Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients

Quality of life in patients with loco-regional rectal cancer after ELRR by TEM versus VLS TME after nChRT: long-term results

BACKGROUND

Endoluminal loco-regional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) may be an alternative treatment option to Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME), in selected patients with N0 rectal cancer. Post-operative quality of life (QoL) evaluation is an important parameter of outcomes related to high percentage of functional sequelae. We reported, in a previous paper, the short and medium term results of QoL in patients who underwent ELRR or LTME. The aim is to evaluate the 3 year QoL in patients with iT2-T3 N0/+ rectal cancer who underwent ELRR by TEM or LTME after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy (nChRT) in a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

METHODS

We enrolled in this study, 39 patients with iT2-T3 rectal cancer who underwent ELRR (n = 19) or LTME (n = 20), according to predefined criteria. QoL was evaluated by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires at admission, after n-RCT and 1, 6, 12, and 36 months after surgery.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in QoL evaluation were observed between the two groups, both at admission and after n-RCT. In short term (1-6 months) period, significantly better results were observed in ELRR group by QLQ-C30 in global health status (p = 0.03), physical functioning (p = 0.026), role functioning (p = 0.04), emotional functioning (p = 0.04), cognitive functioning, fatigue (p < 0.05), dyspnoea (p < 0.001), insomnia (p < 0.05), appetite loss (p < 0.05), constipation (≤ 0.05), and by QLQ-CR38 in: body image (p = 0.03) and defecation (p = 0.025). At 1 year, the two groups were homogenous as assessed by QLQ-C30, whereas the QLQCR38 still showed better results of ELRR versus LTME in body image (p = 0.006), defecation problems (p = 0.01), and weight loss (p = 0.005). At 3 years, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with rectal cancer, who underwent ELRR by TEM or LTME, QoL tests at 3 years do not show any statistical differences on examined items.

Splenic flexure mobilization in rectal cancer surgery: do we always need it?

Splenic flexure (SFM) in rectal cancer surgery is a crucial step which may increase the difficulty of the operation. The aim of this retrospective single-center study is to demonstrate if the selective omission of SFM during anterior rectal resection can reduce the complexity of the operation, without affecting post-operative and oncologic outcomes. Data of 112 consecutive rectal resections for cancer from March 2010 to March 2017 were analyzed and divided into two groups: SFM and No-SFM. A sub-analysis was then performed for laparoscopy and traditional cases. Post-operative and oncologic outcomes, including overall (OS) and cancer-related survival (CRS), were analyzed and compared. SFM was performed in 42% of cases and laparoscopy was used in 73.2%. Operative time resulted significantly lower in the No-SFM group (190 vs. 225 min, p = 0.01). In laparoscopy in the No-SFM group, operative time and post-operative stay were significantly lower (205.5 vs. 222.5 min, p = 0.04; 9 vs. 10 days, p = 0.01). Most of the open resections were performed without SFM (35.4% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.02). No statistical significant differences were found in OS and CRS in the two groups. We support the hypothesis that every surgeon should carry out an accurate intra-operative evaluation to perform a selective SFM. When possible, SFM can be safely avoided with no additional risks in terms of post-operative and oncologic outcomes.

The Relationship Between the Number of Intersections of Staple Lines and Anastomotic Leakage After the Use of a Double Stapling Technique in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017;27:273-281. [PMID: 28614172 PMCID: PMC5542784 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000422]

Purpose:

Laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with double stapling technique is difficult because of unsuitable cutting angle in narrow pelvic cavity. For reasons of tilted and long linear staple line of rectal stump, circular anastomotic plane can make multiple intersections. The present study was designed to assess whether multiple intersections after double stapling technique is the risk factor of anastomotic complication in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Materials and Methods:

In total, 128 consecutive left colon and rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal resection with double stapling technique were enrolled in this study. In all cases, operator tried to reduce intersections by inversion and invagination techniques. They were subdivided into 3 groups: 58 patients with no intersection of staple lines (group A), 62 patients with 1 point of intersection (group B) and 8 patients with 2 points of intersection (group C). Intraoperative air leakage, incomplete cut ring, postoperative bleeding, anastomotic stenosis, and leakage were compared between the 3 groups.

Results:

Clinical anastomotic leakage was identified in 1 (group C) of 128 patients (0.7%). Overall anastomotic leakage rate was 0% (0/58) in group A, 0% (0/62) in group B, and 12.5% (1/8) in group C (P=0.001). In univariate analysis, intersections of staple lines were associated with anastomotic complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in multivariate analysis.

Conclusions:

The number of intersections of staple lines is associated with anastomotic leakage, and the inversion technique is a useful method for avoiding anastomotic leakage. Using an appropriate technique by skilled operator, double stapling technique for laparoscopic anterior resection is safe and feasible.

Impact of minimally invasive surgery on short-term outcomes after rectal resection for neoplasm within the setting of an enhanced recovery program

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer has increased in recent years. Enhanced recovery (ER) protocols are associated with improved outcomes, such as decreased length of stay (LOS). We examined the impact of MIS and ER protocols on outcomes after rectal resection for neoplasm.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed for patients undergoing elective open (OS) or MIS rectal resection for neoplasm from 2010 to 2015 at a single institution. MIS was defined as any laparoscopic or robotic procedure. An ER protocol was implemented in 8/2013. Regression models were used to estimate outcomes including LOS, 30-day morbidity, readmission, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

Among 325 patients, 252 (77.5%) underwent OS; 73 (22.5%) underwent MIS rectal resection. Prior to ER implementation, only 6.1% underwent MIS, compared to 23.1 and 54.4% in the 2 years following ER implementation (p < 0.001). Prior to ER implementation, median LOS was 7 days (n = 181) with 23.8% 30-day morbidity. Following ER implementation, median LOS was 4 days (n = 144); patients receiving OS had median LOS of 5.5 days (n = 82) and 30-day morbidity of 19.5%. ER patients receiving MIS had median LOS of 3 days (n = 62) and 30-day morbidity of 14.5%. Univariate regression demonstrated that MIS patients on ER protocol were more likely to have a shortened LOS (< 6 days) compared to OS patients on non-ER protocol (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of MIS and ER protocol is significantly associated with reduced LOS for patients undergoing rectal resection for neoplasm. Further research is needed to determine which patients are best suited to MIS from an oncologic standpoint.

The comprehensive therapeutic effects of rectal surgery are better in laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer was reported as advantageous compared to laparotomy resection. However, this finding remains controversial, especially given the two recent randomized controlled trials published on The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Objective

To perform a meta-analysis that compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.

