Laparoscopic or open hemicolectomy for elderly patients with right colon cancer? A retrospective analysis

Comparison of different surgical techniques and anastomosis methods in short-term outcomes of right colon cancer: a network meta-analysis of open surgery, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis

With the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there remains considerable controversy regarding the choice of surgical approach and anastomosis method for patients with right-sded colon cancer (RSCC). This meta-analysis compared the short-term outcomes of open right colectomies (ORC), laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (LRC-IA and LRC-EA), as well as robot right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (RRC-IA and RRC-EA). A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (n = 549), Web of Science (n = 821), Embase (n = 591), and the Cochrane Central Register (n = 86) from January 2000 to August 2024. Studies comparing at least two of the surgical techniques for RSCC were included. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall complications, wound infection, ileus, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet, and conversion rates. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. A total of 39 studies comprising 6098 patients were included. The results indicated that LRC-IA had the lowest overall complication rate (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.07]), while ORC had the highest. RRC-IA was most effective in reducing wound infection (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.39, 1.35]), blood loss (MD 18.01; 95% CI [4.62, 40.87]), and hospital stay (MD 0.93; 95% CI [0.67, 1.31]), while also demonstrating advantages in preventing postoperative ileus (OR 0.47; 95% CI [0.05, 1.31]) and ensuring faster bowel function recovery (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.44, 1.53]). The analysis demonstrates that for patients with RSCC, RRC shows better short-term outcomes compared to LRC and ORC, while IA also surpasses EA.

Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As life expectancy has been increasing, older patients are becoming more central to the healthcare system, leading to more intensive care use and longer hospital stays. Nevertheless, advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques offer safe and effective options for older patients with colorectal diseases. This study aims to provide comprehensive evidence on the role of minimally invasive surgery in treating colorectal diseases in older patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All articles directly compared the minimally invasive approach with open surgery in patients aged ≥65 years. The present metanalysis took 30-day complications as primary outcomes. Length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality were also assessed, as secondary outcomes. Further subgroup analyses were carried out based on surgery setting, lesion features, and location.

RESULTS

After searching the main databases, 84 articles were included. Evaluation of 30-day complications rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality significantly favored minimally invasive approaches. The outcome readmission did not show any significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The current metanalysis demonstrates clear advantages of minimally invasive techniques over open surgery in colorectal procedures for older patients, particularly in reducing complications, mortality, and hospitalization. This suggests that prioritizing these techniques, based on available expertise and facilities, could improve outcomes and quality of care for older patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults

BACKGROUND

As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology.

RESULT

Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

[Early and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive interventions in urgent colon surgery]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of minimally invasive surgical treatment of patients with urgent colon diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 89 patients with urgent colon diseases. All patients were divided into 2 groups: the main group - 31 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgeries, the control group - 58 patients operated via open access. Both groups were comparable by age and underlying disease. However, significant differences in gender, severity of comorbidities and complications of the underlying disease were observed.

RESULTS

Surgery time, postoperative morbidity (9.7% vs. 6.9%) and postoperative hospital-stay were similar in both groups. Quality of life was significantly better in the main group compared with the control group if colostomy was absent. In case of stoma, there were no between-group differences.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is associated with reduced need for analgesics, similar duration of intervention and postoperative morbidity. Complete restoration of quality of life in these patients is observed in 6 months after surgery. Colostomy results similar quality of life after laparoscopic and open surgery.

[Efficacy of video-assisted procedures in advanced age patients with colorectal cancer]

AIM

To assess advisability of video-assisted surgery in advanced age patients with colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study involved 44 patients with large intestine tumors. There were 30 patients with colon cancer aged 78.0±1.1 years and 14 patients with rectal neoplasms aged 75.0±1.8 years. All of them underwent elective video-assisted resections without conversion of the approach.

RESULTS

Good and satisfactory results were achieved in 95.5% of patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 5 (11.4%) cases followed by redo surgery in 2 (4.5%) patients. Mortality was absent.

CONCLUSION

Video-assisted procedures are preferable in elective surgery of colorectal cancer in advanced age patients regardless stage and localization of the process.

[Endoscopic interventions in patients with colorectal cancer: the effect of comorbidities]

AIM

To evaluate endoscopic technologies in treatment of patients with colorectal cancer and severe comorbidities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two groups of patients after endoscopic (group 1, n = 58) and open (group 2, n = 40) surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

Comorbidities were observed in 90.7% patients in group 1 and 83.3% patients in group 2 (p > 0.05). Mean comorbidity index was 6.9±0.3 (2-14) and 7.1±0.7 (2-18) in both groups respectively. Comorbidities ASA grade 3-4 were observed in 88.2% patients of group 1 had and in 71.4% patients of group 2 (p > 0.05). One patient of group 1 with intra-abdominal bleeding required conversion of surgical approach. In another case the conversion was due to technical difficulties during intestinal resection. Postoperative complications were noted in 2 patients (3.4%). There were no intraoperative complications in group 2. Postoperative complications were observed in two cases (5.0%).

CONCLUSION

Severe comorbidities do not impose serious restrictions on the choice of endoscopic approach in colorectal cancer patients.