Consequences of Conversion in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Introduction Laparoscopic procedures converted to open approaches have been associated with higher complication rates than laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Laparoscopic colorectal resections have relatively high conversion rates compared with other laparoscopic procedures. This study was designed to evaluate outcomes of conversions compared with laparoscopic and open colorectal resections. Methods We reviewed 498 consecutive colorectal resections performed between 1995 and 2002. Procedures were divided into laparoscopic colorectal resections, open colorectal resections, or conversions. Demographics, underlying disease, type of procedure performed, and operative outcomes were compared between groups. Results Of the 238 laparoscopic procedures performed, 182 were completed laparoscopically and 56 (23 percent) required conversion; 260 were performed open. Conversions were associated with greater blood loss (200 (range, 50–750) vs. 100 (range, 30–900) ml), longer time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40–504) vs. 72 (range, 12–420) hr), and longer length of stay (6 (range, 2–67) vs.. 5 (range, 2–62) days) than the laparoscopic colorectal resections group. There was no difference in operative time, transfusion requirements, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or mortality between conversions and laparoscopic colorectal resections. Conversions resulted in fewer patients requiring transfusions (4 vs. 14 percent), shorter time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40–504) vs. 93 (range, 24–240) hr), and shorter length of stay (6 (range, 2–67) vs. 7 (range, 2–180) days) than in the open colorectal resections group. There were no differences in complications or mortality between the conversion group and the open colorectal resections group. Conclusions Laparoscopic colorectal resections has a relatively high conversion rate; however, the converted cases have outcomes similar to open colorectal resections. In fact, the converted group required fewer blood transfusions than the open group. Experience and good judgment are fundamental for timely conversion of a laparoscopic procedure to open to decrease complication rates. Despite a high conversion rate, surgeons should consider laparoscopic colorectal resections, because even when necessary, conversion does not result in poorer outcomes than laparoscopic colorectal resections or open colorectal resections. Presented at the meeting of the International Congress and Endo Expo-SLS, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 22 to 25, 2003     

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Modifies Risk Factors for Postoperative Morbidity

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic colorectal surgery can modify the risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative morbidity.METHODS A total of 384 consecutive patients with colorectal disease were randomized to laparoscopic resection (n = 190) or open resection (n = 194). On admission, demographics, comorbidity, and nutritional status were recorded. Operative variables, patient outcome, and length of stay were also recorded. Postoperative complications were registered by four members of staff not involved in the study.RESULTS The overall morbidity rate was 27.1 percent, with the rate in the laparoscopic group (18.7 percent) being less than that in the open group (31.5 percent; P = 0.003). Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection had a faster recovery of bowel function (P = 0.0001) and a shorter length of stay (P = 0.0001). In the whole cohort of patients, multivariate analysis identified open surgery (P = 0.003), duration of surgery (P = 0.01), and homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01) as risk factors for postoperative morbidity. In the open group, blood loss (P = 0.01), homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01), duration of surgery (P = 0.009), weight loss (P = 0.06), and age (P = 0.08) were related to postoperative morbidity. In the laparoscopic group the only risk factor identified was duration of surgery (P = 0.005).CONCLUSION In the laparoscopic group, both postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly reduced and most risk factors for postoperative morbidity disappeared.Read at the meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, June 21 to 26, 2003, New Orleans, Louisiana.     

Systematic Review of the Costs of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Purpose Recent studies have confirmed the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic colorectal surgery; however, its use has not become widespread. One reason for this is perceived economic implications. A systematic review was undertaken examining the costs of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods Electronic databases were searched for articles comparing laparoscopic colorectal surgery and open surgery. Primary outcome measures were operating room, direct hospital, and indirect costs. Secondary outcomes were conversion rates and length of hospital stay. The percentage difference in costs was used for comparisons between studies. Results Twenty-nine articles were identified in which cost data were presented (total number of patients 3,681); the economic data in most studies was limited. Operating room costs were greater for laparoscopic colorectal surgery than open surgery in all studies (median difference, 50 percent; interquartile range, 27–78 percent; P < 0.001). There was no overall difference in total hospital costs (median difference, 0 percent; interquartile range, −17.5 to 21 percent). Only two articles collected data on indirect costs, with both in favor of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in all studies (median difference, 2.8 days; interquartile range, 1.3–3.7; P < 0.001). Median conversion rate was 7.8 percent (mean, 14 percent; interquartile range, 6–21 percent). Conclusions Operating room costs are greater for laparoscopic colorectal surgery than open surgery. Total hospital costs are similar. There may be societal benefits associated with lower indirect costs for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Cost should not be a deterrent to performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Presented at the International Congress of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Berlin, Germany, September 14 to 16, 2006. Reprints are not available.     

