Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Is Associated With a Higher Intraoperative Complication Rate Than Open Surgery

A prospective study on the enhancement of surgical safety in robotic surgery: The BirdView camera system

PURPOSE

To investigate the surgical safety and benefits of using the BirdView camera system with a wide field of view in robotic surgery for rectal cancer in a prospective clinical study.

METHODS

This study included 20 consecutive patients who underwent robotic surgery at our institution between the years 2022 and 2023. The primary endpoint was perioperative safety, which was defined as the occurrence of adverse events, including other organ injuries and malfunctions, caused by the BirdView camera system.

RESULTS

There were no injuries to any other organs caused by the console surgeon or assistant forceps during surgery. Surgical adverse events occurred in five cases (atelectasis, paralytic ileus, and anastomotic leakage) during the postoperative course. There were no cases of device failure or damage to the surrounding organs, including peritoneal heat damage.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the BirdView system could be valuable in improving the safety of robotic surgery by enabling the observation of blind spots, thus preventing harm to other organs.

Short-term Outcomes of Robot-assisted Colectomy Using the Overlap Method for Right-sided Colon Cancer

Background/Aim

The recent development of minimally invasive surgery has led to transition from laparoscopic right colectomy (LC) to robot-assisted right colectomy (RC) in Japan. However, it is unclear whether the introduction of RC in municipal hospitals could be as safe as that in high-volume centers in Japan. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to compare the short-term operative outcomes of RC and LC for right colon cancer at a local municipal hospital in Japan.

Patients and Methods

Patients with stage I-IV right colon cancer who underwent elective RC or LC between January 2021 and July 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with double cancer and those who underwent delta anastomosis were excluded. Postoperative surveillance included patient interviews, physical examinations, tumor marker examinations, and whole-body computed tomography every six months.

Results

Forty patients were analyzed, and 24 (60%) and 16 (40%) patients assigned in the LC and RC groups, respectively, were compared. The operative time, bleeding, postoperative complications, and pathological examinations did not differ significantly between the LC and RC groups.

Conclusion

RC using overlapping anastomoses was comparable to LC in terms of short-term operative outcomes. The introduction of RC with overlapping anastomosis is a feasible surgical technique.

Improving vision for surgeons during laparoscopy: the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS)

BACKGROUND

For many abdominal surgical interventions, laparotomy has gradually been replaced by laparoscopy, with numerous benefits for the patient in terms of post-operative recovery. However, during laparoscopy, the endoscope only provides a single viewpoint to the surgeon, leaving numerous blind spots and opening the way to peri-operative adverse events. Alternative camera systems have been proposed, but many lack the requisite resolution/robustness for use during surgery or cannot provide real-time images. Here, we present the added value of the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS) which overcomes these limitations and provides a broad view of the surgical field in addition to the usual high-resolution endoscope.

METHODS

Experienced laparoscopy surgeons performed several typical procedure steps on a live pig model. The time-to-completion for surgical exercises performed by conventional endoscopy and ELViS-assisted surgery was measured. A debriefing interview following each operating session was conducted by an ergonomist, and a System Usability Scale (SUS) score was determined.

RESULTS

Proof of concept of ELVIS was achieved in an animal model with seven expert surgeons without peroperative adverse events related to the surgical device. No differences were found in time-to-completion. Mean SUS score was 74.7, classifying the usability of the ELViS as "good". During the debriefing interview, surgeons highlighted several situations where the ELViS provided a real advantage (such as during instrument insertion, exploration of the abdominal cavity or for orientation during close work) and also suggested avenues for improvement of the system.

CONCLUSIONS

This first test of the ELViS prototype on a live animal model demonstrated its usability and provided promising and useful feedback for further development.

Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches have produces relevant advancements in the pre/intra/postoperative outcomes. The conventional laparoscopic approach presents similar oncological results in comparison to laparotomic approaches. Despite these evidences, a considerable part of the colorectal operations are still being performed in an open way. This is in part because traditional laparoscopy may have some hurdles and a long learning curve to reach mastery. The robotic technology may help in increasing the MIS penetrance in colorectal surgery. The use of the R3 can potentially increase the number of surgical options available.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, after a long robotic colorectal experience connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our results regarding a subset of colorectal patients who underwent robotic right colonic resections performed, all by a single surgeon (P.C.G.), using the R3 according to our standardized technique.

RESULTS

Out of all the robotic colorectal operations performed, this sub-sample sample included 33 patients: 21 males and 12 females. The age range was between 51 and 95 years old. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was between 21.6 to 43.1. The conversion rate to laparoscopy or to open surgery has been 0%. No intraoperative complications have been registered. The postoperative complications rates are reported in this manuscript. The perfusion check of the anastomosis by Near-infrared ICG (Indocyanine Green) enhanced fluorescence has been used. In 11.2% of the sample, the site of the anastomosis has been changed after ICG-Test. Moreover, when the ICG perfusion test has been performed no leakage occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This subset of patients suggests the potential role of R3 and the benefits correlated to robotic surgery. In fact, the laparoscopic approach uses mostly a medial to lateral mobilization. Indeed, during laparoscopic surgery an early right colon mobilization may create problems in the surgical field visualization. In robotic surgery, R3 can lift upwards the cecum/ascending colon/hepatic flexure exposing, in doing so, the anatomical structures. Hence, we can use also the same approach of the open surgery (where the first step is usually the mobilization of the ascending colon mesentery). In other words, the R3 offers more operative options in terms of surgical pathways maintaining at the same time good perioperative outcomes. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Although several meta-analyses regarding robot-assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) in patients with rectal cancer are constantly being published, meta-analyses considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still rare. It is therefore necessary to conduct an appropriate meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical decision-making. Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were used to collect RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of RP and LP. Article search was performed until August 2019. Data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by two reviewers independently, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using R software. Eight RCTs were included involving 999 patients, 495 of them underwent RP and 504 underwent LP. The results showed that the RP group had a longer operative time (P < 0.01), a lower conversion rate (P = 0.03), a longer distance to the distal margin (DDM) (P = 0.001), and a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality, complication rates, PRM, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and time to first bowel movement between the two groups. Current evidence suggests that RP is superior to LP in short-term clinical outcomes, which is similar to LP regarding pathological outcomes and has better DDM outcomes. However, the comparison between RP and LP regarding long-term oncology outcomes still require further multi-center and large RCT samples to confirm our evidences.