Data source

To identify clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer published by August 2016, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Springer Link and Clinicaltrials.gov databases by combining various key words. Data were extracted from every identified study to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 43 articles from 38 studies with a total of 13408 patients were included. Although laparoscopic radical rectectomy increased operation time (MD = 37.23, 95% CI: 28.88 to 45.57, P < 0.0001), it can significantly decrease the blood loss (MD = –143.13, 95% CI: –183.48 to –102.78, P < 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (MD = –0.97, 95% CI: –1.35 to –0.59, P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD = –2.40, 95% CI: –3.10 to –1.70, P < 0.0001), postoperative complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86, P < 0.0001), mortality (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.57, P < 0.0001) and the CRM positive rate (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75, P < 0.0001). No significant difference were noted between the groups regarding intraoperative complications, TME completeness and harvesting of lymph nodes. Regarding the long-term survival data, the laparoscopic group was not inferior to laparotomy. Some pooled data, such as 3-year DFS, 5-year OS and 5-year local recurrence were even superior for the laparoscopic group.

Conclusions

Given the definite benefits in short-term outcomes and trending benefits in long-term outcomes that were observed, we recommend laparoscopic surgery be used for rectal cancer resection.

Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite proven safety and efficacy, rates of laparoscopy for rectal cancer in the US are low. With reports of inferiority with laparoscopy compared to open surgery, and movements to develop accredited centers, investigating utilization and predictors of laparoscopy are warranted. Our goal was to evaluate current utilization and identify factors impacting use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The Premier™ Hospital Database was reviewed for elective inpatient rectal cancer resections (1/1/2010-6/30/2015). Patients were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes, and then stratified into open or laparoscopic approaches by ICD-9-CM procedure codes or billing charge. Logistic multivariable regression identified variables predictive of laparoscopy. The Cochran-Armitage test assessed trend analysis. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization and factors independently associated with use of laparoscopy.

RESULTS

3336 patients were included-43.8% laparoscopic (n = 1464) and 56.2% open (n = 1872). Use of laparoscopy increased from 37.6 to 55.3% during the study period (p < 0.0001). General surgeons performed the majority of all resections, but colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach rectal cancer laparoscopically (41.31 vs. 36.65%, OR 1.082, 95% CI [0.92, 1.27], p < 0.3363). Higher volume surgeons were more likely to use laparoscopy than low-volume surgeons (OR 3.72, 95% CI [2.64, 5.25], p < 0.0001). Younger patients (OR 1.49, 95% CI [1.03, 2.17], p = 0.036) with minor (OR 2.13, 95% CI [1.45, 3.12], p < 0.0001) or moderate illness severity (OR 1.582, 95% CI [1.08, 2.31], p < 0.0174) were more likely to receive a laparoscopic resection. Teaching hospitals (OR 0.842, 95% CI [0.710, 0.997], p = 0.0463) and hospitals in the Midwest (OR 0.69, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89], p = 0.0044) were less likely to use laparoscopy. Insurance status and hospital size did not impact use.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer steadily increased over the years examined. Patient, provider, and regional variables exist, with hospital status, geographic location, and colorectal specialization impacting the likelihood. However, surgeon volume had the greatest influence. These results emphasize training and surgeon-specific outcomes to increase utilization and quality in appropriate cases.

Application of spontaneously closing cannula ileostomy in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer

An anastomotic leak (AL) is the most serious complication observed in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer (LARRC). In order to protect anastomosis from AL and avoid stoma reversal surgery in patients with ileostomy, spontaneously closing cannula ileostomy (SCCI) was used in LARRC and its safety and feasibility were assessed in the present study. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that SCCI has been used in such a case. A total of 41 patients who underwent LARRC with SCCI or ileostomy procedures between November 2013 and August 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient demographics, clinical features and surgical data were evaluated using a Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher's exact test or linear-by-linear association. Demographics, surgical data and the majority of clinical features of the two groups were consistently similar. In the SCCI group, the length of postoperative stay, total cost and stoma period were significantly improved compared with those in the ileostomy group. Additionally, the median protective period in the SCCI group was 22 days [interquartile range (IQR), 19–22 days], the median time to cannula removal was 23 days (IQR, 20–24 days) and the median time to cannula stoma closure was 12 days (IQR, 11–13 days). No SCCI-associated complications occurred. No significant differences in routine complications, including staple-line bleeding, anastomotic leak, anastomotic dehiscence, anastomotic stenosis and wound infection, were identified between the two groups. In LARRC, the SCCI procedure was demonstrated to be a safe and feasible diverting technique to protect anastomosis from AL. In contrast to ileostomy, the SCCI procedure obviated the requirement for stoma reversal surgery, which resulted in decreased lengths of postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization costs and stoma periods.

Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection remains one of the most significant complications with relevant morbidity and mortality. There is evidence that a higher number of stapler firings for rectal division can affect the leak rate in double stapling anastomosis. However, there are no data concerning compression anastomosis. We present our institutional experience addressing this issue.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of a prospective institutional database of patients undergoing colonic and rectal resection for benign and malignant indications between January 2008 and December 2014 at the surgical department of the St. John of God Hospital, Vienna. Inclusion criteria were rectal division with linear stapling devices and construction of anastomosis to the rectal stump using a circular stapler or compression device.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty two (196 female; 51.3%) patients were included. Mean age was 65.8 years (range: 18-95) Indications for the operation included diverticular disease (44.8%), colorectal carcinoma (51.6%), inflammatory bowel disease (1.8%), and adenoma (1.8%). A laparoscopic approach was employed in 334 cases (87.4%); in 170 patients (44.9%), a compression anastomosis was created. One, two, and three or more stapler cartridges were used for rectal division in 58.4, 33.5, and 8.1%, respectively. Male gender, neoadjuvant therapy, rectal cancer as an underlying disease, laparoscopic surgical approach, and duration of operation longer than 200 min are leading causes for the usage of more than one stapler cartridge. Overall leak rate was 4.7% (18/382). The only factor associated with the occurrence of leakage was the use of three or more stapler cartridges for the closure of the rectal stump (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Our data support that multiple stapler firings for rectal division following colorectal resection has a major impact on anastomotic leak rate. Especially in laparoscopic surgery efforts should be made to minimize the number of stapler cartridges used.

Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection remains one of the most significant complications with relevant morbidity and mortality. There is evidence that a higher number of stapler firings for rectal division can affect the leak rate in double stapling anastomosis. However, there are no data concerning compression anastomosis. We present our institutional experience addressing this issue.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of a prospective institutional database of patients undergoing colonic and rectal resection for benign and malignant indications between January 2008 and December 2014 at the surgical department of the St. John of God Hospital, Vienna. Inclusion criteria were rectal division with linear stapling devices and construction of anastomosis to the rectal stump using a circular stapler or compression device.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty two (196 female; 51.3%) patients were included. Mean age was 65.8 years (range: 18-95) Indications for the operation included diverticular disease (44.8%), colorectal carcinoma (51.6%), inflammatory bowel disease (1.8%), and adenoma (1.8%). A laparoscopic approach was employed in 334 cases (87.4%); in 170 patients (44.9%), a compression anastomosis was created. One, two, and three or more stapler cartridges were used for rectal division in 58.4, 33.5, and 8.1%, respectively. Male gender, neoadjuvant therapy, rectal cancer as an underlying disease, laparoscopic surgical approach, and duration of operation longer than 200 min are leading causes for the usage of more than one stapler cartridge. Overall leak rate was 4.7% (18/382). The only factor associated with the occurrence of leakage was the use of three or more stapler cartridges for the closure of the rectal stump (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Our data support that multiple stapler firings for rectal division following colorectal resection has a major impact on anastomotic leak rate. Especially in laparoscopic surgery efforts should be made to minimize the number of stapler cartridges used.

达芬奇机器人在直肠癌手术中泌尿生殖功能保护的系统回顾

目的

研究达芬奇机器人在直肠癌术后中对于患者盆部神经功能的保护相比于腹腔镜手术的优势.

方法

利用计算器检索关于国内外发表的机器人和腹腔镜直肠癌手术的对比研究, 研究采用的方法为国际公认的国际前列腺症状评分量表和国际勃起功能指数量表, 对纳入文献进行综合分析.

结果

最终纳入7篇文献, 共673例患者, 行机器人手术患者311例, 平均年龄62.7岁, 行腹腔镜手术362例, 平均年龄69.6岁. 两种手术方式的患者术后泌尿性功能均有一定程度的下降, 但机器人手术组患者的下降程度明显低于腹腔镜手术组, 且恢复至术前水平的速度更快.

结论

达芬奇机器人相比与腹腔镜手术在直肠癌患者术后的泌尿性功能保护方面具有一定优势.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Low Anterior Resection: Equivalent Survival in a National Analysis of 14,033 Patients With Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine survival of patients who underwent minimally invasive versus open low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Utilization of laparoscopic and robotic LAR for rectal cancer has steadily increased. Short-term outcomes between these techniques and open surgery have shown equivalent results; however, survival outcomes are unknown.

METHODS

Adults from the National Cancer Data Base undergoing LAR for rectal adenocarcinoma were identified. Patients were stratified by intent-to-treat into open (OLAR) or minimally invasive LAR (MI-LAR). Multivariable modeling was used to compare short-term outcomes and survival between MI-LAR and OLAR and between laparoscopic (LLAR) and robotic LAR (RLAR).

RESULTS

Among 14,033 patients included, 57.8% underwent OLAR and 42.2% MI-LAR. After adjustment, MI-LAR was associated with shorter length of stay (P < 0.001), but similar rates of positive margins, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and use of adjuvant therapies (all P > 0.05). At 36 months, there was no difference in adjusted risk of mortality between MI-LAR and OLAR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, P = 0.089). In a subgroup analysis of LLAR versus RLAR, there were no differences in lymph node harvest, margin positivity, length of stay, readmission rate, 30-day mortality, or overall survival after adjustment (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive LAR for rectal cancer is associated with similar overall survival with the benefit of shorter hospitalization. Although the conversion rate is lower, robotic LAR is not associated with superior oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic LAR. Our findings support the ongoing adoption of minimally invasive techniques for rectal adenocarcinoma.

Long-term outcomes and propensity score matching analysis: rectal cancer resection for patients with elevated preoperative risk

BACKGROUND

It is still controversial about the treatment strategy for rectal cancer patients with elevated operative risk and elder rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

This study presented a retrospective single center experience in rectal cancer proctectomy for high operative risk patients. High operative risk patient was defined as Cr-POSSUM > 5% combined with associated risk factors. 220 in 1477 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

132 patients were selected (66:66) after propensity score matching. The total complication rate between conventional open rectal resection (71 %) and laparoscopic surgery (41%) was significantly different (p = 0.0005). There is a significantly positive correlation between open surgery and advanced Dindo Classification (p = 0.02). Cr-POSSUM is positively correlated with Dindo Classification (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in survival rate among stage I∼II, different age groups or different Cr-POSSUM score sub-groups. However, stage III-IV tumor patients in laparoscopic group experienced improved overall survival rate. (p < 0.0001). For patients with preoperative pulmonary or renal disease, patients in laparoscopic group also had better long term prognosis (p = 0.03, p = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate the potential advantages of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection for high operative risk patients, especially for the patients with preoperative respiratory or renal disease and stage III cancer.

Survival outcomes following laparoscopic versus open D3 dissection for stage II or III colon cancer (JCOG0404): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:261-268. [PMID: 28404155 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(16)30207-2]

BACKGROUND

Although benefits of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery have been suggested, the long-term survival of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer requiring Japanese D3 dissection remains unclear. We did a randomised controlled trial to establish non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgery to open surgery.

METHODS

We did an open-label, multi-institutional, randomised, two-arm phase 3 trial in 30 hospitals in Japan. Patients aged 20-75 years who had histologically proven colon cancer; tumours located in the caecum or ascending, sigmoid, or rectosigmoid colon; T3 or deeper lesions without involvement of other organs, node stages N0-2, and metastasis stage M0; and tumour size of 8 cm or smaller were included. Only accredited surgeons did surgery as an operator or instructor. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) preoperatively to undergo D3 resection either by an open route or a laparoscopic route, via phone call or fax to the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Data Center. Randomisation used a minimisation method with a biased-coin assignment according to tumour location (caecum, ascending vs sigmoid, rectosigmoid) and institution. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio (HR) was set at 1·366. This study is registered with UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number C000000105, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00147134.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 1, 2004, and March 27, 2009, 1057 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=528) or laparoscopic surgery (n=529). 5-year overall survival was 90·4% (95% CI 87·5-92·6) for open surgery and 91·8% (89·1-93·8) for laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic D3 surgery was not non-inferior to open surgery for overall survival (HR 1·06, 90% CI 0·79-1·41; p_{non-inferiority}=0·073). 65 (13%) patients in the open surgery group and 53 (10%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group had grade 2-4 adverse events. Grade 2-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (15 [3%] in the open surgery group vs 14 [3%] in the laparoscopic surgery group), paralytic ileus (six [1%] vs nine [2%]), and small intestine bowel obstruction (16 [3%] vs 11 [2%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the open surgery group: one patient died 7 days after surgery (probably due to myocardial infarction), and one patient died from febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, diarrhoea, and gastrointestinal haemorrhage during postoperative chemotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

Laparoscopic D3 surgery was not non-inferior to open D3 surgery in terms of overall survival for patients with stage II or III colon cancer. However, because overall survival in both groups was similar and better than expected, laparoscopic D3 surgery could be an acceptable treatment option for patients with stage II or III colon cancer.

