Avoiding colorectal resection for polyps: is CELS the best method?

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection for colonic neoplasms: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The current literature describes a variety of techniques detailed under the name of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) procedures. This systematic review of literature assessed the outcomes of colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic-wedge resection (CAL-WR) in particular to evaluate its feasibility to remove colonic lesions that do not qualify for endoscopic resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for studies evaluating CAL-WR for the treatment of colonic lesions. Studies with missing full text, language other than English, systematic reviews, and studies with fewer than ten patients were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Out of 68 results, duplicate studies (n = 27) as well as studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 32) were removed. Nine studies were included, encompassing 326 patients who underwent a CAL-WR of the colon. The technical success rate varied from 93 to 100%, with an R0 resection rate of 91-100%. Morbidity ranged from 6% to 20%. The quality of the included studies was rated as low to moderate and contained heterogeneous terminology, methodology, and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient high-quality data and substantial variation in outcome measures to draw firm conclusions regarding the value of CAL-WR. Although CAL-WR is a promising local resection technique for endoscopically unremovable neoplasms of the colon, further investigation of this technique in well-designed prospective, multicenter studies with predefined outcome measures is required.Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42023407966.

Combined Endoscopic Robotic Surgery for Complex Colon Polyps

BACKGROUND

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery is a surgical technique that modifies traditional endoscopic laparoscopic surgery with robotic assistance to aid in the removal of complex colonic polyps. This technique has been described in the literature but lacks patient follow-up data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of combined endoscopic robotic surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of a prospective database.

SETTING

East Jefferson General Hospital, Metairie, Louisiana.

PATIENTS

Ninety-three consecutive patients who underwent combined endoscopic robotic surgery from March 2018 to October 2021 were included in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, intraoperative complication, 30-day postoperative complication, hospital length of stay, and follow-up pathology report results were the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery was completed in 88 of 93 participants (95%). Among the 88 participants who completed combined endoscopic robotic surgery, the average age was 66 years (SD = 10), BMI was 28.8 kg/m 2 (SD = 6), and history of previous abdominal surgeries was 1 (SD = 1). Median operative time was 72 minutes (range, 31-184 minutes) and polyp size was 40 mm (range, 5-180 mm). The most common polyp locations were the cecum, ascending colon, and transverse colon (31%, 28%, 25%). Pathology mainly demonstrated tubular adenoma (76%). Data on 40 patients who underwent follow-up colonoscopy were available. The average follow-up time was 7 months (range, 3-22 months). One patient (2.5%) had polyp recurrence at the resection site.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations for our study include a lack of randomization and follow-up rate to assess for recurrence. The low compliance rate may be due to procedure cancelations/difficulty scheduling because of changing coronavirus disease 2019 guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to literature-reported statistics for its laparoscopic counterpart, combined endoscopic robotic surgery was associated with decreased operation times and resection site polyp recurrence. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C208 .