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery for Cancer

PURPOSE: Since 1991, a laparoscopic-assisted resection has been used at the Royal Brisbane Hospital selectively for patients with colorectal cancer. This article audits the intermediate to long-term postoperative complications and cancer follow-up data. METHODS: All patients undergoing a laparoscopic resection for cancer were prospectively followed up with regard to long-term outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients have been studied. One hundred fifty-four patients had potentially curative procedures performed in the study period. Median follow up was 71 (range, 7–108) months. The overall recurrence rate in this group was 6 percent (21 recurrences). There was one port site recurrence after a potentially curative procedure (0.6 percent) and one port site recurrence after a palliative resection. Perioperative mortality was 1 percent (2 patients). Only six patients suffered an adhesive small-bowel obstruction postoperatively. There was one incisional hernia. Unadjusted five-year median survival data for Australian Clinico-pathological Staging A was 91 percent (3.5 percent recurrence); for Australian Clinico-pathological Staging B, 83 percent (15 percent recurrence); and for Australian Clinico-pathological Staging C, 74 percent (26 percent recurrence). CONCLUSION: In selected patients a laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer produces acceptable intermediate to long-term oncologic outcomes and a low long-term complication rate.     

Robotic Colorectal Surgery: First 50 Cases Experience

Purpose  Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is believed to be technically and oncologically feasible. However, some limitation of traditional laparoscopic surgery may cause difficulties. Robotic-assisted surgery may overcome these pitfalls. Methods  From December 2005 to July 2007, 50 patients were selected for robotic-assisted colorectal resection mainly for cancer. Results  Of the 50 patients enrolled, 32 (64 percent) were men and 18 (36 percent) were women. Their mean age was 66.7 (range, 37–92) years. The American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) class distribution was 13 (26 percent) ASA I, 24 (48 percent) ASA II, 12 (24 percent) ASA III, and 1 (2 percent) ASA IV. Forty-four patients suffered from cancer and six patients from benign disease. Amongst the cancer patients, 3 percent were at UICC (International Union Against Cancer) Stage 0, 36 percent at UICC Stage I, 24 percent at Stage II, 28 percent at Stage III, and 9 percent at Stage IV. The global conversion rate was 4 percent. The mean operative time was 338.8 minutes. It decreased as the experience increased (419 minutes in the first 20 cases vs. 346 minutes in the last 30 cases; P = 0.036). As a gross comparison, the results of a coeval standard laparoscopy group of patients were shown. Conclusions  Robotic laparoscopic colon surgery is feasible and safe. A longer operating time is needed.     

Benefits of Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection Are More Pronounced in Elderly Patients

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic colorectal resection on short-term postoperative outcome in elderly patients. Methods A series of 535 patients with colorectal disease who had been randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 268) or open (n = 267) resection was analyzed. A total of 201 patients (37.6 percent) were elderly (aged 70 years or older) and 334 patients (62.4 percent) were younger than aged 70 years. Follow-up for postoperative morbidity was performed for 30 days after hospital discharge. Results Elderly patients had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score compared with younger patients in both the laparoscopic and open groups (P = 0.0001). In the open group, elderly patients had higher morbidity rate (37.5 vs. 23.9 percent; P = 0.02) and longer length of hospital stay (13 vs. 10.6; P = 0.007) compared with younger patients. In the laparoscopic group, morbidity rate (20.2 vs. 15.1 percent) and length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 9.1) were similar in elderly and younger patients. In elderly patients, the laparoscopy-reduced morbidity rate (20.2 vs. 37.5 percent; P = 0.01) and length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 13; P = 0.001) compared to the open approach. In younger patients, the advantages of the laparoscopic approach on morbidity rate (15.1 vs. 23.9 percent; P = 0.06) and length of stay (9.1 vs. 10.6; P = 0.004) were less pronounced. Conclusions Laparoscopy improved short-term postoperative outcome more in elderly than in younger patients. Advanced age was associated with higher morbidity and longer length of stay only in patients who underwent open colorectal surgery. Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, St. Louis, Missouri, June 2 to 6, 2007.     