FUNDING

National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research, and Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant for Clinical Cancer Research from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Single center cost analysis of single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgical treatment in colorectal malignant diseases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) is a relatively new technique, used in various procedures. There is limited knowledge about the cost effectiveness and the learning curve of this technique. The primary aim of this study was to compare hospital costs between SPL and conventional laparoscopic resections (CLR) for colorectal cancer; the secondary aim was to identify a learning curve of SPL.

METHODS

All elective colorectal cancer SPL and CLR performed in a major teaching hospital between 2011 and 2012 that were registered in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were included (n = 267). The economic evaluation was conducted from a hospital perspective, and costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology up to 90 days after discharge. When looking at SPL only, the introduction year (2011) was compared to the next year (2012).

RESULTS

SPL (n = 78) was associated with lower mortality, lower reintervention rates, and more complications as compared to CLR (n = 189); however, none of these differences were statistically significant. A significant shorter operating time was seen in the SPL. Total costs were higher for SPL group as compared to CLR; however, this difference was not statistically significant. For the SPL group, most clinical outcomes improved between 2011 and 2012; moreover, total hospital costs for SPL in 2012 became comparable to CLR.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in financial outcomes between SPL and CLR were identified. After the introduction period, SPL showed similar results as compared to CLR. Conclusions are based on a small single-port group and the conclusions of this manuscript should be an impetus for further research.

Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in less post-operative pain, faster recovery, shorter length of stay and reduced morbidity compared with open procedures. Less or minimally invasive techniques have been developed to further minimise surgical trauma and to decrease the size and number of incisions. This study describes the safety and feasibility of using an umbilical multi-instrument access (MIA) port (Olympus TriPort+) device with the placement of just one 12-mm suprapubic trocar in laparoscopic (double-port) abdominoperineal resections (APRs) in rectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 20 patients undergoing double-port APRs for rectal cancer between June 2011 and August 2013. Preoperative data were gathered in a prospective database, and post-operative data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

The 20 patients (30% female) had a median age of 67 years (range 46-80 years), and their median body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/m2 (range 20-31 kg/m2). An additional third trocar was placed in 2 patients. No laparoscopic procedures were converted to an open procedure. Median operating time was 195 min (range 115-306 min). A radical resection (R0 resection) was achieved in all patients, with a median of 14 lymph nodes harvested. Median length of stay was 8 days (range 5-43 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic APR using a MIA trocar is a feasible and safe procedure. A MIA port might be of benefit as an extra option in the toolbox of the laparoscopic surgeon to further minimise surgical trauma.

Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Recent randomized controlled data have shown possible limitations to laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer. The retrospective data, used as the basis for designing the trials, and which showed no problems with the technique, are discussed. The design of the randomized trials is discussed relative to the future meta-analysis of the recent data. The implications of the current findings on practice are discussed as surgeons try to adjust their practice to the new findings. The possible next steps for clinical and research innovations are put into perspective as new technology is considered to compensate for newly identified limitations in the laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: A valid option for rectal cancer?

Low anterior resection can be a challenging operation, especially in obese male patients and in particular after radiotherapy. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) might offer technical advantages over laparoscopic or open approaches particularly for tumors in the distal third of the rectum. The aim of this article is to review the current experience with TaTME. The limits and future developments are also explored. Although the experience with TaTME is still limited, it might be a promising alternative to laparoscopic TME, especially for difficult cases where laparoscopy is too demanding. The preliminary data on complications and short-term oncological outcomes are good, but also emphasize the importance of careful patient selection. Finally, there is a need for large-scale trials focusing on long-term outcomes and oncological safety before widespread adoption can be recommended.

Quality of life in non-early rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy and endoluminal loco-regional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

In selected patients with N0 rectal cancer, endoluminal loco-regional resection (ELRR) by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) may be an alternative treatment option to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME). Aim of this study is to evaluate the short- and medium-term quality of life (QoL) from a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in patients with iT2-iT3 N0-N+ rectal cancer, who underwent ELRR by TEM or LTME after neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy (n-RCT).

METHODS

Thirty patients with iT2-iT3 rectal cancer who underwent ELRR by TEM (n = 15) or LTME (n = 15) were enrolled in this study. The choice for one operation or the other was made on the basis of predefined criteria. QoL was evaluated by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires at admission, after n-RCT and 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in QoL evaluation were observed between the two groups, both at admission and after n-RCT. At 1 month after surgery, significantly better results in the ELRR group were observed by QLQ-C30 in: Nausea/Vomiting (p = 0.05), Appetite Loss (p = 0.003), Constipation (p = 0.05), and by QLQ-CR38 in: Body Image (p = 0.05), Sexual Functioning (p = 0.03), Future Perspective (p = 0.05) and Weight Loss (p = 0.036). At 6 months after surgery, a statistically significant worse impact after LTME was observed by QLQ-C30 in: Global Health Status (p = 0.05), Emotional Functioning (p = 0.021), Dyspnea (p = 0.008), Insomnia (p = 0.012), Appetite Loss (p = 0.014) and by QLQ-CR38 in Body Image (p = 0.05) and Defecation Problems (p = 0.001). At 1 year, the two groups were homogenous as assessed by QLQ-C30, whereas the QLQ-CR38 still showed better results of ELRR versus LTME in Body Image (p = 0.006), Defecation Problems (p = 0.01), and Weight Loss (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present series, in selected patients, earlier restoration of patients' functions is observed after ELRR by TEM than after LTME.

Laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results from the national cancer data base

BACKGROUND

While the use of laparoscopy has increased among patients undergoing colorectal surgery, there is ongoing debate regarding the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopy compared to open low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The 2010-2011 NCDB was queried for patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer. Subjects were grouped by laparoscopic (LLAR) versus open (OLAR) technique. Baseline characteristics were compared. Subjects were propensity matched, and outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 18,765 patients were identified (34.3% LLAR, 65.7% OLAR). After propensity matching, all baseline variables were highly similar except for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level. Complete resection was more common in patients undergoing LLAR (91.6 vs. 88.9%, p < 0.001), and statistically significant benefits were observed for gross, microscopic, and circumferential (>1 mm) margins (all p < 0.001). There was no difference in median number of lymph nodes obtained (15 vs. 15). Patients undergoing LLAR had shorter lengths of stay (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001) without a corresponding increase in 30-day readmission rates (6 vs. 7%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic LAR appears to result in equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes compared to the traditional open approach as measured via surrogate endpoints in the NCDB. While these results support the increasing use of laparoscopy in rectal surgery, further data are necessary to assess long-term outcomes.

