Three-port laparoscopy-assisted colectomy for colorectal cancer using external traction with suspension suture

Validation of safety for self-retracting intraperitoneal device for small bowel in minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Modernly, abdominal surgery has shifted to minimally invasive techniques with an inclination towards fewer incisions. This has made intra-abdominal retraction more challenging. Despite development in retracting instrumentation for solid organs, the mobilization of the bowel remains challenging due to its friable nature. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the safety profile of internal retractors such as the EndoGrab for small-bowel retraction.

METHODS

Twenty locations of small bowel were selected for EndoGrab retraction in two pigs. The locations were studied for iatrogenic injury at acute and delayed stages. Evaluation of injury was assessed clinically and histologically.

RESULTS

After the EndoGrab application, no immediate signs of perforation or ischemia were observed. The clinical post-operative course was uncomplicated. Histopathology findings included serosal compression and minimal mucosal ulceration. Long-term changes showed mild changes of focal edema and fibrosis, with inter-individual variability in severity.

CONCLUSION

While there were no signs of overt macroscopic acute injury, minimal microscopic changes were evident. According to this small-scale study, the EndoGrab can provide an effective and safe solution for small-bowel self-retractors. More research is needed to acquire a higher level of evidence for safety. Such a solution could eliminate ports or assistants previously designed for retraction only.

Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical resection has become the most important treatment for resectable colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is still a lack of researches on the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2019 to July 2022, 698 patients with CRC received surgical treatment in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into RPLS group (n = 220) and CLS group (n = 478) according to their surgical procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the differences in baseline characteristics. The incidence of perioperative outcomes and survival rates related results were analyzed after PSM.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-two patients were equally divided into RPLS group (n = 211) and CLS group (n = 211) after PSM. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups (P value was 0.773 and 0.579 respectively). The perioperative outcomes of patients between the two groups were comparable, except that patients in the RPLS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with CRC, both RPLS and CLS might be acceptable surgical options. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes, PFS rates and OS rates were observed between the two groups. For certain cases, RPLS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative recovery.

LongTerm Outcomes of Three-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy Versus Five-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare the long-term outcomes of three-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (TPLRC) and five-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (FPLRC) with retrospective analysis.

Methods

A total of 182 patients who accepted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with either three ports (86 patients) or five ports (96 patients) from January 2012 to June 2017 were non-randomly selected and analyzed retrospectively.

Results

More lymph nodes were harvested in the TPLRC group than in the FPLRC group [17.5 (7), 14 (8) ml, p < 0.001]. There was less blood loss in the TPLRC group [50 (80) vs. 100 (125) ml, p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences in the other short-term or oncological outcomes between the two groups. The overall survival and disease-free survival were equivalent.

Conclusions

TPLRC is recommendable as it guarantees short- and long-term equivalent outcomes compared with FPLRC.

Short-Term Outcomes of Three-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy Versus Five-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: With a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the short-term and pathological outcomes of TPLRC (Three-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy) and FPLRC (Five-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy), using propensity score matching analysis. Methods: One hundred and sixty-eight patients who accepted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with either three ports or five ports from January 2013 to October 2017 were non-randomly selected and analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching model was used to eliminate the patients' selection bias between two groups. Results: A total of 168 patients were involved. After propensity score matching, 39 for each group were compared. The number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly larger in the TPLRC group than in the FPLRC group (18.36 ± 8.58 vs. 14.90 ± 6.63, p = 0.048). A lower mean operative time was observed in the TPLRC group (136.24 ± 26.78 vs. 168.64 ± 43.68 min, p < 0.001). A less blood loss in the TPLRC group (62.44 ± 55.17, 135.54 ± 139.11 ml, p = 0.003). No significant differences in the other short-term outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: TPLRC is a safe and feasible surgical procedure with similar results of FPLRC in short-term clinical outcomes. TPLRC has the advantages of shorter operative time, less blood loss and larger number of harvested lymph nodes. A randomized prospective clinical trial of long-term outcomes of TPLRC is required to further prove the present results.

Structured box training improves stability of retraction while multitasking in colorectal surgery simulation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has an established role. The ability to multitask (use a retraction tool with one hand and navigate a laparoscopic camera with the other) is desired for efficient laparoscopic surgery. Surgical trainees must learn this skill to perform advanced laparoscopic tasks. The aim was to determine whether a box-training protocol improves the stability of retraction while multitasking in colorectal surgery simulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight medical students were recruited to attend a basic laparoscopic box-training course. Ability to perform steady retraction with and without multitasking was measured initially and at the conclusion of the course.

RESULTS

Before training, students demonstrated a decrease in performance while multitasking with a greater maximal exerted force, a greater range of force, and a greater standard deviation for traction and minimal exerted force, range of force and a greater standard deviation for countertraction. Statistically significant improvement (lower maximal exerted force and lower range of force) was observed for traction while multitasking after training. After the training, no statistically significant differences were found when the student performed a single task versus multitasking, both for traction and countertraction.

CONCLUSIONS

A structured box-training curriculum improved the stability of retraction while multitasking in this colorectal surgery simulation. Although it did not improve stability of retraction as a single task, it did improve stability of retraction while multitasking. After training, this enables the trainee to retract as efficiently while operating the camera as they retract when only focusing on retraction as a single task.

Short-term outcomes following reduced-port, single-port, and multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: tailored laparoscopic approaches based on tumor size and nodal status

PURPOSE

Surgeons have recently developed more minimally invasive surgical procedures to reduce surgical stress and improve cosmesis. Although single-port laparoscopic colectomy (SPLC) has potential benefits over multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC), there are concerns about the increased technical difficulties associated with SPLC. Therefore, we attempted reduced-port laparoscopic colectomy (RPLC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in perioperative outcome following tailored laparoscopic approaches for colon cancer on the basis of tumor characteristics.

METHODS

The prospectively collected data of 170 patients who underwent only minimally invasive colectomy for colon cancer from July 2010 to June 2013 were reviewed. The MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups comprised 92 (54.1 %), 40 (23.5 %), and 38 (22.4 %) patients, respectively.

RESULTS

The number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the RPLC group than in the MPLC and SPLC groups (29.9 ± 21.5, 21.9 ± 12.1, and 24.2 ± 13.8, respectively; p = 0.027). The mean operating time was significantly different among the MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups (243.5 ± 59.0, 207.2 ± 49.6, and 216.2 ± 53.7 min, respectively; p = 0.001). The time to first flatus was also significantly different among the MPLC, SPLC, and RPLC groups (3.1 ± 1.2, 3.6 ± 1.3, and 3.4 ± 1.1 days, respectively; p = 0.039). No significant differences in the other short-term surgical outcomes were observed among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLC and RPLC according to tailored laparoscopic approaches for colon cancer appear to be beneficial in terms of operative time and lymph node retrieval, and may be considered as surgical options in laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer patients with favorable tumor characteristics.

Retraction techniques in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a literature-based review

AIM

To systematically review the published literature and describe the various techniques of bowel and mesentery retraction available for use in laparoscopic colorectal resection.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the literature was undertaken using MESH terms 'retraction', 'laparoscopic' and 'colorectal'. All articles describing methods of retraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included.

RESULTS

Twelve methods of retraction in laparoscopic colorectal surgery were described. Five case-based series and three case studies were reported on 108 patients. Techniques were classified into those offering retraction of the small or large bowel or according to the mode of retraction.

CONCLUSION

Many retraction methods are available to the surgeon varying in cost, invasiveness and complexity. Adequate retraction remains a challenge for optimal exposure and dissection during laparoscopic colorectal surgery.