Predictors of conversion in laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colorectal cancer and clinical outcomes

An artificial intelligence-designed predictive calculator of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy in colon cancer

Minimally invasive surgery is safe and effective in colorectal cancer. Conversion to open surgery may be associated with adverse effects on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess risk factors of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy for colon cancer and impact of conversion on short-term and survival outcomes. This case-control study included colon cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine independent predictors of conversion from laparoscopic and robotic colectomy to open surgery. 26,546 patients (mean age: 66.9 ± 13.1 years) were included. Laparoscopic and robotic colectomies were performed in 79.1% and 20.9% of patients, respectively, with a 10.6% conversion rate. Independent predictors of conversion were male sex (OR: 1.19, p = 0.014), left-sided cancer (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), tumor size (OR: 1, p = 0.047), stage II (OR: 1.25, p = 0.007) and stage III (OR: 1.47, p < 0.001) disease, undifferentiated carcinomas (OR: 1.93, p = 0.002), subtotal (OR: 1.25, p = 0.011) and total (OR: 2.06, p < 0.001) colectomy, resection of contiguous organs (OR: 1.9, p < 0.001), and robotic colectomy (OR: 0.501, p < 0.001). Conversion was associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality and unplanned readmission, longer hospital stay, and shorter overall survival (59.8 vs 65.3 months, p < 0.001). Male patients, patients with bulky, high-grade, advanced-stage, and left-sided colon cancers, and patients undergoing extended resections are at increased risk of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy. The robotic platform was associated with reduced odds of conversion. However, surgeons' technical skills and criteria for conversion could not be assessed.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Conversion to Open Surgery During Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy for Cancer: Results from a Large Multinational European Study

Background: The risk of conversion to open surgery is inevitably present during any minimally invasive colorectal surgical procedure. Conversions have been associated with adverse postoperative and oncologic outcomes. No previous study has evaluated the specific causes and consequences of conversion during a minimally invasive right colectomy (MIS-RC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed the Minimally invasivE surgery for oncologic Right ColectomY (MERCY) study database including patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic RC because of colon cancer between 2014 and 2020. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine the different reasons for conversion. Uni- and multivariate logistic regressions were run to identify potential variables associated with this outcome. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of conversion on tumor recurrence. Results: Over a total of 1574 MIS-RC, 120 (7.6%) were converted to open surgery. The main reasons for conversion were procedural difficulties related to adherences from previous abdominal surgical procedures (39.2%), or owing to large tumor size or infiltration of adjacent structures (26.7%). Only 16.7% of the conversions were caused by intraoperative medical or surgical complications. Converted patients required longer operative times and developed more postoperative complications, both overall (39.2% versus 27.5%; P = .006) and severe ones (13.3% versus 8.3%; P = .061). Male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89 [95% confidence interval: 1.31-2.71]), obesity (OR = 1.99 [1.4-2.83]), prior abdominal surgery (OR = 1.68 [1.19-2.37]), and pT4 cancers (OR = 4.04 [2.86-5.69]) were independently associated with conversion. Conversion to open surgery was not significantly associated with tumor recurrence (hazard ratios = 1.395 [0.724-2.687]). Conclusions: Although conversion to open surgery during MIS-RC for cancer is associated with worsened postoperative outcomes, it seems not to impact on the oncologic prognosis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Surgical treatment of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs): Management and prognostic role of R1 resections

BACKGROUND

Surgery represents the best treatment for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The aim of this study is to analyse outcomes of surgical management in order to evaluate the influence of microscopically R1 margins on survival and recurrence in patients affected by GISTs.

