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

Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare laparoscopic with open resection for transverse colon cancer (TCC) regarding long-term survival outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing laparoscopic with open resection for TCC. The last search was performed on October 7, 2022. Oncological and survival outcomes were collected and analyzed. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3).

RESULTS

This study included fifteen studies published between 2014 and 2022 with 2556 patients in total. When compared with the laparoscopic group, the open group had significantly more tumors locating on middle transverse colon (P = 0.006, OR = 0.67, 95%CI [0.50, 0.89], I² = 12%) and more patients received transverse colectomy (P = 0.03, OR = 0.66, 95%CI [0.46, 0.96], I² = 53%) as results. Comparable tumor stage (P = 0.13, OR = 0.81, 95%CI [0.62, 1.06], I² = 55%) and number of lymph node harvested (P = 0.22, WMD =  -0.81, 95%CI [-2.09, 0.47], I² = 73%) were observed between the two groups. As for survival outcomes, no significant difference was observed between the two groups for 5-year disease-free survival (DFS; P = 0.61, OR = 0.93, 95%CI [0.72, 1.21], I² = 0%), 5-year overall survival (OS; P = 0.83, OR = 0.97, 95%CI [0.71, 1.32], I² = 0%), 3-year DFS (P = 0.97, OR = 0.96, 95%CI [0.69, 1.32], I² = 0%), and 3-year OS (P = 0.67, OR = 0.92, 95%CI [0.63, 1.35], I² = 0%). In the subgroup analysis according to tumor stage, the results did not change.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence based on studies demonstrated that laparoscopic procedure could be safely performed for TCC, and it would not affect the long-term survival. Randomized clinical trials with a larger sample size are warranted in the future for further investigation.

Global survey on the surgical management of patients affected by colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of surgical specialty and geographic region

BACKGROUND

Consensus on the best surgical strategy for the management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has not been achieved. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of surgeons involved in the treatment of sCRLM.

METHODS

Surveys designed for colorectal, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), and general surgeons were disseminated through representative societies. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare responses between specialties and continents.

RESULTS

Overall, 270 surgeons (57 colorectal, 100 HPB and 113 general surgeons) responded. Specialist surgeons more frequently utilized minimally invasive surgery (MIS) than general surgeons for colon (94.8% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.001), rectal (91.2% vs. 64.6%, p < 0.001), and liver resections (53% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.005). In patients with an asymptomatic primary, the liver-first two-stage approach was preferred in most respondents' centres (59.3%), while the colorectal-first approach was preferred in Oceania (83.3%) and Asia (63.4%). A substantial proportion of the respondents (72.6%) had personal experience with minimally invasive simultaneous resections, and an expanding role for this procedure was foreseen (92.6%), while more evidence was desired (89.6%). Respondents were more reluctant to combine a hepatectomy with low anterior (76.3%) and abdominoperineal resections (73.3%), compared to right (94.4%) and left hemicolectomies (90.7%). Colorectal surgeons were less inclined to combine right or left hemicolectomies with a major hepatectomy than HPB and general surgeons (right: 22.8% vs. 50% and 44.2%, p = 0.008; left: 14% vs. 34% and 35.4%, p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The clinical practices and viewpoints on the management of sCRLM differ between continents, and between and within surgical specialties. However, there appears to be consensus on a growing role for MIS and a need for evidence-based input.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgery in the Management of Adrenocortical Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is considered a standard treatment for benign adrenal tumors; however, no consensus has been reached on the optimal resection technique for adrenocortical carcinomas. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in the management of adrenocortical carcinoma.

METHODS

The Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles from inception to May 2022, by two independent reviewers using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered prospectively on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022316050).

RESULTS

From 183 studies screened, 11 studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1617 patients with adrenocortical carcinoma undergoing either laparoscopic surgery (n = 472) or open surgery (n = 1145). Open surgery demonstrated a lower rate of positive resection margin compared with laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio [OR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-2.10; I² = 0%). Additionally, open surgery had more favorable overall survival (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.72; I² = 0%) and recurrence-free rates (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85; I² = 38%) than laparoscopic surgery at 3 years. Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery than open surgery (mean difference - 2.49 days, 95% CI - 2.95 to - 2.04; I² = 45%).

CONCLUSIONS

Open surgery should still be considered the standard operative approach; however, laparoscopic surgery could be regarded as an effective and safe operation for selected adrenocortical carcinoma cases with appropriate laparoscopic expertise. Further randomized controlled studies with tumor stage- and resection margin-dependent survival analysis are necessary to ascertain the safety and efficacy of the treatment.

Effect of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery assisted with enhanced recovery after surgery on colorectal cancer: study protocol for a single-arm trial

Background

Studies have proved that the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol can significantly improve the recovery course of patients during the perioperative period. The application of minimally invasive surgery is a critical component of ERAS protocol. Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS plus one) could achieve further minimally invasive surgical results than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The objective of this trial is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SILS plus one with ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer.

