Laparoscopic conversion in colorectal cancer surgery; is there any improvement over time at a population level?

Outcome of robotic colon surgery in older patients with colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Older patients are less likely to undergo curative surgery for colon cancer (CC) because of a higher rate in comorbidities that increases the risk for complications and mortality. Robot-assisted surgery could be an alternative minimally invasive approach allowing surgical treatment in a higher percentage of patients above 70 years old. This study aims at evaluating the safety of robotic surgery in older patients with CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data from all patients receiving robot-assisted surgery for CC at a tertiary center between 2016 and 2022 were used for retrospective subgroup analysis based on age and tumor location (right-sided, left-sided). Perioperative outcome including 30-day major morbidity and 90-day mortality rate, overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 231 patients met inclusion criteria of the study: n = 89 < 70 years, n = 64 between 70 and 79 years, n = 72 between 80 and 89 years, and n = 6 ≥ 90 years. No differences in 90-day mortality or 30-day major morbidity were observed between age groups. Thirty-day overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and days to full mobility were increased in ≥70-year-olds for right- and left-sided surgery. One-, three-, and five-year CSS did not differ while the three- and five-year OS significantly decreased with age.

DISCUSSION

Robot-assisted surgery for resection of CC can be used safely in older patients.

Upfront laparotomy versus conversion from minimally invasive surgery to open surgery in colon cancer: Is there a difference in outcomes?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether conversion from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer contributes to worse outcomes compared with those operated by laparotomy. In this study, we aimed to assess the implications of transitioning from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer compared with patients undergoing upfront laparotomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients with stages I to III colon cancer (2010-2019). Patients who underwent either upfront laparotomy (Open Surgery Group) or minimally invasive surgery converted to open surgery (Converted Surgery Group) were included. Groups were balanced using propensity-score matching. Primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

The study included 65,083 operated patients with stage I to III colon cancer; 57,091 patients (87.7%) were included in the Open Surgery group and 7,992 (12.3%) in the Converted Surgery group. 93.5% were converted from laparoscopy, and 6.5% were converted from robotic surgery. After propensity-score matching, 7,058 patients were included in each group. Median overall survival was significantly higher in the Converted Surgery group (107.3 months) than in the Open Surgery group (101.5 months; P = .006). A survival benefit was seen in patients >65 years of age (79.5 vs 71.9 months; P = .001), left-sided disease (129.4 vs 114.5 months; P < .001), and with a high Charlson comorbidity index score (=3; 58.9 vs 42.3 months; P = .03). Positive margin rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%; P = .07). Converted patients had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.7% vs 5.6%, P = .006) and shorter duration of stay (median, 5 vs 6 days, P < .001) than patients in the Open Surgery group. In addition, 30-day mortality was comparable between the groups (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .07).

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery from minimally invasive surgery was associated with better overall survival compared with upfront open surgery. A survival benefit was mainly seen in patients >65 years of age, with significant comorbidities, and with left-sided tumors. We believe these data suggest that, in the absence of an absolute contraindication to minimally invasive surgery, it should be the preferred approach in patients with colon cancer.

Has the open surgical approach in colorectal cancer really become uncommon?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world. Surgery is mandatory to treat patients with colorectal cancer. Can colorectal cancer be treated in laparoscopy? Scientific literature has validated the oncological quality of laparoscopic approach for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Randomized non-inferiority trials with good remote control have answered positively to this long-debated question. Early as 1994, first publications demonstrated technical feasibility and compliance with oncological imperatives and, as far as short-term outcomes are concerned, there is no difference in terms of mortality and post-operative morbidity between open and minimally invasive surgical approaches, but only longer operating times at the beginning of the experience. Subsequently, from 2007 onwards, long-term results were published that demonstrated the absence of a significant difference regarding overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, local and distant recurrence rates between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this editorial, we aim to summarize the clinical and technical aspects which, even today, make the use of open surgery relevant and necessary in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer.

Clinical effect of laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer based on propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing annually. Laparoscopic radical resection of CRC is a minimally invasive procedure preferred in clinical practice.

AIM

To investigate the clinical effect of laparoscopic radical resection of CRC on the basis of propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

The clinical data of 100 patients who received inpatient treatment for CRC at Changde Hospital, Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University (The First People's Hospital of Changde City) were analyzed retrospectively. The control group included patients who underwent open surgery (n = 43), and those who underwent laparoscopic surgery formed the observation group (n = 57). The baseline information of both groups was equipoised using 1 × 1 PSM. Differences in the perioperative parameters, inflammatory response, immune function, degree of pain, and physical status between the groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients from both groups were successfully matched. After PSM, baseline data showed no statistically significant differences between the groups: (1) Perioperative parameters: The observation group had a longer surgery time, less intraoperative blood loss, earlier first ambulation and first anal exhaust times, and shorter gastric tube indwelling time than the control group; (2) Inflammatory response: 24 h after surgery, the levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) between groups were higher than preoperatively. IL-6, CRP, and TNF-α levels in the observation group were lower than in the control group; (3) Immune function: At 24 h after surgery, counts of CD4-positive T-lymphocytes (CD4+) and CD4+/CD8-positive T-lymphocytes (CD8+) in both groups were lower than those before surgery, whereas CD8+ was higher than that before surgery. At 24 h after surgery, both CD4+ counts and CD4+/CD8+ in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, whereas CD8+ counts were lower; (4) Degree of pain: The visual analog scale scores in the observation group were lower than those in the control group at 24 and 72 h after surgery; and (5) Physical status: One month after surgery, the Karnofsky performance score in the observation group was higher than that in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical resection of CRC has significant benefits, such as reducing postoperative pain and postoperative inflammatory response, avoiding excessive immune inhibition, and contributing to postoperative recovery.

A machine learning model to predict the need for conversion of operative approach in patients undergoing colectomy for neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing conversion from laparoscopic to open approaches to colectomy have found an association between conversion and morbidity, mortality, and length of stay, suggesting that certain patients may benefit from an open approach "up-front."

AIM

The objective of this study was to use machine learning algorithms to develop a model enabling the prediction of which patients are likely to require conversion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used ACS NSQIP data to identify patients undergoing colectomy (2014-2019). We included patients undergoing elective colectomy for colorectal neoplasm via a minimally invasive approach or a converted approach. The outcome of interest was conversion. Variables were included in the model based on their correlation with conversion by logistic regression (p < .05). Two models were used: weighted logistic regression with regularization, and Random Forest classifier. The data was randomly split into training (70%) and test (30%) cohorts, and prediction performance was calculated. 24 327 cases were included (17 028 training, 7299 test). When applied to the test cohort, the models had an accuracy of 0.675 (range 0.65-0.70) in predicting conversion; c-index ranged from 0.62-0.63. This machine learning model achieved a moderate area under the curve and a high negative predictive value, but a low positive predictive value; therefore, this model can predict (with 95% accuracy) whether a colectomy for neoplasm can be successfully completed using a minimally invasive approach.

