A comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy and Laparoscopy-assisted Distal Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is considered to provide the benefits of laparoscopic surgery in various diseases. However, limited information is available regarding the feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (HALDG)-a subset of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery-as a gastric cancer treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of HALDG compared with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG). Consecutive patients who underwent HALDG (n=58) or LADG (n=90) for stage I gastric cancer between 2005 and 2016 were eligible. Operative time was significantly shorter and blood loss was significantly higher in HALDG than in LADG (P<0.001, both). Postoperative aminotransferase levels were significantly lower in HALDG than in LADG (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in perioperative complications, a number of analgesics, postoperative C-reactive protein levels, and 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates between the groups. This study suggests that HALDG is a safe and feasible approach and could become an effective option for stage I gastric cancer treatment.

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.

Colorectal surgeons should be open to modern surgical technologies for challenging cases

Today, colorectal surgeons globally are practicing in an exciting era where surgical technologies are constantly emerging. Most of these cutting-edge technologies are readily available in Australia and New Zealand at present. Thus the 'modern surgeon' should always be defined by this open-minded attitude towards these new and emerging surgical technologies. This review article highlights current modalities that we have been using in our north-Brisbane public and private hospitals for cases predicted to be technically challenging using minimally invasive approaches for most of them. We examined the current evidence regarding the following modalities and critiqued their use in clinical practice: lighted ureteric stents, minimally invasive surgery approaches of laparoscopy and robotic surgery, pressure barrier insufflation devices, 3D camera systems, hand-assist device ports and indocyanine green dye fluorescence angiography. The objective of this review paper is to alert colorectal surgeons to new surgical technologies available to them, to encourage colorectal surgeons' familiarization with these many technologies, and to support evidence-based consideration for the clinical use of such. These technologies should be supplemental aides to the safe, oncologically adequate and efficient operation that they already routinely perform.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on March 31, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, conversion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and readmission), and 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine articles published between 2007 and 2016 with a total of 1307 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer length of incision. No differences were found for operative time, blood loss, transfusion, conversion, lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, readmission, or 5-year survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that HALS is similar to LAS for CRC surgery in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes except for the longer length of incision.

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques

BACKGROUND

Recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP)-based evidence indicates that laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy results in improved outcomes compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy in the general population. Previous comparative studies demonstrated that the HAL technique offers distinct advantages for obese patients. The aim of this study was to perform comparative analyses of HAL and LAP colectomy and low anterior resection (LAR) in obese patients.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP public use file and targeted colectomy dataset, 2012-2014, were utilized for patients undergoing colectomy and LAR. Only obese patients (BMI > 30) and laparoscopic or hand-assisted operations were included. Patient, operation, and outcome variables were compared in two separate cohorts: colectomy and LAR. Bivariate analysis compared the approaches, followed by multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 9610 obese patients included, HAL and LAP colectomy were performed in 3126 and 3793 patients and LAR in 1431 and 1260 patients, respectively. In comparison to LAP colectomy, HAL colectomy patients had increased comorbidities including class 2 and 3 obesity. HAL colectomy was associated with higher overall morbidity (20 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), infectious complications (10.2 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (3.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.03), and ileus (11 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that overall morbidity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.44), infectious complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and ileus (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57) were each increased in the HAL colectomy cohort but not different for HAL and LAP LAR.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to LAP colectomy, the HAL technique is used more often in obese patients with an increased operative risk profile. While inherent bias and unmeasured variables limit the analysis, the available data indicate that the HAL technique is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Alternatively, HAL and LAP LAR are performed in obese patients with a similar risk profile and result in similar postoperative outcomes.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis

AIM

To evaluate the utility of hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy (HALS-RP) compared with the conventional open procedure (OPEN-RP).

METHODS

Fifty-one patients who underwent restorative total proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis between January 2008 and July 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-three patients in the HALS-RP group and twenty-four patients in the OPEN-RP group were compared. Four patients who had purely laparoscopic surgery were excluded. Restorative total proctocolectomy was performed with mucosectomy and a hand-sewn ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis. Preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative factors such as blood loss and operative time, postoperative complications, and postoperative course were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Patients in both groups were matched with regards to patient age, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no significant differences in extent of colitis, indications for surgery, preoperative comorbidities, and preoperative medications in the two groups. The median operative time for the HALS-RP group was 369 (320-420) min, slightly longer than the OPEN-RP group at 355 (318-421) min; this was not statistically significant. Blood loss was significantly less in HALS-RP [300 (230-402) mL] compared to OPEN-RP [512 (401-1162) mL, P = 0.003]. Anastomotic leakage was noted in 3 patients in the HALS-RP group and 2 patients in the OPEN-RP group (13% vs 8.3%, NS). The rates of other postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

HALS-RP can be performed with less blood loss and smaller skin incisions. This procedure is a feasible technique for total proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.