Methods

This is a prospective, single-center, open-label, single-arm trial. A total of 120 eligible patients with colorectal cancer will receive SILS plus one followed by the ERAS management during the perioperative period. The primary endpoint is postoperative hospital stay. The secondary endpoints include rehabilitative rate of the fourth postoperative day, postoperative medical cost, postoperative pain score, postoperative recovery indexes, inflammatory immune response indexes, compliance with ERAS measures, 6 min postoperative walking test (6MWT), hospital readmissions, and early postoperative complications.

Discussion

This trial will be the first to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SILS plus one assisted with ERAS protocol for patients with colorectal cancer and will provide valuable clinical evidence on the benefit of the combination of these two techniques, hopefully, to provide patients with more safe, economic, feasible, and rapid surgery and perioperative strategies.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trial Registry, NCT0426829. Registered February 15, 2020 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268290).

Prognosis of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in middle-aged patients

Background

The prognosis of middle-aged patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated by laparoscopic resection (LR) is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of LR compared with open resection (OR) for middle-aged patients with CRC.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used the data from a database of all consecutive colorectal resections performed between January 2009 and December 2017. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to handle the selection bias based on age, gender, body mass index, tumour location, AJCC stage and admission year. Univariate and multivariate COX regression model was used to identify risk factors of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

After PSM, 154 patients were included in each group. Compared with the OR group in the total cohort, there were better survival outcomes in the LR group for 5-year OS and 5-year DFS (both P < 0.001). These differences were observed for Stage II and III diseases and for all CRC, irrespective of location. The multivariate analysis showed that tumour ≥5 cm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.750, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.026-2.986, P = 0.040), Stage III (HR = 14.092, 95% CI: 1.894-104.848, P = 0.010) and LR (HR = 0.300, 95% CI: 0.160-0.560, P < 0.001) were independently associated with OS. Pre-operative carcinoembryonic antigen ≥5 ng/ml (HR = 3.954, 95% CI: 1.363-11.473, P = 0.011), Stage III (HR = 6.206, 95% CI: 1.470-26.200, P = 0.013) and LR (HR = 0.341, 95% CI: 0.178-0.653, P = 0.001) were independently associated with DFS.

Conclusions

In middle-aged patients with CRC, LR achieves better survival than OR. Complications are similar, except for less blood loss and shorter post-surgical hospital stay with LR.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy with multivisceral resection for surgical T4b colon cancer: Comparison with open colectomy

AIM

In response to the rising use of laparoscopic surgery, recent studies have shown that laparoscopic multivisceral resections for locally advanced colon cancer are safe, feasible, and provide acceptable oncological outcomes. However, the usefulness of laparoscopic multivisceral resection remains controversial. Here, we aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open multivisceral resection approaches for treating locally advanced colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on 1315 consecutive patients admitted to the National Hospital Organization, Osaka National Hospital, for surgical treatment of colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2017. We assessed invasiveness in terms of operating times, blood loss, and complications. Oncological outcomes included 5-year survival rates and recurrences.

RESULTS

We included 85 patients that underwent a colectomy with a multivisceral resection for locally advanced colon cancer; of these, 38 were treated with a laparoscopic approach and 47 were treated with an open approach. Compared to the open surgery group, the laparoscopic group had significantly less blood loss (median volume: 25 vs 140 mL, P <0.001), a lower complication rate (10.5% vs 29.8%, P = 0.036), and shorter hospital stays (12 vs 15 days, P = 0.028). After excluding patients with stage Ⅳ colon cancer, the groups showed similar pathologic outcomes and no significant differences in 5-year disease-free survival (73.9% vs 67.4%; P = 0.664) or 5-year overall survival (75.8% vs 67.7%; P = 0.695).

CONCLUSION

A laparoscopic approach for locally advanced colon cancer could be less invasive than an open approach without affecting oncological outcomes in selected patients.

Operative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in a regional hospital in a developing country: A propensity score-matched comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic surgery is an alternative procedure for colorectal cancers. However, high-level supporting evidence has been derived from high-volume centers in developed countries. During the early phase of applying the laparoscopic approach, we evaluated the procedure's short-term outcomes in our regional middle-volume hospital in a developing country.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data for a cohort of 223 colorectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery from October 2017 to September 2019. We compared 165 patients undergoing open surgery (OS group) with 58 undergoing laparoscopic surgery (LS group) using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, each group contained 58 patients for evaluating outcomes. The LS group had more harvested mesenteric lymph nodes (5.0 nodes, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-8.1; p-value: <0.01) with comparable blood loss (p-value: 0.54) and margin status (p-value: 0.66). However, LS was more time-consuming (68.8 min longer; 95% CI: 53.0-84.7; p-value: <0.01). Morbidity and mortality rates were equivalent (odds ratio (OR): 1.3, 95% CI: 0.25-2.73, p-value: 0.74, and OR: 2, 95% CI: 0.18-22.1, p-value: 0.57, respectively). The LS group experienced fewer days to begin normal eating (-0.5 days, 95% CI: -0.9 to -0.1, p-value: 0.04) and shorter hospital stay (-1.5 days, 95% CI: -2.7 to -0.4, p-value: <0.01). The conversion rate was 3.5%.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach was applicable even in a regional middle-volume hospital in a developing country. However, longer surgical time was a drawback.