CIRUGA ROBTICA ENDOSCPICA COMBINADA PARA PLIPOS DE COLON COMPLEJOS

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada es una técnica quirúrgica que modifica la cirugía laparoscópica endoscópica tradicional con asistencia robótica para ayudar en la extracción de pólipos colónicos complejos. Esta técnica está previamente descrita en la literatura, pero carece de datos de seguimiento de los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la seguridad y los resultados de la cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos prospectiva.AJUSTE:Hospital General East Jefferson, Metairie LouisianaPACIENTES:Noventa y tres pacientes consecutivos y sometidos a cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada por un solo cirujano colorrectal desde marzo de 2018 hasta octubre de 2021.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio, complicación intraoperatoria, complicación posoperatoria a los 30 días, duración de la estancia hospitalaria y resultados del informe patológico de seguimiento.RESULTADOS:La cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada se completó en 88 de 93 (95%). Entre los 88 participantes que completaron la cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada, la edad promedio fue de 66 años (desviación estándar = 10), índice de masa corporal de 28,8 (desviación estándar = 6) y el historial de cirugías abdominales previas de 1 (desviación estándar = 1). La mediana del tiempo operatorio y el tamaño de los pólipos fueron 72 minutos (rango 31-184 minutos) y 40 milímetros (rango 5-180 milímetros), respectivamente. Las ubicaciones de pólipos más comunes fueron el ciego, colon ascendente y transverso (31%, 28%, 25%). La patología demostró principalmente adenoma tubular (76%). Los datos de 40 pacientes sometidos a una colonoscopia de seguimiento estaban disponibles. El tiempo medio de seguimiento fue de 7 meses (rango 3-22 meses). Un paciente (2,5%) presentó recurrencia polipoidea en el sitio de resección.LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones de nuestro estudio incluyeron la falta de aleatorización y la tasa de seguimiento para evaluar la recurrencia. La baja tasa de seguimiento puede deberse a la renuencia del paciente en hacerse una colonoscopia o cancelaciones de procedimientos por la dificultad para programar debido a cambios de COVID-19.CONCLUSIÓN:En comparación con las estadísticas reportadas en la literatura para su contraparte laparoscópica, la cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada se asoció con reducción en tiempos de operación y recurrencia de pólipos en el sitio de resección. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C208 . (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery for complex colonic polyp resection: case series

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to evaluate combined endoscopic and robotic surgery, a novel surgical technique modifying traditional combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery through robotic assistance, and characterize a series of patients who underwent the modified operative technique.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was performed. The first thirty-seven consecutive patients who underwent combined endoscopic robotic surgery by a single colorectal surgeon from March 2018 to October 2019 were included. Main outcome measures included operative time, intra-operative complication, 30-day post-operative complication, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Combined endoscopic and robotic surgery was performed in 37 cases, 32 (86.5%) of which saw the technique through to completion. Median operative room time was 73 min (range 31-184 min). No intraoperative complications occurred and 2 (6.3%) experienced 30-day post-operative complications. Median hospital length of stay was 1.1 days (range 0.2-2.0 days). Median polyp size was 35 mm (range 20-130 mm). Polyps were resected from the following locations: cecum (37.5%), ascending colon (28.1%), transverse colon (21.9%), descending colon (3.1%), sigmoid colon (6.3%), and rectum (3.1%). Pathology demonstrated 77.4% tubular adenoma, 12.9% sessile serrated adenoma, 6.5% dysplasia, and 3.2% signet cell adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSION

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery was associated with decreased operative time, complication rates, and hospital length of stay compared to literature-reported statistics for combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery. Increased confidence with 3-dimensional visualization and intracorporeal suturing using combined endoscopic and robotic surgery was noted. Additional studies are needed to further define the role of robotics in combined endoscopic surgery.

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of complex benign colonic polyps (CELS): Observational study

PURPOSE

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has emerged as a promising method for managing complex benign lesions that would otherwise require major colonic resection. The aim of this study was to describe the different techniques and to evaluate the safety of CELS, assess its outcomes in a technique that is scarcely widespread in our environment.

METHOD

Observational retrospective study, short-term outcomes of patients undergoing CELS for benign colon polyps from October 2018 to June 2020 were evaluated. Postoperative outcomes, length of hospital stay and pathological findings were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventeen consecutive patients underwent CELS during the study period. The median size of the lesion was 3.5 cm (range 2.5-6.5 cm), the most frequent location was the cecum (10 from 17). Most patients treated with CELS underwent an endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (11 from 17). In four patients this resection was combined with another CELS technique, and two patients underwent an endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic segment resection. The success rate of CELS in our series was in 14 from 17 (82.4%). The median operative time was 85 min (range 50-225 min). The median hospital stay was 2 days (range 1-15 days). One patient experienced an organ/space surgical site infection which did not require further intervention. Four lesions were shown to be malignant by postoperative pathology study.

CONCLUSION

CELS is a safe and multidisciplinar technique that requires collaboration between gastroenterologists and surgeons. It can be considered as an alternative to colonic resection for complex benign colonic polyps.