METHODS

The study reviewed retrospective data from 74 patients surgically treated for primary GISTs without metastasis at diagnosis. Clinical and pathological findings, surgical procedures, information about follow up and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Recurrence rate was low and no patients died in the R1 group during the follow up period. The difference in recurrence free survival for patients undergoing an R0 (n = 54) versus an R1 (n = 20) resections was not statistically significant (76% versus 85% at 3 years, logrank test p-value = 0,14; 63% versus 86% at 5 years, logrank test p-value = 0,48) CONCLUSIONS: Microscopically positive margin has no influence on overall and relapse-free survival in GIST patients. Thus, when R0 surgery implies major functional sequelae, it may be decided to accept possible R1 margins, especially for low risk tumors.

The Short- and Long-Term Feasibility of Laparoscopic Surgery in Colon Cancer Patients with Bulky Tumors

BACKGROUND

Compared to open surgery for colon cancer, randomized controlled trials have shown that laparoscopic approaches have equivalent short- and long-term outcomes. However, the feasibility of laparoscopy for removal of bulky tumors has not been evaluated. The aim of our study was to determine the short- and long-term feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for bulky (> 8 cm) colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients with bulky tumors (defined as greater than 8 cm in diameter) underwent curative resection from July 2004 to July 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 48) and open (n = 32) resection.

RESULTS

Compared to open, the operative time was significantly longer (213 vs. 148 min, p < 0.001), return of bowel function quicker (time to oral intake; 2 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), and length of stay shorter (10 vs. 13 days, p < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Five-year cancer-specific and relapse-free survival was similar with no patients developing local recurrence in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection of colon cancers greater than 8 cm in diameter is feasible and oncologically safe with better short-term and equivalent long-term outcomes compared to open surgery.

[Conversion of laparoscopic access in colorectal cancer surgery (in Russian only)]

AIM

To analyze the problem of access conversion in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 876 procedures for colorectal cancer T14N01M0 performed at the Rostov Research Institute of Oncology in 2015-2017. Open and laparoscopic surgery was applied in 562 and 309 patients, respectively. Conversion of laparoscopic procedures was required in 35 (10.2%) patients.

RESULTS

Conversions were 2.7 times more frequent in men (p<0.05) (probably due to anatomical features - a narrow pelvis) and predominantly with rectosigmoid (22.2%, 2 patients) and rectal cancer (12%, 22 patients). Conversions in women were as well in right-sided colon cancer (9.7%, 3 cases) and sigmoid cancer (7.4%, 4 patients). Conversions were performed mostly due to locally advanced tumors (37.1%, 13 patients) which are especially baffling in case of narrow pelvis. Visceral obesity (20%, 7 patients) and abdominal adhesions (17.1%, 6 patients) were also important causes of conversions. Conversions did not affect time of surgery (256 min vs. 240 min in laparoscopic and 237 min in open surgery). Intraoperative blood loss (284 ml) was higher than in laparoscopy (240 ml) but did not exceed that in open surgery (291 ml).

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to assess risks and benefits of laparoscopy in patients with high probability of conversion in colorectal cancer surgery.

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

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

Influence of Conversion and Anastomotic Leakage on Survival in Rectal Cancer Surgery; Retrospective Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Conversion and anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery have been suggested to have a negative impact on long-term oncologic outcomes. The aim of this study in a large Dutch national cohort was to analyze the influence of conversion and anastomotic leakage on long-term oncologic outcome in rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients were selected from a retrospective cross-sectional snapshot study. Patients with a benign lesion, distant metastasis, or unknown tumor or metastasis status were excluded. Overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between laparoscopic, converted, and open surgery as well as between patients with and without anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

Out of a database of 2095 patients, 638 patients were eligible for inclusion in the laparoscopic, 752 in the open, and 107 in the conversion group. A total of 746 patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent low anterior resection with primary anastomosis, including 106 (14.2%) with anastomotic leakage. OS and DFS were significantly shorter in the conversion compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.025 and p = 0.001, respectively) as well as in anastomotic leakage compared to patients without anastomotic leakage (p = 0.002 and p = 0.024, respectively). In multivariable analysis, anastomotic leakage was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 2.167, 95% confidence interval 1.322-3.551) and DFS (1.592, 1077-2.353). Conversion was an independent predictor of DFS (1.525, 1.071-2.172), but not of OS.

