Conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: impact on short- and long-term outcome

Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on conversion to laparotomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in Japan (a secondary analysis of the EnSSURE study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conversion to laparotomy is among the serious intraoperative complications and carries an increased risk of postoperative complications. In this cohort study, we investigated whether or not the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) affects the conversion rate among patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of data collected from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for cStage II and III rectal cancer from 2014 to 2016 across 56 institutions affiliated with the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Data from the original EnSSURE study were analyzed to investigate risk factors for conversion to laparotomy by performing univariate and multivariate analyses based on the reason for conversion.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 3,168 cases, including 65 (2.1%) involving conversion to laparotomy. Indicated conversion accounted for 27 cases (0.9%), while technical conversion accounted for 35 cases (1.1%). The multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors for indicated conversion to laparotomy: tumor diameter [mm] (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, p = 0.0002), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 7.92, 95% CI 3.14-19.97, p < 0.0001), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 4.46, 95% CI 2.01-9.90, p = 0.0002). The multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for technical conversion to laparotomy: registered case number of institution (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.0029), institution type [non-university/university hospital] (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.54-8.04, p = 0.0028), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 5.96, 95% CI 2.15-16.53, p = 0.0006), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 6.26, 95% CI 3.01-13.05, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation of ESSQS-certified physicians may reduce the risk of both indicated and technical conversion. Referral to specialized institutions, such as high-volume centers and university hospitals, especially for patients exhibiting relevant background risk factors, may reduce the risk of conversion to laparotomy and lead to better outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000040645.

Feasibility of two laparoscopic surgeries for colon cancer performed by the same surgeon on a single day

BACKGROUND

Although the proportion of laparoscopic colectomies (LCs) for colon cancer is increasing, the feasibility of the same surgeon performing two LCs on a single day remains unknown. This study was conducted to clarify the feasibility of this practice by evaluating short-term and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis enrolled patients with pathological stage I-III colon cancer who underwent LC at the Shizuoka Cancer Center between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the timing of the surgery for the surgeon. The first group (n = 1485) comprised patients who underwent LC as the first surgery of the day for the surgeon. The second group (n = 163) comprised patients who underwent LC as the second LC of the day for the surgeon. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics of the first and second groups. The short-term and long-term outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher between the first (10.4%, 17/163) and second groups (5.5%, 9/163). There were no significant differences in other perioperative outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of conversion to open surgery, between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in overall survival or relapse-free survival between the two groups both in the full cohort and in the propensity score-matched cohort. In the propensity score-matched cohort, 5-year overall survival was 92.7% in the first group and 94.4% in the second group; 5-year relapse-free survival was 87.1% and 90.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the same surgeon performing two LCs for colon cancer on a single day is feasible in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes.

Treatment outcome of laparoscopic surgery after self-expandable metallic stent insertion for obstructive colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

We assessed the technical and oncological safety of self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) insertion followed by laparoscopic colorectal surgery as a bridge to surgery (BTS) for obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center study analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of SEMS insertion followed by laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with stage II/III/IV obstructive CRC from 2012 to 2020 at Cancer Institute Hospital.

RESULTS

In 66 patients, including 28 stage IV patients, the clinical success rates of SEMS insertion were 97%. In laparoscopic surgery, primary anastomosis was performed in 61 patients (92%), and open conversion was required in 2 patients (3%). Postoperative complications were seen in 9 patients (13%); however, there was no anastomotic leakage or mortality. Curative resection was achieved in all 38 stage II/III patients and 15 of 28 (54%) stage IV patients. Stage IV patients had a longer operation time and greater blood loss than stage II/III patients; however, the open conversion and postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups. In stage II/III patients, 3-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival [OS] were 87.1 and 89.5%, respectively. The median OS of stage IV patients was 34.9 months, and stage IV patients who underwent R0 resection showed a significantly better OS (P = 0.0011) than those with R2 resection.

