Influence of conversion on the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer compared with primarily open resection

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of conversion on perioperative and short- and long-term oncologic outcomes in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer and to compare these with those for an open control group.

Methods

The data of 276 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer between 2006 and 2010 at a single institution were prospectively collected. Of the 276 patients, 114 underwent primarily open surgery, and 162 underwent laparoscopic surgery (on an intention-to-treat basis). Of the 162 laparoscopic patients, 38 (23.5 %) underwent conversion to open surgery. The three groups of patients were compared: the conversion surgery group, the open surgery group, and the completed laparoscopy surgery group.

Results

The converted patients had more wound infections (18.4 vs 4.8 %, p = 0.009), but the wound infection rate in the primarily open group also was significantly higher than in the laparoscopic resection group (p = 0.007). No further differences in perioperative morbidity, including anastomotic leakage, were found. The perioperative 30-day mortality rate was comparable between all the groups (0.6 vs 2.6 vs 2.6 %, nonsignificant difference). The oncologic parameters such as number of harvested lymph nodes and rate of R0 resection were equal in all the groups. The completed laparoscopy group had a shorter hospital stay [12 vs 16 days in the primarily open group (p = 0.02) vs 15 days in the converted group (p = 0.03)]. The rates for survival, local recurrence (4.5 vs 3 vs 3 %), and metachronous metastasis (10.1 vs 9.3 vs 9 %) did not differ significantly between the three groups after a period of 3 years.

Conclusion

Conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic rectal resection has no negative effect on perioperative or long-term oncologic outcome.     

Outcome of Tumor-Specific Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: The Impact of Laparoscopic Resection

Objective

The study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer in 1,063 consecutive cases in a single center.

Methods

We performed an analysis of 11 years of experience in rectal cancer surgery and compared the outcome of laparoscopic and open surgery. Multivariate and subgroup analysis was performed to look at the effect of the level of tumor and stage of disease on short-term outcomes like conversion rate, anastomotic leak rate, length of stay, complication rate, 30-day mortality, and long-term outcomes like local recurrence and survival.

Results

A total of 1,063 patients underwent rectal resection with 470 (44.2 %) patients undergoing the laparoscopic approach. Groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, or co-morbidities, and the operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group (210 vs. 150 min; p value < 0.001). A conversion rate of 6.8 % was noted, with an anastomotic leak rate of 3.87 % in the open group and 2.97 % in the laparoscopic group. The laparoscopic group had a lower blood loss (100 vs. 350 ml; p < 0.001), lower complication rates, and shorter length of stay (6 vs. 9 days). The local recurrence rate was comparable, and the laparoscopic approach had better overall and cancer-specific survival, even after adjusting for stages. The laparoscopic approach was an independent factor associated with better overall and cancer-specific survival on multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

We confirmed the oncological safety of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery also showed superiority in the short-term and long-term outcomes of rectal cancer.     

Laparoscopic Salvage Surgery for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

Background

Surgical treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer is challenging, and the value of laparoscopic surgery in such cases is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility of laparoscopic surgery with that of open surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Methods

Thirty patients with local rectal cancer recurrence at the anastomotic site or lateral pelvic lymph nodes were evaluated. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic (n?=?13) and open (n?=?17) groups.

Results

The median operation time was significantly longer (381 vs. 241 min) but the median estimated blood loss tended to be smaller (110 vs. 450 mL) in the laparoscopic than in the open group. There was only one converted case (7.7 %). The R0 resection rate (100 vs. 94 %) and postoperative complications (31 vs. 24 %) were not significantly different between the two groups. The median times to flatus (1 vs. 2 days), first stool (2 vs. 5 days), and oral intake (2 vs. 5 days) were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic than in the open group.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer has short-term benefits over open surgery and has potential as a treatment option for locally recurrent rectal cancer.     

Integration of open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer resection: oncologic and short-term outcomes

Background

Laparoscopy is increasingly used for rectal cancer surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is not attempted for some suitable patients because of concerns for conversion or technical difficulty. This study aimed to evaluate oncologic and short-term outcomes for patients undergoing curative resection for rectal cancer via laparoscopic and open approaches.