Use of Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass in laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

The occurrence of anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major concern in the early postoperative stage. Because of the relatively high morbidity and mortality of AL in patients with laparoscopic low rectal cancer who receive an anterior resection, a fecal diverting method is usually introduced. The Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass (VIB) was used in open rectal resection, and played a role of protecting the anastomotic site. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the VIB in protecting laparoscopic low rectal anastomosis and to compare the efficacy and complications of VIB with those of loop ileostomy (LI). Medical records of the 43 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective laparoscopic low anterior resection and received VIB procedure or LI between May 2011 and May 2013 were retrospectively analyzed, including the patients' demographics, clinical features, and operative data. Twenty-four patients received a VIB and 19 patients a LI procedure. Most of the demographics and clinical features of the groups, including Dukes stages, were similar. However, the median distance of the tumor edge from the anus verge in the VIB group was significantly longer (7.5 cm; inter-quartile range [IQR] 7.0-9.5 cm) than that of the L1 group (6.0 cm; IQR 6.0-7.0 cm). None of the patients developed clinical AL. The comparisons between the LI and the VIB groups were adjusted for the significant differences in the tumor level of the groups. After adjustment, the LI group experienced longer overall postoperative hospital stay (14.0 days, IQR: 12.0, 16.0 days; P < 0.001) and incurred higher costs ($6300 (IQR: $5900, $6600)) than the VIB group (7.0 days, $4800; P < 0.05). Stoma-related complications in the ileostomy group included dermatitis (n = 2), stoma bleeding (n = 1), and wound infection after closure (n = 2). No BAR-related complications occurred. The mean time to Valtrac™ ring loosening was 14.1 ± 3.2 days. The VIB procedure, as a good partner with the laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, appears to be a safe and effective, but time-limited, diverting technique to protect an elective low colorectal anastomosis.

Have early postoperative complications from laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery improved over the past 20 years?

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been increasingly used since 1991 following the publication of the first case series. Since then, several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is challenging with associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine if the rates of early postoperative complications in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have improved over the past 20 years.

METHOD

A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases between August 1991 and August 2011 was conducted using the keywords laparoscopy, rectal cancer and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using linear regression ANOVA performed in GNUMERICS software.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included for analysis. Over the last 20 years there has been no significant change in the rate of any early postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, conversion, sexual, urinary or faecal dysfunction, wound infection, overall morbidity or mortality). However, in the last 3 years, the rate of positive resection margins has decreased significantly (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of a statistically significant change in early postoperative complications until 3 years ago. This may reflect the inherent morbidity associated with rectal surgery regardless of the approach used, the limitations of the current laparoscopic instrumentation or the relatively long learning curve. With increasing experience, a repeat analysis in the near future following the publication of ongoing randomized clinical trials might show improved outcomes.

Comparing incidence of enterocolitis after laparoscopic and open low anterior resection for stage II/III rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

We recently observed an increased incidence of severe enterocolitis following laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) in some patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. This study aimed to examine the influence of laparoscopic LAR on postoperative enterocolitis compared with open LAR for Stage II/III rectal cancer.

METHODS

From April 2002 to March 2012, we evaluated 65 patients with stage II/III cancer of the upper or lower rectum who underwent LAR. Among these, 27 patients underwent open LAR and 38 underwent laparoscopic LAR. First, we compared short-term outcomes between the two groups. Next, we evaluated the incidence of postoperative enterocolitis in the laparoscopic LAR group. The clinicopathological factors were examined by univariate and odds ratio (OR) analysis.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis revealed significant differences in the occupancy rate, tumor location, depth of tumor invasion, operative time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative enterocolitis between the laparoscopic and open groups. Postoperative enterocolitis developed in 6 of 38 patients (15.8%) in the laparoscopic group and in no patient in the open group. The occurrence of postoperative enterocolitis was significantly associated with BMI (≥28 kg/m(2) ), operative time, and wound infection in the laparoscopic LAR group (OR: 0.11, 95% confidence interval: 0.044-0.280, P < 0.05; OR: 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.068-1.835, P < 0.05; and OR: 15.0, 95% confidence interval, 1.752-128.310, P < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative enterocolitis occurred more frequently after laparoscopic LAR than after open LAR in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. Clinical management in the perioperative period of laparoscopic LAR is necessary to prevent postoperative enterocolitis in obese patients and those with a prolonged operative time.

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome.

METHOD

An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.

Niti CAR 27 Versus a Conventional End-to-End Anastomosis Stapler in a Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Sigmoid Colon Cancer

PURPOSE

The Niti CAR 27 (ColonRing) uses compression to create an anastomosis. This study aimed to investigate the safety and the effectiveness of the anastomosis created with the Niti CAR 27 in a laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer.

METHODS

In a single-center study, 157 consecutive patients who received an operation between March 2010 and December 2011 were retrospectively assessed. The Niti CAR 27 (CAR group, 63 patients) colorectal anastomoses were compared with the conventional double-stapled (CDS group, 94 patients) colorectal anastomoses. Intraoperative, immediate postoperative and 6-month follow-up data were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, tumor location and other clinical characteristics. One patient (1.6%) in the CAR group and 2 patients (2.1%) in the CDS group experienced complications of anastomotic leakage (P = 0.647). These three patients underwent a diverting loop ileostomy. There were 2 cases (2.1%) of bleeding at the anastomosis site in the CDS group. All patients underwent a follow-up colonoscopy (median, 6 months). One patient in the CAR group experienced anastomotic stricture (1.6% vs. 0%; P = 0.401). This complication was solved by using balloon dilatation.

CONCLUSION

Anastomosis using the Niti CAR 27 device in a laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer is safe and feasible. Its use is equivalent to that of the conventional double-stapler.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence.

Laparoscopic and converted approaches to rectal cancer resection have superior long-term outcomes: a comparative study by operative approach. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1940-1948. [PMID: 24515259 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3419-8]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes for rectal cancer resection by operative approach. Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic (LAP) and LAP converted to open (OPEN) rectal cancer resections have excellent patient and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified curative rectal cancer resections. Patients were stratified by operative approach: LAP, OPEN, or CONVERTED. Oncologic and clinical outcomes data was examined for each operative approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 294 patients were analyzed-116 LAP (39.5%), 153 OPEN (52.0%), and 25 (8.5%) CONVERTED. Groups were comparable in demographics. Mean distal margin, circumferential resection margin, and lymph nodes harvested were comparable. The median length of stay was 4 days (range 1-20) LAP, 6 days (range 3-13) CONVERTED, and 8 days (range 1-35) OPEN (p < 0.01). More OPEN had postoperative complications (p < 0.01)-complication rates were 43.8% OPEN, 32.0% CONVERTED, and 21.5 % LAP. Unplanned readmissions and reoperations were similar (21.6% OPEN, 16.0% CONVERTED, 12.1% LAP). Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 98.3%, and local recurrence rate was 2.0%. By approach, DFS was 100% CONVERTED, 93.1% LAP, and 87.6% OPEN (p = 0.31). Overall survival (OS) was 100 % CONVERTED, 99.1% LAP, and 97.4%. OPEN. Local recurrence was 0% CONVERTED, 2% OPEN, and 2.6% LAP. 3-year DFS for LAP and CONVERTED was superior to OPEN (p = 0.05), with comparable local recurrence (p = 0.07) and OS rates (0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

