Complementary Use of Resection and Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Analysis of 395 Patients

Background

Liver resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are two surgical options in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The aim of this study was to analyze patient characteristics and outcomes after resection and RFA for CLM from a single center.

Methods

Between 2000 and 2010, 395 patients with CLM undergoing RFA (n = 295), liver resection (n = 94) or both (n = 6) were identified from a prospective IRB-approved database. Demographic, clinical and survival data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

RFA patients had more comorbidities, number of liver tumors and a higher incidence of extrahepatic disease compared to the Resection patients. The 5-year overall actual survival was 17 % in the RFA, 58 % in the Resection group (p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, multiple liver tumors, dominant lesion >3 cm, and CEA >10 ng/ml were independent predictors of overall survival. Patients were followed for a median of 20 ± 1 months. Liver and extrahepatic recurrences were seen in 69 %, and 29 % of the patients in the RFA, and 40 %, and 19 % of the patients in the Resection group, respectively.

Conclusions

In this large surgical series, we described the characteristics and oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing resection or RFA for CLM. By having both options available, we were able to surgically treat a large number of patients presenting with different degrees of liver tumor burden and co-morbidities, and also manage liver recurrences in follow-up.     

Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes between open and laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become an essential method for treating malignant liver tumors. Although the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of LLR in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have been reported, there are few reports of LLR for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC).

Methods

Patients who underwent liver resection for T1 or T2 IHCC between March 2010 and March 2015 in Gyeongsang National University Hospital were enrolled. They were divided into open (n = 23) and laparoscopic (n = 14) approaches, and the perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared.

Results

The Pringle maneuver was less frequently used (p = 0.015) and estimated blood loss was lesser (p = 0.006) in the laparoscopic group. There were no significant differences in complication rate (p = 1.000), hospital stay (p = 0.371), tumor size (p = 0.159), lymph node metastasis (p = 0.127), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.553). The patients were followed up for a median of 21 months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 74.7 and 55.2 %, respectively. No differences were observed in the 3-year OS (75.7 vs 84.6 %, p = 0.672) and RFS (56.7 vs 76.9 %, p = 0.456) rates between the open and laparoscopic groups, even after the groups were divided into patients that received liver resection with or without lymph node dissection.

Conclusion

LLR for IHCC is a treatment modality that should be considered as an option alongside open liver resection in selected patients.

     

Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma of Cirrhotic Liver: A Case–Control Study

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection is considered a safe and feasible alternative to open surgery for malignant liver lesions. However, laparoscopic surgery in cirrhotic patients remains challenging. The aim of this retrospective case–control study was to compare morbidity, mortality, and long-term patient survival between laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and open liver resections (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis.

Methods

A total of 45 patients treated with LLR were matched by cause of cirrhosis, Child-Pugh score, type of surgical resection (subsegmentectomy, segmentectomy, and bisegmentectomy), tumor number, tumor size, and alpha-fetoprotein value with 45 patients treated with OLR. Pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables were compared between groups.

Results

Compared with OLR, the LLR group displayed a significantly shorter operative time (140 vs. 180 min; p = 0.02), shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 12 days; p < 0.0001), and lower morbidity rate (20 vs. 45 % of patients; p = 0.01). A higher rate of R0 resection was observed in the LLR group than in the OLR group (95 vs. 85 %; p = 0.03). Postoperative ascites was more frequently observed in the OLR group (18 vs. 2 %; p = 0.01). Mortality, patient, and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 88, 59, and 12 %, respectively, in the LLR group and 63, 44, and 22 % in the OLR group (p = 0.27).

Conclusions

Significantly shorter operative times, better resection margins, lower postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay were observed in the LLR group compared with the OLR group. LLR and OLR have similar overall and disease-free survival rates in cirrhotic HCC patients.     

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.     

One-Stage Hepatectomy Following Portal Vein Embolization for Colorectal Liver Metastasis

Background

Although portal vein embolization (PVE) has been applied for surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM), the clinical usefulness of liver surgery following PVE for CLM remains unknown.

Methods

A total of 115 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Among them, 49 underwent one-stage hepatectomy following PVE (PVE group). The remaining 66 patients underwent at least hemihepatectomy without PVE (non-PVE group). This analysis compared the short- and long-term outcomes between the PVE and non-PVE groups.