CONCLUSION

This model can be used to reassure surgeons of the appropriateness of a minimally invasive approach when planning for an elective colectomy.

Three-Year Analysis of the Rectal Cancer Care Trajectory after the COVID-19 Pandemic

The global pandemic period from 2020 to 2022 caused important alterations in oncology care. This study aimed to describe the trends and variations in patient characteristics, comorbidities, and treatment approaches during this time in Romania. We conducted a retrospective database search to identify patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical intervention between 2020 and 2022 and the year 2019, which served as a pre-pandemic period control. This study included 164 patients, with a yearly increase of approximately 10% in surgical interventions noted from 2020 (1709 interventions) to 2022 (2118 interventions), but an overall 34.4% decrease compared with the pre-pandemic period. Notable shifts were observed in the type of surgeries performed, with laparoscopic procedures doubling from 2020 (25%) to 2022 (47.5%), confirming the decrease in emergency presentations during the last year of the COVID-19 pandemic and a recovery to normality with planned, elective interventions. Elective interventions increased significantly in 2022 (79.7%) compared with the previous years (p = 0.043), with a concurrent rise in neoadjuvant therapy uptake in 2022 (35.6%). However, significant alterations in the TNM staging, from 12.5% stage IV cases in 2020 to 25.4% in 2022 (p = 0.039), indicated an increased diagnosis of advanced stages of rectal cancer as the years progressed. There was a significant difference in albumin levels over the years (p = 0.019) and in the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores (from 6.2% ASA stage IV in 2020 to 16.9% in 2022), denoting an increase in case complexity (p = 0.043). This study reveals a trend of increasing surgical interventions and the prevalence of more advanced stages of rectal cancer during the pandemic years. Despite the subtle fluctuations in various patient characteristics and treatment approaches, notable shifts were documented in the severity at diagnosis and surgery types, pointing toward more advanced disease presentations and changes in surgical strategies over the period studied. Nevertheless, the trends in ICU admission rates and mortality did not alter significantly during the pandemic period.

Is non-mentored initiation of laparoscopic colorectal surgery safe? Single surgeon initial experience with the first 40 cases

Introduction

Although laparoscopic colorectal surgery is now accepted as a standard procedure in treating colorectal cancer, the proportion of laparoscopically operated patients with colorectal cancer is still generally quite low. The aim of this study is to assess feasibility, safety, and outcomes of a non-mentored initiation of laparoscopic colorectal resections by a young surgeon without previous experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Materials and methods

We analyzed the characteristics of the first 40 elective cases of laparoscopic colorectal resections performed by a single surgeon during the period between June 2019 and March 2022. All of the operations were performed without the attendance or supervision of an experienced surgeon in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The patients were divided into three groups (the early, intermediate, and late group).

Results

The conversion rate, complications rate, and postoperative recovery were similar among groups. The mean overall operative time was 219.5 min (range 130-420 min) and had reduced significantly during the learning curve (p = 0.047). The overall conversion rate was 12.5%. In two cases (5%), the oncological principles were violated (incomplete total mesorectal excision). In three patients (7.5%), intraoperative complications had occurred (small bowel injury, splenic injury, and significant bleeding from the minor peripancreatic artery). Three cases of major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III) were recorded, two of which required reoperation (anastomotic bleeding and fascial dehiscence). There was no 90-day mortality reported. The overall mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 12.45, which did not differ significantly among groups (p = 0.678). The average follow-up was 13.75 months (range 1-31 months). Cancer recurrence was recorded in four patients (10%). Port-site metastasis was not detected in any of the cases.

Conclusion

A safe and non-mentored initiation of laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an acceptable rate of complications and acceptable oncological results can be achieved. Still, when compared with a structured initiation in a controlled environment with the supervision of an experienced surgeon in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, the results of a non-mentored initiation are worse in most of the fields, including operative time, conversion rate, complications rate, and duration of hospital stay. Therefore, I strongly recommend engaging young surgeons in fellowship programs on structured laparoscopic colorectal surgery whenever possible before starting performing these procedures on their own.

Mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colectomy for pathological T4 and/or N2 colon cancer patients: Multicenter study using propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess mid-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery (LAP) vs open surgery (OP) for pathological T4 (pT4) and/or N2 (pN2) colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 255 primary tumor resections for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer performed from 2015 to 2020 at six hospitals, divided into LAP (n = 204) and OP groups (n = 51). After propensity score matching to minimize selection bias, 47 matched patients per group were assessed.

RESULTS

Before matching, the rate of males (53.9% vs. 37.3%, P = .042), left sided colon cancer (53.9% vs 37.3%, P = .042), D3 lymph node dissection (90.7% vs 68.6%, P < .001) and body mass index (kg/m2 ) (22.3 vs 21.8, P = .039) were significantly greater in the LAP group. The rate of pT4b (7.8% vs 40.4%, P < .001) was lower and pN2 was higher (57.4% vs 37.3%, P = .012) in the LAP group. After matching, preoperative characteristics and pathologic status were equivalent between the groups. The LAP and OP groups showed comparable overall survival (OS) (2-year OS, 84.5% vs 76.8%, P = .055) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (2-year RFS, 73.9% vs 52.8%, P = .359). In the patients with pT4, OS (2-year OS, 79.4% vs 75.7%, P = .359) and RFS (2-year RFS, 71.3% vs 58.7%) were comparable. In the patients with pN2, OS (2-year OS, 83.4% vs 76.3%) and RFS (2-year RFS, 69.6% vs 36.2%) were also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP for pT4 and/or pN2 colon cancer showed comparable mid-term outcomes compared with OP. LAP was an acceptable surgical approach in this cohort.

Robotic colorectal resection in combination with a multimodal enhanced recovery program - results of the first 100 cases

PURPOSE

In Germany, colorectal robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has found its way and is currently used as primary technique in colorectal resections at our clinic. We investigated whether RAS can be extensively combined with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) in a large prospective patient group.

METHODS

Using the DaVinci Xi surgical robot, all colorectal RAS from 09/2020 to 01/2022 were incorporated into our ERAS® program. Perioperative data were prospectively recorded using a data documentation system. The extent of resection, duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate, and postoperative short-term results were analyzed. We documented the postoperative duration of Intermediate Care Unit (IMC) stay and major and minor complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, anastomotic leak rate, reoperation rate, hospital-stay length, and ERAS® guideline adherence.

