Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits of robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for RS and LS for rectal cancer. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies matched the selection criteria and r...     

Total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs robotic surgery

AIM: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision(TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014(robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?Ⅰ-Ⅲ disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.RESULTS: Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME(L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME(R-TME)(P 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. Thepatients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients(8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group(18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients(1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.CONCLUSION: Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.     

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:To systematically review and evaluate the safety, advantages and clinical application value of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for endometrial cancer by comparing it with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).Methods:We conducted a systematic review of the published literature comparing LESS with CLS in the treatment of endometrial cancer. English databases including PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases including Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and China Biology Medicine were searched for eligible observational studies up to July 10, 2019. We then evaluated the quality of the selected comparative studies before performing a meta-analysis using the RevMan 5.3 software. The complications, surgical time, blood loss during surgery, postoperative length of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes removed during surgery were compared between the 2 surgical approaches.Results:Four studies with 234 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. We found that there was no statistically significant difference in complications between the 2 surgical approaches [odds ratio (OR): 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18–2.21, P = .47, I² = 0%]. There was no statistically significant difference in blood loss between the 2 surgical approaches [mean difference (MD): –61.81, 95% CI: –130.87 to –7.25, P = .08, I² = 74%]. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical time between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: –11.51, 95% CI: –40.19 to 17.16, P = .43, I² = 81%). There was also no statistically significant difference in postoperative length of hospital stay between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: –0.56, 95% CI: –1.25 to –0.13, P = .11, I² = 72%). Both pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes can be removed with either of the 2 procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of paraaortic lymph nodes and total lymph nodes removed during surgery between the 2 surgical approaches [(MD: –0.11, 95% CI: –3.12 to 2.91, P = .29, I² = 11%) and (MD: –0.53, 95% CI (–3.22 to 2.16), P = .70, I² = 83%)]. However, patients treated with LESS had more pelvic lymph nodes removed during surgery than those treated with CLS (MD: 3.33, 95% CI: 1.05–5.62, P = .004, I² = 32%).Conclusion:Compared with CLS, LESS did not reduce the incidence of complications or shorten postoperative hospital stay. Nor did it increase surgical time or the amount of bleeding during surgery. LESS can remove lymph nodes and ease postoperative pain in the same way as CLS. However, LESS improves cosmesis by leaving a single small scar.     

A comparative clinical study of short-term results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer during the learning curve

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal carcinoma (LSRC) during the learning curve throughout the introduction of this technique at our medical center.Materials and methods From January 2003 to April 2004, 40 patients undergoing surgery were assigned to laparoscopic surgery group (LSG) (n=20) or conventional surgery group (CSG) (n=20). Data were prospectively collected to statistically analyze clinical, anatomopathological, and economic variables.Results Groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, surgical technique performed, tumor size and distance, Dukes’ stage, and proportion of patients with previous abdominal surgery and radiotherapy. There was no difference in operative time. LSG blood loss was lower (p<.0001). LSG peristalsis and oral intake began earlier (p<.0001). LSG hospital stay was shorter (p<.0001). Intraoperative complications (10% LSG vs 15% CSG) and overall morbidity (35% LSG vs 45% CSG) were no different. LSG did not record any anastomotic leakages. Two patients (10%) were converted to open surgery. Regarding oncologic adequacy of resection, specimen length and number of nodes harvested were no different. LSG distal and radial resection margins were greater (p<.0001; p=.03). LSG operative costs were greater (p<.0001). However, CSG hospitalization costs were higher (p<.001). There was no overall difference (p=0.1).Conclusions LSRC has been a reliable and efficient technique during the learning curve at our hospital.     

腹腔镜与开放肝总管空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术后并发症比较的Meta分析

目的评价腹腔镜与开放肝总管空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术后并发症发生率。方法检索Pub Med、Web of Science、中国知网、维普、万方数据库,收集腹腔镜与开放肝总管空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术后并发症的相关研究,检索时限均为从建库至2016年5月20日,由2位研究者根据纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价质量,采用STATA12.0软件对术后总并发症、切口感染、黏连性肠梗阻和胆漏的发生率进行分析。结果纳入9篇文献共548例患者,腹腔镜组261例,开腹组287例。腹腔镜组与开腹组相比,总并发症发生率低[比值比(OR)=0.40,95%可信区间(95%CI):0.24~0.68),P=0.001],切口感染发生率低(OR=0.20,95%CI:0.08~0.53,P=0.001),黏连性肠梗阻发生率低(OR=0.25,95%CI:0.06~0.99,P=0.049),差异均有统计学意义;2组间胆漏发生率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜肝总管空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术较开放手术可降低术后总并发症、黏连性肠梗阻和切口感染发生率,是安全、可行的手术方式。     