A Case-matched Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Colonic Resection for Colon Cancer: Developing Country Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The open approach to right hemicolectomy remains the most widely adopted, whereas laparoscopic surgery is technically more demanding with possible loss of benefit for lengthy procedures compared with open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of the laparoscopic versus open surgery for right colon cancer resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent an elective and potentially curative right colectomy for colon cancer between 2015 and 2019 were included and those who underwent emergency surgery, palliative resection, or cytoreductive surgery were excluded. Patients were randomly matched on 1:2 basis for age, disease stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and extent of colectomy (right vs. extended right hemicolectomy, and additional major resection). The analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The outcomes were reported as median (range) or percent as appropriate.

RESULTS

Among 160 patients, 18 were excluded. The final matching included 69 patients. The were no significant differences between the groups regarding patients' age and sex distribution, tumor size, and preoperative serum albumin and hemoglobin. There were 2 conversions (8.7%) to open surgery. Although the operating time for laparoscopic surgery was longer (200 vs. 140 min, P<0.001), it was associated with less blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL, P=0.001) and shorter primary and total hospital stay (4.1 vs. 6.0 days, P<0.001). There were no differences in the rates of severe complications (0% vs. 13%), reoperations (0% vs. 4.3%), readmissions (13% vs. 8.7%), mortality (0% vs. 2.2%), R0 resections (95.7% vs. 97.8%), and lymph node retrieval rate (28 in each group).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach to right colon resection for colon cancer is associated with less operative trauma and quicker recovery compared with open surgery and offers an equivalent oncologic resection.

Oncological adequacy of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection: An audit in Indian perspective

Background:

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer (LRR) has gained popularity because of better short-term outcomes and less post-operative morbidity. However, LRR is still not endorsed as a standard of care mainly due to concerns centred on oncological safety in comparison with open approach. Moreover, two recent randomised trials (Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum [ALaCaRT] and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group [ACOSOG] Z6051) have failed to prove that LRR is non-inferior to open resection. Studies on oncological adequacy of LRR in the Indian population in terms of quality of mesorectal excision are scarce. In this article, we aim to audit the oncological adequacy of LRR in our centre and thereby critically analyse the reliability of extrapolation of results of ALaCaRT and ACOSOG trials to the Indian population.

Methods:

We retrospectively analysed the oncological adequacy of LRR in terms of completeness of total mesorectal excision (TME), distal and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status and nodal harvest in patients with rectal cancer who underwent LRR between January 2016 and June 2018 at our centre.

Results:

Of 157 patients included in this study, a complete TME was achieved in 148 (94.26%) patients and nearly complete in 7 (4.46%) patients. A safe CRM (≥1 mm) was obtained in 151 (96.18%) patients. Distal margin results were negative in 155 (98.73%) patients. Average nodal harvest was 19.86 ± 9.28. Overall surgical success, calculated as a composite measure of negative distal margin and negative CRM and complete TME was 95.54%.

Conclusion:

Good quality rectal cancer resection can be achieved by experienced laparoscopic surgeons without compromising oncological safety.

Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies that compare the cost and outcome of robotic-assisted surgery to open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer treatment. We aimed to compare the three surgical modalities for colon cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study using the population-based Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for enrollment. We compared in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost for patients undergoing one of these three procedures using a multivariate adjusted logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 531,536 patients undergoing surgical treatment for colon cancer during the study period, 348,645 (65.6%) patients underwent open surgeries, 174,748 (32.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, and 8143 (1.5%) underwent robotic surgeries. In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, wound complications, general medical complications, general surgical complications, and costs of the three surgical treatment modalities. Compared to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing open surgery had a higher mortality rate (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.61-3.40), more general medical complications (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.67-1.87), a longer length of hospital stay (6.60 vs. 4.36 days), and higher total cost ($18,541 vs. $14,487) in the propensity score matched cohort. Mortality rate and general medical complications were equivalent in the laparoscopic and robotic surgery groups, but the median cost was lower in the laparoscopic group ($14641 vs. $16,628 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery was associated with a favourable short-term outcome and lower cost compared with open surgery. Robot-assisted surgery had comparable outcomes but higher cost as compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Short-term and midterm outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to clarify the usefulness of SILS for right-sided colon cancer by evaluating the short-term and midterm outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, 65 selected patients with right-sided colon cancer underwent ileocecal resection, right hemicolectomy, or transverse colectomy; all were enrolled in the study. The same well-trained surgeon performed each procedure by using a multi-instrument access port with three channels, which was placed at the umbilicus via an approximately 3-cm skin incision.

RESULTS

The pathological disease stage distribution was stage 0, 4 cases; stage I, 23 cases; stage II, 19 cases; stage III, 17 cases; and stage IV, 2 cases. The surgical procedures performed were ileocecal resection, 23 cases; right hemicolectomy, 35 cases; and transverse colectomy, 7 cases. The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 216 min and 10 mL, respectively. Although 18 cases needed additional ports, none required conversion to open surgery. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 24. No major perioperative morbidities occurred in this patient series. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. The median follow-up period was 30 months, and the 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 100% and 100%, respectively, in the stage 0-I cases and 89% and 96% in the stage II-III cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that SILS is as feasible as multiport laparoscopic surgery and a reliable surgical option in selected cases of right-sided colon cancer.