Operative technique in robotic rectal resection

A still too high percentage of the colorectal resections are currently performed by open technique. This in part because laparoscopy has some technical hurdles: not ideal ergonomics, poor control on the traction exerted by the Assistant, long/steep learning curve, confined dexterity, low tactile feedback, hand-tremor and 2D vision with a not completely stable camera. The robotic approach, given the increased surgical dexterity and the better surgical view, may be used to solve the laparoscopic downsides (in particular in the most complex cases). In the present work, after an extensive robotic experience and a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we show our operative steps for the robotic rectal resection. The aim is to propose a model to standardize the surgical technique and potentially pave the way for the acquisition of more reproducible data among different centers. This proposal may be also a technical guide to learn the robotic way and also for the expert surgeons as an adjunct in the teaching strategy.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery: A pilot study during the introductory period at a local municipal hospital

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this pilot study was to confirm the safety and feasibility of the induction of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery (RRS) at a local municipal hospital. A municipal hospital does not indicate a small hospital. The most significant difference between a municipal hospital and a center or university hospital is that most surgeons in a municipal hospital are general surgeons.

METHODS

The first 30 patients who underwent RRS at the municipal hospital were enrolled between April 2015 and June 2016. All surgeries were performed by a single trained surgeon using the da Vinci^Ⓡ Si surgical system. The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative major complications.

RESULTS

Of the study patients, 29 had adenocarcinoma and 1 had ulcerative colitis. The surgical procedures included anterior resection (n = 22), intersphincteric resection (n = 2), abdominoperineal resection (n = 4), Hartmann's procedure (n = 1), and total coloproctectomy (n = 1). There were no intraoperative complications and conversion cases. The median operative time and blood loss were 283.5 min and 9 ml, respectively. The incidence rate of postoperative major complications was 10%, which included anastomotic leakage in 2 patients and ileus in 1 patient. Postoperative urinary dysfunction did not occur in any patient. Complete resection was achieved for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the induction of RRS was safe and feasible, even at a local municipal hospital, given that the surgeons had the sufficient skills and experience in both laparoscopic and colorectal surgery. *The study protocol was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000017022).

Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: a Multidisciplinary Approach

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most prevalent cancer in the world, preceded by prostate and lung cancers in men (10%) and breast and lung cancers in women (9.4%). Colorectal cancer is the fourth leading cause of death in men (7.6%) and the third in women (8.6%). A multidisciplinary approach has radically changed the way we deal with this disease among all specialist fields.

PURPOSE

In this study, we propose comparing the multidisciplinary experience group (started in 2012) of S. Anna Hospital (University of Ferrara) with the previous approach to rectal cancer before the advent of the multidisciplinary program.

RESULTS

We find that more study depth of neoplastic disease as well as of each individual patient leads to more accurate staging and to a weighted therapy based on the needs of the individual. All the studies were performed in accordance with the guidelines established by the European and Italian associations.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Robotic surgery has been recently used as a novel tool for rectal surgery. This study assessed the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery (LRS). Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the 2 approaches. Results. Seven RCTs including a total of 1022 cases were identified. The conversion rate is significantly lower for RRS (odds ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.96; P = .04). The length of the distal margin was significantly shorter in the LRS group than in the RRS group (weighted mean difference: 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 1.10; P = .02). Perioperative complication rates, harvested lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins, complete total mesorectal excision, first flatus, and length of stay did not differ significantly between approaches ( P > .05). Conclusions. This meta-analysis indicates that RRS is a safe and effective approach. It is not inferior to LRS in terms of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Future large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the intestinal function recovery time and other short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective study using a prospectively collected database. Patients’ records were obtained from Gansu Provincial Hospital between July 2015 and October 2017. Eighty patients underwent R-TME, and 116 with the same histopathological stage of the tumor underwent an L-TME. Both operations were performed by the same surgeon, comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes intergroups. The time to the first passage of flatus ( P < 0.001), the time to the first postoperative oral fluid intake ( P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay ( P < 0.01) of the R-TME group were about three days faster than those in the L-TME group. The rate of conversion to open laparotomy ( P = 0.038) and postoperative urinary retention ( P = 0.016) were significantly lower in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group. Intraoperative blood loss of the R-TME group was more than that of the L-TME group ( P < 0.01).The operation time, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of positive circumferential resection margin were similar intergroup. The total cost of the R-TME group was higher than that of the L-TME group, but with a lack of statistical significance (85,623.91 ± 13,310.50 vs 67,356.79 ± 17,107.68 CNY, P = 0.084). The R-TME is safe and effective and has better postoperative short-term outcomes and faster intestinal function recovery time, contrasting with the L-TME. The large, multicenter, prospective studies were needed to validate the advantages of robotic surgery system used in rectal cancer.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence available on the safety as well as effectiveness of robotic resection as compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer was collected. Eligible trials that analyzed probabilistic hazard ratios (HR) for endpoints of interest (including perioperative morbidity) and postoperative complications were included in our review.

