Evolution and future of laparoscopic colorectal surgery

LapEmerge trial: study protocol for a laparoscopic approach for emergency colon resection-a multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Due to faster recovery and lower morbidity rates, laparoscopy has become the gold standard in elective colorectal surgery for both the benign and malignant forms of the disease. A substantial proportion of colorectal operations are, however, carried out in emergency settings, and most of the emergency resections are still performed open. The aim of this study is to compare the laparoscopic versus open approach for emergency colorectal surgery.

METHOD/DESIGN

This is a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial including adult patients presenting with a condition requiring emergency colorectal resection.

DISCUSSION

Previous studies cautiously recommend wider use of laparoscopy in emergency colorectal resections, but all earlier reports are retrospective, are mostly single-center studies, and have limited numbers of patients. Laparoscopy may involve some unpredictable risks that have not yet been reported because of the infrequent use of the techniqueded to assess the safety of laparoscopy as well as the advantages and disadvantages of open compared with laparoscopic emergency surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration number:  ClinicalTrials.gov   NCT05005117 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

Time Period of Treatment's Effect on the Association Between Race and Survival in Patients With Malignant Colorectal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies diagnosed in the United States, with 126,240 new cases diagnosed in 2020. Past studies have shown that disparities may exist between certain patient populations, but it is unknown how they are affected over time as treatments evolve. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the decade of treatment modifies the association between race and five-year survival in adults diagnosed and treated for malignant colorectal adenocarcinomas since the 1970s.

METHODS

This was a non-concurrent retrospective cohort study using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database of the National Cancer Institute. The inclusion criteria involved patients with primary malignant colorectal adenocarcinoma between the years 1975 and 2018. Exclusion criteria included previous malignancies or missing information on any of the variables. The exposure variable was the patient's race, and the main outcome variable was average five-year survival rates. The effect modifier was the time period in which the patient received treatment. The covariates of the study included age, sex, Hispanic status, surgical intervention recommendation, and disease stage. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

As the interaction term between race/ethnicity and year of diagnosis was statistically significant, the data were stratified according to year of diagnosis. Black patients in both time periods had a higher mortality rate from malignant colorectal carcinoma after adjustment for the covariates (1975-1990: HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15; 1991-2018: HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16-1.23) when compared with White patients. American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Asian patients were found to have lower mortality in both time periods when compared with White patients (1975-1990: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95; 1991-2018: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Our data found that despite the evolution in the standard of care treatment for malignant colorectal adenocarcinoma since the year 1975, Black patients had lower five-year survival rates when compared with their White counterparts as well as increased rates of being diagnosed with this disease. Overall, addressing these disparities in colorectal cancer outcomes is critical for improving public health and reducing healthcare costs.

Innovation in gastrointestinal surgery: the evolution of minimally invasive surgery-a narrative review

Background

Minimally invasive (MI) surgery has revolutionised surgery, becoming the standard of care in many countries around the globe. Observed benefits over traditional open surgery include reduced pain, shorter hospital stay, and decreased recovery time. Gastrointestinal surgery in particular was an early adaptor to both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Within this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery and a critical outlook on the evidence surrounding its effectiveness and safety.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for the topic of this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed. The methodology for evidence synthesis was in line with the four steps for narrative reviews outlined in current literature. The key words used were minimally invasive, robotic, laparoscopic colorectal, colon, rectal surgery.

Conclusion

The introduction of minimally surgery has revolutionised patient care. Despite the evidence supporting this technique in gastrointestinal surgery, several controversies remain. Here we discuss some of them; the lack of high level evidence regarding the oncological outcomes of TaTME and lack of supporting evidence for robotic colorectalrectal surgery and upper GI surgery. These controversies open pathways for future research opportunities with RCTs focusing on comparing robotic to laparoscopic with different primary outcomes including ergonomics and surgeon comfort.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery - initial results

INTRODUCTION

The mini invasive procedure in colorectal surgery is gaining ground as an alternative to conventional surgery. Colorectal surgery has significantly evolved since the advent of the automatic stapler devices and subsequently with the minimally invasive approach. The next logical step - the robotic assisted surgery was developed to satisfy surgeons' needs to the area of colorectal surgery and to offer a new and safer method to patients. The evidence for benefits of its use in this area appears to be promising.

Temporal Trends in Clinical Evidence of 5-Year Survival Within Electronic Health Records Among Patients With Early-Stage Colon Cancer Managed With Laparoscopy-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy

Importance

Temporal shifts in clinical knowledge and practice need to be adjusted for in treatment outcome assessment in clinical evidence.