Full-Thickness Laparoendoscopic Excision for Management of Complex Colon Polyps

BACKGROUND

Benign colon polyps are increasingly being detected because of improved colonoscopic screening and early detection of masses on the adenoma-to-carcinoma pathway. Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision is a colon-preserving technique for endoscopically unresectable polyps consisting of endoscopically guided nonanatomic wedge colectomy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and success of full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision compared to segmental colectomy for complex polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective case-control study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

A prospectively maintained institutional database identified 22 patients with benign complex polyps managed with full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision from 2015 to 2020. These patients were compared with 22 propensity score-matched controls from the same database that underwent laparoscopic segmental colectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was inpatient length of stay. Secondary outcomes included operative details and postoperative morbidities.

RESULTS

Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision was successful in all patients. Patients had a median age of 64 years (41-85), and 82% were men. Final pathology revealed complete excision of benign lesions in 20 of 22 patients and adenocarcinoma in 2 of 22. For the adenocarcinomas, 1 patient underwent subsequent elective colectomy without complications, and 1 patient declined surgery. Propensity score matching was successful for age, sex, BMI, ASA score, colon location, and prior abdominal surgery. Compared with controls, cases had significantly shorter operative time (89.5 minutes (46-290) vs 122 minutes (85-200), p = 0.009), length of stay (1 day (0-17) vs 3 days (1-8), p < 0.001), and reduced blood loss (5 mL (2-15) vs 25 mL (10-150), p < 0.001). Thirty-day morbidity (9.1% vs 27.3%, p = 0.240) was not significantly different. An unplanned 30-day reoperation was performed in 1 patient for suspected small-bowel obstruction. There was 1 mortality due to decompensated cirrhosis in the treatment group.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its single-institution retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision is safe and successful compared with corresponding segmental colectomy for complex polyps. Favorable postoperative outcomes, including decreased operative time, length of stay, and blood loss, make it a useful approach for managing complex polyps throughout the colon.

Laparoscopic wedge resection as an alternative to laparoscopic oncological colon resection for benign endoscopically unresectable colon polyps

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate, by comparing clinical and histological outcomes, whether laparoscopic (hybrid) wedge resection (LWR) could be a less invasive and safe alternative to laparoscopic oncological colon resection (OCR) for patients with an endoscopically unresectable, suspected benign, colon polyp.

METHOD

All patients with an endoscopically unresectable colon polyp who were referred for surgery between 2009 and 2018 and without biopsy-proven colon cancer were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients with macroscopic features of malignancy during endoscopy were excluded. Clinical and histological results for patients who underwent OCR or LWR were reviewed.

RESULTS

One hundred-and-twenty-two patients were included. Ninety-seven patients underwent OCR and 25 LWR. Major complications occurred in 16.7% (n = 16) of the OCR group compared with 4.0% (n = 1) of the LWR group (p = 0.06). In the OCR group the anastomotic leakage rate was 6.3% (n = 6) and the mortality rate 3.1% (n = 3). No anastomotic leakage or deaths occurred in the LWR group. The median length of hospital stay after OCR was 5 days [interquartile range (IQR) 5-9 days)] compared with 2 days (IQR 2-4 days) after LWR (p < 0.0001). Definite pathology showed a malignancy rate of 4.2% (n = 4) in the OCR group and 4.0% (n = 1) (without high-risk features) in the LWR group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that LWR was associated with significantly lower complication rates and acceptable oncological risks compared with OCR. Therefore we suggest that LWR is a safe alternative treatment, next to other endoscopic options. The treatment that is most suitable for an individual patient should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting.

Current Status and Prospects of Endoscopic Resection Technique for Colorectal Tumors

Currently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established and common treatment for intramucosal colorectal cancer in Japan. However, colorectal ESD is technically more difficult to perform than esophageal and gastric ESD, and some lesions, such as fibrotic lesions, are difficult to dissect by endoscopy. Several techniques, such as the pocket-creation method and laparoscopically assisted endoscopic polypectomy, have been utilized for challenging targets. In recent years, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using full-thickness resection devices have mainly been performed in Western countries. We have used laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery for colorectal tumors (LECS-CR) since 2011 for the challenging treatment of colorectal ESD. Improvements in ESD techniques have resulted in an increase in the literature on EFTR, and LECS-CR may be considered an effective endoscopic technique for colorectal ESD in the future.