RESULTS

A total of six studies were included based on the present inclusion criteria. The pooled data showed that R-TME appeared to have association with remarkable reduction in the postoperative morbidity rate as compared to L-TME. Moreover, R-TME was also linked to lower conversion, decreased lymph node number, and longer operation time compared with L-TME. However, there was no difference in hospital stay, positive range of circumferential resection and blood loss between the two study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectal cancer surgery provides favorable outcomes and is considered as a safe surgical technique in terms of postoperative oncological safety. Like laparoscopic TME surgery, robotic surgery may be a valid alternative and complementary approach with beneficial effects on minimally-invasive surgery.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): A Multicenter Patient-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

This trial followed a structured nationwide training program in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), according to the IDEAL framework for surgical innovation, and aimed to compare time to functional recovery after minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

BACKGROUND

MIDP is increasingly used and may enhance postoperative recovery as compared with ODP, but randomized studies are lacking.

METHODS

A multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled superiority trial was performed in 14 centers between April 2015 and March 2017. Adult patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas without vascular involvement were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo MIDP or ODP. Patients were blinded for type of surgery using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5689).

RESULTS

Time to functional recovery was 4 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3-6) in 51 patients after MIDP versus 6 days (IQR 5-8) in 57 patients after ODP (P < 0.001). The conversion rate of MIDP was 8%. Operative blood loss was less after MIDP (150 vs 400 mL; P < 0.001), whereas operative time was longer (217 vs 179 minutes; P = 0.005). The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complication rate was 25% versus 38% (P = 0.21). Delayed gastric emptying grade B/C was seen less often after MIDP (6% vs 20%; P = 0.04). Postoperative pancreatic fistulas grade B/C were seen in 39% after MIDP versus 23% after ODP (P = 0.07), without difference in percutaneous catheter drainage (22% vs 20%; P = 0.77). Quality of life (day 3-30) was better after MIDP as compared with ODP, and overall costs were non-significantly less after MIDP. No 90-day mortality was seen after MIDP versus 2% (n = 1) after ODP.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with left-sided pancreatic tumors confined to the pancreas, MIDP reduces time to functional recovery compared with ODP. Although the overall rate of complications was not reduced, MIDP was associated with less delayed gastric emptying and better quality of life without increasing costs.

A prospective study of the safety and usefulness of a new miniature wide-angle camera: the "BirdView camera system"

BACKGROUND

The performance of endoscopic surgery has quickly become widespread as a minimally invasive therapy. However, complications still occur due to technical difficulties. In the present study, we focused on the problem of blind spots, which is one of the several problems that occur during endoscopic surgery and developed "BirdView," a camera system with a wide field of view, with SHARP Corporation.

METHODS

In the present study, we conducted a clinical trial (Phase I) to confirm the safety and usefulness of the BirdView camera system. We herein report the results.

RESULTS

In this study, surgical adverse events were reported in 2 cases (problems with ileus and urination). There were no cases of device failure, damage to the surrounding organs, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated the safety of the BirdView camera system. We believe that this camera system will contribute to the performance safe endoscopic surgery and the execution of robotic surgery, in which operators do not have the benefit of tactile feedback.

Incidence of extramural venous invasion in colorectal carcinoma as determined at the invasive tumor front and its prognostic impact

Extramural venous invasion (EMVI) is prognostic for colorectal cancer; however, veins are only detected partially by normal perpendicular preparation. Therefore, reported findings are conflicting and standardization is required. A total of 239 resection specimens were examined by tangential preparation of the extramural veins at the invasive tumor front. Average follow-up was 39 months. The relationship of EMVI to metachronous hematogenic metastasis (MHM) was evaluated. With this method, a high prevalence of EMVI beginning in stage II is apparent. In stage I, 66% of patients with EMVI developed MHM; in stage II, 25%; and in stage III, 49%. In stage III, the number of tumor-invaded veins is crucial. In the absence of detection of EMVI, MHM occurred in 1 of 29 patients in stage II and in 2 of 13 patients in early stage III. By tangential sectioning at the invasive tumor front, we found a high incidence of EMVI beginning in stage II, which increases with tumor stage. Especially in stages II and III, the correct determination of absent EMVI has a high negative predictive value for MHM. In stage I, EMVI defines a patient group with increased risk for MHM. The quantification of EMVI is an important issue for standardization.