Methods

A prospective database was reviewed to identify rectal cancer resections from 2005 to 2011. Patients who had primary rectal cancer within 15 cm of the anal verge were included in the study. Those with recurrent or metastatic disease were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic or open approaches preoperatively based on clinical criteria and imaging. All patients underwent a standard total mesorectal excision and followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. The oncologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by approach.

Results

The analysis included 81 patients. The preoperative assignments consisted of 62 laparoscopic (77 %) and 19 open (23 %) procedures. Nine laparoscopic procedures (14.5 %) were converted to open procedures. After a median follow-up period of 25 months, all oncologic outcomes were comparable. Three patients (two laparoscopic, one open) had a positive circumferential margin (≤1 mm). The laparoscopic and open groups were similar in terms of their 3-year disease-free periods (93.6 vs. 88.2 %; P = 0.450) and overall survival periods (93.5 vs. 90.9 %; P = 0.766). The local recurrence rate was 2.5 %.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer can be attempted for most patients. Conversion to open procedure does not compromise clinical or oncologic outcomes. In practice, combining laparoscopic and open surgery optimizes resource use and results in at least equivalent outcomes.     

Transvaginal specimen extraction versus conventional minilaparotomy after laparoscopic anterior resection for colorectal cancer: mid-term results of a case-matched study

Background

Although the vagina is considered a viable route during laparoscopic surgery, a number of concerns have led to a need to demonstrate the safety of a transvaginal approach in colorectal surgery. However, the data for transvaginal access in left-sided colorectal cancer are extremely limited, and no study has compared the clinical outcomes with a conventional laparoscopic procedure.

Objective

We compared the clinical outcomes of totally laparoscopic anterior resection with transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) with those of the conventional laparoscopic approach with minilaparotomy (LAP) for anastomosis construction and specimen retrieval in left-sided colorectal cancer.

Methods

Fifty-eight patients underwent TVSE between October 2006 and July 2011 and were matched by age, surgery date, tumor location, and tumor stage with patients who underwent conventional LAP for left-sided colorectal cancer.

Results

Operative time was significantly longer in the TVSE group (149.3 ± 39.8 vs. 131.9 ± 41.4 min; p = 0.023). Patients in the TVSE group experienced less pain (pain score 4.9 ± 1.6 vs. 5.8 ± 1.9; p = 0.008), shorter time to passage of flatus (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2 days; p = 0.026), and higher satisfaction with the cosmetic results (cosmetic score 8.0 ± 1.4 vs. 6.3 ± 1.5; p = 0.001). More endolinear staplers for rectal transection were used in the LAP group (1.2 ± 0.5 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2; p = 0.021). Overall morbidities were similar in both groups; however, three wound infections only occurred in the LAP group. After a median follow-up of 34.4 (range 11–60) months, no transvaginal access-site recurrence occurred. The 3-year disease-free survival was similar between groups (91.5 vs. 90.8 %; p = 0.746).

Conclusions

Transvaginal access after totally laparoscopic anterior resection is safe and feasible for left-sided colorectal cancer in selected patients with better short-term outcomes.     

Does conversion affect short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy for colorectal cancer?

Background

Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) for cancer has been associated with adverse short-term and oncologic outcomes. However, most studies have had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of conversion to open surgery on early postoperative outcomes and survival among patients undergoing LCR for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods

A prospective database of consecutive LCRs for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer was reviewed. Patients who required conversion (CONV group) were compared with those who had completed laparoscopic resection (LAP group). Only patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up period were included in the oncologic analysis. Kaplan–Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival.

Results

The conversion rate was 10.9 %. The most common reason for conversion was a locally advanced tumor (48.4 %). Conversion was associated with a significantly longer operative time and a greater blood loss. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay between the CONV and LAP patients. During a median follow-up period of 120 months (range, 60–180 months), the CONV group had a significantly worse 5-year overall survival (OS) (79.4 vs 87.4 %; p = 0.016) and disease-free survival (DFS) (65.4 vs 79.6 %; p = 0.013). Univariate analysis showed that conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, pT4 cancer, stage 3 disease, and adjuvant chemotherapy were significant risk factors for OS and DFS. On multivariate analysis, pT4 cancer and a lymph node ratio (LNR) of 0.25 or greater were the only independent predictors of DFS and OS, whereas a LNR of 0.01 to 0.24 showed a trend that did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Conversion to open surgery per se is not associated with worse early postoperative outcomes and does not adversely affect long-term survival per se.     

