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

Surgical Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastasis: An Umbrella Review

Surgical resection is the gold standard for treating synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The resection of the primary tumor and metastatic lesions can follow different sequences: "simultaneous", "bowel-first", and "liver-first". Conservative approaches, such as parenchymal-sparing surgery and segmentectomy, may serve as alternatives to major hepatectomy. A comprehensive search of Medline, Epistemonikos, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Studies evaluating patients who underwent surgery for CRLM and reported survival results were included. Other secondary outcomes were analyzed, including disease-free survival, perioperative complications and mortality, and recurrence rates. Quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR-2 method. No significant differences in overall survival, disease-free survival, and secondary outcomes were observed when comparing simultaneous to "bowel-first" resections, despite a higher rate of perioperative mortality in the former group. The 5-year OS was significantly higher for simultaneous resection compared to "liver-first" resection. No significant differences in OS and DFS were noted when comparing "liver-first" to "bowel-first" resection, or anatomic to non-anatomic resection. Our umbrella review validates simultaneous surgery as an effective oncological approach for treating SCRLM, though the increased risk of perioperative morbidity highlights the importance of selecting suitable patients. Non-anatomic resections might be favored to preserve liver function and enable future surgical interventions.

The risk of postoperative complications is higher in stage I-III colorectal cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate whether previous abdominal surgery (PAS) affected stage I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who underwent radical resection.

METHODS

Stage I-III CRC patients who received surgery at a single clinical center from Jan 2014 to Dec 2022 were retrospectively included in this study. Baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes were compared between the PAS group and the non-PAS group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to find risk factors for overall complications and major complications. A 1:1 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the selection bias between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 22.0) software.

RESULTS

A total of 5895 stage I-III CRC patients were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PAS group had 1336 (22.7%) patients, and the non-PAS group had 4559 (77.3%) patients. After the PSM, there were 1335 patients in each group, and no significant difference was found in all baseline characteristics between the two groups (P > 0.05). After comparing the short-term outcomes, the PAS group had a longer operation time (before PSM, P < 0.01; after PSM, P < 0.01) and more overall complications (before PSM, P = 0.027; after PSM, P = 0.022) whether before or after PSM. In univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, PAS was an independent risk factor for overall complications (univariate analysis, P = 0.022; multivariate analysis, P = 0.029) but not for major complications (univariate analysis, P = 0.688).

CONCLUSION

Stage I-III CRC patients with PAS might experience longer operation time and have a higher risk of postoperative overall complications. However, it did not appear to significantly affect the major complications. Surgeons should take steps to improve surgical outcomes for patients with PAS.

Intracorporeal Anastomosis and ERAS Program: The Winning Combination of Optimized Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic technique and the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol have become the standard of care in patients undergoing right colon cancer surgery, reducing hospital stay and postoperative morbidity. However, the optimal anastomosis technique [intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA)] remains debated. This study aimed to determine the optimal perioperative approach (ICA vs. ECA combined with the ERAS program vs. standard care) for patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer between January 2012 and June 2021. Patient data were analyzed in 4 treatment groups according to the type of anastomosis and the care protocol. The primary endpoint was total postoperative hospital stay (THS). The secondary endpoints were recovery time and overall morbidity rate.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the 373 included patients were comparable between the 4 groups. THS was significantly shorter in the ICA/ERAS group than in the ECA/standard and ICA/standard groups ( P <0.01), but there was no significant difference between the ICA/ERAS and ECA/ERAS groups (5.7 vs. 6.4 d; P =0.17). Recovery time was significantly shorter in the ICA/ERAS group ( P <0.01). The overall morbidity rate, including anastomotic morbidity, was comparable among the 4 groups. Regression analysis showed that ICA and the ERAS program were both predictive factors to reduce the THS and recovery time.

CONCLUSIONS

ICA combined with the ERAS program achieves the best outcomes and thus seems to be the optimal approach for the management of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer.

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.

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.

Prognosis Comparisons of Laparoscopy versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: A Meta-Analysis

AIM

We aimed to compare the oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open resection for patients with rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT).