Application of enhanced recovery after gastric cancer surgery: An updated meta-analysis

AIM To provide an updated assessment of the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS) protocols in elective gastric cancer(GC) surgery.METHODS Pub Med, Medline, EMBASE, World Health Organization International Trial Register, and Cochrane Library were searched up to June 2017 for all available randomized controlled trials(RCTs) comparing ERAS protocols and standard care(SC) in GC surgery. Thirteen RCTs, with a total of 1092 participants, were analyzed in this study, of whom 545 underwent ERAS protocols and 547 received SC treatment.RESULTS No significant difference was observed between ERAS and control groups regarding total complications(P = 0.88), mortality(P = 0.50) and reoperation(P = 0.49). The incidence of pulmonary infection was significantly reduced(P = 0.03) following gastrectomy. However, the readmission rate after GC surgery nearly tripled under ERAS(P = 0.009). ERAS protocols significantly decreased the length of postoperative hospital stay(P 0.00001) and medical costs(P 0.00001), and accelerated bowel function recovery, as measured by earlier time to the first flatus(P = 0.0004) and the first defecation(P 0.0001). Moreover, ERAS protocols were associated with a lower level of serum inflammatory response, higher serum albumin, and superior shortterm quality of life(QOL).CONCLUSION Collectively, ERAS results in accelerated convalescence, reduction of surgical stress and medical costs, improved nutritional status, and better QOL for GC patients. However, high-quality multicenter RCTs with large samples and long-term follow-up are needed to more precisely evaluate ERAS in radical gastrectomy.     

Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

AIM: To evaluate the 5-year survival after laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer.METHODS: This study enrolled 406 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for stages II and III rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2009 [laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR), n = 152; open rectal resection (ORR), n = 254]. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pathological outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 5-year survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.RESULTS: Most of the clinical characteristics were similar except age (59 years vs 55 years, P = 0.033) between the LRR group and ORR group. The proportion of anterior resection was higher in the LRR group than that in the ORR group (81.6% vs 66.1%, P = 0.001). The LRR group had less estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, P < 0.001) and a lower rate of blood transfusion (4.6% vs 11.8%, P = 0.019) compared to the ORR group. The pathological outcomes of the two groups were comparable. The LRR group was associated with faster recovery of bowel function (2.8 d vs 3.7 d, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11.7 d vs 13.7 d, P < 0.001). The median follow-up time was 63 mo in the LRR group and 65 mo in the ORR group. As for the survival outcomes, the 5-year local recurrence rate (16.0% vs 16.4%, P = 0.753), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate (63.0% vs 63.1%, P = 0.589), and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (68.1% vs 63.5%, P = 0.682) were comparable between the LRR group and the ORR group. Stage by stage, there were also no statistical differences between the LRR group and the ORR group in terms of the 5-year local recurrence rate (stage II: 6.3% vs 8.7%, P = 0.623; stage III: 26.4% vs 23.2%, P = 0.747), 5-year DFS rate (stage II: 77.5% vs 77.6%, P = 0.462; stage III: 46.5% vs 50.9%, P = 0.738), and 5-year OS rate (stage II: 81.4% vs 74.3%, P = 0.242; stage III: 53.9% vs 54.1%, P = 0.459).CONCLUSION: LRR for stages II and III rectal cancer can yield comparable long-term survival while achieving short-term benefits compared to open surgery.     

Laparoscopic versus open surgery in the treatment of hepatic hemangioma: A meta-analysis

Background:The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic versus open resection (LR vs OR) in the treatment of hepatic hemangioma.Methods:We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedicine Database from January 2000 to April 2020 for studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in hepatic hemangioma treatment.Results:Based on the preset criteria, 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 12 observational clinical studies (OCSs) were selected for analysis. Our results showed that laparoscopic surgery was more effective than open surgery in terms of reducing operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative exhaust time, postoperative complications, postoperative bile leak, postoperative intra-abdominal infection, postoperative alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) values, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and hospitalize length. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in hepatectomy time, hospitalized cost, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, and the postoperative recurrence of hemangioma.Conclusion:While similar therapeutic effect was achieved by the compared herein surgical methods, the findings of our analysis revealed that laparoscopic surgery is superior over open surgery in terms of less trauma, faster recovery, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalize length, and reduced postoperative complications. Therefore, laparoscopic resection of hepatic hemangioma is a safe, effective, and feasible surgical method that is worth considering in clinical applications.     

Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy for right colon tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) in the treatment of right colon tumor.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register for studies (studies published between January 2011 and June 2020). The included studies compared the clinical efficacy of RRC and LRC in the treatment of right colon tumor, and analyzed the perioperative data.Results:Our meta-analysis included 10 studies involving 1180 patients who underwent 2 surgical procedures, RRC and LRC. This study showed that compared with LRC, there was no significant difference in first flatus passage (weighted mean difference [WMD]: −0.37, 95% CI: −1.09–0.36, P = .32), hospital length of stay (WMD: −0.23, 95% CI: −0.73–0.28, P = .32), reoperation (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 0.67–4.10, P = .27), complication (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60–1.14, P = .25), mortality (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.02–11.22, P = .63), wound infection (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.34–1.25, P = .20), and anastomotic leak (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.33–1.63, P = .44). This study showed that compared with LRC, the lymph nodes retrieved (WMD: 1.47, 95% CI: −0.00–2.94, P = .05) of RRC were similar, with slight advantages, and resulted in longer operative time (WMD: 65.20, 95% CI: 53.40–77.01, P < .00001), less estimated blood loss (WMD: −13.43, 95% CI: −20.65–6.21, P = .0003), and less conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17–0.54, P < .0001).Conclusions:RRC is equivalent to LRC with respect to first flatus passage, hospital length of stay, reoperation, complication, and results in less conversion to LRC.     

套袖式吻合技术在腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术中的应用

目的探讨套袖式吻合技术在腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术的安全性、有效性及近期疗效。 方法回顾性分析中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院2018年4月至2019年2月采用套袖式吻合技术完成的腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术患者的临床资料,统计并分析患者的临床特征、病理特征、手术和术后恢复情况、围手术期并发症及术后肛门功能等资料。 结果共有40例患者成功完成应用套袖式吻合技术的腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术,2例患者术中因结肠残端血供较差行预防性回肠造口,其中21例（52.5%）患者术前行新辅助治疗,肿瘤距肛缘中位距离为4 cm,中位手术时间为166.5 min,中位术中出血量为20.0 mL。肿瘤中位长径为2.5 cm,中位近端切缘长度为10.3 cm,中位远端切缘长度为1.0 cm,中位淋巴结检出数目为13.10枚。患者术后中位下地时间、进食时间、排气时间和住院时间分别为19.0 h、12.5 h、20.5 h和6.0 d,中位住院费用为47 646.0元。随访过程中,结肠残端回缩入盆腔的中位时间为12.0 d,其中4例（10%）患者术后出现吻合口漏,行临时性肠造口手术后逐渐好转,1例（2.5%）患者术后出现结肠残端出血,4例（10%）患者术后出现肛周粪水性皮炎,2例（5%）患者术后出现肛周疼痛,均予对症止处理后好转。术后3个月采用低前切除综合征（LARS）评分量表评估肛门功能,其中,8例（20%）无LARS,23例（57.5%）轻度LARS,9例（22.5%）重度LARS。随访期间无患者肿瘤复发或者转移。 结论应用套袖式吻合技术的腹腔镜超低位直肠癌保肛手术安全可行,避免了常规预防性造口,近期疗效较为满意,其远期疗效待进一步随访观察。     

硬膜外麻醉与镇痛对非小细胞肺癌患者术后并发症的影响

目的观察硬膜外阻滞对胸腔镜辅助小切口肺癌手术患者术后并发症发生率的影响。方法 396例拟行根治性手术治疗的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者随机接受单纯全身麻醉+术后静脉镇痛(GA组,n=198)或硬膜外全身复合麻醉+术后硬膜外镇痛(EGA组,n=198)。除硬膜外阻滞外,两组患者术中接受同样药物的全身麻醉,术后分别使用静脉或硬膜外自控镇痛至第3天。术后每天采用数字评定量表(NRS)评分法评估术后3 d内静息时及咳嗽时疼痛程度,术后第4天起每周随访直至出院,记录术后并发症发生情况、出院时间和住院死亡率。主要终点是术后住院期间并发症发生率。结果 396例患者进入意向治疗分析。术后第1~3天静息和咳嗽时NRS疼痛评分EGA组均明显低于GA组(均为P0.0001)。术后肺不张发生率EGA组明显低于GA组[EGA组1.0%(2/198);GA组4.5%(9/198),P=0.032];术后房颤发生率[EGA组2.0%(4/198);GA组5.1%(14/198),P=0.016];心血管并发症发生率[EGA组2.5%(5/198);GA组8.1%(16/198),P=0.014]EGA组明显低于GA组。术后总的并发症发生率两组间无明显差异[EGA组15.2%(30/198);GA组12.6%(25/198),P=0.468]。围术期需要干预的低血压发生率EGA组明显高于GA组(P=0.021),但需要干预的高血压发生率EGA组显著低于GA组(P0.0001)。结论对于接受胸腔镜辅助下小切口肺癌手术的患者,硬膜外麻醉和镇痛可改善术后镇痛效果、减少术后肺不张和房颤的发生,但会增加围术期低血压发生率。     