"Unresectable" polyp management utilizing advanced endoscopic techniques results in high rate of colon preservation

PURPOSE

"Endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps identified during screening colonoscopy are often referred for segmental colectomy. Application of advanced endoscopic techniques can increase endoscopic polyp resection, sparing patients the morbidity of colectomy. This retrospective case-control study aimed to evaluate the success of colon preserving resection of "endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps using advanced endoscopic techniques including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoluminal surgical intervention, full-thickness laparo-endoscopic excision, and combined endo-laparoscopic resection.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained institutional database identified 95 patients referred for "endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps from 2015 to 2018. Cases were compared to 190 propensity score matched controls from the same database undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy for other reasons. Primary outcome was rate of complete endoscopic polyp removal. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, unplanned 30-day readmission and reoperation, 30-day mortality, and post-procedural complications.

RESULTS

Advanced endoscopic techniques achieved complete polyp removal without colectomy in 66 patients (70%). Failure was most commonly associated with previously attempted endoscopic resection and occult malignancy. Compared with matched colectomy controls, endoscopic polyp resection resulted in significantly shorter hospital length of stay (1.13 ± 2.41 vs 3.89 ± 4.57 days; p < 0.001), lower unplanned 30-day readmission (1.1% vs 7.7%; p < 0.05), and fewer postoperative complications (4.2% vs 33.9%; p < 0.001). Unplanned 30-day reoperation (2.1% vs 4.4%; p = 0.34) and 30-day mortality (0% vs 0.6%; p = 0.75) trended lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of complex polyps can be highly successful, and it is associated with favorable outcomes and decreased morbidity when compared with segmental colon resection. Attempting colon preservation using these techniques is warranted.

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of complex benign colonic polyps (CELS): observational study

PURPOSE

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has emerged as a promising method for managing complex benign lesions that would otherwise require major colonic resection. The aim of this study was to describe the different techniques and to evaluate the safety of CELS, assess its outcomes in a technique that is scarcely widespread in our environment.

METHOD

Observational retrospective study, short-term outcomes of patients undergoing CELS for benign colon polyps from October 2018 to June 2020 were evaluated. Postoperative outcomes, length of hospital stay and pathological findings were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventeen consecutive patients underwent CELS during the study period. The median size of the lesion was 3.5 cm (range 2.5 - 6.5 cm), the most frequent location was the cecum (10 from 17). Most patients treated with CELS underwent an endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (11 from 17). In four patients this resection was combined with another CELS technique, and two patients underwent an endoscopic-assisted laparoscopic segment resection. The success rate of CELS in our series was in 14 from 17 (82,4%). The median operative time was 85 min (range 50-225 min). The median hospital stay was 2 days (range 1-15 days). One patient experienced an organ/space surgical site infection which did not require further intervention. Four lesions were shown to be malignant by postoperative pathology study.

CONCLUSION

CELS is a safe and multidisciplinar technique that requires collaboration between gastroenterologists and surgeons. It can be considered as an alternative to colonic resection for complex benign colonic polyps.

Combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) can avoid segmental colectomy in endoscopically unremovable colonic polyps: a cohort study over 10 years

BACKGROUND

Combined-Endoscopic-Laparoscopic-Surgery (CELS) was developed for benign colonic polyps, endoscopically unresectable, to avoid segmental colectomy. This observational study aims to compare surgical outcomes of endoscopically unresectable colonic polyps treated laparoscopically before and since the institutional introduction of CELS. Primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity and mortality; secondary endpoints were time of hospitalization and histopathological findings.