METHODS

We searched the publications that compared the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery and open thoracotomy in treatment outcomes of rectal cancer after NCRT. All trials analyzed the summary hazard ratios of the endpoints of interest, including survival and individual postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Totally, 10 trials met our inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis of 3-year disease-free survival (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93-2.06; p = 0.11) and 3-year overall survival (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70-1.45; p = 0.97) showed that laparoscopic surgery did not achieve beneficial effects compared with open thoracotomy. The pooled result of duration of surgery indicated that laparoscopic surgery was associated with a trend for longer surgery time (SMD 27.53, 95% CI 1.34-53.72; p = 0.04), shorter hospital stay (SMD -1.64, 95% CI -2.70 to -0.58; p = 0.002), more postoperative complications (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99; p = 0.04), and decreased blood loss (SMD -49.87, 95% CI -80.61 to -19.14; p = 0.001). However, the number of removed lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margin, as well as complications after surgery showed significant differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We focused on current evidence and reviewed the studies indicating that similar oncological outcomes were associated with laparoscopic surgery following NCRT for patients with locally advanced lower rectal cancer in comparison with open surgery.

Trends and consequences of surgical conversion in the United States

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify national utilization trends of robotic surgery for elective colectomy, conversion rates over time, and the specific impact of conversion on postoperative morbidity. Conversion to open represents a hard endpoint for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and is associated with worse outcomes when compared to MIS or even traditional open procedures.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic elective colectomy from 2013 to 2018 as reported in the American College of Surgeons Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database were included. National trends of both robotic utilization and conversion rates were analyzed, overall and according to underlying disease (benign disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), cancer), or the presence of obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m²). Demographic and surgical risk factors for surgical conversion to open were identified through multivariable regression analysis. Further assessed were overall and specific postoperative 30-day complications, which were risk adjusted and compared between converted patients and the remaining cohort.

RESULTS

Of 66,652 included procedures, 5353 (8.0%) were converted to open. Conversion rates were 8.5% for laparoscopic and 4.9% for robotic surgery (p < 0.0001). A decline in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period was observed overall and for patients with obesity. This trend paralleled an increased utilization of the robotic platform. Several surrogates for advanced disease stages for cancer, diverticulitis, and IBD and prolonged surgical duration were identified as independent risk factors for unplanned conversion, while robotic approach was an independent protective factor (OR 0.44, p < 0.0001). Patients who had unplanned conversion were more likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 2.36; 95% CI [2.21-2.51]), length of hospital stay ≥ 6 days (OR 2.86; 95% CI [2.67-3.05], and 30-day mortality (OR 2.28; 95% CI [1.72-3.02]).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study identified a decreasing trend in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period, both overall and in patients with obesity, paralleling increased utilization of the robotic platform. Unplanned conversion to open was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications.

Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes in Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Personal Experience in a Single Institution

The oncologic merits of the laparoscopic technique for colorectal cancer surgery remain debatable. Eligible patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer who were scheduled for an elective resection by one surgeon in a medical institution were randomized to either laparoscopic or open surgery. During this period, a total of 188 patients received laparoscopic surgery and the other 163 patients received the open approach. The primary endpoint was cancer-free five-year survival after operative treatment, and the secondary endpoint was the tumor recurrence incidence. Besides, surgical complications were also compared. There was no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic groups regarding the average number of lymph nodes dissected, ileus, anastomosis leakage, overall mortality rate, cancer recurrence rate, or cancer-free five-year survival. Even though performing a laparoscopic approach used a significantly longer operation time, this technique was more effective for colorectal cancer treatment in terms of shorter hospital stay and less blood loss. Meanwhile, fewer patients receiving the laparoscopic approach developed postoperative urinary tract infection, wound infection, or pneumonia, which reached statistical significance. For non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better short-term outcomes, whether in several surgical complications and intra-operative blood loss. Though there was no significant statistical difference in terms of cancer-free five-year survival and tumor recurrence, it is strongly recommended that patients undergo laparoscopic surgery if not contraindicated.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is There a Drawback of Converting a Laparoscopic Colectomy in Colon Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection is well established in the treatment of colon cancer. However, conversion rates remain high and the impact of conversion is disputed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified 1347 patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer between 2004 and 2014 at our tertiary center. Morbidity and oncological outcomes were compared between patients who underwent successfully completed laparoscopic surgery (LS), planned open surgery (OS), and conversion to open surgery (CS). Long-term analysis included patients with stage I-III disease. In addition, we performed propensity score matching to adjust for the heterogeneity and selection bias between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 505 underwent LS, 789 underwent OS, and 53 underwent CS, which corresponded to a conversion rate of 9.5%. Conversion was associated with male gender, left-sided tumors, and stage III disease. Length of stay, morbidity, and readmission rates were lower for LS patients. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated worse overall, disease-specific, and disease-free survival in CS than LS, with similar outcomes to OS. However, after propensity score matching, CS was only associated with admission duration and the requirement of blood transfusion, whereas survival outcomes were comparable between all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CS is associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes compared to LS. However, when accounting for differences in baseline and pathologic features, CS remained only associated with a longer length of stay and more blood transfusions. Because outcomes were comparable between CS and OS, regardless of stage and other risk factors, our data support a surgeon's attempt to perform LS in patients with colon cancer.

