Laparoscopy for Rectal Cancer

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision in distal rectal cancer patients: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

At present, abdominoperineal excision with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is one of the treatment modalities of distal rectal cancer. Our study analyzed the effects of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection (ELAPE) compared with laparoscopic conventional abdominoperineal resection(cAPR) in the treatment of distal rectal cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinicopathological data of 177 distal rectal cancer patients treated with a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection between 2011 and 2018. The patients were divided into four groups as follows: ELAPE without nCRT (group A), cAPR without nCRT (group B), ELAPE with long-course nCRT (group C) and cAPR with long-course nCRT (group D).

RESULTS

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), local recurrence rate, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) did not differ between group A and group B. The rate of positive CRM in group C was lower than group D (4.4% vs. 11.9%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.377). The 3-year local recurrence rate in group C was lower compared with group D (6.6% vs. 16.7%, respectively), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.135). Three-year DFS and 3-year OS were not different between groups C and D.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the effect of laparoscopic ELAPE in patients with low-risk rectal cancer is similar to laparoscopic cAPR, revealing that laparoscopic cAPR can be routinely selected for patients with low-risk rectal cancer. Furthermore, laparoscopic ELAPE has a tendency to reduce the rate of positive CRM and local recurrence in patients with high-risk rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ELAPE can be routinely considered for patients with high-risk rectal cancer.

A modified technique of transanal specimen extraction in the laparoscopic anterior rectal resection for upper rectal or lower sigmoid colon cancer: a retrospective study

Background

In recent years, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has become a field of special interest for colorectal surgeons. Some researchers have reported transanal specimen extraction in the laparoscopic anterior rectal resection, including intersphincteric resection (ISR) and rectal eversion-resection. However, these surgical procedures have certain limitations. Based on the proven expertise in laparoscopic surgery, our center has developed a modified technique of transanal specimen extraction. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and feasibility of a modified technique of transanal specimen extraction in the laparoscopic anterior rectal resection.

Methods

From January 2011 to January 2014, the patients with upper rectal or lower sigmoid colon cancer who had undergone laparoscopic anterior rectal resection with specimen extraction by a modified transanal technique were enrolled in the observation group, and the patients who had undergone laparoscopic anterior rectal resection with specimen extraction via an abdominal incision by the same surgeons during the same period were enrolled in the control group.

Results

A total of 36 patients were included in the observation group and 128 patients were included in the control group. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups in terms of the mean operative time [144 ± 10 min vs. 141 ± 11 min], mean intraoperative blood loss [63 ± 6 ml vs. 61 ± 7 ml], and the mean time to anal exhaust [67 ± 7 h vs. 65 ± 8 h]. However, there were significant differences (P < 0.05) between the two groups in terms of the mean postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores [3.4 ± 1.1 vs. 4.5 ± 1.2], mean postoperative hospital stay [6.0 ± 1.1 days ± vs. 7.2 ± 1.2 days], and incidence of postoperative complications (4/36 vs. 15/128). Long-term follow-up results showed that there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between the two groups in terms of the 3- or 5-year overall survival.

Conclusions

The modified technique of transanal specimen extraction in the laparoscopic anterior rectal resection fulfilled the principle of no-neoplasm touch technique, with advantages, such as minimal trauma, rapid recovery, and fewer complications. Long-term follow-up results also showed satisfactory oncological outcomes.

Influence of robotics in surgical complication rate in elderly population with rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer surgery is a technically complex procedure. Moreover, short-term outcomes show high rate of complications especially in elderly and laparoscopic surgery has not demonstrated to be able to reduce this complication rate. Robotics has several advantages in pelvic surgical procedures, which could have an impact in complication rates in elderly patients.

AIMS

The aim of our study is to demonstrate whether robotic surgery has any influence on the reduction of complications in the aged population undergoing rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of 151 patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer. We divided our population into three groups: under 65-year-old, between 65- and 80-year-old and above 80-year-old. We recorded complications in each group intra and post procedure.

RESULTS

The present study included 151 patients (94 males). Of them, 77 patients were under 66 year old, 63 patients were between 66 and 79 year old and 11 patients were 80 year old and above. The analysis showed conversion rates of 10.38%, 13.69%, 27.27%, and the complication rate of 23.4%, 23.8%, and 27.3% in each group. Univariate analysis showed no differences between the three groups. Nevertheless, there were statistical differences from BMI, ASA and neoadjuvant therapy. In multivariant analysis only neoadjuvant therapy was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach does not decrease complications in elderly population and conversion is similar in these age groups. So we should not rule out robotic surgery in elderly patients, although we must select each case with a multidisciplinary approach.

Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer (LRC) is performed worldwide. However, APR involves technical difficulties and often causes intractable perineal complications. Therefore, a novel and secure technique during APR is required to overcome these critical issues. Although the usefulness of the endoscopic trans-anal approach has been documented, no series of the endoscopic trans-perineal approach during laparoscopic APR for LRC has been reported.

METHODS

Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery (TpMIS) has been used during laparoscopic APR in our institution since April 2014. TpMIS is defined as an endoscopic trans-perineal approach using a single-port device and laparoscopic instruments. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated 50 consecutive patients with LRC who underwent laparoscopic APR at our institution from February 2011 to June 2017 and compared the outcomes of the patients who underwent TpMIS [trans-perineal APR (TpAPR) group, n = 21] versus the conventional trans-perineal approach (conventional group, n = 29). We investigated our experiences with TpMIS in detail and evaluated the safety and utility of TpMIS for patients with LRC. Moreover, major features and difficulties of TpMIS were examined from a surgical viewpoint.

RESULTS

Intraoperative blood loss (median (range) 55 (10-600) vs. 120 (20-1650) ml) and severe perineal wound infection (Clavien-Dindo grade 3, 0 vs. 5 cases) were significantly lower in the TpAPR than conventional group. TpMIS led to a shortened hospital stay (median (range), 14 (10-74) vs. 23 (10-84) days), and neither mortality nor conversion to open surgery occurred in the TpAPR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnified visualization via endoscopy provided more accurate dissection and less blood loss during surgery. Minimal skin incisions enabled a reduction in postoperative perineal complications, and consequently shortened the hospital stay. TpMIS during laparoscopic APR is safe and beneficial for patients with LRC.

Laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery in T4 rectal cancer: A case-control study

Background:

Laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for T4 rectal cancer (RC) is still controversial. This study aims to compare LAS with conventional open surgery in patients with T4 RC.

Patients and Methods:

Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open curative resection for T4 RC from January 2010 to September 2014 in our hospital were enrolled. Patients’ clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes were collected and compared. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0.

Results:

A total of 125 patients (39 open, 86 LAS) were included in this study finally. The baseline information between the two groups were comparable except that LAS group had a more anterior resection (P = 0.012) and less combined resection (P = 0.003). The results demonstrated that patients in LAS group had less blood loss (P < 0.001), smaller incision length (P < 0.001), faster time to first soft diet (P = 0.010) and less incidence of post-operative complications, although it was not significantly different (P = 0.063). In addition, the operative time was also comparable (P = 0.140) and the conversion rate was low (2/86). The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 71.8%, 79.1% in open, LAS group respectively and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 66.7%, 68.6% in open, laparoscopic group, respectively. The Kaplan curves demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the two groups in OS (P = 0.981) or DFS (P = 0.900).

Conclusions:

LAS is safe and feasible in selected patients with T4 RC. It can achieve a better perioperative outcomes, and the long-time survival is not inferior to open surgery. Prospective studies should be conducted in the future to reduce the selection bias.