Comparison of Peristomal Adhesion Formation Between Laparoscopic and Open Low Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer

Background

Postoperative adhesions appear to be less common following laparoscopic surgery than after conventional open surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and conventional open rectal surgery on peristomal adhesion formation.

Methods

We enrolled 97 subjects who were participants in a trial comparing open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. These patients had undergone rectal cancer surgery with ileostomy formation. Peristomal adhesions were assessed during ileostomy takedown using an adhesion grading system: (1) no adhesions or fine, filmy adhesions separable by blunt dissection; (2) dense adhesions, separable by sharp dissection; (3) very dense adhesions, resulting in enterotomy and/or requiring extension of the abdominal wall incision.

Results

A total of 57 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (group A) and 40 underwent open resection (group B). Operating time for ileostomy dissection was shorter in group A than in group B (14.6 vs. 19.8 min, respectively; p = 0.047). Dense adhesions (grades 2 and 3) were more common in group B (22/40, 55 %) than in group A (12/57, 21 %; p < 0.001). In particular, grade 3 adhesions were present only in group B (6/40).

Conclusions

The present findings suggest that laparoscopic rectal surgery results in less peristomal adhesion formation than does conventional open surgery.     

Intraoperative colonoscopy does not worsen the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a case-matched study

Background

Intraoperative colonoscopy is sometimes needed as an adjunct to colorectal surgery. When it is performed with laparoscopic surgery, there is the potential for prolonged bowel distension, obstructed surgical exposure, and increased morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate the overall safety and outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal procedures in which intraoperative colonoscopy was performed.

Methods

The study group consisted of patients who underwent intraoperative colonoscopy during laparoscopic intestinal resection at our institution between 1995 and 2011. They were individually matched for a number of factors including age, gender, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score, and type of surgical procedure with a cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic intestinal resection with no intraoperative colonoscopy during the same period. Early postoperative outcomes and time to flatus and first bowel movement were compared.

Results

For the study, 30 patients (18 females) and 30 matched control subjects were identified. The study and control groups did not differ in terms of operating time (132 vs 151 min; p = 0.5), estimated blood loss (216 vs 212 ml; p = 0.9), conversion to open surgery (n = 1 vs 5; p = 0.2), time to first flatus (3 vs 4 days; p = 0.4), time to first bowel movement (4 vs 4 days; p = 0.4), reoperation (n = 0 vs 1; p = 1), length of hospital stay (6 vs 9 days; p = 0.3), overall morbidity (n = 10 vs 14; p = 0.4), or readmission (n = 0 vs 1; p = 1). The complications that developed during or after surgery were similar in the two groups. No colonoscopy-related complications or deaths occurred.

Conclusions

Intraoperative colonoscopy does not complicate the application and outcomes of laparoscopic intestinal resection. Surgeons should perform an intraoperative colonoscopy when it is indicated during laparoscopic surgery.     

Survival following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery

Background

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is known to provide increased benefits to patients during the postoperative recovery period. Initial scepticism over the oncological adequacy of resection has been dismissed by a number of major randomized trials. Emerging evidence indicates that laparoscopic surgery may provide a potential survival benefit in colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open resection for colorectal cancer between October 2003 and December 2010 were analyzed. Data were collated and a database compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

A total of 665 resections were performed with 457 laparoscopically and 208 open. The median length of stay was 4 days following laparoscopic resection and 7 days following open (p < 0.0005). There was no significant difference between the two groups apart from gender (p = 0.03), ASA (p = 0.03), and the number of patients with extranodal metastatic disease (p = 0.01). The 5-year overall survival (OS) in the completed laparoscopic group was 75.8 versus 72.5 % in the open group (p = 0.12). The 5-year OS in patients who were converted was 52 %. The 5-year OS for nonmetastatic disease in the completed laparoscopic group was significantly greater at 79.4 versus 74 % in the open group (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in OS for rectal cancer (p = 0.66), but there was an OS advantage for laparoscopically resected colon cancer (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic resection for nonmetastatic colon cancer may provide an overall survival advantage.     