Laparoscopic vs open resection of pT4 colon cancer: a propensity score analysis of 94 patients

AIM

Our aim was to compare short- and long-term oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomy in T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed oncological outcomes of 94 patients who underwent surgery between December 2010 and December 2016 for pT4 colon cancer, with propensity score matching. All patients were treated with curative intent, by either laparoscopic or open en bloc resection.

RESULTS

The conversion rate in the laparoscopic group was 17.0%. Blood loss, time to flatus and postoperative hospitalization were significantly less in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days did not significantly differ between the two groups. R0 resection rates and lymph node harvests were similar between the two groups. At 5 years, laparoscopic outcomes were not inferior to open outcomes (overall survival 56.8% vs 50.2%, P = 0.250; disease-free survival 59.7% vs 41.7%, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is safe and feasible for pathologically confirmed T4 colon cancer. It results in a faster postoperative recovery.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparing laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for long-term outcomes in patients with stage I to III colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Although the short-term advantages of laparoscopy for colon cancer (CC) over open surgery have been clearly demonstrated, there is little evidence available concerning the long-term outcomes. This study aimed to compare the long-term results of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in a cohort of CC patients from a single center.

METHODS

A series of 443 patients consecutively operated on for stage I to III CC between January 2006 and December 2013 were followed up. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique and were compared for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) before and after 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Due to exclusions and drop-outs, the statistical analysis of the study is based on 398 patients. Open surgery was performed in 133 patients, and laparoscopic surgery was performed in 265. After propensity score matching, two comparable groups of 89 patients each were obtained. The 5-year DFS was 64.3% and 78.2% for patients in the open and laparoscopic resection groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-1.19; P = 0.148]. A 5-year OS of 72.1% and 86.8% was observed in the open and laparoscopic resection groups, respectively (HR 0.43, 95%CI 0.20-0.94; P = 0.026). The multivariate survival analysis demonstrated better results of laparoscopy compared with open surgery for both DFS (HR 0.43, 95%CI 0.23-0.78; P = 0.004) and OS (HR 0.28, 95%CI 0.14-0.59; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our study confirms better results for laparoscopic surgery in terms of DFS and OS compared with open surgery in CC treatment.

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

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection has been associated with worse outcome, but this might have been related to a learning curve effect. This study aimed to evaluate incidence, predictive factors and outcomes of laparoscopic conversion after the implementation phase of laparoscopic surgery at a population level. Patients undergoing elective resection of non-locally advanced, non-metastatic colorectal cancer between 2011 and 2015 were included. Data were extracted from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patients were grouped as laparoscopic completed (LR), laparoscopic converted (CONV) with further specification of timing (within or after 30 min) as registered in the DSCA, and open resection (OR). Uni- and multi-variate analyses were used to determine predictors of conversion and outcome (complicated course and mortality), with evaluation of trends over time. A total of 23,044 patients with colon cancer and 11,324 with rectal cancer were included. Between 2011 and 2015, use of laparoscopy increased from 55 to 84% in colon cancer, and from 49 to 89% in rectal cancer. Conversion rates decreased from 11.8 to 8.6% and from 13 to 8.0%, respectively. Laparoscopic hospital volume was independently associated with conversion rate. Only for colon cancer, the rate of complicated course was significantly higher after CONV compared to OR (adjusted odds ratio 1.486; 95% CI 1.298-1.702), and significantly higher after late (> 30 min) compared to early conversion (adjusted odds ratio 1.341; 1.046-1.719). There was no impact of CONV on mortality in both colon and rectal cancer. The use of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery increased to more than 80% at a national level, accompanied by a decrease in conversion which is significantly related to the laparoscopic hospital volume. Conversion was only associated with complicated course in colon cancer, especially when the reason for conversion consisted of an intra-operative complication, without affecting mortality.

Oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic colon cancer resection for T4 lesions: a case-control analysis of 7-years' experience

BACKGROUND

According to many Societies' guidelines, patients presenting with clinical T4 colorectal cancer should conventionally be approached by a laparotomy. Results of emerging series are questioning this attitude.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the oncologic outcomes of 147 patients operated on between June 2008 and September 2015 for histologically proven pT4 colon cancers. All patients were treated with curative intent, either by a laparoscopic or open "en bloc" resection.