CONCLUSION

Technical difficulties during laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, as reflected by conversion, as well as anastomotic leakage have a negative prognostic impact, underlining the need to improve both aspects in rectal cancer surgery.

Effect of cancer characteristics and oncological outcomes associated with laparoscopic colorectal resection converted to open surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection is an oncologically safe procedure equivalent to open resection,the effects of conversion of a laparoscopic approach to an open approach remain unclear.This study evaluated the cancer characteristic and oncological outcomes associated with conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection to open surgery.

METHOD

We conducted searches on PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included the literature published until 2018 that examined the impact of laparoscopic conversion to open colorectal resection. Only randomized control trials and prospective studies were included. Each study was reviewed and the data were extracted. Fixed-effects methods were used to combine data, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve studies with 5427 patients were included. Of these, 4672 patients underwent complete laparoscopic resection with no conversion (LAP group), whereas 755 underwent conversion to an open resection (CONV group). The meta-analysis showedsignificant differences between the LAP group and converted (CONV) group with respect to neoadjuvant therapy (P = .002), location of the rectal cancer (P = .01), and recurrence (P = .01). However, no difference in local recurrence (P = .17) was noted between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion of laparoscopic to open colorectal cancer resection is influenced by tumor characteristics. Conversion of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a worse oncological outcome.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis

Objective

The objective of this study is to systematically assess the clinical efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).

Methods

The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were collected by searching electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). The outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using of RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

A total of five studies involving 438 patients were finally included, with 202 cases in HALS group and 236 cases in LRC group. Results of meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between HALS and LRC in terms of conversion rate, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. The operative time was 6.5 min shorter in HALS group; however, it was not a clinically significant difference. Although the incision length was longer in HALS, it did not influence the postoperative recovery.

Conclusions

HALS can be considered an alternative to LRC which combines the advantages of open as well as laparoscopic surgery.

Meta-analysis of the clinicopathological characteristics and peri-operative outcomes of colorectal cancer in obese patients

BACKGROUND

The effect of obesity on the clinicopathological characteristics of colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been clearly characterized. This meta-analysis assesses the pathological and perioperative outcomes of obese patients undergoing surgical resection for CRC.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes for obese and non-obese patients undergoing primary CRC resection, based on body-mass index measurement. Results were reported as mean differences or pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

A total of 2183 citations were reviewed; 29 studies comprising 56,293 patients were ultimately included in the analysis, with an obesity rate of 19.3%. Obese patients with colorectal cancer were more often female (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, p<0.001) but there was no difference in the proportion of rectal cancers, T4 tumours, tumour differentiation or margin positivity. Obese patients were significantly more likely to have lymph node metastases (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, p<0.001), have a lower nodal yield, were associated with a longer duration of surgery, more blood loss and conversions to open surgery (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6-4.0, p<0.001) but with no difference in length of stay or post-operative mortality.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that obese patients undergoing resection for CRC are more likely to have node positive disease, longer surgery and higher failure rates of minimally invasive approaches. The challenges of colorectal cancer resection in obese patients are emphasized.

[Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer]

AIM

To assess laparoscopic surgery in treatment of colon cancer patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The results of laparoscopic treatment of patients with colorectal cancer are presented in the article. It was estimated the influence of various clinical parameters including age, gender, comorbidities, tumor localization and stage and complications on laparoscopic management of these patients.

CONCLUSION

It was revealed that efficiency of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colon cancer is affected by tumor stage and presence of complications.