Clinical effects of transforaminal and interlaminar percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study

The aim of this study is to observe the therapeutic effect of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy and its influencing factors for lumbar disc herniation and compare the advantages and disadvantages of transforaminal and interlaminar of percutaneous endoscopy.Data from 143 patients with lumbar disc herniation were respectively collected, including demographic and clinical data. Study population were divided into curative effect group and poor curative effect group, and logistic regression was used to explore the influencing factors of curative effect. The operation data and pre-and post-operation scores were compared to explore the effect of transforaminal and interlaminar approach on surgery efficacy.The rate of curative effect was 93.7%. 120 patients were classified as curative group and 23 patients were categorized as poor effective group. Univariate analysis found that the patients in the curative effect group tended to receive the interlaminar approach (58.3% vs 34.8%, P = .038). Multivariate logistic regression did not find operation approach was not related to curative effect of operation (transforaminal and interlaminar). But age ≥45 (odd risk (OR) = 6.43, P = .016), course of disease >12 month (OR = 3.77, P = .003), back and leg pain (OR = 3.46, P = .026), history of trauma (OR = 3.88, P = .014), Pfirrmann level IV (OR = 4.84, P = .004), and pre-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) <5.3 (OR = 3.63, P = .015) were associated with operation efficacy. Compared with transforaminal group, the interlaminar group has less operative time (P = .000), less fluoroscopy time (P = .000), less puncture time (P = .000), less blood loss (P = .011).The transforaminal or interlaminar did not affect the treatment efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation. The selection of surgery approach depended on anatomical structure and physiological characteristics. It should be noted that 45 years of age or older, in the course of more than 12 months, both lumbocrural pain and lumbar disc herniation with grade IV, with history of trauma, may have impact on the efficacy of surgery.

Surgical technique in robotic right colonic resection. How we do it: operative steps and surgical video

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has produced an important improvement in terms of peri-operative outcomes. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents comparable outcomes vs. open approach from an oncological standpoint. However, there are some technical challenges/hurdles that laparoscopy may have. Worldwide there are still too many colonic/rectal operations carried out by the open approach. The robotic technology may be useful in solving some of the potential laparoscopic issues and potentially it may increase the number of procedures performed in a minimally invasive way. This is a description of our standardized operative technique for Robotic Right Colonic Resection. Conceivably, this manuscript may be useful to collect more repeatable data in the future. Moreover, it might be a guide to learn the robotic technique and also for the expert surgeons as an additional tool which they may find useful during their teaching activity. In this manuscript, taking advantage of the long and extensive expertise in minimally invasive colorectal resections, connected to a robotic experience started by Giulianotti in October 2000, we present our standardized technique for the robotic right colonic resection. The currently available literature data have proven that robotic colorectal surgery is safe/feasible. From the literature data, and from our experience as well, we think that these are the following main points: 1) the right colectomy is often an operation which can be performed in a relatively simple way even with traditional laparoscopy. However, the robotic approach is easier to standardize and this operation is very useful from a teaching standpoint in order to master multiple robotic surgical skills (that can be applied in more complex colorectal operations); 2) the robotic surgery may increase the MIS penetrance in this field. 3) the robotic third arm (R3) is an important technical advantage which can potentially increase the range of surgical options available; 4) the robotic technology is relatively recent. Most of the available data are retrospective and there is literature heterogenity (this affects also the conclusions of the currently available meta-analysis results, which sometimes are conflicting); 5) we need more data from prospective randomized well-powered studies (with standardized technique). Achieving a standardized technical approach will be essential in robotic colorectal surgery.

An in vivo analysis of safe laparoscopic grasping thresholds for colorectal surgery

Background

Analysis of safe laparoscopic grasping thresholds for the colon has not been performed. This study aimed to analyse tissue damage thresholds when the colon is grasped laparoscopically, correlating histological changes to mechanical compressive forces.

Methods

An instrumented laparoscopic grasper was used to measure the forces applied to porcine colon, with data captured and plotted as a force–time (f–t) curve. Haematoxylin and eosin histochemistry of tissue subjected to 10, 20, 40, 50 and 70 N for 5, 30 and 60 s was performed, and the area of colonic circular and longitudinal muscle was compared in grasped and un-grasped regions. The area under the f–t curve was calculated as a measure of the accumulated force applied, known as the force–time product (FTP).

Results

FTP ranged from 55.7 to 3793 N.s. Significant differences were observed between the muscle area of the grasped and un-grasped regions in both longitudinal and circular muscle at 50 N and above for all grasping times. For the longitudinal muscle, significant differences were observed between grasped and un-grasped areas at 20 N force for 30 s (mean difference = 59 mm², 95% CI 41–77 mm², P = 0.04), 20 N force for 60 s (mean difference = 31 mm², 95% CI 21.5–40.5 mm², P = 0.006) and 40 N force for 30 s (mean difference 37 mm², 95% CI 27–47 mm², P = 0.006). Changes in histology correlated with mechanical forces applied to the longitudinal muscle at a FTP over 300 N s.

Conclusions

This study characterizes the grasping forces that result in histological changes to the colon and correlates these with a mechanical measurement of the applied force. The findings will contribute to the development of smart laparoscopic graspers with active constraints to prevent excessive grasping and tissue injury.

A Pooled Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) in treatment of rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RTME versus LTME for rectal cancer and were published up to July 2014. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, the fixed or random effect model was used for the meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest and related outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies involved a total of 1229 patients, 554 of whom underwent RTME and 675 of whom underwent LTME. The meta-analysis showed that RTME had lower conversion rate and positive rate of circumferential resection margins, and lesser incidence of erectile dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that RTME for rectal cancer appears to be a safe, feasible, and minimally invasive alternative to its laparoscopic counterpart. But the long-term outcomes between the 2 techniques need to be further examined.