Results

There were no deaths in either group. Using the Clavien–Dindo classification, the rates of postoperative morbidity ≥ grade 1 were 34.7 % in the PVE group and 25.0 % in the non-PVE group (p = 0.26). The 3-year overall survival rates were 54.6 and 64.5 % in the PVE and non-PVE groups, respectively (p = 0.89). The multivariate analysis the variable performance/nonperformance of PVE was not detected as an independent predictor of poor survival.

Conclusions

Our one-stage hepatectomy policy of using PVE provides acceptable morbidity and favorable long-term outcomes.     

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.     

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.     

The feasibility and potential benefit of preoperative chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM): a single-centered retrospective study

Purposes

The benefit of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer is still controversial. This study defined the resectability regardless of the size and number of liver metastases, and attempted curative hepatic resection in all cases.

Methods

Sixty-four patients that tolerated chemotherapy were diagnosed with CLM (colorectal liver metastases) without extrahepatic metastase from January 2007 to November 2010, and received an oxaliplatin-based regimen. This study assessed the resectability after chemotherapy, and the patients were divided in two groups; the resected and unresected group. Sixteen patients underwent hepatic resection without chemotherapy.

Results

Thirty-five patients underwent surgical resection (resected group) and twenty-nine patients were considered unresectable (unresected group). All 35 patients in the resected group safely received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy safely without serious adverse effects. No serious postoperative complications were observed. The median overall survival (MST) was significantly higher in the resected than in the unresected group (56.93 [95 % CI 38.13–75.73] and 25.07 months [95 % CI 17.87–32.26], respectively; P < 0.001). The median disease-free survival was 20.2 [95 % CI 8.82–31.65] months in the resected group.

Conclusion

Preoperative chemotherapy for CLM is well tolerated and does not increase postoperative complications. Curative surgery with preoperative chemotherapy has the potential to improve the overall survival in patients with CLM.     

Laparoscopic versus open gastric resection for larger than 5 cm primary gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): a size-matched comparison

Background

Laparoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) appears technically feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. Tumor size plays an important role in surgical approach, with laparotomy tending to be used to treat larger tumors. This study evaluated the technical feasibility, safety, and oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for GISTs ≥5 cm in diameter.

Methods

One hundred forty patients who underwent resection of primary gastric GIST at our institution from January 2007 to December 2012 were identified. Twenty-three patients with tumor larger than 5 cm in diameter treated by laparoscopic resection and were randomly matched (1:1) by tumor size (±1 cm) to patients with open resection. Clinical and pathologic variables and surgical outcomes for each surgical type were identified and compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between the two groups. Laparoscopic group was superior to open group in operation time, blood loss, time to ground activities, time to first flatus, times to liquid diet, and postoperative stay (P < 0.05). Number of transfusions and time to semi-liquid diet, however, did not differ between groups. There was no operative mortality, and the postoperative complications were similar. Fifteen patients in the laparoscopic group and 17 patients in the open group received adjuvant treatment with imatinib. Recurrence or metastasis occurred in eight cases (three in the laparoscopic group and five in the open group). No significant difference in long-term disease-free survival was found between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

When performed by experienced surgeons, laparoscopic resection for gastric GISTs larger than 5 cm is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery.     

Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched-pair comparative study

Background

Only a few series have demonstrated the safety of laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the benefits of this approach. Moreover, these studies reported mostly minor and nonanatomic hepatic resections. This report describes the results of a pair-matched comparative study between open and laparoscopic liver resections for HCC in a series of essentially anatomic resections.

Methods

Patients were retrospectively matched in pairs for the following criteria: sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, severity of liver disease, tumor size, and type of resection. A total of 42 patients undergoing laparoscopy were compared with patients undergoing laparotomy during the same period. Surgeons from the authors’ department not trained in laparoscopy performed open resections. Operative, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes were compared.