CONCLUSION

SEMS insertion followed by laparoscopic surgery is a feasible treatment strategy that achieves a high-primary anastomosis rate without severe postoperative complication in not only stage II/III but also stage IV obstructive CRC patients.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: an observational single hospital study of 300 cases

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery attempts to facilitate rectal surgery in the narrow space of the pelvis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Monocentric retrospective study including 300 patients who underwent robotic (n = 178) or laparoscopic (n = 122) resection between Jan 2009 and Dec 2017 for high, mid and low rectal cancer. The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, except for sex and ASA status. There were no statistical differences between groups in the conversion rate to open surgery. Surgical morbidity and oncological quality did not differ in either group, except for the anastomosis leakage rate and the affected distal resection margin. There were no differences in overall survival rate between the laparoscopic and robotic group. Robotic surgery could provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as three-dimensional views, articulated instruments, lower fatigue, lower conversion rate to open surgery, shorter hospital stays and lower urinary and sexual dysfunctions. On the other hand, robotic surgery usually implies longer operation times and higher costs. As shown in the ROLARR trial, no statistical differences in conversion rate were found between the groups in our study. When performed by experienced surgeons, robotic surgery for rectal cancer could be a safe and feasible option with no significant differences in terms of oncological outcomes in comparison to laparoscopic surgery.

Oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery after metallic stent insertion for obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) are used as a bridge to surgery in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer. However, the role of laparoscopic resection after successful stent deployment is not well established. We aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open surgery after successful colonic stent deployment in patients with obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, 179 (97 laparoscopy, 82 open surgery) patients with obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer who underwent radical resection with curative intent after successful stent deployment were retrospectively reviewed. To minimize bias, we used inverse probability treatment-weighted propensity score analysis. The short- and long-term outcomes between the groups were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar demographic and tumor characteristics. The operation time was longer, but the degree of blood loss was lower in the laparoscopy than in the open surgery group. There were nine (9.3%) open conversions. After adjustment, the groups showed similar patient and tumor characteristics. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (laparoscopic vs open: 68.7% vs 48.5%, p = 0.230) and overall survival (OS) (laparoscopic vs open: 79.1% vs 69.0%, p = 0.200) estimates did not differ significantly across a median follow-up duration of 50.5 months. Advanced stage disease (DFS: hazard ratio [HR] 1.825, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.072-3.107; OS: HR 2.441, 95% CI 1.216-4.903) and post-operative chemotherapy omission (DFS: HR 2.529, 95% CI 1.481-4.319; OS: HR 2.666, 95% CI 1.370-5.191) were associated with relatively worse long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Stent insertion followed by laparoscopy with curative intent is safe and feasible; the addition of post-operative chemotherapy should be considered after successful treatment.

Long-term oncologic outcome and risk factors after conversion in laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic converted surgery for patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective database of consecutive curative-intent laparoscopic-assisted surgery for primary stage I-III colon cancer was reviewed from 2000 to 2013. The patients were divided into non-conversion and conversion groups. The patient characters, operative features, perioperative parameters, pathologic features, and oncologic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 4010 patients were included in the study: 3929 in the non-conversion group and 81 (2%) in the conversion group. The median follow-up period was 63.9 months. There were significant differences in age, preoperative clinical T-stage, and tumor size between the groups. In operative details between the two groups, there were also significant differences in access to surgery, tumor location, cancer obstruction, cancer perforation, and estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). The two most common reasons for conversion were adhesion (n = 37, 46%) and bleeding (n = 21, 26%). Multivariate analysis showed that conversion was an independent predictor of both overall survival (OS) (P < 0.001) and disease-free survival (P = 0.003). The 5-year OS rate of the conversion group was 79.6%, and that of the non-conversion group was 96.2% (P < 0.001). The multivariate predictors of conversion were age, type of surgery, cancer obstruction, cancer perforation, and clinical T-stage.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery may affect patient survival and recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer. Our data suggest that conversion is associated with poor outcomes, but we should not hesitate to convert it to patients who have difficulty in laparoscopic surgery.

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.