[Risk awareness and training for prevention of complications in minimally invasive surgery]

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIC) requires surgeons to have a different set of skills and capabilities from that of open surgery. The indirect camera view, lack of a three-dimensional view, restricted haptic feedback with lack of tissue feeling and difficult instrument coordination with fulcrum and pivoting effects result in an additional learning curve compared to open surgery. The prolonged learning curve leads to a higher risk of complications and special awareness of these risks is therefore mandatory. Training of special laparoscopic skills outside the operating room is needed to optimize patient outcome and to minimize the ocurrence of complications related to the learning curve.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Training modalities for laparoscopic surgery include simple box trainers, computer simulation with virtual reality, the use of artificial and cadaver organs, as well as live animal models and cadaver training. These training modalities have been proven in studies to have a beneficial effect on the learning curve for acquisition of laparoscopic skills and for improving operative performance as well as avoidance of complications. Laparoscopic training is currently gaining a more and more important role for official education and accreditation purposes. In some countries the participation in laparoscopic training courses has become mandatory prior to participation in laparoscopic operations. Future research will include the optimization of multimodal training curricula, the development of individualized training approaches that allow both trainee and patient-specific preparation, as well as the use of novel devices to facilitate the collection and transfer of expertise between the generations and schools of surgeons.

Anatomical siting of the splenic flexure using computed tomography

INTRODUCTION Often, left-sided colorectal surgery requires splenic flexure mobilisation (SFM) to allow a tension-free anastomosis to be carried out. This step is difficult and not without risk. We investigated a system of anatomical siting of the splenic flexure using computed tomography (CT). METHODS The Shrewsbury Splenic Flexure Siting (SSFS) system involves siting of the splenic flexure using the vertebral level (VL) as a reference point. We asked three surgical registrars (SRs) to analyse 20 CT scans of patients undergoing colonic resection to ascertain the anatomical site of the splenic flexure using the SSFS system. The distance from the centre of the vertebral body to the lateral edge (CVBL) of the splenic flexure was measured, as was the distance from the centre of the vertebral body to the inner abdominal wall (CVBI) along the same line, on axial images. RESULTS VL assessment demonstrated substantial inter-observer agreement with a kappa (κ) value of 0.742 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.463-0.890). CVBL and CVBI demonstrated very strong inter-observer agreement (CVBL: κ = 0.905 (95% CI, 0.785-0.961); CVBI: 0.951 (0.890-0.979) (p<0.001). Overall, there was strong correlation between assessments by all three SRs across the three variables measured. CONCLUSIONS The SSFS system is an accurate method to site the splenic flexure anatomically using CT. We can use the SSFS system to develop a validated scoring system to help colorectal surgeons assess the difficulty of SFM.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.

[Specific complications of minimally invasive surgery]

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is fundamentally different from open surgery regarding positioning of the patient, access routes and instrumentation. Each of these aspects is associated with its own specific morbidity, such as positioning-related complications, trocar-induced lesions, hypercapnia-associated phenomena and thermal damage. The growing experience of surgeons and technological progress have increased patient safety to a maximum and have resulted in an impressive spread of MIS in the various fields of surgery including the most common, such as cholecystectomy and hernia repair and special fields, such as bariatric, thoracic and oncological surgery. This narrative review summarizes the current knowledge on the inherent complications of MIS.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only.

METHODS

We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I(2) = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I(2) = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I(2) = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSION

RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.

Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis Is Associated with a High Rate of Readmissions at 30 Days

BACKGROUND

Currently, the predictors of readmission after colectomy specifically for ulcerative colitis (UC) are poorly investigated. We sought to determine the rates and predictors of 30-day readmissions after colectomy for UC.

METHODS

Patients undergoing total proctocolectomy and end ileostomy, abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy, proctocolectomy with ileoanal pouch anastomosis (IPAA) formation and diverting ileostomy, one stage IPAA, or abdominal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis at a tertiary care center between January 2002 and January 2012 for UC were included. Patients were identified using ICD-9 code 556.x. Each record was manually reviewed. The electronic record system was reviewed for demographic information, medical histories, UC history, medications, and data regarding the admission and discharge. Charts were reviewed for readmissions within 30 days of surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Stata v.13.

RESULTS

Two hundred nine patients with UC underwent a colectomy. Forty-three percent had a proctocolectomy with IPAA and diverting ileostomy and 32% had abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy. Seventy-six percent of surgeries were due to failure of medical therapy and 68% of patients were electively admitted for surgery. Thirty-two percent (n = 67/209) of the cohort was unexpectedly readmitted within 30 days. In multivariate model, proctocolectomy with IPAA and diverting ileostomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.06-4.19; P = 0.033) was the only significant predictor of readmission. Hospital length of stay >7 days (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 0.98-3.41; P = 0.060), presence of limited UC (OR = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.93-4.74; P = 0.074), and steroid before admission (OR = 1.69; 95% CI, 0.90-3.2; P = 0.100) trended toward significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for UC is associated with a high rate of readmission. Further prospective studies are necessary to determine the means to reduce these readmissions.

Malpractice in colorectal surgery: a review of 122 medicolegal cases

BACKGROUND

Medical malpractice has become a rising concern for physicians, affecting the cost and delivery of health care. Colorectal procedures account for 24% of all general surgery cases, a high-risk specialty, with 15% of its physicians facing malpractice suit annually.

METHODS

The Westlaw legal database was used to identify colorectal malpractice cases.