RESULTS

One hundred patients (65 colon and 35 rectal resections) were included (median age: 69 years). The median durations of surgery were 167 min (colon resection) and 246 min (rectal resection). Postoperatively, four patients were IMC-treated (median stay: 1 day). In 92.5% of the colon and 88.6% of the rectum resections, no or minor complications occurred postoperatively. The anastomotic leak rate was 3.1% in colon and 5.7% in rectal resection. The reoperation rate was 7.7% (colon resection) and 11.4% (rectal resection). The hospital stay length was 5 days (colon resection) and 6.5 days (rectal resection). The ERAS® guideline adherence rate was 88% (colon resection) and 82.6% (rectal resection).

CONCLUSION

Patient perioperative therapy per the multimodal ERAS® concept is possible without any problems in colorectal RAS, leading to low morbidity and short hospital stays.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Right or Extended Right Hemi Hepatectomy Following Modulation of the Future Liver Remnant in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review

Background: Major hepatectomies after future liver remnant (FLR) modulation are technically demanding procedures, especially when performed as minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to assess current evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation. Materials and Methods: The Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for studies involving laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation, from their inception to December 2021. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and summarized. Results: Six studies were included. In these studies, the median length of stay after the second stage ranged from 4.5 to 15.5 days and postoperative complication rates between 4.5% and 42.8%. Overall, 7.4% of patients developed liver failure, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3.2% of patients. The R0 resection rate was 93.5%. Only one study reported long-term outcomes, describing comparable 3-year overall survival rates following laparoscopic and open surgery (80% versus 54%, P = .154). Conclusions: The current evidence is scarce, but it suggests that in experienced centers, laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomy, following FLR modulation, is a safe and feasible procedure.

Conversion to Open Surgery During Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy for Cancer: Results from a Large Multinational European Study

Background: The risk of conversion to open surgery is inevitably present during any minimally invasive colorectal surgical procedure. Conversions have been associated with adverse postoperative and oncologic outcomes. No previous study has evaluated the specific causes and consequences of conversion during a minimally invasive right colectomy (MIS-RC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed the Minimally invasivE surgery for oncologic Right ColectomY (MERCY) study database including patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic RC because of colon cancer between 2014 and 2020. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine the different reasons for conversion. Uni- and multivariate logistic regressions were run to identify potential variables associated with this outcome. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of conversion on tumor recurrence. Results: Over a total of 1574 MIS-RC, 120 (7.6%) were converted to open surgery. The main reasons for conversion were procedural difficulties related to adherences from previous abdominal surgical procedures (39.2%), or owing to large tumor size or infiltration of adjacent structures (26.7%). Only 16.7% of the conversions were caused by intraoperative medical or surgical complications. Converted patients required longer operative times and developed more postoperative complications, both overall (39.2% versus 27.5%; P = .006) and severe ones (13.3% versus 8.3%; P = .061). Male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89 [95% confidence interval: 1.31-2.71]), obesity (OR = 1.99 [1.4-2.83]), prior abdominal surgery (OR = 1.68 [1.19-2.37]), and pT4 cancers (OR = 4.04 [2.86-5.69]) were independently associated with conversion. Conversion to open surgery was not significantly associated with tumor recurrence (hazard ratios = 1.395 [0.724-2.687]). Conclusions: Although conversion to open surgery during MIS-RC for cancer is associated with worsened postoperative outcomes, it seems not to impact on the oncologic prognosis.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AIM

An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].

CONCLUSION

Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

Current status of laparoscopic surgery usage in Türkiye: A middle-income country

Objectives

This study aimed to determine the usage status of laparoscopic procedures in general surgical practice in Türkiye, which is a sample of middle-income countries.

Material and Methods

The questionnaire was sent to general surgeons, gastrointestinal surgeons, and surgical oncologists who have completed their residency training and are actively working in university, public or private hospitals. Demographic data, laparoscopy training and the period of education, the rate of laparoscopy use, the type and volume of laparoscopic surgical procedures, their views on the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery, and the reasons for preferring laparoscopy were determined with a 30-item questionnaire.

Results

Two hundred and forty-four questionnaires from 55 different cities of Türkiye were evaluated. The responders were mainly males, younger surgeons (F/M= 11.1/88.9 % and 30-39 y/o), and graduated from the university hospital residence program (56.6%). Laparoscopic training was frequently taken during residency (77.5%) in the younger age group, while the elderly participants mostly received additional training after specialization (91.7%). Laparoscopic surgery was mostly not available in public hospitals for advanced procedures (p <0.0001) but was available for cholecystectomy and appendectomy operations (p= NS). However, participants working in university hospitals mostly stated that the laparoscopic approach was the first choice for advanced procedures.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that the surgeons working in MICs spent strong effort to use laparoscopy in daily practice, especially in university and high-volume hospitals. However, inappropriate education, cost of laparoscopic equipment, healthcare policies, and some cultural and social barriers might have negatively impacted the widespread use of laparoscopic surgery and its usage in daily practice in MICs such as Türkiye.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.

Temporal Trends in Clinical Evidence of 5-Year Survival Within Electronic Health Records Among Patients With Early-Stage Colon Cancer Managed With Laparoscopy-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy

Importance

Temporal shifts in clinical knowledge and practice need to be adjusted for in treatment outcome assessment in clinical evidence.

Objective

To use electronic health record (EHR) data to (1) assess the temporal trends in treatment decisions and patient outcomes and (2) emulate a randomized clinical trial (RCT) using EHR data with proper adjustment for temporal trends.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group Trial assessing overall survival of patients with stages I to III early-stage colon cancer was chosen as the target trial. The RCT was emulated using EHR data of patients from a single health care system cohort who underwent colectomy for early-stage colon cancer from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, and were followed up to January 1, 2020, from Mass General Brigham. Analyses were conducted from December 2, 2019, to January 24, 2022.

Exposures

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) vs open colectomy (OC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival. To address confounding in the emulation, pretreatment variables were selected and adjusted. The temporal trends were adjusted by stratification of the calendar year when the colectomies were performed with cotraining across strata.

Results

A total of 943 patients met key RCT eligibility criteria in the EHR emulation cohort, including 518 undergoing LAC (median age, 63 [range, 20-95] years; 268 [52%] women; 121 [23%] with stage I, 165 [32%] with stage II, and 232 [45%] with stage III cancer; 32 [6%] with colon adhesion; 278 [54%] with right-sided colon cancer; 18 [3%] with left-sided colon cancer; and 222 [43%] with sigmoid colon cancer) and 425 undergoing OC (median age, 65 [range, 28-99] years; 223 [52%] women; 61 [14%] with stage I, 153 [36%] with stage II, and 211 [50%] with stage III cancer; 39 [9%] with colon adhesion; 202 [47%] with right-sided colon cancer; 39 [9%] with left-sided colon cancer; and 201 [47%] with sigmoid colon cancer). Tests for temporal trends in treatment assignment (χ2 = 60.3; P < .001) and overall survival (χ2 = 137.2; P < .001) were significant. The adjusted EHR emulation reached the same conclusion as the RCT: LAC is not inferior to OC in overall survival rate with risk difference at 5 years of -0.007 (95% CI, -0.070 to 0.057). The results were consistent for stratified analysis within each temporal period.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that confounding bias from temporal trends should be considered when conducting clinical evidence studies with long time spans. Stratification of calendar time and cotraining of models is one solution. With proper adjustment, clinical evidence may supplement RCTs in the assessment of treatment outcome over time.