Accelerated enhanced Recovery following Minimally Invasive colorectal cancer surgery (RecoverMI): a study protocol for a novel randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Definitive treatment of localised colorectal cancer involves surgical resection of the primary tumour. Short-stay colectomies (eg, 23-hours) would have important implications for optimising the efficiency of inpatient care with reduced resource utilisation while improving the overall recovery experience with earlier return to normalcy. It could permit surgical treatment of colorectal cancer in a wider variety of settings, including hospital-based ambulatory surgery environments. While a few studies have shown that discharge within the first 24 hours after minimally invasive colectomy is possible, the safety, feasibility and patient acceptability of a protocol for short-stay colectomy for colorectal cancer have not previously been evaluated in a prospective randomised study. Moreover, given the potential for some patients to experience a delay in recovery of bowel function after colectomy, close outpatient monitoring may be necessary to ensure safe implementation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In order to address this gap, we propose a prospective randomised trial of accelerated enhanced Recovery following Minimally Invasive colorectal cancer surgery (RecoverMI) that leverages the combination of minimally invasive surgery with enhanced recovery protocols and early coordinated outpatient remote televideo conferencing technology (TeleRecovery) to improve postoperative patien-provider communication, enhance postoperative treatment navigation and optimise postdischarge care. We hypothesise that RecoverMI can be safely incorporated into multidisciplinary practice to improve patient outcomes and reduce the overall 30-day duration of hospitalisation while preserving the quality of the patient experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: RecoverMI has received institutional review board approval and funding from the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons (ASCRS; LPG103). Results from RecoverMI will be published in a peer-reviewed publication and be used to inform a multisite trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02613728; Pre-results.

BMI as a Predictor for Perioperative Outcome of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: a Pooled Analysis of Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND

There has been a long-lasting controversy about whether higher BMI is associated with worse perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Recently, a number of newly published investigations have made it possible to draw a quantitative conclusion.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this comprehensive meta-analysis to clarify the exact effect that BMI imposes on perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative studies in English that investigated perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for patients with different BMIs were included. Quality of studies was evaluated by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

INTERVENTION

The risk factor of interest was BMI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effective sizes were pooled under a random-effects model to evaluate preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 studies were included. We found that higher BMI was associated with significantly longer operative time (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p = 0.01), and higher incidence of conversion to open surgery (p < 0.001). Moreover, BMI was a risk factor for overall complication rates (p < 0.001), especially for ileus (p = 0.02) and events of the urinary system (p = 0.03). Significant association was identified between higher BMI and risk of surgical site infection (p < 0.001) and anastomotic leakage (p = 0.02). Higher BMI might also led to a reduced number of harvest lymph nodes for patients with colorectal cancer (p = 0.02). The heterogeneity test identified no significant cross-study heterogeneity, and the results of cumulative meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the publication bias test verified the reliability of our study.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies included were retrospectively designed.

CONCLUSIONS

Body mass index is a practical and valuable measurement for the prediction of the perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Higher BMI is associated with worse perioperative outcome. More accurate conclusions, with more precise cutoff values, can be achieved by future well-designed prospective investigations.

Evaluation of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients aged over 75 years old: a multi-institutional study (YSURG1401)

BACKGROUND

The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer (LAC) have not been fully evaluated in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short term surgical outcomes of LAC between the patients older than 75 years and those with non-elderly patients.

METHODS

This retrospective multi-institutional study selected patients who underwent LAC between April 2013 and March 2014 at Yokohama City University Hospital and its related general hospitals. The patients were categorized into two groups: elderly patients (>75 years of age: group A) and non-elderly patients (<75 years of age: group B). Surgical outcomes and post operative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 237 patients were evaluated in the present study. Eighty-four patients were classified into group A, and 153 into group B. Preoperative clinicopathological outcomes demonstrated no significant differences except for the ASA score. When comparing the surgical outcomes between group A and group B, the rate of conversion to open procedure (3.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.750), median operation time (232 min vs 232 min, P = 0.320), median blood loss (20 ml vs 12 ml, P = 0.350). The differences were not significantly different in the surgical outcomes. The incidences of > grade 2 post operative surgical complications were similar between two groups ((19.0% vs 15.7%, p = 0.587). No mortality was observed in this study. The length of postoperative hospital stay was also similar (10 days vs 10 days, p = 0.350).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggested that LAC is safe and feasible, regardless of the age of the patient, especially for elderly patients who may be candidates for colon cancer surgery.

