Three-Port Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Versus Conventional Five-Port Laparoscopy for Right-Sided Colon Cancer

Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial.

METHODS

A total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172).

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer.

International survey among surgeons on laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the gap between guidelines and reality

Introduction

To assess the current approaches and perioperative treatments of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC) and to highlight similarities and differences with international guidelines and scientific evidence, we conducted a survey for surgeons across the globe.

Methods

All digestive and colorectal surgeons registered with the database of the Research Institute against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD) were invited to take part in the survey via email and through the social media networks of IRCAD.

Results

There were a total of 440 respondents from 78 countries. Most surgeons worked in the European region (38.6%) followed by the Americas (34.1%), the Eastern Mediterranean region (13.0%), the South-East Asian region (5.9%), the Western Pacific region (4.8%), and Africa (3.2%) respectively. Over half of the respondents performed less than 25% of right hemicolectomies laparoscopically where 4 ports are usually used by 68% of the surgeons. The medial-to-lateral, vessel-first approach is the approach most commonly used (74.1%). The most common extraction site was through a midline incision (53%) and an abdominal drain tube is routinely used by 52% of the surgeons after surgery. A total of 68.6% of the responding surgeons perform the majority of the anastomoses extracorporeally. Finally, we found that the majority of responders (60.7%) routinely used mechanical bowel preparations prior to LRHC.

Conclusion

Regarding several topics related to LRHC care, a discrepancy was observed between the current medical practice and the recommendations from RCTs and international guidelines and significant regional differences were observed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09044-w.

Three-Port with Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction versus Conventional Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Rectal-Sigmoid Cancer: A Matched Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND

The conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery requires four or more ports to accomplish the laparoscopic dissection, and a mini-laparotomy to remove the specimen, which is a main cause of postoperative pain and incision complications, and compromise the cosmetic results. Reduced port surgery and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) surgery hold the promise to overcome these drawbacks. This study planned to compare peri-operative outcomes of patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer undergoing three-port laparoscopic anterior resection with NOSE (three-port NOSE LAR) to those of patients receiving conventional LAR.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer underwent three-port NOSE LAR between December 2018 and October 2020. For comparison, 50 patients with rectal-sigmoid cancer underwent conventional LAR in the same period were matched. The peri-operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Operating time of three-port NOSE group was slightly longer than that of conventional group (135 min vs. 121 min, p = .147). The incision length of three-port NOSE group was shorter than that of conventional group (2.9 cm vs. 7.4 cm, p = .000). Complication rates in three-port NOSE group and conventional group were similar (12.0% vs. 20.0%, p = .524). The tumor size was smaller in three-port NOSE group than the conventional group (2.1 cm vs. 3.5 cm, p = .000). Pain score was lower in three-port NOSE group than the conventional group at postoperative day 1 (1.6 vs. 3.0, p = 0.045) and day 2 (0.2 vs. 2.1, p = .003). The BIQ score was significantly higher in the three-port NOSE group compared to the conventional group (42.9 ± 3.5 vs. 38.2 ± 2.5, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-port NOSE LAR for rectal-sigmoid cancer is feasible and provides similar peri-operative outcomes compared to conventional LAR. It reduces postoperative pain and produces better cosmesis.