No advantages of laparoscopy for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction compared with open colorectal resection in both short-term and long-term outcomes

Short- and Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Emergency Resection of Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy for emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer remains unclear, especially regarding impact on survival.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer.

DESIGN

This observational cohort study compared patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection to those who underwent open emergency resection between 2009 and 2016 by using 1:3 propensity-score matching. Matching variables included sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, cT4, cM1, multivisceral resection, small-bowel distention on CT, and subtotal colectomy.

SETTING

This was a nationwide, population-based study.

PATIENTS

Of 2002 eligible patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer, 158 patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection were matched with 474 patients who underwent open emergency resection.

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention was laparoscopic versus open emergency resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were 90-day mortality, 90-day complications, permanent stoma, disease recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

Intentional laparoscopy resulted in significantly fewer 90-day complications (26.6% vs 38.4%; conditional OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87) and similar 90-day mortality. Laparoscopy resulted in better 3-year overall survival (81.0% vs 69.4%; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79) and disease-free survival (68.3% vs 52.3%; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). Multivariable regression analyses of the unmatched 2002 patients confirmed an independent association of laparoscopy with fewer 90-day complications and better 3-year survival.

LIMITATIONS

Selection bias was the limitation that cannot be completely ruled out because of the retrospective nature of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study with propensity score-matched analysis suggests that intentional laparoscopic emergency resection might improve outcomes in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer compared to open emergency resection. Management of those patients in the emergency setting requires proper selection for intentional laparoscopic resection if relevant expertise is available, thereby considering other alternatives to avoid open emergency resection (ie, decompressing stoma). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 .

RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN LAPAROSCPICA DE EMERGENCIA EN CNCER DE COLON IZQUIERDO OBSTRUCTIVO UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN A NIVEL NACIONAL

ANTECEDENTES:El papel de la laparoscopia en la resección de emergencia en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo sigue sin estar claro, especialmente con respecto al impacto en la supervivencia.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los resultados a corto y largo plazo después de la resección de emergencia laparoscópica versus abierta en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional de cohortes comparó pacientes que se sometieron a resección de laparoscópica de emergencia versus resección abierta de emergencia entre 2009 y 2016, mediante el uso de emparejamineto por puntaje de propensión 1: 3. Las variables emparejadas incluyeron sexo, edad, IMC, puntaje ASA, cirugía abdominal previa, ubicación del tumor, cT4, cM1, resección multivisceral, distensión del intestino delgado en la TAC y colectomía subtotal.ENTORNO CLINICO:A nivel nacional, basado en la población.PACIENTES:De 2002 pacientes elegibles con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo, 158 pacientes con resección laparoscópica s de emergencia e emparejaron con 474 pacientes con resección abierta de emergencia.INTERVENCIONES:Resección laparoscópica de emergencia versus abierta.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las medidas primarias fueron la mortalidad a 90 días, complicaciones a 90 días, estoma permanente, recurrencia de la enfermedad, supervivencia general y supervivencia libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La laparoscopia intencional dió como resultado significativamente menos complicaciones a los 90 días (26,6 % vs 38,4 %, cOR 0,59, IC del 95 %: 0,39-0,87) y una mortalidad similar a los 90 días. La laparoscopia resultó en una mejor supervivencia general a los 3 años (81,0 % vs 69,4 %, HR 0,54, IC del 95 % 0,37-0,79) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (68,3 % vs 52,3 %, HR 0,64, IC del 95 % 0,47-0,87). Los análisis de regresión multivariable de los 2002 pacientes no emparejados confirmaron una asociación independiente de la laparoscopia con menos complicaciones a los 90 días y una mejor supervivencia a los 3 años.LIMITACIONES:El sesgo de selección no se puede descartar por completo debido a la naturaleza retrospectiva de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Estudio poblacional con análisis emparejado por puntaje de propensión sugiere que la resección laparoscópica de emergencia intencional podría mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo en comparación con resección abierta de emergencia, lo que justifica la confirmación en estudios futuros. El manejo de esos pacientes en el entorno de emergencia requiere una selección adecuada para la resección laparoscópica intencional si se dispone de experiencia relevante, considerando así otras alternativas para evitar la resección abierta de emergencia (es decir, ostomia descompresiva). Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon & Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Surgery in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare published outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open emergency colorectal surgery, with mortality as primary outcome.

Background

In contrast to the elective setting, the value of laparoscopic emergency colorectal surgery remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until January 6, 2021. Only comparative studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effect model. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment.

Results

Overall, 28 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included, comprising 7865 laparoscopy patients and 55,862 open surgery patients. Quality assessment revealed 'good quality' in 16 of 28 observational studies, and low to intermediate risk of bias for the randomized trial. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower postoperative mortality compared to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.54). Laparoscopy resulted in significantly less postoperative overall morbidity (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65), wound infection (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.18-0.77), ileus (OR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.91), pulmonary (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78) and cardiac complications (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.90), and shorter length of stay. No meta-analyses were performed for long-term outcomes due to scarcity of data.

Conclusions

The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a benefit of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery, with a lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, the almost exclusive use of retrospective observational study designs with inherent biases should be taken into account.

Evidence-based Clinical Management of Acute Malignant Colorectal Obstruction

Acute malignant colorectal obstruction (AMCO) is an emergency associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). Emergency surgery is standard therapy for AMCO, and 1-stage surgery without colostomy is preferable, but it is occasionally difficult in the emergency setting. A self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) enables noninvasive colonic decompression and subsequent 1-stage surgery, which has been widely applied for CRC with AMCO. However, recent accumulation of high-quality evidence has highlighted some problems and the limited efficacy of SEMS for AMCO. In palliative settings, SEMS placement reduces hospital stay and short-term complication rates, whereas it increases the frequency of long-term complications, such as delayed perforation. SEMS placement does not seem compatible with recent standard chemotherapy including bevacizumab. As a bridge to surgery, while SEMS placement provides a lower clinical success rate than emergency surgery, it can facilitate primary anastomosis without stoma. However, evidence regarding long-term survival outcomes with SEMS in both palliative and bridge to surgery settings is lacking. The efficacy of transanal colorectal tube placement, another endoscopic treatment, has been reported, but its clinical evidence level is low due to the limited number of studies. This review article comprehensively summarizes the current knowledge about surgical and endoscopic management of CRC with AMCO.