Impact of Conversion from Laparoscopy to Open Surgery in Patients with Right Colon Cancer

Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 20 per cent of laparoscopic colectomies for cancer. This study aims to compare postoperative outcomes and survival between converted and successful laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer. Records of patients who underwent laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer between 2005 and 2015 were retrieved from the CLermontFerrand Ircad Mondor Hopital European Tours (CLIMHET) database. Perioperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes were evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for conversion. Overall, 445 patients underwent a successfully completed laparoscopic right colectomy and 28 (5.9%) were converted to open surgery. A higher rate of minor complications was found in the conversion group, whereas patient recovery outcomes were similar. Previous open and laparoscopic surgeries were significant predictors of conversion. No significant difference was found in overall and disease-free survival rates between converted and nonconverted procedures. In the setting of laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer, the conversion rate is low and does not have an impact on patient survival. Conversion is associated with higher rates of minor postoperative complications but recovery and survival outcomes are comparable with successful laparoscopic colectomies. The present results support the use of laparoscopy for right colon resection even in patients at risk of conversion.

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.

Laparoscopic approach for left-sided T4 colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure, compared to open surgery

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach can be attempted for pathologic T4 (pT4) colon cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the clinico-oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic versus open surgery for right and left-sided pT4 colon cancer.

METHODS

From a multicentric collaborative database, we enrolled 245 patients with right-sided colon cancer (RCC, 128 laparoscopy and 117 open) and 338 with left-sided colon cancer (LCC, 176 laparoscopy and 162 open). All patients underwent intended curative surgery for histologically proven T4 adenocarcinoma, between 2004 and 2013. The primary end-point of our analysis was the oncologic outcome, including the 5-year disease-free survival (5 year-DFS) and the 5-year overall survival (5 year-OS). The secondary end-points included the R0 resection rate and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Our study group included 224 T4N0 and 359 T4N+ tumors. The median follow-up was 53 months. For patients with RCC, the rate of postoperative morbidities was lower for the laparoscopy than that for the open surgery group (12.5 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.044). There was no difference in the R0 resection rate (94.5 vs. 96.6%, p = 0.425) between the groups. The 5 year-DFS and 5 year-OS rates were lower for the laparoscopy than that in the open group (48.9% vs. 59.2%, p = 0.093; 60.0% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.284, respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Among patients with LCC, there were no differences in the rate of postoperative complication and R0 resection (15.3 vs. 21.0%, p = 0.307; 96.0 vs. 95.7%, p = 0.875, respectively). Both groups had comparable 5 year-DFS and 5 year-OS rates (62.7% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.552; 72.0% vs. 71.8%, p = 0.611, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery appears to be a safe procedure for patients with pT4 LCC, but requires careful consideration for patients with pT4 RCC.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in pT4 colon cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has achieved improved short-term benefits and better long-term oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. However, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic surgery is suitable for patients with stage T4 colon cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare short- and long-term oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic and conventional open surgery for pT4 colon cancer.

METHODS

Published studies from 2003 to 2018 comparing oncological outcomes following laparoscopic and open surgery for pT4 colon cancer were systematically searched. Data on conversion rate, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity and mortality, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were subjected to meta-analysis using fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

Twelve observational studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 2396 cases (1250 laparoscopic and 1146 open). There was no significant difference in R0 resection rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.007; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.935-1.085; P = 0.850], number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 0.004; 95% CI = -0.139 to 0.148; P = 0.951), mortality (RR = 0.509; 95% CI = 0.176-1.470; P = 0.212), and 3-year OS (RR = 1.056; 95% CI = 0.939-1.188; P = 0.360), 5-year OS (RR = 1.003; 95% CI = 0.883-1.139; P = 0.966), 3-year DFS (RR = 1.032; 95% CI = 0.903-1.179; P = 0.642), and 5-year DFS (RR = 0.995; 95% CI = 0.868-1.140; P = 0.973) between the groups. The rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open procedures was 10.7% (95% CI = 0.090-0.124). There was a significant difference in incidence of complications within 30 postoperative days between laparoscopic and open surgery (RR = 0.703; 95% CI = 0.564-0.876; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in pT4 colon cancer, oncological outcomes are similar, and more importantly, there are fewer postoperative complications compared with open surgery.