Laparoscopic liver resection in elderly patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is becoming standard practice, replacing the open approach in terms of safety and feasibility. However, few data are available for the elderly. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of LLR in elderly patients, by making a comparison with open liver resection (OLR) and with non-elderly patients. Relevant studies found in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were used in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine fully extracted comparative studies were included and two groups were identified: Group 1 with a comparison between OLR and LLR in the elderly and Group 2 with a focus on differences after LLR between elderly and non-elderly patients. A total number of 497 elderly patients who underwent LLR were analyzed. A random effect model was used for the meta-analysis. In Group 1, 1025 elderly patients were included: 640 underwent OLR and 385 underwent LLR. LLR was associated with minor blood loss (MD - 240 mL, 95% CI - 416.61, - 63.55; p 0.008; I² = 96%), less transfusion (8% vs. 13.1%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41, 0.91; p = 0.02; I² = 0%), fewer postoperative Clavien-Dindo III/IV complications (RR 0.48 in favor of LLR; 95% CI 0.29, 0.77; p = 0.003; I² = 0%). On the other hand, no significant difference was observed in terms of bile leakage, ascites, mortality, liver failure, or R0 resection. Group 2 included 112 elderly and 276 non-elderly patients who underwent LLR. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of blood loss, transfusions, liver failure, Clavien-Dindo III/IV complications, postoperative mortality, ascites, bile leak, hospital stay, R0 resection, and operative time. Laparoscopic liver resection is a safe and feasible procedure for elderly patients. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm this.

Effects of CO2 pneumoperitoneum on proliferation, apoptosis, and migration of gastrointestinal stromal tumor cells

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to investigate the proliferation and migration capability of human gastrointestinal stromal tumor line GIST-T1 after exposure to different pressures and times of CO₂ pneumoperitoneum.

METHODS

We established simulated CO₂ pneumoperitoneum environment in vitro and divided the human GIST cell GIST-T1 into open control group, 8 mmHg CO₂ pneumoperitoneum treatment group and 15 mmHg CO₂ pneumoperitoneum treatment group. Each group was divided into two subgroups respectively cultured for 1 h and 3 h. pH value of cell culture, cell growth curve, and cell cycle distribution of each group was measured. By application of scratch healing tests and Transwell chamber experiments, mobility ratio and number of cells through 8 µm membranes were measured to assess the migration ability of cells in each group after intervention.

RESULTS

Cell culture pH value of each subgroup in CO₂ group decreased significantly after exposed in CO₂ pneumoperitoneum (P < 0.01). The proliferation of GIST-T1 cells in 15 mmHg CO₂ group was significantly inhibited early (1-2 days) (P < 0.05) and the proliferation of GIST-T1 cells in 8 mmHg CO₂ 1 h subgroup and 15 mmHg CO₂ 1 h subgroup was increased significantly late (4-6 days) (P < 0.05) after the interventions of CO₂ pneumoperitoneum. The percentage of cells in G0-G1 phase increased, the percentage of S phase cells decreased (P < 0.01) in 1-h subgroup and 3-h subgroup of 15 mmHg CO₂ group 24 h after exposure to CO₂. The percentage of cells in S phase increased in 1-h subgroup of 8 mmHg CO₂ group and decreased in 3-h subgroup of 15 mmHg CO₂ group 72 h after exposure to CO₂. In the Transwell chamber experiment, the cell number through 8-µm membrane increased significantly (P < 0.01) in 3-h subgroup of CO₂ group compared to that in 3-h subgroup of control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The routine pressure and duration of CO₂ pneumoperitoneum used in clinic did not promote the proliferation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors, but had a potential risk of increasing postoperative recurrence and distant metastasis.

[Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic interventions in patients with colon cancer: single-centre experience]

OBJECTIVE

To compare short- and long-term outcomes of treatment in patients with colon cancer undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 281 patients with colon cancer. All patients underwent open (n=144, 51.2%) or laparoscopic (n=137, 48.8%) procedures. Short- and long-term outcomes of treatment were compared in both groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in sex, age, body mass index, location of tumors and tumor differentiation grade in both groups. Conversion was required in 10 (7.2%) cases. The median of duration of surgery was greater for laparoscopic procedures (150 min vs. 130 min; p<0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in laparoscopic surgery (100 ml vs. 300 ml; p=0.001). Postoperative mortality was similar (3.5% vs. 2.5%; p=0.5) while incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower after laparoscopic interventions (13.1% vs. 22.2%; p=0.04). There was earlier recovery of the gastrointestinal tract after laparoscopic procedures (2.1±0.9 days vs. 3.6±1.5 days, respectively; p<0.001). The postoperative hospital-stay was significantly less in the 2^nd group (p<0.001). Two-year disease -free and overall survival was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic interventions for colon cancer are followed by similar overall and disease-free 2-year survival and better early outcomes.

Long-term and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Objectives

The necessity of comparing oncologic results with the use of minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer has arisen. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the treatment approach in rectal cancer and to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent surgery for rectal carcinoma between January 2006 and January 2016 in our institution were evaluated. The results were compared between the two groups according to open or laparoscopic surgery. Clinical characteristics, preoperative and postoperative results, pathological examination results, and disease-free survival rates were compared after the surgical procedure.