Robotic surgery of the pancreas

Pancreatic surgery is one of the most challenging and complex fields in general surgery. While minimally invasive surgery has become the standard of care for many intra-abdominal pathologies the overwhelming majority of pancreatic surgery is performed in an open fashion. This is attributed to the retroperitoneal location of the pancreas, its intimate relationship to major vasculature and the complexity of reconstruction in the case of pancreatoduodenectomy. Herein, we describe the application of robotic technology to minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. The unique capabilities of the robotic platform have made the minimally invasive approach feasible and safe with equivalent if not better outcomes (e.g., decreased length of stay, less surgical site infections) to conventional open surgery. However, it is unclear whether the robotic approach is truly superior to traditional laparoscopy; this is a key point given the substantial costs associated with procuring and maintaining robotic capabilities.     

The Gap in Laparoscopic Colorectal Experience Between Colon and Rectal and General Surgery Residency Training Programs

Purpose In this article, we review the laparoscopic experience of general surgery and colorectal residency training programs in the United States during the past 5 and 12 years, respectively. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an adequate experience was being provided, and at what level of training, to safely and effectively perform advanced laparoscopy. Methods General Surgery Operative Reports from the training years 2000 to 2004 were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Similarly, colorectal operative performance logs from the training years 1994 to 2005 were obtained from the American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery. Results From 2000 to 2004, basic and advanced laparoscopic cases (as designated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) have increased from 10.1 to 12.2 percent and 2.1 to 3.7 percent, respectively. Within this period, the number of laparoscopic colon cases/resident/career has increased from 1.8 to 4.6. The percentage of cases performed laparoscopically increased from 3.9 to 22.5 percent from 1993–1994 to 2004–2005 training years. From 1993 to 2001, the average number of laparoscopic cases/resident increased from 6.3 to 16.1. In 2004, the average number of cases/resident increased to 45.3. Of this number, 30 were colon, 9.4 were rectal, and the remaining 5.9 were miscellaneous colorectal procedures. Conclusions Learning curves for laparoscopic colectomy are reported in the range of 20 to 60 cases. Based on the most recent data reviewed, colon and rectal resident experience is trending toward this threshold. Recent general surgery graduates may be lacking the appropriate volume to reach proficiency in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Seattle, Washington, June 3 to 8, 2006.     

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen’s fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.     

Robotic mitral valve repair in infective endocarditis

Background

Robotic mitral surgery is the most common robotic cardiac procedures. However, in mitral endocarditis the repair become more challenging especially in minimally approach. We applied robotic surgery in mitral endocarditis repair and reviewed our surgical methods and results.

Patients

From January 2012 to December 2013, 12 patients with mitral endocarditis in National Taiwan University Hospital were operated via robotic assisted repair. Age of them was among 21 to 65 years old, mean 43.

Results

The vegetation involves anterior leaflet in 3, posterior leaflet in 8 and commissural leaflet in 4. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time is 124 minutes and cross clamp time is 89 minutes. There was no stroke and no operation death. Mitral valve repair technique including anterior leaflet patch augmentation in 2, direct closure of rupture hole on anterior leaflet in one, plication commissural leaflet in 2, and artificial chordae in 10. There was no mitral regurgitation detected immediately after weaning of cardiopulmonary bypass. All of them got free-from-regurgitation or -stenosis rate was 100% at one-year follow.

Conclusions

Although mitral infective endocarditis is complex and difficult to repair, robotic mitral repair in infective endocarditis is feasible. Even in the complex repair group, the cardiopulmonary bypass time is not prolonged and the result is good.     