Comparison of complication and conversion rates between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer: which patients and providers could benefit most from robotic-assisted surgery?

AIMS

To compare (1) complication and (2) conversion rates to open surgery (OS) from laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RA) for rectal cancer patients who underwent rectal resection. (3) To identify patient, physician, and hospital predictors of conversion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A US-based database study was conducted utilizing the 2012-2014 Premier Healthcare Data, including rectal cancer patients ≥18 with rectal resection. ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedural codes were utilized to identify surgical approaches, conversions to OS, and surgical complications. Propensity score matching on patient, surgeon, and hospital level characteristics was used to create comparable groups of RA\LS patients (n = 533 per group). Predictors of conversion from LS and RA to OS were identified with stepwise logistic regression in the unmatched sample.

RESULTS

Post-match results suggested comparable perioperative complication rates (RA 29% vs LS 29%; p = .7784); whereas conversion rates to OS were 12% for RA vs 29% for LS (p < .0001). Colorectal surgeons (RA 9% vs LS 23%), general surgeons (RA 13% vs LS 35%), and smaller bed-size hospitals (RA 14% vs LS 33%) have reduced conversion rates for RA vs LS (p < .0001). Statistically significant predictors of conversion included LS, non-colorectal surgeon, and smaller bed-size hospitals.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective observational study limitations apply. Analysis of the hospital administrative database was subject to the data captured in the database and the accuracy of coding. Propensity score matching limitations apply. RA and LS groups were balanced with respect to measured patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to LS, RA offers a higher probability of completing a successful minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer patients undergoing rectal resection without exacerbating complications. Male, obese, or moderately-to-severely ill patients had higher conversion rates. While colorectal surgeons had lower conversion rates from RA than LS, the reduction was magnified for general surgeons and smaller bed-size hospitals.

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.

Cancer recurrence following conversion during laparoscopic colorectal resections: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Evidence regarding long-term oncological outcomes following conversion to open surgery (COS) during laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) is controversial. The aim of this study is to assess the impact on cancer recurrence of a failed laparoscopic attempt.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge databases were searched for articles reporting data on cancer recurrence in patients undergoing completed LCR and COS. Data were pooled by fixed or random effect modeling, according to the presence of heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were local recurrence (LR) and distance recurrence (DR).

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 2493 patients (completed LCR, n 2201 and COS, n 292) were included. The pooled analysis showed that COS resections have an higher risk of LR (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14-3.42, p = 0.1); no difference was found in DR (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67-1.77, p = 0.71). However, an higher rate of T4 tumor was present in the converted group (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.71-4, p = 0.0). Subgroup analysis including studies with T stage matched populations showed no significant statistical difference in LR rate; however, a trend toward higher recurrence was still clear.

CONCLUSION

There is no consistent evidence that a failed laparoscopic attempt does not result in a poorer oncological outcome; therefore, a careful selection of patients for LCR for cancer is required.

Impact of Timing of Conversion to Open Surgery on Short-Term and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

To evaluate the influence of timing of open conversion on short-term and oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. Six hundred forty-six consecutive patients were enrolled. All patients converted to open surgery were classified into early (n = 10) or late (n = 67) groups based on conversion timing using a 60-minute cutoff. A comparison of early conversion and nonconverted groups showed that history of prior abdominal surgery and pT4 tumor was more common in the early conversion group. Mean operative time was longer in the early conversion group. Rates of 30-day postoperative complications (30% vs 27%), time to soft diet (5 days vs 5 days), and hospital stay (12 days vs 12 days) were not different. A comparison of the late and nonconverted groups showed that history of prior abdominal surgery was more common in the late conversion group. Mean operative time was longer in the late conversion. Rates of 30-day postoperative complications (42% vs 27%), Clavien–Dindo score ≥3 (22% vs 11%), intensive care unit care (31% vs 15%), and transfusion (37% vs 21%) were significantly higher in the late conversion group. Time to soft diet (6 days vs 5 days) and hospital stay (15 days vs 12 days, P = 0.037) were longer in the late conversion group. Cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival rates did not differ among the early, late conversion, and nonconverted groups. Decisions about open conversion need be made within 60 minutes of the beginning of surgery as early conversion does not worsen short-term and oncologic outcomes.

