, cancer perforation, and clinical T-stage.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery may affect patient survival and recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer. Our data suggest that conversion is associated with poor outcomes, but we should not hesitate to convert it to patients who have difficulty in laparoscopic surgery.

Does conversion during laparoscopic rectal oncological surgery increases postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage rates? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, regarding previous published studies, postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing rectal cancer resection performed by totally laparoscopic approach (LAP) compared to those who underwent peroperative conversion (CONV).

METHODS

Studies comparing LAP versus CONV for rectal cancer published until December 2017 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were searched in Medline and Cochrane Trials Register Database. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0.

RESULTS

Twelve prospective and retrospective studies with a total of 4503 patients who underwent fully laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer and a total of 612 patients who underwent conversion were included. Meta-analysis did not show any significant difference on overall mortality between both approaches (OR=0.47, 95%CI=0.18-1.22, P=0.12). However, Meta-analysis showed that anastomotic leakage rate, wound abscess rate and postoperative morbidity rate were significantly decreased with totally laparoscopic approach (OR=0.37, 95%CI =0.24-0.58, P<0.0001; OR=0.29, 95%CI=0.19-0.45, P<0.00001; OR=0.56, 95%CI=0.46-0.67, P<0.00001 respectively).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that conversion increases anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity and wound abscess rates without increasing mortality rate for patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer.

[Conversion of laparoscopic access in colorectal cancer surgery (in Russian only)]

AIM

To analyze the problem of access conversion in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 876 procedures for colorectal cancer T14N01M0 performed at the Rostov Research Institute of Oncology in 2015-2017. Open and laparoscopic surgery was applied in 562 and 309 patients, respectively. Conversion of laparoscopic procedures was required in 35 (10.2%) patients.

RESULTS

Conversions were 2.7 times more frequent in men (p<0.05) (probably due to anatomical features - a narrow pelvis) and predominantly with rectosigmoid (22.2%, 2 patients) and rectal cancer (12%, 22 patients). Conversions in women were as well in right-sided colon cancer (9.7%, 3 cases) and sigmoid cancer (7.4%, 4 patients). Conversions were performed mostly due to locally advanced tumors (37.1%, 13 patients) which are especially baffling in case of narrow pelvis. Visceral obesity (20%, 7 patients) and abdominal adhesions (17.1%, 6 patients) were also important causes of conversions. Conversions did not affect time of surgery (256 min vs. 240 min in laparoscopic and 237 min in open surgery). Intraoperative blood loss (284 ml) was higher than in laparoscopy (240 ml) but did not exceed that in open surgery (291 ml).

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to assess risks and benefits of laparoscopy in patients with high probability of conversion in colorectal cancer surgery.

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.

Controversies in Surgical Oncology: Does the Minimally Invasive Approach for Rectal Cancer Provide Equivalent Oncologic Outcomes Compared with the Open Approach?

BACKGROUND

Compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has been shown to improve short-term outcomes and yield equivalent long-term oncologic results. It remains to be seen if oncologic outcomes for the minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer are equivalent to traditional open rectal resection.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases. Relevant studies were selected using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five key questions comparing minimally invasive and open oncologic outcomes for rectal cancer were specifically analyzed. A meta-analysis was not done due to heterogeneity of studies.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met inclusion criteria, including six randomized controlled trials. The laparoscopic approach to rectal resection was not more likely than the traditional open approach to have clear circumferential and distal margins, a complete total mesorectal excision grade, ≥ 12 lymph nodes in the resected specimen, reduced local recurrence rates, or reduced overall survival rates. Two randomized trials revealed that successful laparoscopic resection was not noninferior to open.

CONCLUSIONS

Caution should be exercised when choosing surgical options for rectal cancer. Results of randomized trials could not prove that short-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were equivalent to those after open surgery even when performed by surgeons with laparoscopic expertise. However, reported long-term data have not shown a difference in outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery. Future advances in minimally invasive technology may improve oncologic margins but these will require careful study and scrutiny.

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.

Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopy for advanced-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the operative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic (LAR) versus open anterior rectal resection (OAR) for patients with pT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

This is a multicenter propensity score matching (PSM) study of patients undergoing elective curative-intent LAR or OAR for pT4 rectal cancer (TNM stage II/III/IV) between 2005 and 2015.