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: What is the impact on short-term outcomes and survival?

Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer is associated with quicker return of bowel function, reduced postoperative morbidity rates and shorter length of hospital stay compared to open surgery, with no differences in long-term survival. Conversion to open surgery is reported in up to 30% of patients enrolled in randomized control trials comparing open and laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer. In this review, reasons for conversion are anatomical-related factors, disease-related-factors and surgeon-related factors. Body mass index, local tumour extension and co-morbidities are independent predictors of conversion. The current evidence has shown that patients with converted resection for colon cancer have similar outcomes compared to patients undergoing a laparoscopic completed or open resection. The few studies that have assessed the outcomes after conversion of laparoscopic rectal resection reported significantly higher rates of complications and longer length of hospital stay in converted patients compared to laparoscopically treated patients. No definitive conclusions can be drawn when converted and open rectal resections are compared. Early and pre-emptive conversion appears to have more favourable outcomes than reactive conversion; however, further large studies are needed to better define the optimal timing of conversion. With regard to long-term oncologic outcome, overall and disease-free survival in the case of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery seems to be worse than those achieved in patients in whom resection was successfully completed by laparoscopy. Although a worse long-term oncologic outcome has been suggested, it remains difficult to draw a proper conclusion due to the heterogeneity of the long-term outcomes as well as the inclusion of both colon and rectal cancer patients in most of the studies. Therefore, we discuss the currently available evidence of the impact of conversion in laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer on both short-term outcomes and long-term survival.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study assessing outcomes and cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Because of lack of consensus about the most appropriate technique, appendectomy is still being performed by both open (OA) and laparoscopic (LA) methods. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to compare the laparoscopic approach and the conventional technique in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Retrospectively collected data from 593 consecutive patients with acute appendicitis were studied. These comprised 310 patients who underwent conventional appendectomy and 283 patients treated laparoscopically. The two groups were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate, return to normal activity and cost.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay (2.7 ± 2.5 days in LA and 1.4 ± 0.6 days in OA), with a less need for analgesia and with a faster return to daily activities (11.5 ± 3.1 days in LA and 16.1 ± 3.3 in OA). Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (31.36 ± 11.13 min in OA and 54.9 ± 14.2 in LA). Total number of complications was less in the LA group with a significantly lower incidence of wound infection (1.4 % vs 10.6 %, P <0.001). The total cost of treatment was higher by 150 € in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is a safe and efficient operative procedure in appendectomy and it provides clinically beneficial advantages over open method (including shorter hospital stay, decreased need for postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, earlier return to work, lower rate of wound infection) against only marginally higher hospital costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02867072 Registered 10 August 2016. Retrospectively registered.

Abdominal fat ratio - a novel parameter for predicting conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard for colorectal cancer resection in the UK but it can be technically challenging in patients who are obese. Patients whose body fat is mainly inside the abdominal cavity are more challenging than those whose fat is mainly outside the abdominal cavity. Abdominal fat ratio (AFR) is a simple parameter proposed by the authors to aid identification of this subgroup. MATERIALS AND METHODS All 195 patients who underwent elective, laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections from March 2010 to November 2013 were included in the study. For patients who were obese (body mass index greater than 30), preoperative staging computed tomography was used to determine AFR. This was assessed by two different, blinded observers and compared with conversion rate. RESULTS Of the 195 patients, 58 (29.7%) fell into the obese group and 137 (70.3%) into the non-obese group. The median AFR of the obese group that were converted to open surgery was significantly higher at 5.9 compared with those completed laparoscopically (3.3, P = 0.0001, Mann-Whitney). There was no significant difference in conversion rate when looking at body mass index, tumour site or size. DISCUSSION Previous studies have found body mass index, age, gender, previous abdominal surgery, site and locally advanced tumours to be associated with an increased risk of conversion. This study adds AFR to the list of risk factors. CONCLUSION AFR is a simple, reproducible parameter which can help to predict conversion risk in obese patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection.