LAP and converted procedures have comparable or superior clinical and oncologic outcomes. More procedures should be approached through a LAP approach. If the procedure cannot be completed laparoscopically, outcomes are not compromised for converted patients.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: outcomes in 513 patients

BACKGROUND

Few reports have demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic resection in patients with rectal cancer (RC). The objective of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic resection for RC, with an emphasis on perioperative variables and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective study was carried out between January 2005 and September 2010 and included 513 patients diagnosed with RC who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Patients with locally advanced RC (cT3/cT4 or N+) received neoadjuvant treatment. Adjuvant treatment was applied to patients with stage II/III disease or according to the neoadjuvant protocol. All patients were followed-up prospectively for the evaluation of complications and oncological outcome. Survival rate analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed on 389 patients, and the remaining 124 patients underwent abdominoperineal resection. Perioperative mortality occurred in only one patient (0.2 %), and 27 (5.3 %) intraoperative complications were recorded. The most common postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage (5.5 %). The conversion rate was 6.4 %. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 23.6 ± 13. The mean distance to the distal margin was 2.6 ± 1.9 (0-7) cm. Distal margin positivity was detected in 9 (1.7 %) patients. The circumferential margin was positive in 39 (7.6 %) cases. After a median follow-up period of 30 (1-78) months, recurrence occurred in a total of 59 patients (11.5 %). Local recurrence was detected in 16 patients (3.1 %), and both local and distant recurrence was found in 7 patients (1.4 %). Distant recurrence only was detected in 43 patients (8.4 %). The overall 5-year survival rate was 84 %, and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.4 %. The local recurrence-free survival rate was 98.4 % at 2 years, 95.7 % at 3 years, and 94.3 % at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results, together with the review of the literature, clearly demonstrate that laparoscopic resection for RC is a feasible method at specialized high-volume centers. The long-term outcomes are at least as good as those from open surgery as long as the principles of oncologic surgery are respected and faithfully performed.

Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer results in higher lymph node yield and better short-term outcomes than open surgery: a large single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

Prognosis in rectal cancer is closely related to mesorectal integrity, margin status, and adequate lymph node dissection. The impact of laparoscopy on the pathologic and short-term outcomes remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare the pathologic and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This is a large single-center retrospective comparative study using a prospective database.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent primary resections for rectal cancer from January 2007 to September 2011 were identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pathologic (nodal harvest, mesorectal integrity, circumferential, and distal margins) and operative outcomes were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-four (mean age, 61 years; 65% male) patients underwent resections for primary rectal cancer, including 118 laparoscopic (99 restorative proctectomies, 19 abdominoperineal resections) and 116 open (69 restorative proctectomies, 47 abdominoperineal resections) resections. Both groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and tumor characteristics. The laparoscopic group had significantly more lymph nodes (26 vs 21, p = 0.02) than the open group, with no differences in circumferential margins, proportion of distal resection margins <l cm, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. The impact of laparoscopic resection on lymph nodes was also observed for restorative proctectomy (27 vs 21, p = 0.03). Furthermore, obese and laparoscopic-converted patients had equivalent pathologic outcomes for laparoscopic and open resection. Laparoscopy was associated with longer operative time (245 vs 213 minutes, p = 0.002); less blood loss (284 vs 388 mL, p = 0.01); shorter incisions (8 vs 20 cm, p = 0.0001) and hospital stay (7 vs 8 days, p = 0.05); and lower rates of 30-day morbidity (25% vs 43%, p = 0.04) and wound infections (9 vs 20%, p = 0.04). On multivariate regression, laparoscopic resection and year of surgery were the only independent predictors of greater lymph node harvest.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy for primary rectal cancer is associated with a greater number of lymph nodes as well as short-term benefits.

An extended medial to lateral approach to mobilize the splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study of laparoscopic low anterior resection was to compare splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) carried out by an extended medial to lateral approach with that by a lateral approach.

METHOD

Records of patients with rectal cancer on a prospectively maintained database undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection performed between January 2009 and November 2011 by a single surgeon were analysed. The extended medial to lateral approach involved continuing the medial to lateral approach upwards to enter the lesser sac over the pancreas, thus permitting detachment of the splenic flexure.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-seven patients, including 164 undergoing a lateral SFM and 73 an extended medial to lateral SFM, were evaluated. Both patient groups had similar characteristics except for operative time (152.7 ± 32.7 min extended medial to lateral; 171.5 ± 40.8 min lateral; P < 0.001), postoperatively the interval to oral intake (3.1 ± 0.8 days extended medial to lateral; 3.7 ± 0.9 lateral; P < 0.001) and duration of hospital stay (8.2 ± 2.8 days extended medial to lateral; 10.3 ± 7.5 days lateral; P = 0.002) favoured the extended medial to lateral group.

CONCLUSION

An extended medial to lateral approach for SFM during laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer appears to be an improvement over the previously used lateral approach, because it may provide a shorter operation time and shorter hospital stay.

Outcome of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer: a critical appraisal

Despite the wide application of laparoscopic surgery for various common surgical conditions, the development of laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been slow. The obstacle for its advancement is formed by a steep learning curve and concerns about the oncologic safety in cases of malignant diseases. With refinement in instrumentation and improvement in surgical techniques in recent years, laparoscopic colectomy has become a safe and feasible procedure. The short-term advantages in terms of quicker recovery of bowel function, less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay of laparoscopic colectomy over conventional treatment seem to be indisputable. Results from large prospective randomized trials revealed the oncologic outcome to be comparable between the two treatments. Furthermore, the incidence of port-site metastasis was shown to be similar between the two approaches. For rectal cancer, laparoscopic-assisted total mesorectal excision has been shown to be a safe and feasible procedure. The incidence of postoperative morbidity including anastomotic leakage appears to be comparable between the two treatments. However, the long-term outcome especially for local recurrence and overall survival remains uncertain. Prospective randomized study with long follow-up is required to elucidate this issue.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of results of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare LTME and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) as the primary treatment for patients with middle and low rectal cancer with regard to short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) and manual searches up to October 30, 2011 were performed. Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated by LTME versus OTME. Fixed and random effects models were used. Review Manager version 5.1 software was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

Four RCTs enrolling 624 participants (LTME group, 308 cases; OTME group, 316 cases) were included in the meta-analysis. LTME for rectal cancer was associated with a significantly longer operative time but significantly less intraoperative blood loss and earlier time to pass first flatus. We found no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes, overall morbidity, and perioperative mortality rates between the two groups. Time to resume liquid diet, time to resume normal diet, and length of hospital stay, although not significantly different between the two groups, did suggest a positive trend toward LTME.

