Emergent Laparoscopic Colectomy Is an Effective Alternative to Open Resection for Benign and Malignant Diseases: a Meta-Analysis

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.

Current Evidence for Minimally Invasive Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Risk Mitigation Strategies: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review the literature surrounding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and propose mitigation measures to address these risks.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused surgeons the world over to re-evaluate their approach to surgical procedures given concerns over the risk of aerosolization of viral particles and exposure of operating room staff to infection. International society guidelines advise against the use of laparoscopy; however, the evidence on this topic is scant and recommendations are based on the perceived most cautious course of action.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of the existing literature surrounding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and balance these risks against the benefits of minimally invasive approaches. We also propose mitigation measures to address these risks that we have adopted in our institution.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

While it is currently assumed that open surgery minimizes operating room staff exposure to the virus, our findings reveal that this may not be the case. A well-informed, evidence-based opinion is critical when making decisions regarding which operative approach to pursue, for the safety and well-being of the patient, the operating room staff, and the healthcare system at large. Minimally invasive surgical approaches offer significant advantages with respect to both patient care, and the mitigation of the risk of viral transmission during surgery, provided the appropriate equipment and expertise are present.

Factors Associated With Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Emergency Settings

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with improved colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, but it is used less frequently in emergency settings. We aimed to assess patient-level factors associated with emergency presentation for CRC and the use of MIS in emergency versus elective settings.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined the clinical data of patients who underwent emergency and elective resections for CRC from 2013 to 2015 using the Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences in gender, age, race, urbanization, region, insurance, and clinical characteristics associated with mode of presentation and surgical approach. In-hospital mortality and length of stay by mode of presentation were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 16,277 patients identified, 10,224 (61%) had elective surgery and 6503 (39%) had emergency surgery. Emergency presentations were more likely to be black (14.2% versus 9.5%), Hispanic (18.9% versus 15.4%), Medicaid-insured (9.7% versus 4.2%), and have metastatic cancer (34.4% versus 20.2%) or multiple comorbidities (12.6% versus 4.0%). MIS was the surgical approach in 31.8% of emergency cases versus 48.1% of elective cases. Factors associated with lower odds of MIS for emergencies include Medicaid (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.99), metastases (OR 0.56, CI 0.5-0.63), and multiple comorbidities (OR 0.53, CI 0.4-0.7). Emergency cases experienced higher in-hospital mortality (3.7% versus 1.0%) and a longer median length of stay (10 d versus 5 d).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency CRC presentations are associated with racial minorities, Medicaid insurance, metastatic disease, and multiple comorbidities. Odds of MIS in emergency settings are lowest for patients with Medicaid insurance and highest clinical disease burden.