Re-laparoscopy to Treat Early Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Is There a Learning Curve?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is still controversial. Moreover, its learning curve has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze whether operative outcomes were influenced by the learning curve of re-laparoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and reoperated by a laparoscopic approach during the period 2000-2019 was performed. A cumulative sum analysis was done to determine the number of operations that must be performed to achieve a stable operative time. Based on this analysis, the cohort was divided in 3 groups. Demographics and operative variables were compared between groups.

RESULTS

From a total of 1911 patients undergoing LCS, 132 (7%) were included. Based on the cumulative sum analysis, the cohort was divided into the first 50 (G1), the following 52 (G2), and the last 30 (G3) patients. Less computed tomography scans were performed in G3 (G1: 72% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 43%; P=0.03). There were no differences in the type of operation performed between the groups. The conversion rate (G1: 18% vs. G2: 4% vs. G3: 3%; P=0.02) and the mean operative time (G1: 104 min vs. G2: 80 min vs. G3: 78 min; P=0.003) were higher in G1. Overall morbidity was lower in G3 (G1: 46% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 33%; P=0.01). Major morbidity, mortality, and mean length of stay remained similar in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 50 laparoscopic reoperations might be needed to achieve an appropriate learning curve with reduced operative time and lower conversion rates. Further research is needed to determine the learning process of re-laparoscopy for treating complications after colorectal surgery.

Post-operative outcomes in patients with locally advanced colon cancer: a comparison of operative approach

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons may choose an open approach to locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) because of the elevated conversion rate (minimally invasive to open) in these patients (resulting in part from a judgment of the technical feasibility of a minimally invasive approach). Poorer outcomes have been suggested in those requiring conversion from a minimal access to an open approach; however, the influence of conversion has not been studied in LACC. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes in patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS), planned open (PO), and converted (CN) procedures to evaluate the influence of conversion in this subgroup.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the NSQIP database. Patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing elective resection were included; rectal/unknown tumor location, and T4b disease were excluded (to ensure homogeneity in surgical management). Patients were divided into cohorts based on approach: PO, MIS, and CN. Summary statistics were compared between groups. Multivariable analysis was conducted for mortality and morbidity outcomes.

RESULTS

1286 cases were included (313 PO, 842 MIS, 131 CN); 10.2% underwent conversion. Those undergoing MIS had a shorter length of stay than those undergoing PO or CN (p < 0.0001). On univariable analysis, CN resulted in increased rates of any complication (p < 0.0001). CN also had a greater rate of anastomotic leak (p = 0.0046) and death (p = 0.05). On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of any complication included age, ASA class, M stage, and approach; however, CN did not increase the risk of complication compared with MIS, whereas PO nearly doubled the risk of complication (OR = 1.98, p = 0.0083). The only significant predictor of mortality on multivariable analysis was age (HR = 1.09, p = 0.0002)-approach was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

PO confers the greatest risk of suffering any complication. Surgical approach was not associated with death. Results of our study challenge the notion that conversion is associated with the worst perioperative outcomes and an MIS approach should be considered in patients with LACC.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and postoperative inflammatory response between laparoscopic and open radical resection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased annually, which has seriously threatened the health and quality of life of patients. In the treatment of CRC, both laparoscopic and radical resection are widely used.

AIM

To explore and discuss clinical efficacy and postoperative inflammatory response of laparoscopic and open radical resection of CRC.

METHODS

A total of 96 patients with CRC diagnosed in our hospital from March 2016 to April 2021 were selected, and were divided into the study group (n = 48) and control group (n = 48) using a simple random method. The control group was treated with open radical resection of CRC, and the study group was treated with laparoscopic radical resection of CRC. The perioperative conditions (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, number of lymph node dissections and length of hospital stay), inflammatory response index levels [interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, C-reactive protein (CRP)] before and after operation, pain stress response indices [levels of neuropeptide (NPY), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)], and the incidence of the complications between the two groups were counted.

RESULTS

The operation time in the study group was (186.18 ± 33.54 min), which was longer than that of the control group (129.38 ± 26.83 min), but the intraoperative blood loss (111.34 ± 21.45 mL), recovery time of gastrointestinal function (25.35 ± 4.55 h), and hospital stay (10.09 ± 2.38 d) were better than those in the control group (163.77 ± 32.41 mL, 36.06 ± 7.13 h, 13.51 ± 3.66 d) (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the number of lymph node dissections between the study group (15.19 ± 3.04) and the control group (16.20 ± 2.98) (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the levels of serum IL-6 (9.79 ± 4.11 ng/mL), IL-8 (3.79 ± 1.71 ng/L), IL-10 (48.96 ± 12.51 ng/L) and CRP (7.98 ± 2.33 mg/L) in the study group and the control group (10.56 ± 3.78 ng/mL, 4.08 ± 1.45 ng/L, 50.13 ± 11.67 ng/L, 8.29 ± 2.60 mg/L) before the operation (P > 0.05). After the operation, there was no significant difference between the levels of serum IL-6 (19.11 ± 6.68 ng/mL). There was no significant difference in serum NPY (109.79 ± 13.46 UG/L), PGE2 (269.54 ± 37.34 ng/L), 5-HT (151.70 ± 18.86 ng/L) between the study group and the control group (113.29 ± 15.01 UG/L, 273.91 ± 40.04 ng/L, 148.85 ± 20.45 ng/L) before the operation (P > 0.05). The incidence of the complications in the study group (4.17%) was lower than that of the control group (18.75%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic radical resection of CRC can reduce surgical trauma, inflammatory response and pain stress caused by surgery, which shortens rehabilitation of patients, with a low incidence of complications.

National differences in implementation of minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer and the influence on short-term outcomes

Background

The timing and degree of implementation of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer vary among countries. Insights in national differences regarding implementation of new surgical techniques and the effect on postoperative outcomes are important for quality assurance, can show potential areas for country-specific improvement, and might be illustrative and supportive for similar implementation programs in other countries. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate differences in patient selection, applied techniques, and results of minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer between the Netherlands and Sweden.

Methods

Patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for T1-3 colon or rectal cancer (2012–2018) registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit or Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry were included. Time trends in the application of MIS were determined. Outcomes were compared for time periods with a similar level of MIS implementation (Netherlands 2012–2013 versus Sweden 2017–2018). Multilevel analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse short-term outcomes.