RESULTS

In total, 137 patients were included in the analysis. After PSM, demographic, clinical and tumor characteristics were similar between the 52 LAR and the 52 OAR patients. Overall, 52 tumors were located in the high rectum, 25 in the mid-rectum and 27 in the low rectum. Multivisceral resection was performed in 26.9% of LAR and 30.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.829). Conversion was required in 11 LAR patients (21.2%). The LAR group showed significantly shorter time to flatus (3.13 vs. 4.97 days, p = 0.001), time to regular diet (3.59 vs. 6.36 days, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (15.49 vs. 17.96 days, p = 0.002) compared to the OAR group. The 90-day morbidity and mortality were not different between groups. In the majority of patients (85.6%), R0 resection was achieved. A complete mesorectal excision was obtained in 82.7% of LAR and 78.8% of OAR patients (p = 0.855). The 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival rates were, respectively, 95.6, 73.8 and 66.7% for the LAR group and 86.7, 66.9 and 64.1% for the OAR group (p = 0.219). The presence of synchronous metastases (hazard ratio 2.26), R1 resection (HR 2.71) and lymph node involvement (HR 2.24) were significant predictors of overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that LAR for pT4 rectal cancer can achieve good pathologic and oncologic outcomes similar to open surgery despite the risk of conversion. Moreover, laparoscopy offers the benefits of a faster recovery and a shorter hospital stay.

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.

Right-Sided Diverticulitis Requiring Colectomy: an Evolving Demographic? A Review of Surgical Outcomes from the National Inpatient Sample Database

INTRODUCTION

There remains a paucity of recent data on right-sided colonic diverticulitis, especially those undergoing colectomy. We sought to describe the clinical features of patients undergoing both a laparoscopic and open surgery for right-sided diverticulitis.

METHODS

This study is a review of all cases of a right colectomy or ileocecectomy for diverticulitis from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2006 to 2012. Demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative outcomes were identified for all cases. A comparative analysis of a laparoscopic versus open approach was performed.

RESULTS

We identified 2233 admissions (laparoscopic = 592; open = 1641) in the NIS database. The majority of cases were Caucasian (67 %), with 6 % of NIS cases identified as Asian/Pacific Islander. The overall morbidity and in-hospital mortality rates were 24 and 2.7 %, respectively. The conversion rate from a laparoscopic to open procedure was 34 %. Postoperative complications were greater in the open versus laparoscopic cohorts (25 vs. 19 %, p < 0.01), with pulmonary complications as the highest (7.0 vs. 1.7 %; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This investigation represents one of the largest cohorts of colon resections to treat right-sided diverticulitis in the USA. In this series, right-sided diverticulitis undergoing surgery occurred most commonly in the Caucasian population and is most often approached via an open surgical technique; however, laparoscopy is a safe and feasible option.

Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision is a technically challenging procedure, and there are limitations in conventional laparoscopy. A surgical robotic system may help to overcome some of the limitations. This study aimed to compare the short-term operative as well as oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection.

METHODS

This study was based on a prospectively collected database of patients with mid- to distal rectal cancer (up to 12 cm from the anal verge) undergoing either laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection from January 2008 to June 2015. Data on patient demographics, intraoperative parameters and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Patient survival and recurrence were also compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 171 and 220 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection, respectively. The median age was 65 years (range 23-96). The median tumor distance was 8 and 7 cm from the anal verge in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively (p = 0.06). Significantly more male patients and more patients with comorbidities and preoperative radiation underwent robotic surgery. The median operating time for robotic resection was significantly longer, 260 versus 225 min (p < 0.001). Conversion rates of laparoscopic and robotic resection were 3.5 and 0.8 %, respectively (p = 0.308). The median hospital stay was 6 days in both groups (p = 0.29). There was no difference in the overall complication rate, but the incidence of urinary retention was significantly less in the robotic group (4.1 vs. 10.5 %, p = 0.024). With a median follow-up of 31 months, there was no difference in local recurrence, overall survival and disease-specific survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of mid- to low rectal cancer, robotic resection can achieve operative results and oncologic outcomes comparable to laparoscopic resection. The postoperative urinary retention rate is lower following robotic surgery.

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.