Short-term clinical outcome of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy

Background

A robotic system (da Vinci^® Surgical System, Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has technical advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery because it increases the precision and accuracy of anatomical dissection. The present study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) and laparoscopic ISR for distal rectal cancer.

Methods

Patients who underwent robot- or laparoscopy-assisted ISR for rectal cancer between March 2008 and July 2011 were included in this retrospective comparative study. Perioperative and postoperative data, including complications and early functional outcomes, were analyzed between the two groups. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Wexner scoring system, the International Prostate Symptom Score, and the 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function.

Results

A total of 40 patients underwent robot-assisted and 40 underwent laparoscopic ISR. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (235.5 vs. 185.4 min; p < 0.001). Transabdominal ISR, in which intersphincteric dissection is completed in the pelvic cavity, was performed more with robotic assistance than with laparoscopic surgery (8 vs. 2 cases; p = 0.043). No difference was observed between groups regarding postoperative morbidity and pathological outcomes. The robot-assisted group showed a trend toward less postoperative blood loss and early recovery of functional outcomes.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery was safe and effective for ISR of distal rectal cancer and showed surgical outcomes similar to those of the latest laparoscopic ISR. The favorable results of the robot-assisted ISR included reduced adaptation time, alleviated difficulty of perineal phase, and early recovery of functional outcomes in this analysis of short-term clinical outcomes.     

Early rehabilitation versus conventional care after laparoscopic rectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Although early rehabilitation programs have been reported to be effective after laparoscopic colectomy, there is no report of the efficacy of rehabilitation programs after rectal cancer surgery. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of an early rehabilitation program after laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid or low rectal cancer in a randomized, controlled trial.

Methods

Ninety-eight patients who had undergone a laparoscopic low anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy were randomized on a 1:1 basis to an early rehabilitation program (n = 52) or conventional care (n = 46). The primary endpoint was recovery rate at 4 days postoperatively. The secondary endpoints were recovery time, postoperative hospital stay, complications, readmission rates, pain on a visual analogue scale, and quality of life (QOL) according to Short Form 36.

Results

The recovery rates were not different in both groups (rehabilitation, 25 % vs. conventional, 13 %, p = 0.135). Recovery time and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the groups (rehabilitation, 137 h [107–188] vs. conventional, 146.5 h [115–183], p = 0.47; 7.5 days [7–11] vs. 8.0 days [7–10], p = 0.882). The complication rates did not differ between the two groups, but more complications were noted in the rehabilitation program group (42.3 vs. 24.0 %, p = 0.054), which was related to postoperative ileus (28.8 vs. 13.0 %, p = 0.057) and acute voiding difficulty (19.6 vs. 4.7 %, p = 0.032). There was no readmission within 1 month of surgery. Pain and QOL were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

This randomized trial did not show that an early rehabilitation program is beneficial after laparoscopic low anterior resection. Our results confirm that postoperative ileus and acute voiding difficulty are major obstacles to fast-track surgery for mid or low rectal cancer. This study was registered (registration number NCT00606944).     

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for obese patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

To evaluate the advantages of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in obese patients.

Methods

We collected clinical data from consecutive patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer between 2008 and 2015 to compare the surgical outcomes of a laparoscopic surgery group (LG) with those of an open surgery group (OG) stratified by obesity. Obesity was defined as a body mass index ≥25.

Results

A total of 268 patients were analyzed, with 157 in the LG (44 obese and 113 non-obese) and 111 in the OG (25 obese and 86 non-obese). The rates of complications between the LG and the OG were 18.5 vs. 11.6 % (p = 0.18) for the non-obese patients and 18.2 vs. 20.0 % (p = 1.0) for the obese patients, respectively, without a significant difference. Operative time was longer in the LG than in the OG, but the difference between the non-obese and obese patients was not significant, being 266 vs. 189 min (p < 0.0001) and 260 vs. 254 min (p = 0.96), respectively. Blood loss was much lower in the LG for both obese and non-obese patients, being 10 vs. 435 mL (p < 0.0001) and 10 vs. 275 mL (p < 0.0001), respectively.

Conclusion

There were no significant differences between LG and OG in operative time or complications for obese patients with rectal cancer, and blood loss was much lower in the LG. Thus, laparoscopic surgery is a safe and minimally invasive approach for obese patients with rectal cancer.