Results

A total of 46,095 Dutch and 8,819 Swedish patients undergoing MIS for colorectal cancer were included. In Sweden, MIS implementation was approximately 5 years later than in the Netherlands, with more robotic surgery and lower volumes per hospital. Although conversion rates were higher in Sweden, oncological and surgical outcomes were comparable. MIS in the Netherlands for the years 2012–2013 resulted in a higher reoperation rate for colon cancer and a higher readmission rate but lower non-surgical complication rates for rectal cancer if compared with MIS in Sweden during 2017–2018.

Conclusion

This study showed that the implementation of MIS for colorectal cancer occurred later in Sweden than the Netherlands, with comparable outcomes despite lower volumes. Our study demonstrates that new surgical techniques can be implemented at a national level in a controlled and safe way, with thorough quality assurance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08974-1.

Watch and Wait Approach for Rectal Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Treatment: The Experience of a High Volume Cancer Center

Multimodal treatments for rectal cancer, along with significant research on predictors to response to therapy, have led to more conservative surgical strategies. We describe our experience of the rectal sparing approach in rectal cancer patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant treatment. We also specifically highlight our clinical and imaging criteria to select patients for the watch and wait strategy (w&w). Data came from 39 out of 670 patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer between January 2016 until February 2020. The selection criteria were a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy managed with a watch and wait (w&w) strategy. A strict follow-up period was adopted in these selected patients and follow-ups were performed every three months during the first two years and every six months after that. The median follow-up time was 28 months. Six patients had a local recurrence (15.3%); all were salvageable by total mesorectal excision (TME). Five patients had a distant metastasis (12.8%). There was no local unsalvageable disease after w&w strategy. The rectal sparing approach in patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant treatment is the best possible treatment and is appropriate to analyze from this perspective. The watch and wait approach after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer can be successfully explored after inflexible and strict patient selection.

Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study

Background

Conversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR).

Methods

A national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias.

Results

A total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Conversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.

Conversion to Open Surgery in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Resection: Predictive Factors and its Impact on Long-Term Outcomes. A Case Series Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection is the treatment of choice for colorectal cancer. Rates of conversion to open surgery range between 7% and 30% and controversy exists as to the effect of this on oncologic outcomes. The objective of this study was to analyze what factors are predictive of conversion and what effect they have on oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

From a prospective database of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery between 2000 and 2018 a univariate and multivariate analyses were made of demographic, pathologic, and surgical variables together with complementary treatments comparing purely laparoscopic resection with conversions to open surgery. Overall and disease-free survival were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Of a total of 829 patients, 43 (5.18%) converted to open surgery. In the univariate analysis, 12 variables were significantly associated with conversion, of which left-sided resection [odds ratio (OR): 2.908; P=0.02], resection of the rectum (OR: 4.749, P=0.014), and local invasion of the tumor (OR: 6.905, P<0.01) were independently predictive factors in the multiple logistic regression. Female sex was associated with fewer conversions (OR: 0.375, P=0.012). The incidence and pattern of relapses were similar in both groups and there were no significant differences between overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Left-sided resections, resections of the rectum and tumor invasion of neighboring structures are associated with higher rates of conversion. Female sex is associated with fewer conversions. Conversion to open surgery does not compromise oncologic outcomes at 5 and 10 years.

Oncologic long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS). MLS is widely accepted for the treatment of colorectal cancer, but there remains minimal evidence for the use of SILS. Thus, we compared both short- and long-term outcomes of SILS and open surgery (OS) in matched cohorts of colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Some 910 patients had colorectal resections for cancer between 2006 and 2013, and 134 of them were operated on using SILS. Eighty of these SILS patients were compared to a cohort of patients who had open surgery that were matching in tumour stage and location, type of resection, sex, age and ASA Score. Disease-free survival at 5 years (5y-DFS) was the primary endpoint; morbidity and hospitalization were secondary parameters. The role of surgical training in SILS was also investigated.

RESULTS

Clavien Dindo ≥ IIIb complications occurred in 13.8% in both groups. 5y-DSF were 82% after SILS and 70% after OS (p = 0.11). Local recurrence after rectal cancer tended to be lower after SILS (0/43 (SILS) vs. 4/35 (OS), p = 0.117). Length of stay was significantly shorter after SILS (10 vs. 14 days, p = 0.0004). The rate of operations performed by surgical residents was equivalent in both groups (44/80 (SILS) vs. 46/80 (OS), p = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The data demonstrates that SILS results in similar long-term oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery as well as morbidity rates. The hospital stay in the SILS group was shorter. SILS can also be incorporated in surgical training programmes.

Epidural analgesia and mortality after colorectal cancer surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Epidural analgesia (EA) has been the standard of care after major abdominal surgery for many years. This study aimed to correlate EA with postoperative complications, short- and long-term mortality in patients with and without EA after open surgery (OS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patient, clinical and outcome data were obtained from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and the Swedish Perioperative Registry. All adult patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer without metastases who underwent elective curative MIS or OS for colorectal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 and who had data recorded in both registries, were included in the study. Data were analyzed for OS and MIS procedures separately. A Poisson regression model was used to investigate the association between EA and the outcomes of interest.

Results

Five thousand seven hundred sixty-two patients were included in the study, 2712 in the MIS and 3050 patients in the OS group. After adjusting for patient specific and clinically relevant variables in the regression model, no statistically significant difference in risk for complications; 30-day, 90-day, and up to 3-year mortality following either MIS or OS could be detected between the EA+ and EA-cohorts.

Conclusions

In this large study cohort, EA as part of the comprehensive care provided was not associated with a reduction in postoperative complications risk or improved 30-day, 90-day, or 3-year survival after MIS or OS for colorectal cancer.

•

No reduction in postoperative complications with epidural analgesia.

•

No reduction in short-term mortality with epidural analgesia after colorectal surgery.

•

No reduction in long-term mortality with epidural analgesia in colorectal cancer.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum]

An essential component of the treatment of colorectal cancer is a resection of the tumor-bearing segment of the bowels. After the development of minimally invasive procedures the feasibility and safety in oncological, colorectal surgery was questioned. The broad study situation for colon cancer over the last years showed predominantly consistent benefits during the perioperative phase and non-inferiority concerning long-term oncological outcomes. The implementation of laparoscopic rectal resection was more hesitant due to the complexity of the procedure and insufficient study data; however, overall the short-term benefits seem to be maintained and laparoscopic rectal resection is thought to be noninferior to open resection in the long run even though findings on the quality of the resected specimen are heterogeneous. Accordingly, most guidelines now include a recommendation of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. The limitation with respect to an achievable oncological equivalency of resection takes account of the complexity and the requirements of the intervention only in the setting of rational selection of patients and sufficient experience of the surgeon.