Comparison of Risk Factors for Unplanned Conversion from Laparoscopic and Robotic to Open Colorectal Surgery Using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) Database

Robotic colorectal surgery has been shown to have lower rates of unplanned conversion to open surgery when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Risk factors associated with conversion from robotic to open colectomy and comparisons of the risk factors between robotic and laparoscopic approaches have not been previously reported. Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries between July 1, 2012 and April 28, 2015, were identified in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry. Candidate covariates were identified, and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for conversion. There were 4796 cases that met study inclusion criteria. Conversion was required in 18.2 % of laparoscopic and 7.7 % of robotic cases (p < 0.0001). Risk factors for conversion in the laparoscopic group included the following: moderate/severe adhesions, obesity, colorectal cancer, hypertension, rectal operations, urgent priority, and tobacco use. Risk factors for conversion in the robotic group included the following: severe adhesions, bleeding disorder, presence of cancer, cirrhosis, and use of statins. Higher surgeon volume was protective in both groups. Conversion rates are lower for robotic than for laparoscopic colorectal surgery with fewer predictors of conversion. Recognition of factors predicting conversion may allow surgeons to choose an operative approach that optimizes the benefits of the available technologies.

Disparities in the Utilization of Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Cancer in Rural Nebraska: A Call for Placement and Training of Rural General Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Advances in medical technology are changing surgical standards for colon cancer treatment. The laparoscopic colectomy is equivalent to the standard open colectomy while providing additional benefits. It is currently unknown what factors influence utilization of laparoscopic surgery in rural areas and if treatment disparities exist. The objectives of this study were to examine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with receiving laparoscopic colectomy and to examine the differences between rural and urban patients who received either procedure.

METHODS

This study utilized a linked data set of Nebraska Cancer Registry and hospital discharge data on colon cancer patients diagnosed and treated in the entire state of Nebraska from 2008 to 2011 (N = 1,062). Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of receiving the laparoscopic treatment.

RESULTS

Rural colon cancer patients were 40% less likely to receive laparoscopic colectomy compared to urban patients. Independent predictors of receiving laparoscopic colectomy were younger age (<60), urban residence, ≥3 comorbidities, elective admission, smaller tumor size, and early stage at diagnosis. Additionally, rural patients varied demographically compared to urban patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is becoming the new standard of treatment for colon cancer and important disparities exist for rural cancer patients in accessing the specialized treatment. As cancer treatment becomes more specialized, the importance of training and placement of general surgeons in rural communities must be a priority for health care planning and professional training institutions.

Evaluation of four comorbidity indices and Charlson comorbidity index adjustment for colorectal cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Cancer survival is related not only to primary malignancy but also to concomitant nonmalignant diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic capacity of four comorbidity indices [the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), the Elixhauser method, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) comorbidity index, and the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27)] for both cancer-related and all-cause mortality among colorectal cancer patients. A modified version of the CCI adapted for colorectal cancer patients was also built.

METHODS

The study population comprised 468 cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010 at a community hospital. Data were prospectively collected and abstracted from patients' clinical records. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate logistic regression models were performed for survival and risk of death analysis.

RESULTS

Only moderate or severe renal disease [hazard ratio (HR) 2.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-6.63] and AIDS (HR 3.27, 95% CI 1.23-8.68) were independently associated with cancer-specific mortality, with a population attributable risk of 5.18 and 4.36%, respectively. For each index, the highest comorbidity burden was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (NIA/NCI: HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.14-4.01; Elixhauser: HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.09-1.42; ACE-27: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.07-1.23; CCI: HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.05-1.42) and cancer-specific survival. The modified version of the CCI resulted in a higher predictive power compared with other indices studied (cancer-specific mortality HR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.37-4.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The comorbidity assessment tools provided better prognostic prevision of prospective outcome of colorectal cancer patients than single comorbid conditions.