Results

A total of 121 patients were included in the study. Of the patients, 50 underwent open, and 71 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median follow-up times were 56.75 months in the open surgery group and 55.2 months in the laparoscopic surgery group. Pathological examination revealed similar numbers of lymph nodes in both groups (p>0.05). The duration of hospital stay was statistically significantly lower in the open surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (p<0.05). The rates of disease-free survival were 74% in the open surgery group and 82.5% in the laparoscopic group, and no statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in complication and recurrence between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer in our study. The duration of hospital stay of patients was statistically significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open surgery group. Laparoscopic or open surgical options could be preferred according to the clinical suitability of the patient, experience of the surgeon, and resources of the center in rectal cancer treatment.

Minimally invasive management of the entire treatment sequence in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a propensity-score weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may offer optimal oncologic outcome with low morbidity. However, the relative benefit of MIS compared to open surgery in patients requiring multistage resections has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent totally minimally invasive (TMI) or totally open (TO) resections of CRC primary and liver metastases (CLM) in 2009-2016 were analyzed. Inverse probability of weighted adjustment by propensity score was performed before analyzing risk factors for complications and survival.

RESULTS

The study included 43 TMI and 121 TO patients. Before and after adjustment, TMI patients had significantly less cumulated postoperative complications (41% vs. 59%, p = 0.001), blood loss (median 100 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (median 4.5 vs. 6.0 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified TO approach vs. MIS (OR = 2.4, p < 0.001), major liver resection (OR = 4.4, p < 0.001), and multiple CLM (OR = 2.3, p = 0.001) as independent risk factors for complications. 5-year overall survival was comparable (81% vs 68%, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CRC undergoing multistage surgical treatment, MIS resection contributes to optimal perioperative outcomes without compromise in oncologic outcomes.

Short- and Long-Term Oncological Outcome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

While several trials have compared laparoscopic to open surgery for colon cancer showing similar oncological results, oncological quality of laparoscopic versus open rectal resection is not well investigated.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. Qualitative and quantitative meta-analyses of short-term (rate of complete resections, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin positivity) and long-term (recurrence, disease-free and overall survival) oncologic results were conducted.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were identified including 3528 patients. Patients in the open resection group had significantly more complete resections (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51-0.97; p = 0.03) and a higher number of resected lymph nodes (mean difference - 0.92; 95% CI - 1.08 to 0.75; p < 0.001). No differences were detected in the frequency of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62-1.10; p = 0.18). Furthermore, no significant differences of long-term oncologic outcome parameters after 5 years including locoregional recurrence (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.44-2.05; p = 0.89), disease-free survival (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.84-1.58; p = 0.36), and overall survival (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.76-1.41; p = 0.82) were found. Most trials exhibited a relevant risk of bias and several studies provided no information on the surgical expertise of the participating surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Differences in oncologic outcome between laparoscopic and open rectal surgery for rectal cancer were detected for the complete resection rate and the number of resected lymph nodes in favor of the open approach. No statistically significant differences were found in oncologic long-term outcome parameters.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND

At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with colon cancer

OBJECTIVE

There is limited information on health service use or patient-reported outcomes when comparing the effectiveness of laparoscopic with that of open surgery. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic with that of open surgery up to 2 years after intervention in patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of patients with colon cancer who underwent surgery (laparoscopic or open surgery) between June 2010 and December 2012, at 22 hospitals. Main outcomes of the study were mortality, complications, reoperation, readmission, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), as measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Duke-UNC, EuroQol-5D, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Q30 and Q29 at baseline, and 30 days and 1 and 2 years after surgery. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression and generalized linear models were used in analyses after adjusting for specific propensity scores developed for each outcome and time point.

RESULTS

In the multivariable analysis, the complication rates up to 30 days (infectious, surgical, and medical) and 1 year (surgical), and readmission rate at 30 days and at 2 years were higher among patients who underwent open surgery than among those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences between the two surgical approaches in all other parameters assessed and in changes of all PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Though in most outcomes both surgical approaches provide similar results up to 2 years after intervention, still the rates of some complications and readmission, mainly up to 30 days, are higher in open surgery. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02488161.

Improved perioperative care is associated with improved long-term survival in colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative colorectal cancer care and survival in patient cohorts operated in 2005 and in 2010 in Lithuania.

METHODS

Comparative observational cohort study was performed. The study was conducted in the three Lithuanian cancer hospitals. Patients, who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer in 2005 and 2010, were included. Demographic characteristics, distribution of the tumors, preoperative diagnostics and staging, surgical treatment, the quality of pathological examination, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. One- and 5-year overall survival data were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer diagnostics and treatment improved from 2005 to 2010 significantly. The disease was identified as stage III-IV for 45 vs. 48% of the patients; however, computed tomography staging scan was performed only for 5.9 vs. 17.8% in 2005 and 2010, respectively. Laparoscopic operations were performed 1.5 vs. 10.5% and abdominoperineal resections-42.7 vs. 31.7% in 2005 and 2010, respectively. The number of harvested lymph nodes was mentioned in 55.8 vs. 97.7% of the cases, whereas more than 12 lymph nodes were examined in 18 vs. 66.6% of cases after histological examination. The overall 5-year survival was 52.1 vs. 63.1% (p < 0.0001), while the 5-year survival of the patients with stage IV of disease was 4.2 vs. 17.8% in 2005 and 2010, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative investigation, surgical treatment, pathological examination, and postoperative course are associated with improved overall survival in colorectal cancer patients, undergoing curative surgery in the resource-limited settings.