Long-term oncological outcome in patients with cervical cancer after 3 trimodality treatment (radiotherapy,platinum-based chemotherapy,and robotic surgery)

Cervical cancer represents a general health issue spread all over the globe, which prompts the surge of scientific survey toward the rise of survival and condition of life of these patients. American and European guidelines suggest the open surgery, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery are the main therapeutic approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with cervical cancer. This is the first survey to analyze the long-term oncological outcome of an extensive series of subjects cared for with multimodality treatment, here comprising robotic surgery.This study intents to evaluate the long-term oncological result in patients diagnosed with cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy (±chemotherapy) and robotic surgery compared with open surgery. Medical files of 56 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer who underwent a robotic hysterectomy and radiotherapy ± chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed.The median age at diagnosis was 50.5 (range: 23–70). Eleven patients (19.6%) presented in an early stage (IB–IIA) and 80.4% advanced stage (IIB–IVA). Overall response rate after radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy was 96.2%. Pathologic complete response was obtained in 64% of patients. After a median follow-up of 60 months (range: 6–105 months), 8 patients (14.2%) presented local recurrence or distant metastases. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 92% at 2 years and 84% at 3 and 5 years. Overall survival (OS) rates at 2, 3, and 5 years for patients with robotic surgery were 91%, 78%, and 73%, median OS not reached. OS was lower in the arm of open surgery (2, 3, and 5 years 87%, 71%, and 61%, respectively; median OS was 72 months P = .054). The multivariate analysis regarding the outcome of patients revealed an advantage for complete versus partial response (P < .002), for early versus advanced stages (P = .014) and a 10% gained in DFS at 3 years for patients in whom chemoradiotherapy was administered (DFS at 3 years 75% vs 85%) in patients with advanced stages.Robotic surgery has a favorable oncological outcome when associated with multimodal therapy.     

Introduction of robotic surgery leads to increased rate of segmentectomy in patients with lung cancer

BackgroundPulmonary segmentectomy provides an anatomic lung resection while avoiding removal of excess normal lung tissue. This may be beneficial in patients with minimal pulmonary reserve who present with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the operative performance of a segmentectomy using a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach can be technically challenging. We hypothesized that introduction of the robotic surgical system would facilitate the performance of a segmentectomy as measured by an increase in the proportion of segmentectomies being pursued.MethodsWe completed a retrospective analysis of thoracoscopic and robotic anatomic lung resections, including lobectomies and segmentectomies, performed in patients with primary lung cancer from the time of initiation of the robotic thoracic surgery program in November 2017 to November 2019. We compared the proportion of thoracoscopic and robotic segmentectomies performed during the first year compared to the second year of the data collection period.ResultsA total of 138 thoracoscopic and robotic anatomic lung resections were performed for primary lung cancer. Types of lung cancer resected (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or other), tumor size based on clinical T staging (T1–T4), and tumor location were not significantly different between years (P=0.44, P=0.98, and P=0.26, respectively). The proportion of segmentectomies increased from 8.6% during the first year to 25.0% during the second year (P=0.01). One out of 6 (16.7%) segmentectomies were performed using the robot during the first year versus 15 out of 17 (88.2%) during the second year (P=0.003).ConclusionsUse of the robot led to a significant increase in the number of segmentectomies performed in patients undergoing anatomic lung resection. With increasing lung cancer awareness and widely available screening, a greater number of small, early-stage tumors suitable for segmentectomy will likely be detected. We conclude that robotic-assisted surgery may facilitate the challenges of performing a minimally invasive segmentectomy.     

A case-control-study comparing laparoscopic versusopen surgery for rectosigmoidal and rectal cancer

This study compared laparoscopic with open surgery for the cure of cancer of the rectosigmoid and rectum. Results of surgery, postoperative recovery, and oncological follow-up were compared between 32 laparoscopic curative procedures (19 laparoscopic-assisted anterior resections for cancer of the rectosigmoid or upper rectum and 13 laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancer) and 32 controls matched for age, UICC stage, tumor site, and type of resection who underwent open surgery during the same observation period. Morbidity was identical after laparoscopic and open resection (31.3%). Surgery was equally radical in the two groups regarding yield of lymph nodes and lateral and distal margins. Survival, recurrence, and cancer-related mortality showed no statistical differences. There was no port-site recurrence. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery were shown with a reduction in perioperative blood transfusion and earlier return of bowel function. However, the operative time was significantly increased in the laparoscopic group. This study shows that laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer is technically feasible, and that oncological short-term outcome does not differ from the results achieved by open techniques. However, prospective randomized trials are mandatory to evaluate the definite role of laparoscopic surgery for malignancy. Accepted: 26 April 1999     