RESULTS

Median operative time, blood loss and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group. Postoperative surgical complication rate and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ between the two groups ( p = 0.09 and p = 0.99, respectively). R1 resection rate and lymph nodes harvest, as well, did not remarkably differ when comparing the two groups. In the laparoscopic group, conversion rate was 19%. Long-term outcomes were not affected in patients who had undergone conversion. Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (44.6% and 40.3% vs. 39.4% and 38.9%). Locally advanced stages (IIIB-IIIC) and R1 resections were detected as independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach might be safe and acceptable for locally advanced colon cancer and does not jeopardize the oncologic results. Conversion to open surgery should be a part of a strategy as it does not seem to adversely affect perioperative and long-term outcomes. We consider laparoscopy, in expert hands, the last diagnostic tool and the first therapeutic approach for well-selected locally advanced colon cancers. Larger prospective studies are needed to widely assess this issue.

There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes

Background

Until recently there has been little data available about long-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. But new randomized controlled trials regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery for rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.

Methods

A systematic review of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library from January 1966 to October 2016 with a subsequent meta-analysis was performed. Only randomized controlled trials with data on circumferential resection margins were included. The primary outcome was the status of circumferential resection margins. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, distal resection margins, disease-free and overall survival rates for 3 and 5 years and local recurrence rates.

Results

Eleven studies were evaluated, involving a total of 2018 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1526 patients in the open group. The presence of involved circumferential margins was reported in all studies. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of positive circumferential margins between the laparoscopic group and open group, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89–1.50 and no significant differences in involvement of distal margins (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.35–3.66), completeness of mesorectal excision (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82–1.82) or number of harvested lymph nodes (mean difference = −0.01, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.87). Disease-free survival rates at 3 and 5 years were not different (p = 0.26 and p = 0.71 respectively), and neither were overall survival rates (p = 0.19 and p = 0.64 respectively), nor local recurrence rates (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63–1.23).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with similar short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery. The oncologic quality of extracted specimens seems comparable regardless of the approach used.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10151-017-1662-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for T4 colon cancer: A propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The study aimed to compare, using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses, the short- and long-term results of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) versus open colectomy (OC) in a bicentric cohort of patients with T4 colon cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective PSM analysis of consecutive patients undergoing elective LC or OC for pT4 colon cancer (TNM stage II/III) between 2005 and 2014.

RESULTS

Overall, 237 patients were selected. After PSM, 106 LC-and 106 OC-matched patients were compared. LC was associated with longer operative time and lower blood loss than OC (220 vs. 190 min, p < 0.0001; 116 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.002, respectively). LC patients showed a faster recovery, which translated into a shorter hospital stay compared to OC (10.5 vs. 15.3 days, p < 0.0001). Conversion was required in 13 (12.2 %) LC patients. No group difference was observed for 30- and 90-day mortality. R0 resection was achieved in the majority of LC and OC patients (93.9 %). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival was 99, 76.8, and 58.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 98, 70.1, and 59.9 %, respectively, for the OC group (p = 0.864). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival was 86.3, 66, 57.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 79.1, 55.1, and 50.2 % for the OC group (p = 0.261).

CONCLUSION

With an acceptable conversion rate, laparoscopy can achieve complete oncologic resections of T4 colon cancer similar to open surgery and can be considered a safe and feasible alternative approach that confers the advantage of a faster recovery.

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

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

Does Conversion in Laparoscopic Colectomy Portend an Inferior Oncologic Outcome? Results from 104,400 Patients

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding the effect of conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy on perioperative and oncologic outcomes in colon cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

The National Cancer Data Base was used to identify patients who underwent colectomy for non-metastatic colon cancer (2010-2012). Patients were stratified into three groups: laparoscopic/robotic-assisted colectomy (MIC), converted colectomy (CC), and open colectomy (OC). Multivariable modeling was applied to compare outcomes from CC and MIC to OC while adjusting for patient, clinical, and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 104,400 patients, 40,328 (38.6 %) underwent MIC, 57,928 (55.5 %) OC, and 6144 (5.9 %) CC. After adjustment, the rate of positive surgical margins was not significantly different between CC and OC (p = 0.44). However, with adjustment, CC versus OC was associated with shorter hospital length of stay (4 % decrease, 95 % CI 2-5 %, p < 0.0001) and lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.64-0.94, p = 0.0112). Adjusted overall survival was similar between CC and OC (p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from laparoscopic to open colectomy was not associated with compromised oncologic outcomes, while maintaining improved short-term outcomes despite being attempted in only 45 % of patients. This data suggests that utilization of laparoscopic colectomy should be attempted for patients with colon cancer.