The present status and developments of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been shown to be less invasive than open surgery, while maintaining a similar safety level in many clinical trials. Furthermore, there are no significant differences between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery with respect to the long-term outcomes in colon cancer. Thus, laparoscopic surgery has been accepted as one of the standard treatments for colon cancer. In addition, laparoscopic surgery has also achieved favorable outcomes in the treatments of rectal cancer, with many reports showing long-term outcomes comparable to those of open surgery. Furthermore, the magnification in laparoscopy improves visualization in the pelvic cavity and facilitates precise manipulation, as well as providing an excellent educational opportunity. Laparoscopic surgery may be an ideal approach for the treatment of rectal cancer and colon cancer. Recently, two trials showed that, among patients with advanced rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic surgery as compared with open surgery confirmed to meet the criterion for non-inferiority for long-term outcomes. In addition, new techniques such as single-port and robotic surgery have been introduced for laparoscopic surgery in recent years.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Prospective Evidence

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) has been established as an alternative to open surgery for colorectal diseases (CRDs); simultaneously, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is gaining popularity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of SILS with CLS for CRDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized and prospective studies. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Outcome measures included surgical parameters, postsurgical recovery, pain, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate, comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) according to data type.

RESULTS

A total of nine prospective (three randomized and six non-randomized) researches published from 2011 to 2015 were identified. The overall pooled results showed compared to CLS, SILS was associated with fewer blood transfusions, shorter incision length, and slighter postoperative pain, but more extra ports. All the other parameters were comparable. Randomized evidence supported SILS was associated with less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but longer operative time. For only colectomy cases, SILS was associated with more conversions to open surgery. SILS was associated with longer surgical time for Easterners, but not for Westerners. The detected differences were clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results based on randomized and prospective evidence provide convincing support for the clinical similarity that SILS is basically as applicable, effective, and safe as CLS when dealing with colorectal lesions, but not for superiority.

The future for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery

Use the technology to drive standardization

[Laparoscopic colectomy versus colectomy performed via laparotomy in the treatment of non-metastatic colic adenocarcinomas]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colectomy is considered with increasing frequency the gold standard treatment for colorectal cancer. Our study aims to show that short-term results and the oncological safety of laparoscopy are at least equivalent to those of laparotomy in the treatment of non-metastatic colic adenocarcinomas. We also highlight the impact of the learning curve on outcomes after laparoscopy in patients with these cancers.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients undergoing surgery for resectable colic adenocarcinomas over a period of 6 years. The study population was divided into 2 groups based on the surgical procedure used initially. The group "OC" included 35 patients who underwent midline laparotomy and the group "LAC" included 30 patients who underwent laparoscopy. All data were analyzed using SPSS software version 19.0.

RESULTS

Our study showed that there was no significant difference in short-term outcomes between the 2 groups, namely intraoperative morbidity, hospital stay, intensive care unit stay as well as postoperative morbidity and mortality. Regarding the long-term outcomes, there was also no significant difference in the incidence of late complications, type of recurrence, overall survival and disease-free survival. Oncological safety based on the limits of resection and the number of lymph nodes removed was not significantly different between the two groups. Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (p <0.001). Convertion rate was 33%. It went from 67% in the first 2 years of the study to 13% in the last 2 years. The conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy had no significant impact neither on early postoperative outcomes nor on overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is a surgical procedure resulting in at least equivalent short and long term outcomes as laparotomy. The learning curve representing a "prerequisite" has no negative impact on the outcomes of laparoscopic treatment of non-metastatic colic cancers.

Laparoscopic surgery in patients with colon cancer: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer remain debatable, as randomized trials have reported similar outcomes for open and laparoscopic surgery but population-based data are scarce. Thus, it is unclear whether, outside of clinical trials, laparoscopic surgery that is performed as a standard clinical treatment has detrimental effects on patients' long-term survival.

METHODS

This study examined a unified database of 30 German regional cancer registries for patients with colorectal cancer who were diagnosed between 2003 and 2011. Among 216,682 patients with colorectal carcinoma, we identified 37,068 patients with Union for International Cancer Control stage I-III colon carcinoma (>12 cm from the anal verge), including 3825 patients (10.38 %) who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were also used to evaluate factors that influenced the likelihood of a patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Kaplan-Meier analysis with the log-rank test was used to analyse differences in short- and long-term survival outcomes after open or laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Younger age, lower T-stage, and left-sided surgery were independent predictors of the patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery (all, p < 0001). The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for left-sided tumours (odds ratio [OR] 0.49; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.77). Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was a significant and independent predictor of prolonged long-term survival for right- and left-sided surgeries (right-side, OR 0.67; 95 % CI 0.56-0.82; left-sided, OR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.62-0.78).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that laparoscopic surgery provides favourable outcomes even when used outside controlled trials and should be considered as a standard treatment for patients with colon cancer.

