Hand-Assisted versus Straight-Laparoscopic versus Open Proctosigmoidectomy for Treatment of Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study of 100 Patients

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery (HALS) as an Alternative to Unplanned Laparoscopic Conversion to Open Surgery (LCOS) in Colectomies for Acute Diverticulitis

BackgroundIn difficult colorectal cases, surgeons may opt for a hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) colectomy or attempt a laparoscopic surgery that may require an unplanned conversion to open (LCOS). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 types of surgeries.MethodsColectomies for acute diverticulitis with a HALS or LCOS surgery were selected from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2022 Targeted Colectomy Database. After confirming a difference in propensity scores between the cohorts, they were matched using propensity score matching (PSM) based on preoperative factors. RStudio was utilized for filtering and performing the PSM, while Minitab was used for statistical analysis.ResultsWe identified 804 HALS colectomies and 284 LCOS colectomies. After PSM, both cohorts contained 284 patients. Absolute standardized mean errors for all matched factors were less than 0.1, confirming well-balanced cohorts. Following PSM, preoperative and perioperative factors were similar between both colectomy groups. Postoperatively, HALS surgeries had a shorter average length of stay (7.67 ± 0.38 vs 10.57 ± 0.41, P < 0.001) as well as lower rates of ileus (13.73% vs 22.54%, P = 0.007) and superficial surgical site infection (2.11% vs 5.28%, P = 0.045).ConclusionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first national database study comparing HALS and LCOS colectomies. After accounting for confounding variables, our PSM analysis showed the benefits of HALS colectomies for acute diverticulitis. Future studies may use single-center data containing risk adjustment profiles to create an even more uniform comparison.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of minimally invasive, robotic and open approaches in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic (LAP), laparoscopic-assisted (LAPA), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and robotic colorectal surgery using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of comparing the five different approaches in colorectal surgery were included in a literature search until September 2022. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were reported for total costs, surgical costs, operating time, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of surgical approaches into homogeneous clusters. The cophenetic correlation coefficient (cc) was evaluated to identify the most cost-effective clustering method. The primary outcomes assessed were: costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy, measuring total costs against postoperative complications, mortality rate, and LOS, respectively.

RESULTS

22 RCTs with 4239 patients were included. Open surgery had the lowest total costs, surgical costs, and operating time but the longest LOS and most postoperative complications. LOS was significantly decreased in LAP compared to open surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.46-0.96). Robotic surgery resulted in the highest total costs, surgical costs, and most extended operative duration but the shortest LOS and lowest mortality. LAPA and robotic surgery were superior in the costs-morbidity analysis. HAL was associated with the worst costs-mortality profile. LAP, LAPA, and HAL were better in terms of costs-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, LAP and LAPA are the most cost-effective approaches for colorectal surgery in terms of overall postoperative complications, mortality, and LOS.

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

Effect of LncRNA MIAT on Prognosis of Hand-assisted Laparoscopic or Laparoscopic-assisted Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

The current study aims to explore the effect of myocardial infarction associated transcript (MIAT) level on the long-term prognosis of hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) or laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) for colorectal cancer (CC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 320 CC patients were included. Patients were randomized into HALC and LAC group.

RESULTS

MIAT level in CC tissue was upregulated, and had a significant positive association with its level in serum. MIAT levels in both CC tissue and serum were correlated with lymph node metastasis and histologic grading. Survival analysis showed that the overall survival rate in 3 years after operation was significantly lower in HALC-High MIAT group (P<0.05). When MIAT level is <10.9 in CC tissue or 8.7 in serum, 100% of patients who underwent HALC will be alive for >3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with low MIAT level, both HALC and LAC are available, otherwise, LAC is more recommended.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on March 31, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, conversion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and readmission), and 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine articles published between 2007 and 2016 with a total of 1307 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer length of incision. No differences were found for operative time, blood loss, transfusion, conversion, lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, readmission, or 5-year survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that HALS is similar to LAS for CRC surgery in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes except for the longer length of incision.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and to explore the safety, feasibility of HALS for CRC surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on April 23, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first liquid diet, time to first soft diet, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, urinary complication, pulmonary infection, and mortality).

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2007 and 2017 with a total of 1962 patients with CRC were included in our meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, smaller length of incision, shorter hospital days and postoperative hospital days, less time to first flatus, less wound infection, and less postoperative complications. There was no difference in blood transfusion, lymph node harvested, time to first liquid or soft diet, time to first bowel movement, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, urinary complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that HALS in CRC surgery improves cosmesis and results in better postoperative recovery outcomes by reducing postoperative complications and hospital days. Furthermore, a large randomized control study is warranted to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of those 2 techniques for CRC treatment.

Advances in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has now become widely adopted for the treatment of colorectal neoplasia, with steady increases in utilization over the past 15 years. Common minimally invasive techniques include multiport laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopy, and hand-assisted laparoscopy, with the choice of technique depending on several patient and surgeon factors. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery involves a robust learning curve, and fellowship training often lays the foundation for a high-volume laparoscopic practice. This article provides a summary of the various techniques for laparoscopic colorectal surgery, including operative steps, the approach to difficult patients, and the learning curve for proficiency.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Standard Laparoscopic Colectomy: Are Outcomes and Operative Time Different?

BACKGROUND

HAL colectomy is a technique perceived to provide the benefits of laparoscopic surgery while improving tactile feedback and operative time. Published data are largely limited to small, single-institution studies.

METHODS

The 2012-2013 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Data Use File was queried for patients undergoing elective SL or HAL colectomy. Patients underwent 1:1 propensity matching and had outcomes compared. An additional subgroup analysis was performed for patients undergoing segmental resections only.

RESULTS

13,949 patients were identified, of whom 6084 (43.6 %) underwent HAL colectomy. Patients undergoing HAL versus SL colectomy had higher rates of postoperative ileus (8.7 vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001), wound complication (8.8 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.006), and 30-day readmission (7.5 vs. 6.0 %, p = 0.002), without any differences in operative time (156 vs. 157 min, p = 0.713). Amongst segmental colectomies, HAL remained associated with higher rates of wound complications (8.6 vs. 6.5 %, p = 0.016), postoperative ileus (8.9 vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001), and 30-day readmission (7.1 vs. 5.9 %, p = 0.041) with no difference in operative time between HAL and SL (145 vs. 145 min, p = 0.334).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of HAL colectomy is associated with increased risk of wound complications, postoperative ileus, and readmissions. Importantly, this technique is not associated with any decrease in operative time.