METHODS

Charts of all patients with preoperative diagnosis of benign colonic tumors, treated laparoscopically at our institution from 1/2010 to 2/2020 were reviewed. Patients with polyps (1) affecting ileocecal valve, (2) occupying > 50% of the circumference, (3) ≥ 3 endoscopically unresectable polyps, (4) inflammatory bowel disease, (5) polyps within diverticular area post diverticulitis, (6) rectal polyps (7) foreseen impossibility of laparoscopy (8) preoperatively biopsy proven invasive adenocarcinoma were excluded. Group I consists of all patients potentially treatable by CELS but operated by laparoscopic colonic resection as CELS was not yet institutionally established. Group II includes all patients treated with CELS (since 11/2017).

RESULTS

One hundred-fifteen consecutive patients were reviewed. Applying exclusion criteria, twenty-three patients form group I and twenty-three group II (female 30.4%, median age 68 years). Groups distributed homogenously for age, BMI (body mass index) and polyps´ localization with most polyps (60.4%) localized in right colon; group II patients had significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. Median operating time, hospital stay and morbidity were significantly less in group II. Postoperative morbidity occurred overall in 14 patients (30.4%), mostly Clavien-Dindo class I-II (26.1%) and significantly less in group II (p = 0.017), Clavien-Dindo III-IV distributed equally (one patient each group) without postoperative mortality. Definitive histopathology showed invasive adenocarcinoma in 8.3% without differences between groups. Two patients with invasive adenocarcinoma after CELS were advised for oncological resection.

CONCLUSION

CELS is safe and efficient to treat complex, benign colonic polyps by a complete minimal invasive laparoscopic approach. CELS showed better surgical outcomes with less morbidity, no mortality and appropriate pathological results avoiding unnecessary laparoscopic surgery with intestinal anastomosis.

Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) for benign colon polyps: a single institution cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic removal of benign colon polyps is not always possible, even with advanced endoscopic techniques. Segmental colectomy has been the traditional therapy but is associated with an increased risk of complications and may be unnecessary since fewer than 20% of these polyps harbor malignancy. Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has emerged as an alternative method to address these polyps. While feasibility, safety, and improved short-term patient outcomes have been demonstrated, there has never been an evaluation of cost comparing these two approaches within a single institution.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, we compared short-term outcomes and costs of 11 patients who underwent CELS for right colon polyps with 11 patients who underwent a laparoscopic right colectomy between April 2014 and November 2017. The cost analysis covered the perioperative period from operating room to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 11 patients underwent an attempted CELS procedure for right colon polyps with a success rate of 90% (10/11). The median length of stay (LOS) for CELS patients was 1 day. LOS for patients who underwent a laparoscopic right colectomy at TMC was 3.82 days. The median OR time for CELS was 166.73 (± 57.88) min, compared to 204.73 (± 51.49) min for a laparoscopic right colectomy. The calculated total cost for a CELS patient was $5523.29, compared to $12,626.33 for a laparoscopic right colectomy, for a cost-savings of $7103.04 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

CELS procedures are associated with good short-term outcomes and are performed at a lower cost compared to traditional laparoscopic colectomy, with the most significant cost saver being shorter hospital LOS. This is the first study to directly compare the cost of CELS to traditional laparoscopic colectomy in the surgical management of benign colon polyps within a single institution.

Safe and Effective Endoscopic Resection of Massive Colorectal Adenomas ≥8 cm in a Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions is well reported and is the first line of treatment for all noninvasive colorectal neoplasms in many centers, but little is known about the outcomes of endoscopic resection of truly massive colorectal lesions ≥8 cm.

OBJECTIVE

We report on the outcomes of endoscopic resection for massive (≥8 cm) colorectal adenomas and compare the outcomes with resection of large (2.0-7.9 cm) lesions.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a tertiary referral unit for interventional endoscopy.