     

Short- and Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Emergency Resection for Colon Cancer: An Observational Propensity Score-matched Study

Background

Case series suggest the feasibility and safety of emergency resection of colon cancer by laparoscopy. The present study compares short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for colon cancers treated as emergencies.

Methods

The study was a propensity score-matched design based on a prospective database. From October 2006 to December 2011, emergency laparoscopic colon cancer resections were 1:2 propensity score-matched to open cases. Covariates for match-estimation were age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, procedure type, tumor site, and reason for emergency surgery. Short-term outcomes included oncological quality surrogates (lymph node harvest and R stage), need for a stoma, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. For long-term outcomes, overall and recurrence-free survival rates were analyzed with Kaplan–Meier curves.

Results

During the study period, a total of 217 colon cancers were resected (181 open and 36 laparoscopic) as emergencies. The laparoscopic cases were matched to 72 open cases. Median follow-up was 3.6 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.3–4.3] years. The overall 3-year survival rate was 51 % (95 % CI 35–76) in the laparoscopic group versus 43 % (95 % CI 32–58) in the open group (p = 0.24). The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate in the laparoscopic group was 35 % (95 % CI 20–60) versus 37 % (95 % CI 27–50) in the open group (p = 0.53). Median lymph node harvest (17 vs. 13 nodes; p = 0.041) and median length of hospital stay (7.5 vs. 11.0 days; p = 0.019) favored laparoscopy.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that selective emergency laparoscopy for colon cancer is not inferior to open surgery with regard to short- and long-term outcomes. Laparoscopy resulted in a shorter length of hospital stay.     

Laparoscopic and converted approaches to rectal cancer resection have superior long-term outcomes: a comparative study by operative approach

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.     

Surgical Cytoreduction and Survival in Appendiceal Cancer Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: An Evaluation of 46 Consecutive Patients

Background

Surgical cytoreduction and intraperitoneal chemotherapy is increasingly accepted as an effective treatment modality for mucinous appendiceal neoplasm. For the majority of patients with low-grade histology, outcomes have been encouraging. The survival of patients with neoplasms of malignant character is protracted and this study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of this surgical strategy on outcomes.

Methods

Forty-six consecutive patients with mucinous and nonmucinous appendiceal cancer with peritoneal dissemination were studied. Clinicopathological and treatment related factors were obtained from a prospective database. The study’s end points of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The median DFS and OS after cytoreduction were 20.5 and 56.4 months respectively. Five-year overall survival rate was 45%. Five independent factors associated with DFS and OS were identified through a multivariate analysis: age (DFS p = 0.001, OS p = 0.002), completeness of cytoreduction (DFS p = 0.001, OS p = 0.003), previous chemotherapy treatment (DFS p = 0.021), CA 199 levels (DFS p = 0.013), and tumor grade (OS p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy may achieve long-term survival in appendiceal malignancies with peritoneal dissemination for which the predictors of outcomes identified through this study may tailor the disease management to commit patients early toward this successful surgical strategy.     

The minimally invasive approach is associated with reduced perioperative thromboembolic and bleeding complications for patients receiving preoperative chronic oral anticoagulant therapy who undergo colorectal surgery

Background

The data on the perioperative risk of both thromboembolism and hemorrhage for patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation who undergo colorectal surgery are sparse. In addition, it is uncertain whether the use of the laparoscopic instead of open technique entails additional risk for these patients. This study aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes, with a particular focus on perioperative thromboembolic and bleeding complications for patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy who undergo open or laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Methods

Patients undergoing colorectal resection between 1994 and 2011 on preoperative chronic oral anticoagulant therapy were included in the study. Patient demographics, characteristics, and perioperative outcomes, with particular emphasis on thromboembolism and bleeding risks, were evaluated comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy.

Results

The study enrolled 261 patients receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy (102 laparoscopic colectomy vs 159 open colectomy patients). The patients had a mean age of 57.9 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 29.3 kg/m². The conversion rate was 8.8 % (n = 9) for laparoscopic operations. Laparoscopic and open cases had comparable BMIs and levels of preoperative hemoglobin. Anastomotic leak, postoperative hospital stay, and surgical-site infection rates were similar for the two groups. Although the laparoscopic group had a significantly greater mean age (p < 0.001) and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (p = 0.005), the rates for postoperative venous thromboembolism (24.5 vs 2.9 %; p < 0.001), urinary complications (6.9 vs 0 %; p = 0.008), and overall morbidity (44.7 vs 17.7 %; p < 0.001) were lower after laparoscopic surgery. Although the rates for intra- and postoperative blood transfusion were similar, the postoperative hemoglobin levels were significantly higher after laparoscopic surgery. One patient in the laparoscopic group died of sepsis on postoperative day 3.