RESULTS

In all, 122 of 230 lawsuits were included in this study. A majority of 65.6% were physician verdicts, 19.7% plaintiff verdicts, and 14.8% reached a settlement. Plaintiff payments were found to be significantly higher than settlement awards. The most common cause of alleged malpractice was failure to recognize a complication in a timely manner (45.1%), followed by damage to surrounding tissues (36.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The most common cause of alleged malpractice was failure to recognize a complication in a timely manner, followed by damage to surrounding tissue. Plaintiff awards were significantly higher than settlement payments. It is important to understand the mechanism of malpractice allegations to better prevent litigation and improve patient care.

[Current evidence for laparoscopic surgery of colonic cancer]

BACKGROUND

The development of modern videoendoscopy enables surgeons to perform laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer.

AIM

This manuscript evaluated the literature concerning clinically relevant differences in the short and long-term course after laparoscopic or conventional resection of colonic cancer.

METHODS

An investigation of meta-analyses from randomized controlled clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and conventional surgery for colonic cancer was carried out.

RESULTS

The incidence of intraoperative complications was higher during laparoscopic surgery, the duration of surgery was increased and blood loss was less when compared to open surgery. Overall morbidity and the incidence of surgical complications were decreased after laparoscopic surgery. General morbidity and mortality were not different after laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer. Duration of hospital stay was shorter but was also associated with the type of perioperative care (i.e. traditional or enhanced recovery). Following minimally invasive or conventional resection, the incidence of tumor recurrence (local and distant) and the duration of survival (overall and disease-free) showed no differences. Wound implantations were rare after both operative techniques but with a tendency to occur more often after laparoscopic than open resection.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer has clinically relevant short-term benefits for the patients and long-term results are not different from open colectomy. However, most of the patients included in randomized controlled trials underwent right or left colectomy and sigmoid or rectosigmoid resections. Data with a high level of evidence concerning carcinomas of the flexures or the transverse colon do not exist. Suitable patients with colonic cancer should undergo laparoscopic resection by experienced surgeons.

Delayed Manifestations of Laparoscopic Bowel Injury

Bowel injury (BI) is a complication of open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery associated with increased morbidity and mortality. If BI is missed at the time it occurs, it can have devastating consequences. Electrosurgery is used extensively in laparoscopic surgery and can cause thermal injuries that are harder to detect than mechanical injuries and may evolve over time. The medical literature of the past 10 years was searched for large series and compilation studies reporting overall incidence of and mortality from BI in laparoscopy, and the results of seven relevant articles, which included over 300,000 procedures, were analyzed and tabulated. The literature was then reviewed for additional information about the specific incidence and outcome of missed BI and the role of electrosurgical thermal sources in causing BI. BI is underreported, frequently missed at surgery, and results in significant morbidity and mortality that can be ground for malpractice claims against the surgeon. Thermal injury from electrosurgical instruments may be involved in a number of injuries in laparoscopic surgery. Nearly undetectable partial-thickness thermal injury may play a role in the atypical and delayed presentation of some cases of BI.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer after Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Case-Matched Study of Short-Term Outcomes

Purpose

Robotic surgery is expected to have advantages over laparoscopic surgery; however, there are limited data regarding the feasibility of robotic surgery for rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Therefore, we evaluated the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

Thirty-three patients with cT3N0-2 rectal cancer after preoperative CRT who underwent robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) between March 2010 and January 2012 were matched with 66 patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR). Perioperative clinical outcomes and pathological data were compared between the two groups.

Results

Patient characteristics did not differ significantly different between groups. The mean operation time was 441 minutes (R-LAR) versus 277 minutes (L-LAR, p < 0.001). The open conversion rate was 6.1% in the R-LAR group and 0% in the L-LAR group (p=0.11). There were no significant differences in the time to flatus passage, length of hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity. In pathological review, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 22.3 in R-LAR and 21.6 in L-LAR (p=0.82). Involvement of circumferential resection margin was positive in 16.1% and 6.7%, respectively (p=0.42). Total mesorectal excision (TME) quality was complete in 97.0% in R-LAR and 91.0% in L-LAR (p=0.41).

Conclusion

In our study, short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer after CRT were similar to those of laparoscopic surgery in respect to bowel function recovery, morbidity, and TME quality. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to evaluate the functional results and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer.

Techniques in total mesorectal excision surgery

Advances in the surgical management of rectal cancer have placed the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) as the major predictor in overall survival. A standardized TME technique along with quality increases the percentage of patients undergoing a complete TME. Quality measurements of TME will place increasing demands on surgeons maintaining competence with present and future techniques. These efforts will improve the outcome of the rectal cancer patients.

CT findings suggesting anastomotic leak and predicting the recovery period following gastric surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess diagnostic performance of routine CT for detecting anastomotic leak after gastric surgery, and analyse the relationship between recovery period and CT findings.

METHODS

We included 179 patients who underwent immediate CT and fluoroscopy after gastric surgery. Two reviewers retrospectively rated the possibility of leak on CT using a five-point scale focused on predefined CT findings. They also evaluated CT findings. Patients were categorised as: Group I, leak on fluoroscopy; Group II, possible leak on CT but negative on fluoroscopy; Group III, no leak. We analysed the relationship between recovery period and group.

RESULTS

Area under the curve for detecting leak on CT was 0.886 in R1 and 0.668 in R2 with moderate agreement (к = 0.482). Statistically common CT findings for leak included discontinuity, large amount of air-fluid and wall thickening at anastomosis site (p < 0.05). Discontinuity at anastomosis site and a large air-fluid collection were independently associated with leak (p < 0.05). The recovery period including hospitalisation and postoperative fasting period was longer in Group I than Group II or III (p < 0.05). Group II showed a longer recovery period than Group III (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative routine CT was useful for predicting anastomotic leak using specific findings, and for predicting length of recovery period.