A National Database Analysis Comparing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Laparoscopic vs Open Colectomies: Inherent Variance May Impact Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical and administrative databases each have fundamental distinctions and inherent limitations that may impact results.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, focusing on the similarities, differences, and limitations of both data sets.

DESIGN

All elective open and laparoscopic segmental colectomies from American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2006-2013) and Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2006-2012) were reviewed. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification coding identified Nationwide Inpatient Sample cases, and Current Procedural Terminology coding for American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Common demographics and comorbidities were identified, and in-hospital outcomes were evaluated.

SETTINGS

A national sample was extracted from population databases.

PATIENTS

Data were derived from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database: 188,326 cases (laparoscopic = 67,245; open = 121,081); and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: 110,666 cases (laparoscopic = 54,191; open = 56,475).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Colectomy data were used as an avenue to compare differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between these 2 data sets.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic colectomy demonstrated superior outcomes compared with open; therefore, results focused on comparing a minimally invasive approach among the data sets. Because of sample size, many variables were statistically different without clinical relevance. Coding discrepancies were demonstrated in the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (3%) and Nationwide Inpatient Sample (15%) data sets. The prevalence of nonmorbid obesity and anemia from National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was more than twice that of Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Sepsis was statistically greater in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, with urinary tract infections and acute kidney injury having a greater frequency in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample cohort. Surgical site infections were higher in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (30-day) vs Nationwide Inpatient Sample (8.4% vs 2.6%; p < 0.01), albeit less when restricted to infections that occurred before discharge (3.3% vs 2.6%; p < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective study using population-based data.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of 2 large national databases regarding colectomy outcomes highlights the incidence of previously unrecognized data variability. These discrepancies can impact study results and subsequent conclusions/recommendations. These findings underscore the importance of carefully choosing and understanding the different population-based data sets before designing and when interpreting outcomes research.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

Do the advantages of a minimally invasive approach remain in complex colorectal procedures? A nationwide comparison

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of laparoscopic colectomy, experience and technology continue to improve. Although accepted for many colorectal conditions, its use and outcomes in complex procedures are less understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic transverse colectomy and total abdominal colectomy (study group) with an open approach (comparative group) and the more established laparoscopic right, left, and sigmoid colectomies (control group).

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008-2011) of all patients undergoing elective right, left, sigmoid, total, or transverse colectomy as identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes. Risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes were assessed using regression modeling accounting for patient characteristics, comorbidities, and surgical procedures.

SETTINGS

The study included a national sample from a population database.

PATIENTS

There were 45,771 admissions: 2946 in the study group, 36,949 in the control group, and 5876 in the open comparative group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, length of stay, and hospital charges.

RESULTS

The patients were predominantly white (73%), had private insurance (64%), and underwent surgery at urban centers (92%). Mortality was similar between the study and control groups (0.42% vs 0.51%; p = 0.52), with a higher complication rate in the study group (19% vs 14%; p < 0.01). The study group was also associated with a lower mortality rate compared with the open group (0.51% vs 2.20%; p < 0.01), which remained consistent after adjusting for covariates (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.20-0.71]; p < 0.01). The study group had fewer complications overall compared with the open group (19% vs 27%; p < 0.01) and a shorter median length of stay (4.6 vs 6.3 days; p < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study using an administrative database.

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach for total abdominal and transverse colectomies has similar mortality rates and slightly higher complications than the more established laparoscopic colectomy procedures and improved perioperative outcomes when compared with an open technique (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A178).

The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 2: clinical implications and applications

The genetic understanding of colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to grow, and it is now estimated that 10% of the population has a known hereditary CRC syndrome. This article will examine the evolving surgical and medical management of hereditary CRC syndromes, and the impact of tumor genetics on therapy. This review will focus on the most common hereditary CRC-prone diseases seen in clinical practice, which include Lynch syndrome (LS), familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) & attenuated FAP (AFAP), MutYH-associated polyposis (MAP), and serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS). Each section will review the current recommendations in the evaluation and treatment of these syndromes, as well as review surgical management and operative planning. A highly detailed multigeneration cancer family history with verified genealogy and pathology documentation whenever possible, coupled with germline mutation testing when indicated, is critically important to management decisions. Although caring for patients with these syndromes remains complex, the application of this knowledge facilitates better treatment of both individuals and their affected family members for generations to come.