Race/ethnicity and socio-economic differences in colorectal cancer surgery outcomes: analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample

Background

The purpose of this study was to examine racial and socio-economic differences in the receipt of laparoscopic or open surgery among patients with colorectal cancer, and to determine if racial and socio-economic differences exist in post-surgical complications, in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay among patients who received surgery.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of hospitalized patients with a primary diagnosis of colorectal cancer between 2007 and 2011 using data from Nationwide Inpatient Sample. ICD-9 codes were used to capture primary diagnosis, surgical procedures, and health outcomes during hospitalization. We used logistic regression analysis to determine racial and socio-economic predictors of surgery type, post-surgical complications and mortality, and linear regression analysis to assess hospital length of stay.

Results

A total of 122,631 patients were admitted with a primary diagnosis of malignant colorectal cancer between 2007 and 2011. Of these, 17,327 (14.13 %) had laparoscopic surgery, 70,328 (57.35 %) received open surgery, while 34976 (28.52 %) did not receive any surgery. Black (36 %) and Hispanic (34 %) patients were more likely to receive no surgery compared with Whites (27 %) patients. However, among patients that received any surgery, there were no racial differences in which surgery was received (laparoscopic versus open, p = 0.2122), although socio-economic differences remained, with patients from lower residential income areas significantly less likely to receive laparoscopic surgery compared with patients from higher residential income areas (OR: 0.74, 95 % CI: 0.70-0.78). Among patients who received any surgery, Black patients (OR = 1.07, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.13), and patients with Medicare (OR = 1.16, 95 % CI: 1.11-1.22) and Medicaid (OR = 1.15, 95 % CI: 1.07-1.25) insurance experienced significantly higher post-surgical complications, in-hospital mortality (Black OR = 1.18, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.39), and longer hospital stay (Black β = 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.16-1.50) compared with White patients or patients with private insurance.

Conclusion

Racial and socio-economic differences were observed in the receipt of surgery and surgical outcomes among hospitalized patients with malignant colorectal cancer in the US.

Present laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in Japan

In many clinical studies, laparoscopic surgery (LS) for colon cancer has been shown to be less invasive than open surgery (OS) while maintaining similar safety. Furthermore, there are no significant differences between LS and OS in long-term outcomes. Thus, LS has been accepted as one of the standard treatments for colon cancer. In the treatments of rectal cancer as well, LS has achieved favorable outcomes, with many reports showing long-term outcomes comparable to those of OS. Furthermore, the magnification in laparoscopy improves visualization in the pelvic cavity and facilitates precise manipulation, as well as providing excellent educational effects. For these reasons, rectal cancer has seemed to be well indicated for LS, as has been colon cancer. The indication for LS in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, which is relatively unresectable (e.g., cancer invading other organs), remains an open issue. In recent years, new techniques such as single-port and robotic surgery have begun to be introduced for LS. Presently, various clinical studies in our country as well as in most Western countries have demonstrated that LS, with these new techniques, are gradually showing long-term outcomes.

Large Colorectal Lesions: Evaluation and Management

In the last years, a distinctive interest has been raised on large polypoid and non-polypoid colorectal tumors, and specially on flat neoplastic lesions ≥20 mm tending to grow laterally, the so called laterally spreading tumors (LST). Real or virtual chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance should be considered for the estimation of submucosal invasion of these neoplasms. Lesions suitable for endoscopic resection are those confined to the mucosa or selected cases with submucosal invasion ≤1000 μm. Polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection remain a first-line therapy for large colorectal neoplasms, whereas endoscopic submucosal dissection in high-volume centers or surgery should be considered for large LSTs for which en bloc resection is mandatory.

Emergent Laparoscopic Colectomy Is an Effective Alternative to Open Resection for Benign and Malignant Diseases: a Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic and open resections performed for colonic emergencies. A systematic search of the literature identified previously published comparative studies regarding emergent laparoscopic colectomy (ELC) and emergent open colectomy (EOC). Meta-analysis was performed utilizing a pooled odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables and a weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Eleven studies involving 752 patients were identified. Although operation time was noted to be significantly shorter for EOC, patients post-ELC had significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.30, 0.66; P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, recovery time for post-ELC patients was significantly shorter, as was the length of hospital stay (WMD -2.78 days; 95 % CI -3.17, -2.38; P < 0.00001), the time to regular dietary habits (WMD -1.32 days; 95 % CI -2.51, -0.13; P = 0.03), and the time to recover bowel movement (WMD -0.55 days; 95 % CI -0.89, -0.22; P = 0.001). Reoperation rate and mortality were found to be comparable between ELC and EOC. The R0 resection rate and the number of lymph nodes harvested were also comparable between ELC and EOC for malignant diseases. Whether for benign or malignant disease, ELC is a safe and feasible procedure for colonic emergencies compared with EOC, despite being relatively time-consuming.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 3-year follow-up outcomes

PURPOSE

We wished to evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with rectum cancer through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database until June 30, 2015, to identify eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for rectum cancer were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the search strategy following the requirement of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Three-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were the main endpoints.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials comprising 3145 patients matched the selection criteria. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery in 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio (HR)3-year OS = 0.83, 95 % CI [0.68-1.01]; P = 0.06; HR3-year DFS = 0.89, 95 % CI [0.75,1.05]; P = 0.16). No evidence of publication bias was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis supported the notion that based on the 3-year DFS and OS, oncological outcomes are comparable after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

Survival after laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer: a comparative, single-institution study

Background

Some recent studies have suggested that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer may provide a potential survival advantage when compared with open surgery. This study aimed to compare cancer-related survivals of patients who underwent laparoscopic or open resection of colon cancer in the same, high volume tertiary center.