Predictive Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications and Its Impact on Survival in Laparoscopic Resection for Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection is the ideal treatment of colon cancer. The aim of the study was to analyze the predictive factors for postoperative complications and their impact on oncologic outcomes in laparoscopic resections in colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery the number and degree of severity of postoperative complications were recorded and classified according to Clavien-Dindo. A univariate analysis was made of the demographic, surgical, and oncologic variables of patients with and without complications. The statistically significant variables were then entered into a multivariate model. In both groups overall and disease-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Of 524 patients, 138 (26.3%) experienced some type of complication, 110 less severe (79.7%) and 28 (20.4%) severe. Twenty-nine conversions to open surgery occurred (5.5%) and hospital mortality was 0.2%.In the multivariate analysis, use of corticosteroids [odds ratio (OR): 3.619], oral anticoagulants (OR: 3.49), blood transfusions (OR: 4.30), and conversion to open surgery (OR: 3.93) were significantly associated with the development of complications. However, sigmoid resections were associated with fewer complications (OR: 0.45).Overall 5-year and 10-year survival in both groups, was 83.3%, 74.1%, 76.0%, and 67.1%, respectively (P=0.18). Disease-free survival at 5 and 10 years, excluding stage IV tumors, was 88.6% and 90.4%, respectively (P=0.881).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of corticosteroids, oral anticoagulants, blood transfusions, and conversion to open surgery are all independent predictive factors of postoperative complications. Sigmoid resections are associated with fewer complications. In laparoscopic resections of the colon, complications do not negatively affect long-term oncologic outcomes.

[Epithelial ovarian cancers and minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A systematic review]

INTRODUCTION

Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is associated with high mortality and often managed first with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by debulking surgery. Laparoscopic surgery with or without robotic assistance (Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)) may represent a beneficial option for these patients. The objective of this literature review is to clarify the place of MIS in the management of advanced EOC for selected patients.

METHOD

Pubmed, Cochrane and Clinicaltrials.gov online databases were used for this review, to select English or French published articles.

RESULTS

We selected 11 original articles published between 2015 and 2020, 6 of which compared MIS and laparotomy. Among these 11 studies, 8 were retrospective cohorts, 2 were phase II trials, and one was a case-control study. In total, there were 3721 patients, of which 854 (23%) were treated with MIS. The robotic assistance was used with 224 patients (26%) of those MIS patients. Looking specifically at MIS patients, the laparoconversion rate was 9.5%, the rate of complete resection (CC-0) was 83.4%. Finally, the MIS complication rate was 1% intraoperatively and 12% postoperatively. The rate of complete resection, postoperative complication, as well as overall survival (OS) were comparable between patients treated with MIS or laparotomy. One study found an improved disease-free survival (DFS) in MIS versus laparotomy (18 months versus 12 months; P=0.027).

CONCLUSION

MIS seems feasible, effective, and reliable in comparison to laparotomy for the completion of cytoreductive surgery after NACT without compromising oncological safety. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the role of MIS in advanced EOC.

Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly being performed because of perceived patient benefits. Whether conversion of MIPD to open pancreatoduodenectomy worsens outcome, and which risk factors are associated with conversion, is unclear.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a European multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MIPD (2012-2017) in ten medium-volume (10-19 MIPDs annually) and four high-volume (at least 20 MIPDs annually) centres. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was used to compare outcomes of converted and non-converted MIPD procedures. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for conversion, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i).

RESULTS

Overall, 65 of 709 MIPDs were converted (9.2 per cent) and the overall 30-day mortality rate was 3.8 per cent. Risk factors for conversion were tumour size larger than 40 mm (OR 2.7, 95 per cent c.i.1.0 to 6.8; P = 0.041), pancreatobiliary tumours (OR 2.2, 1.0 to 4.8; P = 0.039), age at least 75 years (OR 2.0, 1.0 to 4.1; P = 0.043), and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (OR 5.2, 2.5 to 10.7; P < 0.001). Medium-volume centres had a higher risk of conversion than high-volume centres (15.2 versus 4.1 per cent, P < 0.001; OR 4.1, 2.3 to 7.4, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (56 converted MIPDs and 56 completed MIPDs) including risk factors, rates of complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade of III or higher (32 versus 34 per cent; P = 0.841) and 30-day mortality (12 versus 6 per cent; P = 0.274) did not differ between converted and non-converted MIPDs.

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for conversion during MIPD include age, large tumour size, tumour location, laparoscopic approach, and surgery in medium-volume centres. Although conversion during MIPD itself was not associated with worse outcomes, the outcome in these patients was poor in general which should be taken into account during patient selection for MIPD.

Risk factors for suboptimal laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is technically complex. This study aimed to identify risk factors for suboptimal laparoscopic surgery (involved margins, incomplete mesorectal excision, and/or conversion to open surgery) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We included patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer between June 2009 and June 2018. We defined the outcome variable suboptimal laparoscopic surgery as conversion to open surgery or inadequate histopathological specimens (margins < 1 mm or involved and/or poor-quality mesorectal excision). To identify independent predictors of suboptimal laparoscopic surgery, we analyzed 15 prospectively recorded demographic, clinical, and anthropometric variables obtained from our rectal cancer unit's database. Subanalyses examined the same variables with respect to conversion and to inadequate histopathological specimens.

RESULTS

Of the 323 patients included, 91 (28.2%) had suboptimal laparoscopic surgery. In the multivariate analysis, the independent factors associated with all suboptimal laparoscopic surgery were tumor location ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge (OR = 2.95, 0.95% CI 1.32-6.60; p = 0.008) and the intertuberous distance (OR = 0.79, 0.95% CI 0.65-0.96; p = 0.019). In the subanalyses, the promontorium-retropubic axis was an independent predictor of conversion (OR 0.70, 0.95% CI 0.51-0.96; p = 0.026), and tumor location ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge (OR 3.71, 0.95% 1.51-9.15; p = 0.004) was an independent predictor of inadequate histopathological specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive factors for suboptimal laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer were tumor location and the intertuberous distance. These results could help surgeons decide whether to use other surgical approaches in complex cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.org (No. NCT03107650).

Exploring the perioperative outcomes of a sample of successful adopters of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) during the learning phase

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision can be a technically challenging operation to master. While many early adopters have reported adequate outcomes, others have failed to reproduce these results. There are contradicting data on oncologic outcomes during the learning phase of this technique. Thus, our objective was to perform a multicentered assessment of oncological outcomes in patients undergoing transanal total mesorectal excision during the learning phase in a sample of successful adopting centers.