PATIENTS

A total of 435 endoscopic resections of large colorectal polyps (≥2 cm) were included, of which 96 were ≥8 cm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included initial successful resection, complications, recurrence, surgery, and hospital admission.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection was successful for 91 of 96 massive lesions (≥8 cm). Mean size was 10.1 cm (range, 8-16 cm). A total of 75% had previous attempts at resection or heavy manipulation before referral. Thirty two were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection or hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and the rest using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection. No patients required surgery for a perforation. Five patients had postprocedural bleeding. There were 25 recurrences: 2 were treated with transanal endoscopic microsurgery, 2 with right hemicolectomy, and the rest with endoscopic resection. Compared with patients with large lesions, more patients with massive adenomas had complications (19.8% versus 3.3%), required admission (39.6% versus 11.0%), developed recurrence (30.8% versus 9.9%), or required surgery for recurrence (5.0% versus 0.8%).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of massive colorectal adenomas ≥8 cm is achievable with few significant complications, and the majority of patients avoid surgery. Systematic assessment is required to appropriately select patients for endoscopic resection, which should be performed in specialist units. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A653.

The impact of the national bowel screening program in the Netherlands on detection and treatment of endoscopically unresectable benign polyps

Background

In January 2014, a national bowel cancer screening program started in the Netherlands. The program is being implemented in phases until 2019. Due to this program, an increase in patients referred for a colorectal resection for benign, but endoscopically unresectable polyps, is expected. So far, most resections are performed according to oncological principles despite no pre-operative histological diagnosis of malignancy. The aim of this study was to analyze the increase in referred patients during the first year of the screening program and to compare pathological results and clinical outcome of resections of patients undergoing resection for benign polyps before and after implementation of screening.

Methods

Patients referred for colorectal resection without biopsy-proven cancer between January 2009 and January December 2014 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients with endoscopically macroscopic features of carcinoma were excluded.

Results

Seventy-six patients were included. Forty-seven patients (61.8%) were operated on in the 5 years prior to implementation of the screening program, and 29 patients (38.2%) were operated during the first year of implementation of the screening program. The overall malignancy rate before the introduction of the program was 14.1 and 6.6% after it had started (p = .469). All resections were performed laparoscopically; the conversion rate was 3.9% (n = 3). The overall mortality rate was 2.7% (n = 2), major complications (Clavien–Dindo > 3b) occurred in 11.8% (n = 9) of patients. The anastomotic leakage rate was 3.9% (n = 3).

Conclusions

The number of patients referred for benign polyps tripled after introduction of the screening program. With an overall major morbidity and mortality rate of 11.8%, it seems valid to discuss whether an endoscopic excision with advanced techniques with or without laparoscopic assistance would be preferable in this patient group, accepting a 6.6% reoperation rate for additional oncological resection with lymph node sampling in patients in whom a malignancy is found on histological analysis of the complete polyp.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Combined Endoscopic Laparoscopic Surgery Procedures for Colorectal Surgery

Colonoscopy is the standard of care for screening and surveillance of colorectal cancers. Removal of adenomatous polyps prevents the transformation of adenomas to potential adenocarcinoma. While most polyps are amenable to simple endoscopic polypectomy, difficult polyps that are large, broad-based, or located in haustral folds or in tortuous colon segments can present a challenge for endoscopists. Traditionally, patients with endoscopically unresectable polyps have been referred for oncologic surgical resection due to the underlying risk of malignancy within the polyp; however, the majority of these polyps are benign on final pathology. Combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery can help facilitate endoscopic removal of difficult lesions, or allow the surgeon to select the correct laparoscopic approach for polyp excision. Current literature suggests that these procedures are safe and effective and can potentially save patients from the morbidity of laparotomy and segmental colectomy.

Colonic Polyps: Treatment

Colonic polyps are considered to be precursors of colon cancer based on several different molecular pathway models and should be resected with a principle of complete excisional biopsy. Several techniques are available for excisional biopsy, ranging from endoscopic techniques such as snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) to surgical colonic resection and colonic endolaparoscopic surgery (CELS). This article focuses on these modalities with contemporary recommendations for choice of modality based on the size and features of the polyp encountered upon endoscopy. In addition, the morphologically apparent risk factors for polyps harboring invasive malignancy are discussed along with implications for management. Current literature on the comparative risks and benefits of EMR, ESD, CELS, and surgical resection is reviewed, as well as recommendations regarding cancer risk and subsequent surveillance.