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy: Indications and outcomes

The application of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases has been growing in the last two decades. Studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy(LDP) is feasible and safe, and many of them show that compared to open distal pancreatectomy, LDP has decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay, and equivalent post-operative complication rates and shortterm oncologic outcomes. LDP is becoming the procedure of choice for benign or small low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy(MIPD) has not yet been widely adopted. There is no clear evidence in favor of MIPD over open pancreaticoduodenectomy in operative time, blood loss, length of stay or rate of complications. Robotic surgery has recently been applied to pancreatectomy, and many of the advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery have been observed in robotic surgery. Laparoscopic enucleation is considered safe for patients with small, benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the pancreas that is amenable to parenchyma-preserving procedure. As surgeons’ experience with advanced laparoscopic and robotic skills has been growing around the world, new innovations and breakthrough in minimally invasive pancreatic procedures will evolve.     

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic vs. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Trial

Purpose  This study was designed to compare short-term outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. straight laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods  Eleven surgeons at five centers participated in a prospective, randomized trial of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoid/left colectomy and total colectomy. The study was powered to detect a 30-minute reduction in operative time between hand-assisted laparoscopic and straight laparoscopic groups. Results  There were 47 hand-assisted patients (33 sigmoid/left colectomy, 14 total colectomy) and 48 straight laparoscopic patients (33 sigmoid/left colectomy, 15 total colectomy). There were no differences in the patient age, sex, body mass index, previous surgery, diagnosis, and procedures performed between the hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic groups. Resident participation in the procedures was similar for all groups. The mean operative time (in minutes) was significantly less in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group for both the sigmoid colectomy (175 ± 58 vs. 208 ± 55; P = 0.021) and total colectomy groups (time to colectomy completion, 127 ± 31 vs. 184 ± 72; P = 0.015). There were no apparent differences in the time to return of bowel function, tolerance of diet, length of stay, postoperative pain scores, or narcotic usage between the hand-assisted laparoscopic and straight laparoscopic groups. There was one (2 percent) conversion in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group and six (12.5 percent) in the straight laparoscopic group (P = 0.11). Complications were similar in both groups (hand-assisted, 21 percent vs. straight laparoscopic, 19 percent; P = 0.68). Conclusions  In this prospective, randomized study, hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in significantly shorter operative times while maintaining similar clinical outcomes as straight laparoscopic techniques for patients undergoing left-sided colectomy and total abdominal colectomy. Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, St. Louis, Missouri, June 2 to 6, 2007. Reprints are not available Drs. Marcello, Read, and Mutch are consultants for Applied Medical and have received honoraria and potential stock options. Drs. Milsom and Whelan have received honoraria for speaking on behalf of Applied Medical. Applied Medical provided financial support to the institutions for the project.     

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery:current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studiesand meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients' characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intracorporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.     

Laparoscopic vs. Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis

Introduction Sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis can be technically challenging because of severe inflammation in the left-lower quadrant and pelvis. We hypothesized that hand-assisted laparoscopic technique may facilitate laparoscopic completion of this surgery while retaining the short-term benefits associated with “pure” laparoscopic surgery, in which an incision is made only for extracting the specimen. This study was designed to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent totally laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. Methods We reviewed our prospectively collected patient database from July 2001 to June 2004 and compared the intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomies for diverticulitis. Complicated patients (with abscess or fistulas) also were separately analyzed. Results The hand-assisted laparoscopic (mode age, 57 years; 48 percent male) and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (mode age, 56 years; 90 percent male) groups were similar with regard to age and gender. Overall, patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 21) vs. hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 21) sigmoidectomies had a significantly longer operative time (197 ± 42 vs. 171 ± 34 minutes, P = 0.04) and shorter incision length (5 ± 2.1 vs. 9.3 ± 4.1 cm, P = 0.0001). Patients with complicated diverticulitis (n = 14; abscess, colovesical fistula, enterocolic fistula) who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomies (n=4) had a significantly longer operative time compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (n = 10) group (255 ± 18 vs. 177 ± 34 minutes, P = 0.001). Conversion rate for the laparoscopic group was significantly higher (3/4 vs. 1/10, P = 0.04, Fisher exact) when complicated diverticulitis was present. There were no differences in postoperative outcomes or incision lengths in thecomplicated group. Conclusions Outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis are similar to those seen in the pure laparoscopic method, with lower conversion rates and shorter operative times. Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis is an attractive alternative to a “pure” laparoscopic method in complicated cases. Podium presentation at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 30 to May 5, 2005. Reprints are not available.     