Objective

To use electronic health record (EHR) data to (1) assess the temporal trends in treatment decisions and patient outcomes and (2) emulate a randomized clinical trial (RCT) using EHR data with proper adjustment for temporal trends.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group Trial assessing overall survival of patients with stages I to III early-stage colon cancer was chosen as the target trial. The RCT was emulated using EHR data of patients from a single health care system cohort who underwent colectomy for early-stage colon cancer from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, and were followed up to January 1, 2020, from Mass General Brigham. Analyses were conducted from December 2, 2019, to January 24, 2022.

Exposures

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) vs open colectomy (OC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival. To address confounding in the emulation, pretreatment variables were selected and adjusted. The temporal trends were adjusted by stratification of the calendar year when the colectomies were performed with cotraining across strata.

Results

A total of 943 patients met key RCT eligibility criteria in the EHR emulation cohort, including 518 undergoing LAC (median age, 63 [range, 20-95] years; 268 [52%] women; 121 [23%] with stage I, 165 [32%] with stage II, and 232 [45%] with stage III cancer; 32 [6%] with colon adhesion; 278 [54%] with right-sided colon cancer; 18 [3%] with left-sided colon cancer; and 222 [43%] with sigmoid colon cancer) and 425 undergoing OC (median age, 65 [range, 28-99] years; 223 [52%] women; 61 [14%] with stage I, 153 [36%] with stage II, and 211 [50%] with stage III cancer; 39 [9%] with colon adhesion; 202 [47%] with right-sided colon cancer; 39 [9%] with left-sided colon cancer; and 201 [47%] with sigmoid colon cancer). Tests for temporal trends in treatment assignment (χ2 = 60.3; P < .001) and overall survival (χ2 = 137.2; P < .001) were significant. The adjusted EHR emulation reached the same conclusion as the RCT: LAC is not inferior to OC in overall survival rate with risk difference at 5 years of -0.007 (95% CI, -0.070 to 0.057). The results were consistent for stratified analysis within each temporal period.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that confounding bias from temporal trends should be considered when conducting clinical evidence studies with long time spans. Stratification of calendar time and cotraining of models is one solution. With proper adjustment, clinical evidence may supplement RCTs in the assessment of treatment outcome over time.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

Optimizing Patient Selection for Laparoscopic and Open Colorectal Cancer Resections: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program–Matched Analysis

The aim of this study was to identify patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) resection who might benefit specifically from either an open or laparoscopic approach. From the NSQIP database (2012–2013), patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy (LC) or open colectomy (OC) for CRC were identified. The two groups were matched and compared in terms of any, medical, and surgical complications. A wide range of patient characteristics were collected and analyzed. Interaction analysis was performed in a multivariable regression model to identify risk factors that may make LC or OC more beneficial in certain subgroups of patients. Overall, OC (n = 6593) was associated with a significantly higher risk of any [odds ratio (OR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.87–2.20], surgical (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.82–2.16), and medical (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.51–1.94) complications than LC (n = 6593). No subgroup of patients benefited from an open approach. Patients with obesity (BMI > 30) (P = 0.03) and older age (>65 years) (P = 0.01) benefited more than average from a laparoscopic approach. For obese patients, LC was associated with less overall complications (OC vs LC: OR 1.92 obese vs 1.21 nonobese patients). For elderly patients, LC was more preferable regarding the risk of medical complications (OC vs LC OR of 1.91 vs 1.34 for younger patients). No subgroup of CRC patients benefited specifically more from an open colorectal resection. This supports that the laparoscopic technique should be performed whenever feasible. For the obese and elderly patients, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach were more pronounced.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair

Primary ventral hernias and ventral incisional hernias have been a challenge for surgeons throughout the ages. In the current era, incisional hernias have increased in prevalence due to the very high number of laparotomies performed in the 20^th century. Even though minimally invasive surgery and hernia repair have evolved rapidly, general surgeons have yet to develop the ideal, standardized method that adequately decreases common postoperative complications, such as wound failure, hernia recurrence and pain. The evolution of laparoscopy and ventral hernia repair will be reviewed, from the rectoscopy of the 4^th century to the advent of laparoscopy, from suture repair to the evolution of mesh reinforcement. The nuances of minimally invasive ventral and incisional hernia repair will be summarized, from preoperative considerations to variations in intraoperative practice. New techniques have become increasingly popular, such as primary defect closure, retrorectus mesh placement, and concomitant component separation. The advent of robotics has made some of these repairs more feasible, but only time and well-designed clinical studies will tell if this will be a durable modality for ventral and incisional hernia repair.