Results

The mean duration of surgery was similar in the two groups. Significantly less bleeding was observed in the laparoscopic group (364.3 vs. 723.7 ml; p < 0.0001). Transfusion was required for four patients (9.5%) in the laparoscopic group and seven patients (16.7%) in the open surgery group (p = 0.51). Postoperative ascites was less frequent after laparoscopic resections (7.1 vs. 26.1%; p = 0.03). General morbidity was similar in the two groups (9.5 vs. 11.9%; p = 1.00). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter for the patients undergoing laparoscopy (6.7 vs. 9.6 days; p < 0.0001). The surgical margin and local recurrence adjacent to the liver stump were not affected by laparoscopy. The overall postoperative survival rates in the laparoscopic group were 93.1% at 1 year, 74.4% at 3 years, and 59.5% at 5 years and, respectively, 81.8, 73, and 47.4% in the open surgery group (p = 0.25). The postoperative disease-free survival rates in the laparoscopic group were at 81.6% at 1 year, 60.9% at 3 years, and 45.6% at 5 years, respectively, 70.2, 54.3, and 37.2% in the open surgery group (p = 0.29).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic resection of HCC for selected patients gave a better postoperative outcome without oncologic consequences. Prospective trials are required to confirm these results.     

Long-term Outcomes after Intersphincteric Resection for Low-Lying Rectal Cancer

Background

As an anus-preserving surgery for very low rectal cancer, intersphincteric resection (ISR), has advanced markedly over the last 20 years. We investigated long-term oncologic, functional, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes after ISR with or without partial external sphincter resection (PESR).

Methods

A series of 199 patients underwent curative ISR with or without PESR between 2000 and 2008, with 49 receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT group) and 150 undergoing surgery first (surgery group). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local relapse-free survival (LFS) rates were calculated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Wexner incontinence score. QOL was investigated using the Short-Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and modified fecal incontinence quality of life (mFIQL) scale.

Results

After a median follow-up of 78 months (range 12–164 months), estimated 7-year OS, DFS, and LFS rates were 78, 67, and 80 %, respectively. LFS was better in the CRT group than in the surgery group (p = 0.045). Patients with PESR or positive circumferential resection margins showed significantly worse survival. The median Wexner incontinence score at >5 years was 8 in the surgery group and 10 in the CRT group (p = 0.01). QOL was improved in all physical and mental subscales of the SF-36 at >5 years. Although the mFIQL showed a relatively good score in all groups at >5 years, a significant difference existed between the CRT and surgery groups (p = 0.008).

Conclusions

With long-term follow-up, oncologic, functional, and QOL results after ISR appear acceptable, although CRT is associated with disturbance.     

Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastric Resections for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs): A Size-Matched Comparison

Background

Laparoscopic resection of gastric GISTs appears technically feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. Tumor size however frequently plays a role in surgical approach with larger tumors tending toward laparotomy, raising concern that favorable outcomes reported for the laparoscopic approach may reflect this selection bias.

Materials and Methods

From a prospectively collected sarcoma database, 155 primary gastric GIST resections were identified (1998–2009); 40 patients underwent successful laparoscopic resection for non-GE junction GIST and were randomly matched (1:1) by tumor size (±2.0 cm) to patients with open resection. Clinical and pathologic variables and surgical outcomes were associated with surgery type using conditional logistic regression analyses.

Results

The two surgical approaches were comparable for clinical and pathologic variables. Median operating room (OR) time was similar, although median length of stay postsurgery was lower in the laparoscopic versus open group (4 vs. 7 days, P = 0.002), as was estimated blood loss (EBL) (25 vs. 100 ml, P = 0.006). There was no operative mortality, and 30-day morbidity was similar. Oncologic outcomes were also similar with no positive microscopic margins, and 1 recurrence in each group with a median follow-up of 34 months. There were 13 conversions overall, 5 secondary to tumor location at the GE junction or lesser curve.

Conclusions

When matched for tumor size, laparoscopic resection of primary gastric GISTs ≤8 cm results in shorter hospital stays with similar OR time while maintaining sound oncologic outcomes compared with open resection.     

Favorable Outcome After Repeat Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Background

The rate of recurrence after liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is high, and repeat resection (RR) is reserved with curative intent in selected patients. This study evaluated the benefit of RR for recurrence after liver resection for CLM.

Methods

Data were collected on 287 consecutive patients who underwent primary curative hepatectomy between January 1999 and October 2008 for CLM at our institution.