Methods

Patients who had undergone elective open or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between January 2002 and December 2010 were analyzed. A clinical database was prospectively compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

A total of 460 resections were performed. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic (n = 227) and the open group (n = 233) apart from tumor stage: stage I tumors were more frequent in the laparoscopic group whereas stage II tumors were more frequent in the open group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group (20.0 ± 0.7 vs 14.2 ± 0.5, P < 0.01). The 5-year cancer-related survival for patients undergoing laparoscopic resection was significantly higher than that following open resections (83.1% vs 68.5%, P = 0.01). By performing a stage-to-stage comparison, we found that the improvement in survival in the laparoscopic group occurred mainly in patients with stage II tumors.

Conclusions

Our study shows a survival advantage for patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery for stage II colon cancer. This may be correlated with a higher number of harvested lymph nodes and thus a better stage stratification of these patients.

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.

Improving the outcomes in oncological colorectal surgery

During the last several decades, colorectal cancer surgery has experienced some major perioperative improvements. Preoperative risk-assessment of nutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia followed by interventions for patient optimization or an adapted surgical strategy, contributed to improved postoperative outcomes. Enhanced recovery programs or fast-track surgery also resulted in reduced length of hospital stay and overall complications without affecting patient safety. After an initially indecisive start due to uncertainty about oncological safety, the most significant improvement in intraoperative care was the introduction of laparoscopy. Laparoscopic surgery for colon and rectal cancer is associated with better short-term outcomes, whereas long-term outcomes regarding survival and recurrence rates are comparable. Nevertheless, long-term results in rectal surgery remain to be seen. Early recognition of anastomotic leakage remains a challenge, though multiple improvements have allowed better management of this complication.

Long-term favorable surgical results of laparoscopic hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a single-center experience over a 10-year period

BACKGROUND

We first performed laparoscopic hepatic resection (Lap-Hx) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 1994. Here we review the long-term surgical results of Lap-Hx for HCC in patients with cirrhosis over a 10-year period at a single institution.

STUDY DESIGN

Between January 2000 and December 2013, 99 patients with cirrhosis underwent open hepatic resection (Open-Hx) and 63 underwent Lap-Hx for primary HCC within the Milan criteria. We compared the operative outcomes and patient survival between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences regarding patient background characteristics or tumor-related factors between the 2 groups. The morbidity rate of the Lap-Hx group was significantly lower than that of the Open-Hx group (26% vs 10%; p = 0.0459), and the complication rate of ascites was significantly lower (7% vs 0%; p = 0.0077). The mean duration of hospital stay of the Lap-Hx group was significantly shorter than that of the Open-Hx group (16 vs 10 days; p = 0.0008). There were no significant between-group differences regarding overall or disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic-Hx for HCC in patients with cirrhosis is associated with less morbidity and shorter hospital stays, with no compromise in patient survival. It may be time to consider changing the standard operation for primary HCC within the Milan criteria to Lap-Hx in patients with cirrhosis.

A comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for hepatic and pancreatic resections using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for pancreatic and liver operations remains ill defined. We sought to compare inpatient outcomes among patients undergoing open versus MIS pancreas and liver operations using a nationally representative cohort.

METHODS

We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for all major pancreatic and hepatic resections performed between 2000 and 2011. Appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) coding modifiers for laparoscopy and robotic assist were used to categorize procedures as MIS. Demographics, comorbidities, and inpatient outcomes were compared between the open and MIS groups.

RESULTS

A total of 65,033 resections were identified (pancreas, n = 36,195 [55.7%]; liver, n = 28,035 [43.1%]; combined pancreas and liver, n = 803 [1.2%]). The overwhelming majority of operations were performed open (n = 62,192, 95.6%), whereas 4.4% (n = 2,841) were MIS. The overall use of MIS increased from 2.3% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2011. Compared with patients undergoing an open operation, MIS patients were older and had a greater incidence of multiple comorbid conditions. After operation, the incidence of complications for MIS (pancreas, 35.4%; liver, 29.5%) was lower than for open (pancreas, 41.6%; liver, 33%) procedures (all P < .05) resulting in a shorter median length of stay (8 vs 7 days; P = .001) as well as a lower in-hospital mortality (5.1% vs 2.8%; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

During the last decade, the number of MIS pancreatic and hepatic operations has increased, with nearly 1 in 13 HPB cases now being performed via an MIS approach. Despite MIS patients tending to have more preoperative medical comorbidities, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and duration of stay compared favorably with open surgery.