CONCLUSIONS

It may be concluded that LTME is a safe and effective alternative to OTME and is justifiable under the setting of clinical trials. Additional RCTs that compare LTME and OTME and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of LTME are required to determine the advantages of LTME over OTME.

Feasibility of purely laparoscopic resection of locally advanced rectal cancer in obese patients

Background

Totally laparoscopic (without hand-assist) resection for rectal cancer continues to evolve, and both obesity and locally advanced disease are perceived to add to the complexity of these procedures. There is a paucity of data on the impact of obesity on perioperative and oncologic outcomes for totally-laparoscopic rectal cancer resection (TLRR) for locally advanced disease.

Methods

In order to identify potential limitations of TLRR, a single-institution database was queried and identified 26 patients that underwent TLRR for locally advanced rectal cancers (T3/T4) over a three-year period. Patients were classified as normal-weight (NW, body mass index (BMI)=18.5 to 24.9kg/m2), overweight (OW, BMI=25 to 29.9kg/m2) and obese (OB, BMI >/= 30kg/m2). Perioperative outcomes, lymph node harvest and margin status were assessed.

Results

Seven patients were classified as NW (26.9%), 12 as OW (46.2%) and 7 as OB (26.9%). Age, tumor stage, gender and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were similar. OB had more co-morbidities (median 3.0, range 0.0 to 5.0 vs. 2.0, range 0.0 to 3.0 for NW and 1.0, range 0.0 to 3.0 for OW). Five patients had tumors <5cm from anal verge (NW=2; OW=1; OB=2). A median of 19.0, range 9.0 to 32.0; 20.0, range 9.0 to 46.0 and 19.0, range 15.0 to 31.0 lymph nodes were retrieved in the NW, OW and OB, respectively (Not Significant (NS)). Median node ratios for NW, OW and OB were 0.32, 0.13 and 0.00, respectively. All groups had negative proximal and distal margins. Radial margins were negative for 100% of NW, 83.3% of OW and 85.7% of OB (NS). Conversion rates were 14.3% for NW, 16.7% for OW & 0% for OB (NS). NW, OW and OB had complication rates of 28.3%, 33.3% and 14.3%, respectively. Median operative time, median estimated blood loss and median length of hospital stay were similar for all groups.

Conclusion

The perceived limitation that obesity would have on TLRR was not demonstrated by the analyzed data. Although our findings are limited by the modest sized cohort, the results suggest that it is reasonable to offer TLRR to obese patients with rectal cancer.

Postoperative morbidity after fast-track laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer

AIM

Analysis was carried out of the nature and chronological order of early complications after fast-track laparoscopic rectal surgery with a view to optimizing the short-time outcome of rectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

A total of 102 consecutive patients who underwent elective fast-track laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were analysed prospectively from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Database supplemented by data from the medical records. We studied in detail the nature and chronological order of postoperative morbidity and reason for prolonged stay (> 5 days).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (25%) had one or more complications. Surgical complications occurred in 19 patients, while six patients had medical complications as the primary event. Fifteen patients underwent reoperation, three died, and eight were readmitted within 30 days. The median length of stay was 5 days (range 2-42).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative morbidity remains a significant problem in the fast-track era, even in experienced surgical hands. Our results suggest that besides improvement of surgical technique further improvement of outcome lies in early recognition and proper treatment of complications and the perioperative optimization of organ function.

Complete versus partial mobilization of splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal tumors: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study is to compare the results after partial and complete splenic flexure mobilization (SFM).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The records of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic procedures for primary rectal tumor patients were abstracted from a prospectively designed database. The phrenicocolic and splenocolic ligaments were divided via a four-trocar technique in the partial SFM group, and dissection was continued with the separation of gastrocolic and pancreaticomesocolic attachments via a five-trocar procedure in the complete SFM group. The following data were compared between the groups: Demographics, intra- and postoperative information, and pathological features.

RESULTS

In total, 122 cases (77 [63.1%] male, 58.2±13.2 years old) who underwent a partial (n=36, 29.5%) or a complete (n=86, 70.5%) SFM were included. Reservoir creation (48.8% versus 19.4%, P=.003) was more common and conversion (8.1% versus 22.2%, P=.039) was less frequent in the complete SFM group, but there were significantly more T4 tumors in the partial group (16.7% versus 2.3%, P=.008). Demographics, other intra- and postoperative parameters, and pathological features were identical.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, complete SFM decreased conversion rates, but this finding may be related to the higher rate of T4 tumors in the partial SFM group. Complete SFM assures an increase in reservoir creation in patients receiving a low anterior resection. Because other parameters are identical, the decision for the level of SFM is better left to the surgeon in cases undergoing a low anterior resection, but complete SFM may be preferred in cases who are candidates for a reservoir formation.

Laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for cancer: how patient selection and complications differ by approach

BACKGROUND

Outcomes between laparoscopic (LAPR) and open abdominoperineal resections (OAPR) are poorly described.

METHODS

After IRB approval, 2005-2008 NSQIP data were used to identify patients undergoing LAPR and OAPR for rectal cancer. Logistic regression identified variables influencing the selection of LAPR vs. OAPR as well as the likelihood of postoperative events. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the incidence of 30-day postoperative events.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred ninety-seven OAPRs and 143 LAPRs were identified. LAPRs were less likely to have a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 (p = 0.04) and were associated with equivalent mean operative times (p = 0.36). LAPRs and OAPRs were found to have similar rates of surgical site infections (p = 0.13), transfusion requirements (p = 0.17), myocardial infarction (p = 0.48), and need for reoperation within 30 days (p = 0.20). Neoadjuvant radiotherapy did not directly increase complication rates in either group. Few factors predicted choice of LAPR but included BMI <25 (OR, 1.54; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Complication rates between LAPR and OAPR were similar despite the greater technical challenge of LAPR. Wound infection rates were equivalent, which may reflect similar rates of perineal wound infections. Few patients are offered LAPR, possibly due to surgeon preferance as opposed to patient factors.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: review of published literature 2000-2009