Impact of surgeon laparoscopic training and case volume of laparoscopic surgery on conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery

AIM

The study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic volume and type of training influence conversion during elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHOD

An Institutional Review Board-approved prospective database was reviewed for patients who underwent colorectal resection, performed by six colorectal surgeons, for all diagnoses from 2009 to 2014. Surgeons were designated as laparoscopic- or open-trained based on formal laparoscopic colorectal surgery training, and were classified as low laparoscopic volume (LLV) (i.e. had performed < 100 laparoscopic procedures) or high laparoscopic volume (HLV) (i.e. had performed ≥ 100 laparoscopic procedures). Technique was laparoscopic, open or converted (pre-emptive or reactive). Conversion was compared among three groups: LLV, laparoscopic trained (group A); LLV, open trained (group B); and HLV, open trained (group C).

RESULTS

In total, 159/567 procedures were open and 408 laparoscopic procedures were attempted. Of the 408 laparoscopic procedures, 73 were converted. Among the 567 patients [mean age: 56 ± 17 years (44% male)], the overall conversion rate was 13% (73/567), including 75% pre-emptive and 25% reactive. Conversion rates for groups A, B and C were 17.9%, 42.6% and 14.3%, respectively. Significantly higher conversion was seen in group B compared with group C (P = 0.01), but not between group A and group C (P = 0.85) or between group B and group A (P = 0.11). Converted patients were older (P < 0.001), with lower rates of proctectomy (P = 0.007), higher rates of anastomosis (P < 0.001) and higher body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and surgeon factors, training type was not associated with conversion (P = 0.15). Compared with successful laparoscopy, converted patients had a significantly higher incidence of ileus (P < 0.001), length of stay (P = 0.002), time to flatus (OR = 3.21, P < 0.001) and time to solids (P < 0.001). Converted patients experienced increased morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Training is not associated with conversion. Rather, HLV surgeons, regardless of training, convert less frequently than do LLV surgeons.

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.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Reoperative Abdomen or Pelvis

Laparoscopy has become widely accepted as the preferred surgical approach in the management of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Once considered a relative contraindication in patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS), as surgeons have continued to gain expertise in advanced laparoscopy, minimally invasive approaches have been increasingly incorporated in the reoperative abdomen and pelvis. Although earlier studies have described conversion rates, most contemporary series evaluating the impact of PAS in laparoscopic colorectal resection have reported equivalent conversion and morbidity rates between reoperative and non-reoperative cases, and series evaluating the impact of laparoscopy in reoperative cases have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopy. The data overall highlight the importance of case selection, careful preoperative preparation and planning, and the critical role of surgeons' expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques. Challenges to the widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in reoperative colorectal cases include the longer learning curve and longer operative time. However, with the steady increase in adoption of minimally invasive techniques worldwide, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is likely to continue to be applied in the management of increasingly complex reoperative colorectal cases in an effort to improve patient outcomes. In the hands of experienced MIS surgeons and in carefully selected cases, laparoscopy is both safe and efficacious for reoperative procedures in the abdomen and pelvis, with measurable short-term benefits.