KEY POINTS

• Anastomotic leakage remains a significant clinical problem following gastric surgery. • Routine CT without oral contrast is useful for predicting anastomotic leaking. • Wall discontinuity at anastomosis sites was an independent predictor for leaking. • CT is also useful for predicting recovery period following gastric surgery.

Comparing oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer: Analysis of a large prospective clinical database

BACKGROUND

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery have been shown to be equivalent to those of open surgery, but only in the setting of randomized controlled trials on highly selected patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether this finding is generalizable to real world practice.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data from the BioGrid Australia database was undertaken. Overall and cancer specific survival rates were compared with cox regression analysis controlling for the confounders of age, sex, BMI, ASA score, hospital site, year surgery performed, procedure, tumor stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2009, 1,106 patients underwent elective colon cancer resection. There were differences between the laparoscopic and open cohorts in BMI, procedure, post-operative complication rate, and tumor stage. When baseline confounders were accounted for using cox regression analysis, there was no difference in 5 year overall survival (χ(2) test 1.302, P = 0.254), or cancer specific survival (χ(2) test 0.028, P = 0.866).

CONCLUSION

This large prospective clinical study validates previous trial results, and confirms that there is no difference in oncological outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer.

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotics, as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical methods, is developing rapidly for colectomy. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit compared with laparoscopic resections. We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic colectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic colectomy (LC) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RC are equivalent to those of LC.

METHODS

A search of five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science), gray literature, hand searches, reference, and forward citation were performed for studies that compared clinical or oncologic outcomes of LC with RC. Clinical outcomes evaluated were conversion rates, operation times, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications. Oncologic outcome evaluated was the number of lymph nodes collected.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were identified that included 125,989 patients in total, 4934 in the robotic cohort and 121,055 in the laparoscopic cohort. Meta-analysis suggested that there was a significantly longer hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (mean difference [MD] -0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.27; P = 0.0008). Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower complication rate (odds ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.72-0.85; P ＜ 0.00001) and a significantly shorter time to recovery of bowel function (MD -0.58; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.20; P = 0.003). There were statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss (MD -19.24; 95% CI -29.38 to -9.09; P = 0.0002) and intraoperative conversion to open (odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI 0.44-0.72; P < 0.00001), but not clinical relevant. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes extracted between the two groups. However, operating time (MD 49.25; 95% CI 36.78-61.72; P < 0.00001) was longer for RC than for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

RC can be performed safely and effectively with the number of lymph nodes extracted similar to LC. In addition, it can provide potential advantages of a shorter hospital stay, a shorter time to recovery of bowel function, and lower occurrence of postoperative complications. These findings seem to support the use of robotics for the minimally invasive surgical management of colectomy. However, RC had longer operating time. Future studies involving RC should focus on minimizing duration of operation.

Evaluation of a precise and measurable model for learning laparoscopic tissue handling

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic tissue handling is quite difficult to measure using virtual-reality laparoscopic simulators and box-trainer exercises, and therefore, completion time is the predominant performance measure for simulation-based laparoscopic training exercises. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of a training and assessment model for precise laparoscopic handling of delicate tissue.

METHODS

Participants (n = 35) completed 2 progressively challenging laparoscopic tissue translocation exercises using delicate foam pieces and templates. Deidentified performances were scored using objective measures for tissue damage, accuracy, percentage complete, and completion time. Evaluation included multiple analysis of variance with repeated measures among the 3 groups as follows: medical students, residents and faculty who perform laparoscopic surgery less than once per week, and faculty members who perform laparoscopic surgery at least once per week.

RESULTS

The model demonstrated significant construct validity by discriminating performances between the types of shapes and templates and across the levels of surgical experience on all dimensions. A significant interaction effect between the level of expertise and the difficulty of the exercise revealed excellent discrimination between experienced laparoscopic surgeons and others.

DISCUSSION

This low-cost model provides an alternative or adjunct platform for laparoscopic training and assessment that requires precise and measurable handling of a delicate tissue.

Intraoperative complications have a negative impact on postoperative outcomes after rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The impact of intraoperative complications on the postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery is only poorly studied in literature. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess the frequency of intraoperative complications during rectal resections for malignancies and its influence on the short term outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed 605 consecutive patients, who had operations for rectal cancer at a single institution between 1995 and 2010. Retrospective data from the surgical procedure and postoperative course were obtained from the institutional colorectal database and individual chart reviews. Intraoperative complications were recorded and its influence on postoperative course was investigated.

RESULTS

Intraoperative complications occurred in 66 (10.9%) patients, with injury to the spleen (n = 35 of 66, 53%) being the most frequent complication. Patients with intraoperative complications had a significant longer hospital stay (median: 13 days, range 7-92) compared to patients without complications (median: 12 days, range 2-135; p = 0.0102). In addition, intraoperative complications showed a tendency towards an increased risk for postoperative surgical complications (p = 0.0536), whereas no impact on postoperative medical complications could be found (p = 0.8043). Pulmonary disorders were the only predictive marker for intraoperative complications (p = 0.0247) by univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

We found that intraoperative complications during rectal cancer surgery significantly prolonged hospital length stay. The overall morbidity rate was not affected.

Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in safety of laparoscopic rectal resection for extraperitoneal cancer, compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review from 2000 to July 2012 was performed searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42012002406). We included randomized and prospective controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and morbidity. Then a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, representing 1684 patients, met the inclusion criteria: four were randomized for a total of 814 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.2% of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 2.3% of patients in the open group, with an RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.19-1.64, p = 0.287). The overall incidence of short-term complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (31.5%) compared to the open group (38.2%), with an RR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.94, p = 0.004). Surgical complications, wound complications, blood loss and the need for blood transfusion, time for bowel movement recovery, food intake recovery, and hospital stay were significantly lower or less frequent in the laparoscopic group. The incidence of intra-operative injuries, anastomotic leakages, and surgical re-interventions was similar in the two groups. Only operative time was in favour of the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence of both randomized and prospective controlled series, mortality was lower after laparoscopy although not significantly so, while the short-term morbidity RR, including subgroup analysis, was significantly lower after laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer compared to open surgery.

Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies

Rectal prolapse can present in a variety of forms and is associated with a range of symptoms including pain, incomplete evacuation, bloody and/or mucous rectal discharge, and fecal incontinence or constipation. Complete external rectal prolapse is characterized by a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus, which may be intermittent or may be incarcerated and poses a risk of strangulation. There are multiple surgical options to treat rectal prolapse, and thus care should be taken to understand each patient's symptoms, bowel habits, anatomy, and pre-operative expectations. Preoperative workup includes physical exam, colonoscopy, anoscopy, and, in some patients, anal manometry and defecography. With this information, a tailored surgical approach (abdominal versus perineal, minimally invasive versus open) and technique (posterior versus ventral rectopexy +/- sigmoidectomy, for example) can then be chosen. We propose an algorithm based on available outcomes data in the literature, an understanding of anorectal physiology, and expert opinion that can serve as a guide to determining the rectal prolapse operation that will achieve the best possible postoperative outcomes for individual patients.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence.

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.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: An Update (with Special Reference to Indian Scenario)

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, being already declared as gold standard technique, laparoscopic surgery has advanced far and wide, touching almost every corner of the abdomen. This advancement has gradually expanded to colorectal surgery which is done for malignant diseases as well. However, laparoscopic colorectal surgery has not been accepted as quickly as was laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is because of its steep learning curve, concerns with oncological outcomes, lack of randomized control trials (RCTs) and initial reports on high port site recurrences which occurred after curative resections. But all these initial concerns have been overcome by doing a series of RCTs globally, in the past decade, that revealed that laparoscopic colorectal surgery for malignant disease offered short term benefits without compromising on oncological principles of radicality of resection, tumour resection margins and completeness of lymph node harvesting as compared to those of open surgery. Favourable post-operative results with respect to less blood loss, less pain, lesser surgical site infections, lesser requirement of analgesics, early return of bowel function and shorter hospital stay in patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections were obtained in studies done on individual series, including those done in India and more recently, in large trials. An update on recent studies done on laparoscopic colorectal surgery by reviewing many RCTs and individual series, including our experiences, was made, to support the advantages of this procedure which were obtained when it was carried out by skilled hands.

Long-term survival following laparoscopic and open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Large randomized clinical trials comparing long-term survival after laparoscopic and open colectomy for large bowel cancer show equivalence, but meaningful analysis of data by stage has not been possible due to the small numbers of patients in individual trials. The aim of this meta-analysis was to improve statistical power by combining data to enable assessment of survival for individual stages.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through a computerized search of all randomized controlled trials comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for large bowel cancer. Overall survival data were analysed and subgroup analysis was performed for cancer of Stages I-III.

RESULTS

Five trials (3152 patients) were included. Overall survival was equivalent (hazard ration 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.07). With each of the cancer stages, I-III, there was no difference in 5-year survival. There was, however, a nonsignificant trend in favour of open surgery in the subgroup analysis of Stage II patients.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is equivalent to open surgery with respect to long-term survival although there may be a difference for Stage II cancer.

Totally intracorporeal laparoscopic colectomy (TILC) is associated with similar surgical outcomes in high and low operative risk patients

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy with obesity, high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and left-sided colon tumors are at high risk for operative conversion and complications. We hypothesized that a completely intracorporeal laparoscopic colectomy would be beneficial for high-risk patients compared with healthy, low-risk patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 136 consecutive patients undergoing a standardized totally intracorporeal laparoscopic colectomy for neoplasms from February 2004 to September 2011. Patients were stratified into a high-risk group with 1 or more factors: body mass index >30, ASA grade ≥ 3, and left-sided tumors or a low-risk group with no factors. Variables compared were case frequency during the learning curve, body mass index, estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion, 30-day complications, and length of stay. Comparisons between groups were made by χ2 analysis or t test where appropriate. Data are expressed as median ± SD, odds ratio, and significance defined as P<0.05.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic colectomy was performed in 136 patients with a conversion rate of 4%. There were 86 high-risk patients and 50 low-risk patients. High-risk patients had a significantly (P<0.005) longer operative time (225 ± 66 vs. 186 ± 55 min) but no significant difference in estimated blood loss, conversion rates, learning curve, complications, or length of stay compared with low-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

When laparoscopic colectomy is performed totally intracorporeally, surgical outcomes in high-risk patients with obesity, high ASA grade, and left-sided tumors are equally successful to results achieved for low-risk patients that are thin, healthy, with right-sided lesions.