Conclusion

For the patients receiving preoperative chronic anticoagulant therapy who underwent colorectal resection, the laparoscopic approach was associated with lower thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications than open surgery.     

A comparison of the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colon cancer with early and advanced disease: the short- and long-term outcomes at a single institution

Purpose

The role of resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. Laparoscopic resection has become an accepted therapeutic option for treating early stage I–III CRC; however, it has not been evaluated for use in patients with advanced stage disease.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor exclusively in patients with stage IV colon cancer compared to open resection in patients with stage IV colon cancer and laparoscopic resection in patients with stage I–III colon cancer in terms of operative results and short- and long-term outcomes.

Results

Laparoscopic resection was performed in 35 stage IV patients and open resection was performed in 40 stage IV patients. One hundred and eighteen stage I–III patients who underwent laparoscopic resection were evaluated. In the comparison between the laparoscopic group and the open group among patients with stage IV colon cancer, postoperative recovery appeared to be better in the laparoscopic group than in the open group, as reflected by shorter times to resumption of a regular diet (p = 0.049), shorter lengths of hospitalization (p = 0.083), increased feasibility of postoperative chemotherapy (p < 0.001), shorter time intervals from surgery to chemotherapy (p = 0.031) and longer median survival (p = 0.078) at the expense of longer operative times (p = 0.025). In the comparison between the laparoscopic resection in stage IV and stage I–III disease groups, no significant differences were observed in operative results and short- and long-term outcomes, except for the rate of ostomy creation (48.5 vs. 8.5 %, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colon cancer achieves equivalent results to that performed in patients with stage I–III disease and that performed in patients with stage IV disease using open resection. The use of a minimally invasive approach in the laparoscopic procedure is beneficial because it results in shorter times to resumption of a normal diet, shorter lengths of hospitalization, increased feasibility of postoperative chemotherapy and shorter time intervals from surgery to chemotherapy at the expense of longer operative times. We believe that patients undergoing laparoscopic resection can receive targeted chemotherapy earlier and more aggressively, which might provide a survival benefit.     

Comparison of tumor recurrence between laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

Background

By traditional open surgery, the tumor recurrence rate of total mesorectal excision with sphincter-preserving procedure was lower than that of abdominoperineal resection (APR) for the treatment of low rectal cancer. The present study aimed to rescrutinize whether the same conclusion can be drawn when both surgical procedures are performed laparoscopically.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the prospectively recorded clinicopathologic data of 344 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer, in which 170 patients underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME), whereas 174 patients underwent laparoscopic TME directly without chemoradiotherapy. Such patients were further stratified according to the pathologic tumor, node, metastasis stage (stage II or III disease) and surgical strategy (APR or sphincter-preserving operation [SPO]). The surgical procedures are presented in supplemental videos. The disease-free survival, recurrence patterns, and functional recovery of patient groups stratified as appropriate were compared.

Results

In patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the estimated recurrence rate were similar between laparoscopic TME with SPO and laparoscopic APR with 10.6 %, 7 of 66, versus 18.5 %, 5 of 27, in stage II disease (p = 0.811, log-rank test); and 19.3 %, 11 of 57, versus 20 %, 4 of 20, in stage III disease (p = 0.980). In patients without preoperative chemoradiotherapy, the recurrence rate was significantly higher in laparoscopic APR than in the laparoscopic TME with SPO group of patients with stage III disease (45 %, 9 of 20, vs. 19.3 %, 16 of 83, p = 0.025), whereas the recurrence rate of the two procedures was similar (21.4 %, 3 of 14, vs. 17.5 %, 10 of 57, p = 0.702) in stage II disease.

Conclusions

When low rectal cancer was operated on by laparoscopic approach, the poorer prognosis of APR compared to SPO was only observed in stage III patients without preoperative chemoradiotherapy.