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.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

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

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic converted to open colectomy on short-term and oncologic outcomes and to identify risk factors for long-term survival in patients undergoing colectomy for non-metastatic colon cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive operations for non-metastatic colon cancer was reviewed. Patients were grouped as conversion (CONV) group, completed laparoscopic resection (LAP) group, or open resection (OPEN) group. The clinical and perioperative parameters, pathologic features, and oncologic outcomes were collected. Univariate analysis was performed for comparing these data. Patients without evidence of recurrence at last follow-up or still alive at the end of study period were censored. Kaplan-Meier curves were utilized to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 15.2 %. The most common reason for conversion was locally advanced cancer (45.5 %). Converted patients were associated with a longer operative time (188 ± 29.1 min, P < 0.001), greater blood loss (147 ± 14 mL, P < 0.001), and a higher rate of intra-operative complications (15.2 %, P = 0.042) compared to the completely laparoscopic or open patients. Days to flatus, early ambulation, and length of hospitalization were significantly shorter in completed laparoscopic resection (LAP) group (P < 0.001); however, the outcomes were comparable between conversion (CONV) and open resection (OPEN) groups. The incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in the OPEN group than in the LAP group (P = 0.005), whereas there were no significant differences observed between the CONV group and the OPEN group (P = 1.000) or between the LAP group and the CONV group (P = 0.073). The 5-year DFS in CONV patients (46.5 %) was comparable to LAP patients (55.5 %, P = 0.138) and OPEN patients (59.1 %, P = 0.113). Moreover, there were no significant differences noted in terms of the 5-year OS in the CONV group (56.7 %) compared to the LAP group (67.3 %, P = 0.317) or the OPEN group (66.3 %, P = 0.420). The multivariate analysis showed that pT3-4 cancer (P < 0.001) and poor differentiation (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of both lower OS and lower DFS, whereas leakage (P = 0.008) and lack of adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.023) were independent risk factors only of lower DFS.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open colectomy from an initial laparoscopic approach does not worsen the long-term survival in patients with non-metastatic colon cancer.

Laparoscopic colorectal resections: a simple predictor model and a stratification risk for conversion to open surgery

BACKGROUND

The advantages associated with the laparoscopic approach are lost when conversion is required. Available predictive models have failed to show external validation. Body surface area is a recently described risk factor not included in these models.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a clinical rule including body surface area for predicting conversion in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single large tertiary care institution.

PATIENTS

Nine hundred sixteen patients (mean age, 63.9; range, 14-91 years; 53.2% female) who underwent surgery between January 2004 and August 2011 were identified from a prospective database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Conversion rate was analyzed related to age, sex, obesity, disease location (colon vs rectum), type of disease (neoplastic vs nonneoplastic), history of previous surgery, and body surface area. A predictive model for conversion was developed with the use of logistic regression to identify independently associated variables, and a simple clinical prediction rule was derived. Internal validation of the model was performed by using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 9.9% (91/916). Rectal disease, large patient size, and male sex were independently associated with higher odds of conversion (OR, 2.28 95%CI, 1.47-3.46]), 1.88 [1.1-3.44], and 1.87 [1.04-3.24]). The prediction rule identified 3 risk groups: low risk (women and nonlarge males), average risk (large males with colon disease), and high risk (large males with rectal disease). Conversion rates among these groups were 5.7%, 11.3%, and 27.8% (p < 0.001). Compared with the low-risk group, ORs for average- and high-risk groups were 2.17 (1.30-3.62, p = 0.004) and 6.38 (3.57-11.4, p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by the lack of external validation.

CONCLUSION

This predictive model, including body surface area, stratifies patients with different conversion risks and may help to inform patients, to select cases in the early learning curve, and to evaluate the standard of care. However, this prediction rule needs to be externally validated in other samples (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A137).

Two-day hospital stay after laparoscopic colorectal surgery under an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway

Background

The present study aims to examine the feasibility and safety of a two-day hospital stay after laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) under an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway.

Methods

Between 2003 and 2010, 882 consecutive patients undergoing LCR were analyzed. Patients were grouped and analyzed according to whether their hospital stay was 2 days (group A) or longer (group B). Demographic, surgical, and postoperative data were compared. To identify independent predictive factors related to a short hospital stay, a multivariate analysis was also performed.

