Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evaluation and analysis of neurocognitive dysfunction in patients with colorectal cancer after radical resection: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

With the continuous progress of colorectal cancer treatment technology, the survival rate of patients has improved significantly, but the problem of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction has gradually attracted attention.

AIM

To analyze the risk factors for delayed postoperative neurocognitive recovery (DNR) after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and constructed a risk prediction model to provide an evidence-based reference for the prevention and treatment of DNR after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

The clinical data of 227 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery and regional cerebral saturation oxygenation (rScO2) monitoring at our hospital from March 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Common factors and potential factors affecting postoperative DNR were used as analysis variables, and univariate analysis and multifactor analysis were carried out step by step to determine the predictors of the model and construct a risk prediction model. The predictive performance of the model was assessed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the calibration curve was used to assess the fit of the model to the data, and a nomogram was drawn. In addition, 30 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria from January 2023 to July 2023 were selected for external verification of the prediction model.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative DNR in the modeling group was 15.4% (35/227). Multivariate analysis revealed that age, years of education, diabetes status, and the lowest rScO2 value were the independent influencing factors of postoperative DNR (all P < 0.05). Accordingly, a DNR risk prediction model was constructed after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. The area under the ROC curve of the model was 0.757 (95%CI: 0.676-0.839, P < 0.001), and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of the calibration curve suggested that the model was well fitted (P = 0.516). The C-index for external validation of the row was 0.617.

CONCLUSION

The DNR risk prediction model associated with rScO2 monitoring can be used for individualized assessment of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and provides a clinical basis for the prevention of DNR after surgery.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of minimally invasive, robotic and open approaches in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic (LAP), laparoscopic-assisted (LAPA), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and robotic colorectal surgery using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of comparing the five different approaches in colorectal surgery were included in a literature search until September 2022. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were reported for total costs, surgical costs, operating time, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of surgical approaches into homogeneous clusters. The cophenetic correlation coefficient (cc) was evaluated to identify the most cost-effective clustering method. The primary outcomes assessed were: costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy, measuring total costs against postoperative complications, mortality rate, and LOS, respectively.

RESULTS

22 RCTs with 4239 patients were included. Open surgery had the lowest total costs, surgical costs, and operating time but the longest LOS and most postoperative complications. LOS was significantly decreased in LAP compared to open surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.46-0.96). Robotic surgery resulted in the highest total costs, surgical costs, and most extended operative duration but the shortest LOS and lowest mortality. LAPA and robotic surgery were superior in the costs-morbidity analysis. HAL was associated with the worst costs-mortality profile. LAP, LAPA, and HAL were better in terms of costs-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, LAP and LAPA are the most cost-effective approaches for colorectal surgery in terms of overall postoperative complications, mortality, and LOS.

Hand Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes from a Single Tertiary Referral Centre

The aim of this study was to report overall experience, perioperative and long-term survival results in a single tertiary referral center in Lithuania with hand assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for colorectal cancer. A prospectively maintained database included 467 patients who underwent HALS for left-sided colon and rectal cancer, from April 2006 to October 2016. All those operations were performed by three consultant surgeons and nine surgical residents, in all cases assisted by one of the same consultant surgeons. There were 230 (49.25%) females, with an average age of 64 ± 9.7 years (range, 26–91 years). The procedures performed included 170 (36.4%) anterior rectal resections with partial mesorectal excision, 160 (34.26%) sigmoid colectomies, 81 (17.35%) left hemicolectomies, 45 (9.64%) low anterior rectal resections with total mesorectal excision, and 11 (2.25%) other procedures. Stage I colorectal cancer was found in 140 (29.98%) patients, 139 (29.76%) stage II, 152 (32.55%) stage III and 36 (7.71%) stage IV. There were five conversions to open surgery (1.1%). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.9 ± 3.4 days (range, 1–30 days). In total, 33 (7.06%) patients developed postoperative complications. The most common complications were small bowel obstruction (n = 6), anastomotic leakage (n = 5), intraabdominal abscess (n = 4) and dysuria (n = 4). There were two postoperative deaths (0.43%). Overall, 5-year survival for all TNM stages was 85.7%, 93.2% for stage I, 88.5% for stage II and 76.3% for stage III. Hand assisted colorectal surgery for left-sided colon and rectal cancer in a single tertiary referral center was feasible and safe, having all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, with good perioperative parameters, adequate oncological quality and excellent survival.

Comparison of short and long-time outcomes between laparoscopic and conventional open multivisceral resection for primary T4b colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare laparoscopic multivisceral resection (LMVR) with conventional open multivisceral resection (OMVR) for primary T4b colorectal cancer (CRC) in short and long-time outcomes.

METHODS

Patients receiving LMVR or OMVR for primary T4b CRC from January 2009 to June 2016 were enrolled. Patients' clinicopathological characteristics and survival data were collected and analyzed. Multivariable analysis was performed to find the factors related with survival. All statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 22.0.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients (LMVR 38, OMVR 53) were included in this study. Patients undergoing LMVR were associated with smaller incision length (P < 0.001), less blood loss (P = 0.01) and comparable operative time (P = 0.071). Patients in LMVR group also had less time to first flatus (P = 0.025). The results also suggested LMVR could reduce the incidence of postoperative complication. The conversion rate was 28.9%. The 3-year OS was 64.2%, 68.4% in OMVR, LMVR group respectively and the 3-year DFS was 56.6%, 52.6% in OMVR, LMVR group respectively. The Kaplan curves demonstrated that LMVR group had similar OS (P = 0.896) and DFS (P = 0.806) when compared with OMVR group. In addition, the multivariate analysis demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery was not associated with poorer survival.

CONCLUSION

Not all MVR for T4b CRC should be performed by open procedure, LMVR can be safe and feasible for primary T4b CRC in selected patients. It can faster the postoperative recovery and reduce the incidence of postoperative complication. The OS and DFS are also not inferior to open group.