Results

After median follow-up of 63 months, 211 patients (73 %) developed recurrence and RR was conducted in 102 (48 %) patients. Five-year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in the RR group than in those patients not selected for RR (70 vs. 45 %, P = 0.002). On multivariate analyses, RR was identified as an independent factor for good prognosis. According to the first recurrence sites, 5-year OS after recurrence was significantly better in patients with liver or lung only recurrence (55, 51 %, respectively) than in locoregional/lymph node metastases and other/multiple sites recurrence (33, 9.0 %, respectively). In patients with liver- or lung-only recurrence, 5-year OS after recurrence was significantly higher in RR patients than in those without RR (liver; 67 and 0 %, lung; 88 and 24 %, respectively; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Given similar indication criteria as the primary CLM, nearly half of all recurrence cases after liver resection for CLM could be salvaged by RR. In patients with liver-or lung-only recurrence, RR warrants a favorable outcome.     

Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Transverse Colon Cancer

Background

The role of laparoscopic surgery for advanced transverse colon cancer (TCC) remains controversial, especially in terms of long-term oncologic outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 157 consecutive patients who underwent curable resections for advanced TCC between January 2002 and June 2011 (laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC), n?=?74; open colectomy (OC), n?=?83). Short-term outcomes and oncologic long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared to the OC group, patients in the LAC group had less blood loss (LAC vs. OC, 79.6?±?70.3 vs. 158.4?±?89.3 ml, p?<?0.001), faster return of bowel function (2.6?±?0.7 vs. 3.8?±?0.8 days, p?<?0.001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (10.3?±?3.7 vs. 12.6?±?6.0 days, p?=?0.007). Conversions were required in four (5.4 %) patients. Rates of short-term complication, mortality, and long-term complication were comparable between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 54 (26–106) months in the LAC group and 58 (29–113) months in the OC group (p?=?0.407). There were no statistical differences in the rates of 5-year overall survival (73.6 vs. 71.1 %, p?=?0.397) and 5-year disease-free survival (70.5 vs. 66.7 %, p?=?0.501) between the two groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for advanced TCC yield short-term benefits while achieving equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes.     

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer: comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes

Background

Robotically assisted colon resection is a new type of surgery for colon cancer. However, the evidence is inadequate for the general adaptation of robotic colon surgery. This study aimed to show the oncologic and perioperative clinical results of robotically assisted anterior resection (R-AR) compared with those of laparoscopically assisted anterior resection (L-AR) for sigmoid colon cancer.

Methods

A total of 180 patients (sigmoid colon cancer stages 1–3) were assigned to receive either R-AR (n = 34) or L-AR (n = 146) between April 2006 and September 2008. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, and long-term oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean operation time was 217.6 ± 70.7 min for L-AR versus 252.5 ± 94.9 min for R-AR (p = 0.016). The total postoperative complication rate was 10.3 % for R-AR versus 5.9 % for L-AR (p = 0.281). The 3-year overall survival rate for all the patients was 93.4 % for L-AR versus 92.1 % for R-AR (p = 0.723). The 3-year overall survival rate was 100 % for both L-AR and R-AR in stage 1, 95.5 % for L-AR versus 100 % for R-AR (p = 0.386) in stage 2, and 88.4 % for L-AR versus 72.9 % (p = 0.881) for R-AR in stage 3.

Conclusion

In this study, R-AR showed safety and feasibility in terms of perioperative clinical and long-term oncologic outcomes. However, the advanced technologies of R-AR did not translate into better long-term oncologic outcomes compared with L-AR.     

Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases in Presence of Extrahepatic Disease: Results from an International Multi-institutional Analysis

Background

Hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) with concomitant extrahepatic disease (EHD) is a controversial topic. We sought to evaluate the long-term outcome of patients undergoing liver resection for CLM in presence of EHD and identify factors associated with prognosis.

Methods

From 1996 to 2007, a total of 1629 patients who underwent resection of CLM were identified from an international multi-institutional database. One hundred seventy-one patients (10.4%) underwent resection of EHD. Clinicopathologic and outcome data were collected and analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Median number of treated CLM was 2 (range, 1–18); most patients had solitary EHD (n = 114; 66.6%) a single anatomic site of EHD (n = 153; 89.4%). The 5-year survival for patients with EHD was 26% compared with 58% for those without EHD (P < 0.001). Recurrence was common (84%). Among patients with EHD, R1 margin status, multiple EHD sites, and location of EHD were associated with worse survival (all P < 0.05). Patients with multiple EHD sites or aortocaval lymph node metastasis had a 5-year survival of 14% and 7%, respectively. When survival was stratified by the total number of metastases treated, the presence of EHD still had a prognostic impact, but the relative impact of EHD diminished as the total number of metastases treated increased.