Results

Group A represented 10.3 % of this series (91 patients). There were no differences regarding age, gender, BMI, ASA, and previous abdominal surgeries between groups. Group A had a lower incidence of rectal cancer and anterior resections than group B (6.6 vs. 17.7 % [p = 0.006] and 14.3 vs. 23.4 % [p = 0.048]), respectively, and a lower mean operative time (170 min vs. 192 min; p = 0.002). Group A had a lower overall morbidity rate than group B (5.5 vs. 16.9 %; p = 0.004) and a lower incidence of surgery-related complications (5.5 vs. 14.9 %; p = 0.001). The overall conversion rate was 10 % (only one patient in group A required conversion), and the difference in conversion rate between groups was statistically significant (1.2 vs. 10.7 %; p = 0.003). Group A had a lower readmission rate (0 vs. 4.9 %; p = 0.089). Multivariate analysis showed that conversion, postoperative morbidity, and rectal prolapse were independently associated with the length of hospital stay.

Conclusions

A two-day hospital stay after LCR is safe and feasible under an ERAS pathway, without compromising the readmission or complication rate.

Minimally invasive approach to chagasic megacolon: laparoscopic rectosigmoidectomy with posterior end-to-side low colorectal anastomosis

The effectiveness of anterior resection for the surgical treatment of Chagasic megacolon and the advantages of laparoscopy for performing colorectal surgery are well known. However, current experience with laparoscopic surgery for Chagasic megacolon is restricted. Moreover, associated long-term results remain poorly analyzed. The aims of the present study were to ascertain the immediate results of laparoscopic anterior resection for the surgical treatment of Chagasic megacolon, to identify risk factors associated with adverse outcomes, and to settle late results. A retrospective review of a prospective database was conducted. Between November 2000 and September 2012, 44 patients with Chagasic megacolon underwent laparoscopic anterior resection with posterior end-to-side low colorectal anastomosis. Fifteen (34.1%) patients were male. Mean age was 51.6 years (31 to 77 y). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 22.9 kg/m (16.9 to 36.7 kg/m). Thirty-four previous abdominal operations had been performed. Mean operative time was 265 minutes (105 to 500 min). Four surgeons operated on all cases. Surgeon's experience with the operation was not associated with surgical time (P=0.36: linear regression). Mean operative time between patients with and without previous abdominal surgery was similar (237.7 vs. 247.5 min: P=0.78). There was no association between BMI and the duration of the operation (P=0.22). Intraoperative complications occurred in 2 (4.5%) cases. Conversion was necessary in 3 (6.8%) cases. There was no association between conversion and previous abdominal surgery (P=0.56) or between conversion and surgeon's experience (P=0.43). However, a significant association (P=0.01) between BMI and conversion was observed. Postoperative complications occurred in 10 (22.7%) cases. Anastomotic-related complications occurred in 4 cases. Two of them required diversion ileostomy. Restoration of transanal evacuation was achieved in all cases. Mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 9.8 days (4 to 45 d). Of 19 patients with known clinical late follow-up, only 1 (5.3%) reported use of enemas and 5 (26.3%) reported use of laxatives. Thirteen (68.4%) patients reported daily bowel movements. There was no association between postoperative complications and use of laxatives (P=0.57). It was concluded that laparoscopic anterior resection for Chagasic megacolon is safe. Obesity was a risk factor for conversion. Restoration of transanal evacuation after surgical treatment of infectious complications was achieved. Minimally invasive surgery for Chagasic megacolon is associated with satisfactory late intestinal function with no significant constipation relapse.

Short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients

AIM

To investigate the impact of laparoscopic colectomy on short and long-term outcomes in obese patients with colorectal diseases.

METHODS

A total of 98 obese (body mass index > 30 kg/m(2)) patients who underwent laparoscopic (LPS) right or left colectomy over a 10 year period were identified from a prospective institutionally approved database and manually matched to obese patients who underwent open colectomy. Controls were selected to match for body mass index, site of primary disease, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and year of surgery (± 3 year). The parameters analyzed included age, gender, comorbid conditions, American Society of Anaesthesiologists class, diagnosis, procedure, and duration of operation, operative blood loss, and amount of homologous blood transfused. Conversion rate, intra and postoperative complications as were as reoperation rate, 30 d and long-term morbidity rate were also analyzed. For continuous variables, the Student's t test was used for normally distributed data the Mann-Whitney U test for non-normally distributed data. The Pearson's χ(2) tests, or the Fisher exact test as appropriate, were used for proportions.