机器人与腹腔镜在低位直肠癌经括约肌间切除术的近期疗效对比

目的比较机器人和腹腔镜在低位直肠癌经括约肌间切除术的近期疗效,探讨机器人经括约肌间切除术的安全性及可行性。 方法回顾性分析2015年10月至2017年10月甘肃省人民医院肛肠科确诊为低位直肠癌并行机器人或者腹腔镜经括约肌间切除患者的人口及临床资料。收集并比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹率、首次通气时间、术后住院时间、并发症、肿瘤距远切缘的距离、环周切缘的阳性数、清扫淋巴结数量等。 结果机器人组流质饮食时间、首次通气时间、术后住院时间较腹腔镜组短（均P<0.05）;机器人组术中失血量多于腹腔镜组（P<0.05）;机器人与腹腔镜组在手术时间上差异无统计学意义,两组的术后并发症的差异无统计学意义,机器人组的总费用高于腹腔镜组（P<0.001）。 结论机器人低位直肠癌经括约肌间切除术是安全、可行的。与腹腔镜组手术相比,机器人组术后肠功能恢复快,住院时间短,近期肿瘤学的结果安全可靠,可作为低位直肠癌治疗的有效手段之一。     

Robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction for female gastric cancer patients

AIM: To describe the application of complete robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction(TVSE) for gastric cancer patients.METHODS: Between July and November 2014, eight female patients who were diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma underwent a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy. According to the tumor location, the patients were allocated to two different groups; two patients received robotic total gastrectomy with TVSE and the other six received robotic distal gastrectomy with TVSE.RESULTS: Surgical procedures were successfully performed in all eight cases without conversion. The mean age was 55.3(range, 42-69) years, and the mean body mass index was 23.2(range, 21.6-26.0) kg/m2. The mean total operative time and blood loss were 224(range, 200-298) min and 62.5(range, 50-150) m L, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.6(range, 3-5) d. The mean number of lymph nodes resected was 23.6(range, 17-27). None was readmitted within 30 d of postoperation. During the follow-up, no stricture developed nor was any anastomotic leakage detected.CONCLUSION: It is possible to perform a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy with standard D2 lymph node resection for female gastric cancer patients.     

Palliative Laparoscopic Resections for Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

Purpose Issues surrounding the safety and efficacy of palliative laparoscopic resections for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer have not been explicitly examined in the literature. This article describes our experience with laparoscopic procedures for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer and compares their perioperative outcomes to a contemporaneous group of patients with clinically curable (Stages I–III) disease. Methods A prospective database of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer performed between 1991 and 2002 was reviewed. Data regarding patient demographics, perioperative morbidity and mortality, operative times, conversion rates, and length of stay were extracted. Statistical analysis included chi-squared and Student's t-tests as required and P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 375 cases were identified, of these 49 (13 percent) underwent laparoscopic palliative resections while 326 (87 percent) patients had resections for cure. When comparing palliative to curative procedures, there were no differences in intraoperative (4 percent vs. 9 percent) or postoperative complications (14 percent vs. 12 percent), perioperative mortality (8 percent vs. 4 percent), or length of hospital stay. Patients with Stage IV disease had largertumors (5.4 ± 2.3 cm vs. 4.6 ± 2.6 cm, P = 0.04) which contributed to an increased rate of conversion (22 percent vs. 11 percent, P = 0.05) with most conversions secondary to tumor fixation or bulk (64 percent) preventing determination of resectability. Conclusions A palliative laparoscopic resection is a safe and feasible option and presents acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer. Importantly, in this difficult group ofpatients, our results compare favorably with those from previously published series of open procedures. Presented at the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, June 15 to 18, 2003.