Conclusion

Concurrent resection of hepatic and EHD in well-selected patients may provide the possibility of long-term survival. The risk of recurrence, however, remains high, and a worse outcome is associated with both number of metastases and location of EHD.     

Retrospective Comparison of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Periampullary Neoplasms

Background

As with other open procedures now routinely performed using laparoscopy, minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) may result in decreased pain, fewer wound complications, and accelerated recovery. However, when used for periampullary cancers, it is also important to assess if MIPD offers comparable oncologic outcomes.

Methods

Technical and perioperative outcomes were compared between patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periampullary neoplasm offered MIPD or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) from November 2009 to July 2011.

Results

Fifty-six consecutive MIPD and OPD (28 each) procedures were analyzed. Comparing MIPD to OPD, significant differences included longer median procedure time (431 vs 410 min, p?=?.04) and fewer median lymph nodes harvested (15 vs 20, p?=?.04). R0 resection rate tended to be lower (63 vs 88 %, p?=?.07) as well as surgical site infections (18 vs 43 %, p?=?.08). Clinically significant pancreatic fistula rate was the same between groups (21 %). Other outcomes such as narcotic pain medication use, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rates were also similar.

Conclusions

MIPD is feasible with comparable technical success and outcomes to OPD. However, there is a learning curve to the procedure and further experience and prospective study will be required to better establish the oncologic efficacy of MIPD to open resection.     

Oncologic safety of stent as bridge to surgery compared to emergency radical surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction

Background

There are still concerns about the oncologic safety of stent insertion for colorectal cancer obstruction. This study investigated whether the use of stents as a bridge to surgery negatively affect the long-term outcome compared to curative surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction.

Methods

Between January 2004 and December 2009, patients with left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction without distant metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-three patients underwent radical resection after preoperative stent insertion (stent group), whereas 48 underwent emergency surgery with curative intent (surgery group). The short- and long-term outcomes between the two groups were compared.

Results

The stent and surgery groups had similar demographics. There were no significant differences in primary anastomosis, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, operation time, time until first defecation and oral intake after surgery, postoperative hospital stay, and reoperation. The stent group had an average hospital stay 7 days longer than the surgery group. During the median follow-up period of 48.1 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rates were not significantly different between the stent and surgery groups (47.2 vs. 48.9 %, respectively; p = 0.499). Overall, the 5-year survival rate was also similar in the two groups (70.4 vs. 76.4 %, respectively; p = 0.941).

Conclusions

For left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction, stent insertion followed by surgery showed short-term advantages and similar oncologic outcomes compared to surgery without preoperative intervention. Stent insertion as a bridge to surgery is a safe and feasible treatment option for patients with colorectal cancer obstruction.     

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.     

A Systematic Review of Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases

Background

Selected patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CLM) may be resectable by repeat hepatectomy approach. In this review, we aim to collate and evaluate the published evidence for repeat hepatectomy in patients with recurrent CLM.

Methods

Searches of the Medline and Embase databases were undertaken to identify studies of repeat hepatectomy in patients with recurrent CLM focusing on the perioperative treatment regimen, operative strategy, morbidity, technical success and survival outcomes.

Results

Twenty-two observational studies were reviewed. A total of 1,610 patients underwent second hepatectomy for recurrent CLM. The median percentage of extra-hepatic disease was 15 % (range, 0–39 %). Preoperative chemotherapy was reported in 5/22 studies. Major liver resection was undertaken in 25 % (range, 9–59 %) of patients and the R0 resection rate was 90 % (range, 77–96 %). Postoperative morbidity and mortality after the second hepatectomy were 23 % and 1.2 %, respectively. Recurrence rate after second hepatectomy was 63.9 % (range, 42–91 %) with a median follow-up period of 32 months (range, 19–59 months). Median overall survival was 35 months (range, 19–56 months). The 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates were 55 % (range, 11–82 %) and 42 % (range, 31–73 %), respectively.

Conclusion

Second hepatectomy is safe and feasible in selected patients with recurrent CLM and is associated with acceptable perioperative and survival outcomes. Future prospective studies are required to further define the patient selection criteria for repeat hepatectomy and the exact role of perioperative chemotherapy.