RESULTS

Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 13 of 98 patients (13.3%). In the LPS group, operative time was 29 min longer and blood loss was 78 mL lower when compared to open colectomy (P = 0.03, P = 0.0001, respectively). Overall morbidity, anastomotic leak and readmission rate did not significantly differ between the two groups. A trend toward a reduction of wound complications was observed in the LPS when compared to open group (P = 0.09). In the LPS group, an earlier recovery of bowel function (P = 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (P = 0.03) were observed. After a median follow-up of 62 (range 12-132) mo 23 patients in the LPS group and 38 in the open group experienced long-term complications (LPS vs open, P = 0.03). Incisional hernia resulted to be the most frequent long-term complication with a significantly higher occurrence in the open group when compared to the laparoscopic one (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients is safe, does not jeopardize postoperative complications and resulted in lower incidence of long-term complications when compared with open cases.

Does conversion affect short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy for colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) for cancer has been associated with adverse short-term and oncologic outcomes. However, most studies have had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative outcomes and survival among patients undergoing LCR for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective database of consecutive LCRs for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer was reviewed. Patients who required conversion (CONV group) were compared with those who had completed laparoscopic resection (LAP group). Only patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up period were included in the oncologic analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 10.9%. The most common reason for conversion was a locally advanced tumor (48.4%). Conversion was associated with a significantly longer operative time and a greater blood loss. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay between the CONV and LAP patients. During a median follow-up period of 120 months (range, 60-180 months), the CONV group had a significantly worse 5-year overall survival (OS) (79.4 vs 87.4%; p = 0.016) and disease-free survival (DFS) (65.4 vs 79.6%; p = 0.013). Univariate analysis showed that conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, pT4 cancer, stage 3 disease, and adjuvant chemotherapy were significant risk factors for OS and DFS. On multivariate analysis, pT4 cancer and a lymph node ratio (LNR) of 0.25 or greater were the only independent predictors of DFS and OS, whereas a LNR of 0.01 to 0.24 showed a trend that did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Conversion to open surgery per se is not associated with worse early postoperative outcomes and does not adversely affect long-term survival per se.

Body surface area: a new predictor factor for conversion and prolonged operative time in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Body surface area is a measurement of body size used in clinical settings. Its impact on laparoscopic colorectal surgery has not been previously studied.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of body surface area on the conversion rate and laparoscopic operative time.

DESIGN

This study was conducted as a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single tertiary care institution.

PATIENTS

Nine hundred sixteen consecutive patients operated on between January 2004 and August 2011 were identified from a prospective database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Conversion rate and laparoscopic operative time were analyzed related to age, sex, obesity, disease location (colon vs rectum), type of disease (neoplastic vs nonneoplastic), history of previous surgery, and body surface area; body surface area was calculated by the Mosteller formula. Body surface area was analyzed by the use of median and quartile cutoff values (1.6, 1.8, and 2.0). Multivariate models were adjusted for different confounders. Interaction between body surface area and BMI was ruled out.

RESULTS

The conversion rate was 10%. Conversion rates for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 4.4%, 8.3%, 12.7%, and 14.8%, p = 0.001. Patients with body surface area ≥ 1.8 had a higher conversion rate than those with body surface area <1.8 (13.9% vs 5.3%, OR: 2.35 (95% CI: 1.45-3.86; p = 0.0001)). Multivariate analysis showed that body surface area ≥ 1.8 was associated with conversion (OR: 2, 95% CI: 1.1-3.7, p = 0.02) and a longer operative time after adjusting for sex, age, obesity, disease location (rectum vs colon), and type of laparoscopic approach.

LIMITATION

This was a single-institution retrospective study.

CONCLUSION

Body surface area is a predictor for conversion and longer laparoscopic operative time. It should be considered when informing patients, selecting cases in the early learning curve, and assessing standard of care.