METHODS

Surgeons from 8 centers with experience in the management of rectal cancer were invited to participate. The initial 51 consecutive benign and malignant cases of the participating units were retrospectively reviewed, but only 366 cancer cases were included in the analysis. Procedures were divided into implementation (ie, the first 10 cases) and postimplementation (ie, case 11 on onwards) groups, and the main outcome was the incidence of local recurrence.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of local recurrence was 4.1% at a median follow-up of 35 months (interquartile range 20.3-44.2); among implementation and postimplementation groups local recurrence was 7.5% and 3.1%, respectively, and the rate of local recurrence was observed to be nearly 60% lower in the postimplementation group (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.43 [0.26-0.72]) Total mesorectal excision specimens were complete or nearly complete in 87.7% of cases, and the circumferential and distal margins were clear in 93.2% and 92.6%, respectively CONCLUSION: Local recurrence rate was low during the learning phase of the transanal total mesorectal excision in a sample of rectal cancer surgeons with acceptable surgical and oncologic outcomes. Both the prevalence and rate of local recurrence were markedly lower in the postimplementation phase, indicating improvement as experience accumulated.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic rectal resection: outcomes and learning curve of the initial 100 cases

Background

Following several landmark trials, laparoscopic rectal resection has reached standard clinical practice. Current literature is undecided on the advantages of robotic rectal resection and little is known on its learning curve. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal resections to the laparoscopic approach in a teaching hospital experienced in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of a prospective cohort of all consecutive rectal resections between January 2012 and September 2019 at a single center. All laparoscopic cases were compared to the robotic approach. Outcomes included operative time, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay.

Results

Out of the 326 consecutive resections, 100 were performed robotically and 220 laparoscopically, the remaining 6 open cases were excluded. Median operative time was lower for robotic cases (147 (121–167) versus 162 (120–218) minutes P = 0.024). Overall morbidity was lower in robotic cases (25% versus 50%, P < 0.001), while major morbidity was similar. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 11% (8/70) of robotic and 15% (18/120) of laparoscopic anastomoses, despite more anastomoses in the robotic group (70%, 70/100 versus 55%, 120/220, P = 0.001). Median length of stay was 4 (4–7) days after a robotic and 6 (5–9) days after a laparoscopic procedure.

Discussion

Implementation of a robotic rectal resection program in an experienced laparoscopic surgery center was associated with reduced operative time, length of stay, and fewer complications despite a learning curve.

Impact of technically qualified surgeons on laparoscopic colorectal resection outcomes: results of a propensity score-matching analysis

Background

The Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) was introduced in Japan to improve the quality of laparoscopic surgery. This cohort study investigated the short‐ and long‐term postoperative outcomes of colorectal cancer laparoscopic procedures performed by or with qualified surgeons compared with outcomes for unqualified surgeons.

Methods

All laparoscopic colorectal resections performed from 2010 to 2013 in 11 Japanese hospitals were reviewed retrospectively. The procedures were categorized as performed by surgeons with or without the ESSQS qualification and patients' clinical, pathological and surgical features were used to match subgroups using propensity scoring. Outcome measures included postoperative and long‐term results.

Results

Overall, 1428 procedures were analysed; 586 procedures were performed with ESSQS‐qualified surgeons and 842 were done by ESSQS‐unqualified surgeons. Upon matching, two cohorts of 426 patients were selected for comparison of short‐term results. A prevalence of rectal resection (50·3 versus 40·5 per cent; P < 0·001) and shorter duration of surgery (230 versus 238 min; P = 0·045) was reported for the ESSQS group. Intraoperative and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were significantly lower in the ESSQS group than in the non‐ESSQS group (1·2 versus 3·6 per cent, P = 0·014; 4·6 versus 7·5 per cent, P = 0·025; 1·9 versus 3·9 per cent, P = 0·023, respectively). These findings were confirmed after propensity score matching. Cox regression analysis found that non‐attendance of ESSQS‐qualified surgeons (hazard ratio 12·30, 95 per cent c.i. 1·28 to 119·10; P = 0·038) was independently associated with local recurrence in patients with stage II disease.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed with ESSQS‐qualified surgeons showed improved postoperative results. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of the qualification on long‐term oncological outcomes.

Thirteen-year experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in colorectal patients

BACKGROUND

We report outcomes on 324 consecutive cases of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in colorectal patients over 13 years performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify all patients undergoing HALS colorectal procedures for benign or malignant indications from September 2004 to February 2018, at two major tertiary centres in Sydney, Australia.

RESULTS

Median age was 64 years, 51% were female and median body mass index was 26. Colorectal cancer (55%), diverticular disease (13%) and polyp related conditions (13%) were common indications. Anterior resection (65%) and right hemicolectomy (18%) were most commonly performed. Median operative time was 244 min (190-300) and 75% of Gelport incisions were Pfannenstiel. Sixty-three percent of colorectal cancer patients had a T3 or T4 cancer. Median tumour size was 35 mm (25-45). Seven percent required conversion to open and 4% a re-operation in the early post-operative period. Thirty-six percent had a post-operative complication, and 11% were major complications. Follow-up extended to 12.8 years and there were 33 late deaths. Being in a high dependency unit or intensive care unit was significant for late mortality (odds ratio 2.8, 95% confidence interval 1.06-7.78, P = 0.037). Three percent developed an incisional hernia and 6% had small bowel obstruction at long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

HALS is an effective technique for both benign and malignant colorectal indications with the added advantage of tactile feedback and a lower rate of conversion to open.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

A propensity-score-matched analysis of laparoscopic vs open surgery for rectal cancer in a population-based study

AIM

The oncological risk/benefit trade-off for laparoscopy in rectal cancer is controversial. Our aim was to compare laparoscopic vs open surgery for resection of rectal cancer, using unselected data from the public healthcare system of Catalonia (Spain).

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study of all patients who had surgery with curative intent for primary rectal cancer at Catalonian public hospitals from 2011 to 2012. We obtained follow-up data for up to 5 years. To minimize the differences between the two groups, we performed propensity score matching on baseline patient characteristics. We used multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to assess locoregional relapse at 2 years and death at 2 and 5 years.

RESULTS

Of 1513 patients with Stage I-III rectal cancer, 933 (61.7%) had laparoscopy (conversion rate 13.2%). After applying our propensity score matching strategy (2:1), 842 laparoscopy patients were matched to 517 open surgery patients. Multivariate Cox analysis of death at 2 years [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.48, 0.87; P = 0.004] and 5 years (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.5, 0.75; P < 0.001) and of local relapse at 2 years (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27, 0.72; P = 0.001) showed laparoscopy to be an independent protective factor compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy results in lower locoregional relapse and long-term mortality in rectal cancer in unselected patients with all-risk groups included. Studies using long-term follow-up of cohorts and unselected data can provide information on clinically relevant outcomes to supplement randomized controlled trials.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Revised management of advanced primary colon cancer: Case series of 2 patients

BACKGROUND

The resection of a primary colon cancer has the opportunity to cure the patient of cancer by complete clearance and absolute containment of disease. Alternatively, if the cancer resection does not provide clearance and containment it will eventuate in local recurrence and peritoneal dissemination.