We reviewed seven reports of laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) alone for rectal cancer and 18 reports of laparoscopic surgery, including LAR. We examined the length of surgery, blood loss during surgery, conversion rate to open surgery, incidence of anastomotic leakage, morbidity, mortality, and local recurrence, and the 5-year overall survival rates. The values were as follows (range): length of surgery, 107-540 min vs 23-780 min; blood loss, 0-600 ml vs 0-1800 ml; conversion to open surgery, 0%-14.0% vs 1.0%-21.9%; anastomotic leakage, 0%-23.0% vs 3.0%-17.0%; morbidity, 6.1%-38.6% vs 5.8%-40.0%; mortality, 0%-2.0% vs 05-5.8%; and local recurrence, 1.4%-6.8% vs 0.95%-20.8%, respectively, in the LAR alone vs laparoscopic surgery groups. The 5-year overall survival rates of patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease were 92%-98%, 79%-81%, 67%-89%, and 0%-15%, respectively, in the LAR alone group versus 85.4%-100%, 61.7%-94.4%, 53.7%-78%, and 0%-44.6%, respectively, in the laparoscopic surgery group. Thus, we demonstrated the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: early and late results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy is superior to open colectomy in terms of short-term surgical outcomes. There is solid evidence indicating that laparoscopic and open surgery are equally effective for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, the issues of neoadjuvant treatment, the need for total mesorectal excision and autonomic nerve preservation, and the technical demands of a well-constructed low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis challenge even the most specialized surgeons. This review discusses the available evidence on short-term and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic MEDLINE and Embase searches of outcomes on laparoscopic total mesorectal excision were conducted and data were retrieved.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on short-term and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision remains limited. Data are mainly retrospective and from randomized studies based on few cases that had minimal follow-up. Early non-oncologic surgical outcomes seem improved after laparoscopy, but an increased rate of positive circumferential resection margins has been detected. Though scarce, the available evidence on recurrence and survival does not indicates disadvantages to the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopy for rectal cancer

Several large case series and single-institution trials have shown that laparoscopy is feasible for rectal cancer. Pending the results of the UK CLASICC, COLOR II, Japanese JCOG 0404, and ACOSOG Z6051 trials, the oncologic and long-term safety of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is unclear and the technique is best used at centers that can effectively collect and analyze outcomes data. Robotic and endoluminal techniques may change our approach to the treatment of rectal cancer in the future. Training, credentialing, and quality control are important considerations as new and innovative surgical treatments for rectal cancer are developed.

Laparoscopic vs open resection for patients with rectal cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to assess the safety and oncologic feasibility of laparoscopic-assisted resection for rectal cancer vs open rectal resection as a phase II pilot study for a planned randomized control trial.

METHODS

A case-matched controlled prospective analysis of 54 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection for stage I to III (no T4) rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge from 2002 to 2005 was performed. Patients were matched with contemporary patients who underwent open rectal cancer surgery (n = 108) in a 1 to 2 fashion. The perioperative clinical outcomes, postoperative pathology, and oncologic outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The demographic data did not differ significantly between the groups. The laparoscopic group manifested early return of bowel function (P = .003). The complication rate was 22.2% in the laparoscopic group and 32.4% in the open group (P = .178). Local recurrence was similar (2.0% laparoscopic, 4.2% open, P = .417). The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rate also were similar (overall survival, 90.8% laparoscopic, 88.5% open, P = .261; disease-free survival, 80.8% laparoscopic, 75.8% open. P = .390).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic-assisted resection for rectal cancer was acceptable in terms of oncologic outcomes and perioperative clinical outcomes. The present data are the basis for a large-scale randomized trial for comparison of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgeries (American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z6051).

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: The state of the art

At present time, there is evidence from randomized controlled studies of the success of laparoscopic resection for the treatment of colon cancer with reported smaller incisions, lower morbidity rate and earlier recovery compared to open surgery. Technical limitations and a steep learning curve have limited the wide application of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer. The present article discusses the current status of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. A review of the more recent retrospective, prospective and randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer including the role of trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery and robotics was performed. A particular emphasis was dedicated to mid and low rectal cancers. Few prospective and RCT trials specifically addressing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are currently available in the literature. Improved short-term outcomes in term of lesser intraoperative blood loss, reduced analgesic requirements and a shorter hospital stay have been demonstrated. Concerns have recently been raised in the largest RCT trial of the oncological adequacy of laparoscopy in terms of increased rate of circumferential margin. This data however was not confirmed by other prospective comparative studies. Moreover, a similar local recurrence rate has been reported in RCT and comparative series. Similar findings of overall and disease free survival have been reported but the follow-up time period is too short in all these studies and the few RCT trials currently available do not draw any definitive conclusions. On the basis of available data in the literature, the mini-invasive approach to rectal cancer surgery has some short-term advantages and does not seem to confer any disadvantage in term of local recurrence. With respect to long-term survival, a definitive answer cannot be given at present time as the results of RCT trials focused on long-term survival currently ongoing are still to fully clarify this issue.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: experience of a single center with a series of 174 patients. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:508-514. [PMID: 20607560 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1202-z]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer is not considered a gold standard treatment due to the high conversion rate and the long operation time.

METHODS

A retrospective review examined a surgical series of 174 laparoscopic low rectal resections involving total mesorectal excision (1995-2006), with particular reference to technical points as well as surgical and oncologic outcomes. Miles operations and partial mesorectal excisions were excluded.

RESULTS

The cancer affected the low rectum in 110 cases and the medium rectum in 64 cases. A total of 68 patients were subjected to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. The anastomosis was mechanical for 83.3% of the cases and intersphinteric through the perineum for 16.6% of the cases. Protective ileostomy was performed in 112 cases. The conversion rate was 4.6%. The mesorectum remained intact in 91.6% of the cases and was partially interrupted in 15 of the cases. In no case was it totally discontinued. The postoperative morbidity rate was 16.7%, and the mortality rate was 0.57%. The incidence of anastomotic fistulas was 14.4%. The percentage was higher for males (18.6 vs 8.3%) and correlated with the low distance of the tumor from the anal verge (18.2 vs 7.8%) and the absence of a protection ileostomy (20.9 vs 10.7%). After an average follow-up period of 48.6 months (range, 24-149 months), six patients (3.44%) experienced a pelvic recurrence. The 5-year overall survival rate was 75.4%, and the disease-free survival rate was 61.9%.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer is safe and effective, allowing surgical and oncologic outcomes similar to those reported for open surgery.

Laparoscopic approaches to rectal cancer

Laparoscopic colectomy has been proven oncologically equivalent to conventional surgery and is now generally agreed to offer patients a reduced length of stay, shorter recovery times, and improved cosmesis. In contrast, acceptance of laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer has been much delayed and the enthusiasm of early studies has met considerable skepticism. For rectal cancer, it has been demonstrated that there is considerable variation between surgeons in disease-free survival and local pelvic recurrence after open proctectomy for rectal cancer. These differences are likely to be magnified when the technical challenge of laparoscopy is added to proctectomy. Minimally invasive approaches to rectal cancer need to demonstrate equivalent oncologic outcomes and maintenance or improvement in quality of life. This review will outline the current evidence for laparoscopy as a treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, emphasize the need for standardized approaches among multidisciplinary teams, and highlight the technical details of different laparoscopic operations for rectal cancer.