Quality of life after surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review of comparisons with the general population

Rectal cancer treatments may impact negatively on patients’ bowel and sexual functions and, in turn, on health-related quality of life. Information on the likely effects of treatment is essential in order to facilitate the care process and the adaptation of patients to their condition. Studies that report on the comparison between rectal cancer patients and the general population are a useful source of this evidence, providing elements to aid in answering questions such as ‘is my life going to be the same as before?’ In this article, the authors have systematically reviewed articles published in the last 6 years that report on the comparison between rectal patients’ and the general population’s health-related quality of life. Sixteen out of 645 articles were included. The results are summarized and critically discussed.     

Postoperative bladder and sexual function in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection of rectal cancer

There have been conflicting opinions regarding the superiority of open and laparoscopic surgery in preserving bladder and sexual function after rectal cancer surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to pool the available data comparing the impact of surgical approaches on postoperative sexual and urinary function. A search of Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane and Embase was undertaken and studies from January 2000 to February 2013 were identified. We included, in our meta-analysis, both prospective and retrospective studies that compared laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for rectal cancer. A total of 876 patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery (lap n = 468, open n = 408) were examined. In men, postoperative ejaculatory function and erectile dysfunction evaluated from two studies comprising of 74 patients showed no difference between groups. The rate of overall sexual dysfunction evaluated from five studies comprising of 289 patients revealed a rate of 34 % in both the open and lap groups. Postoperative urinary function evaluated from five studies comprising of 312 patients showed no difference between groups. In women, postoperative sexual and urinary function were evaluated from five studies comprising of 321 patients. Three studies (n = 219) reported no difference in sexual function between groups. Postoperative urinary function evaluated from four studies comprising of 212 patients was found to be comparable. The available data are limited, but suggest that neither form of surgical approach be it laparoscopy or open surgery demonstrate superiority in preservation of sexual and bladder function. Further research into the technical aspects of surgery and evaluating newer minimally invasive technologies such as the robot may prove to be useful in improving functional outcomes of rectal cancer patients.     

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, was launched to minimize incisional traumatic effects in the 1990s. Minor SILS, such as cholecystectomies, have been gaining in popularity over the past few decades. Its application in complicated hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeries, however, has made slow progress due to instrumental and technical limitations, costs, and safety concerns. While minimally invasive abdominal surgery is pushing the boundaries, advanced laparoscopic HPB surgeries have been shown to be comparable to open operations in terms of patient and oncologic safety, including hepatectomies, distal pancreatectomies (DP), and pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD). In contrast, advanced SILS for HPB malignancy has only been reported in a few small case series. Most of the procedures involved minor liver resections and DP; major hepatectomies were rarely described. Single-incision laparoscopic PD has not yet been reported. We herein review the published SILS for HPB cancer in the literature and our three-year experience focusing on the technical aspects.     

A critical appraisal of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) in the treatment of rectal adenoma: a 4-year experience with 51 cases

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe feasibility, postoperative morbidity, and histological outcome of transanal minimally-invasive surgery (TAMIS) in patients with rectal adenoma.

Material and methods: All patients who underwent TAMIS at a single institution from December 2011 to December 2015 were retrospectively included in the study. Feasibility was based on tumor size, distance of tumor from the anal verge, operative time, and hospital stay. Thirty-day morbidity was defined by the revised Accordion Classification system. Histological outcome included microscopic resection margin status, specimen fragmentation status, and grading of dysplasia in rectal adenoma.

Results: A total of 51 patients with rectal adenoma underwent TAMIS. The median tumor diameter was 32 (4–60) mm and the median distance from the anal verge 8 (3–14) cm. Median operative time was 40 (13–116) min and median length of hospital stay was 1 (0–25) days. Overall morbidity was 12% (four grade 1, one grade 2, and one grade 3 complications). 22% had a positive resection margin, whereas 31% had an indefinable resection margin status mostly due to tissue fragmentation. Median follow-up time was 7 (0–40) months.

Conclusions: TAMIS is a challenging surgical technique for treatment of rectal adenoma. Our initial experience among 51 patients resulted in a high proportion of positive resection margins and a high fragmentation rate. The role of TAMIS in the treatment of rectal adenoma is to be defined through comparative studies.