METHODS

Culpability of recurrence of colorectal cancer is difficult to determine. Are the management strategies of the primary cancer evaluation and treatment at fault or is the underlying disease process is to be held responsible? The clinical and radiologic findings that could have been evaluated by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) were critically evaluated in 2 patients with right colon adenocarcinoma. Strategies to accomplish complete clearance and absolute containment of the primary malignancy as resectable for cure were suggested.

RESULTS

Clinical evaluation of these 2 patients suggested that more knowledgeable preoperative evaluation by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) should have placed them in a high risk group for local recurrence and/or peritoneal dissemination. High carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tumor marker and by CT a large primary cancer infiltrating adjacent structures can be used to select advanced pre- and intraoperative treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Two patients who had an approximately 50% possibility of long-term survival with optimal preoperative evaluation and expert surgical resection techniques may have been converted to a greatly reduced survival because of tumor dissemination and positive margins of resection at the time of primary cancer resection. Neither patient was evaluated by an MDT preoperatively. It is possible that these two patients entered the operating room with a contained malignancy but as result of suboptimal pre- and intraoperative management left the operating room with disseminated intraperitoneal disease.

Surgical Outcomes of Rectal Resection: Our 10 Years Experience

Background: Colorectal cancer, one of the most common tumor- and cancer-related deaths worldwide, requires a multidisciplinary management including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is gaining popularity due to its safety profile and good oncological results, if performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. This study describes our 10 years experience in minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery. Methods: We have retrospectively evaluated a series of 140 patients treated with laparoscopic approach for rectal malignant and benign diseases. Results: A total of 134 patients (95.7%) underwent anterior rectal resection, in the remaining 6 cases (4.3%) abdominoperineal amputation was performed. All but 13 cases have been treated with laparoscopic approach, with conversion rate of 5.7%. Postoperative morbidity rate was 8.6% (2 cases of peritoneal bleeding and 10 cases of anastomotic fistulae; in 2 cases, fistula occurred in patients previously treated with chemoradiation). Conclusions: Conventional laparoscopy can provide adequate oncological outcomes even in patients with advanced rectal cancer, with advantages in terms of postoperative hospital stay, recovery time, acceptable operative time, and low complication and conversion rates.

Short-term outcomes after elective colon cancer surgery: an observational study from the Norwegian registry for gastrointestinal and HPB surgery, NoRGast

BACKGROUND

To describe the real burden of major complications after elective surgery for colon cancer in Norway, and to assess which predictors that are significantly associated with the short-term outcome.

METHODS

An observational, multi-centre analysis of prospectively registered colon resections registered into the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery, NoRGast, between January 2014 and December 2016. A propensity score-adjusted subgroup analysis for surgical access groups was attempted, with laparoscopic resections grouped as intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Out of 1812 resections, 14.0% of patients experienced a major complication within 30 days following surgery. The over-all reoperation rate was 8.7%, and rate of reoperation for anastomotic leak was 3.8%. Twenty patients (1.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Higher age was not a significant predictor of major complications, including 30-day mortality. After correction for all co-variables, open access surgery was associated with higher rates of major complications (OR 1.67 (CI 1.22-2.29), p = 0.002), higher 30-day mortality (OR 4.39 (CI 1.19-16.13) p = 0.026) and longer length-of-stay (HR 0.58 (CI 0.52-0.65) p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate a low complication burden and high rate of uneventful patient journeys after elective surgery for colon cancer in Norway. Age was not associated with higher morbidity or mortality rates. Open access surgery was associated with an inferior short-term outcome.

The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice.

METHODS

Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day major complication rate, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade III-V.

RESULTS

Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27-2.11, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection.

Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): an international multicentre registry study

BACKGROUND

The strategy of watch and wait (W&W) in patients with rectal cancer who achieve a complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy is new and offers an opportunity for patients to avoid major resection surgery. However, evidence is based on small-to-moderate sized series from specialist centres. The International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) aims to describe the outcome of the W&W strategy in a large-scale registry of pooled individual patient data. We report the results of a descriptive analysis after inclusion of more than 1000 patients in the registry.

METHODS

Participating centres entered data in the registry through an online, highly secured, and encrypted research data server. Data included baseline characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy, imaging protocols, incidence of local regrowth and distant metastasis, and survival status. All patients with rectal cancer in whom the standard of care (total mesorectal excision surgery) was omitted after neoadjuvant therapy were eligible to be included in the IWWD. For the present analysis, we only selected patients with no signs of residual tumour at reassessment (a cCR). We analysed the proportion of patients with local regrowth, proportion of patients with distant metastases, 5-year overall survival, and 5-year disease-specific survival.

FINDINGS

Between April 14, 2015, and June 30, 2017, we identified 1009 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment and were managed by W&W in the database from 47 participating institutes (15 countries). We included 880 (87%) patients with a cCR. Median follow-up time was 3·3 years (95% CI 3·1-3·6). The 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 25·2% (95% CI 22·2-28·5%), 88% of all local regrowth was diagnosed in the first 2 years, and 97% of local regrowth was located in the bowel wall. Distant metastasis were diagnosed in 71 (8%) of 880 patients. 5-year overall survival was 85% (95% CI 80·9-87·7%), and 5-year disease-specific survival was 94% (91-96%).

INTERPRETATION

This dataset has the largest series of patients with rectal cancer treated with a W&W approach, consisting of approximately 50% data from previous cohort series and 50% unpublished data. Local regrowth occurs mostly in the first 2 years and in the bowel wall, emphasising the importance of endoscopic surveillance to ensure the option of deferred curative surgery. Local unsalvageable disease after W&W was rare.

FUNDING

European Registration of Cancer Care financed by European Society of Surgical Oncology, Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, Bas Mulder Award granted by the Alpe d'Huzes Foundation and Dutch Cancer Society, and European Research Council Advanced Grant.

Preliminary Report on Introduction of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol for Laparoscopic Rectal Resection: A Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic rectal surgery seems to improve postoperative recovery of patients who undergo surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate preliminary results of implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) for cancer at our institute.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients who underwent LRR for cancer at our institute after introduction of enhanced recovery protocol were compared with a control group of patients who previously underwent surgery with traditional protocol. Primary endpoints evaluated were length of stay (LOS) and rates of complications and readmissions.

RESULTS

We studied 150 consecutive patients, 56 operated with the traditional approach and 94 according to ERAS protocol. The mean (range) LOS was 10 (4-27) days for patients in control group versus 8.5 (3-32) days for patients in the ERAS group (P = .0823). No evidence of a different rate (P = .227) of complications was registered between the two groups. One patient in each group was readmitted.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the ERAS protocol in LRR for cancer at our institute led to an initial reduction in hospital LOS, without increase in morbidity or readmission rate compared with our previous experience with traditional protocol.