Efficacy of laparoscopic resection in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

Purpose

The perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients were compared with those of open surgery in elderly patients and those of laparoscopic surgery in nonelderly patients to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

The data of the patients who underwent surgical resection for colorectal cancer between January 2007 and September 2012 were retrospectively collected. The clinical backgrounds and outcomes of elderly patients (≥70 years of age) who underwent laparoscopic surgery (EL group) were compared with those of elderly patients who underwent open surgery (EO group) and those of nonelderly patients (<70 years of age) who underwent laparoscopic surgery (NL group).

Results

Compared with the EO group, the EL group showed significantly less blood loss (15 versus 100 ml), fewer postoperative complications (10.7 versus 36.7 %), earlier resumption of an oral diet (4 versus 5 days) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (16 versus 28 days). A case-matched analysis showed similar results. All perioperative outcomes were equivalent between the EL and NL groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients with cancer was not only superior to open surgery in elderly patients, but also equivalent to laparoscopic surgery in nonelderly patients in terms of the postoperative outcomes.     

Short-term results of a randomized study between laparoscopic and open surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients

Background

In surgical treatment of elderly patients, securing the safety of surgery and radical cure must be balanced. Our purpose was to verify the safety and validity of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer in elderly patients.

Methods

Patients with cTis–T4a colorectal cancer who were 75 years or older were randomized to receive open or laparoscopic surgery. Exclusion criteria were patients who had a bulky tumor, rectal cancer that required pelvic side wall lymphadenectomy, and history of colon resection. Patients were divided according to tumor location (right colon, left colon, and rectum). The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

One hundred patients (right 43, left 28, and rectum 29) were registered in each group from August 2008 to August 2012. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. Three patients were converted from laparoscopic to open, because of bleeding, excision of peritoneum metastasis, and patient’s desire, respectively. In the short-term results (open:laparoscopic), there were significant differences in the rates of complications (36:23 %) and ileus (12:4 %), amount of blood loss (157:63 mL), and duration of surgery (150:172 min). There were no significant differences in the pathological margins, and the number of dissected lymph nodes. In the subgroup analysis according to the tumor location, there were significant differences in the rate of complications (39.4:22.5 %), amount of blood loss (135:42 mL), duration of surgery (139:160 min), and length of postoperative stay (13.0:10.0 days) in the colon cancer. There were no significant differences in short-term results in the rectal cancer.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients did not result in a difference in radical cure compared with open surgery, and the short-term results except the duration of surgery were excellent. It is an effective procedure for elderly patients with colorectal cancer, especially colon cancer.     

Accelerated learning curve for colorectal resection, open versus laparoscopic approach, can be attained with expert supervision

Background

Laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) is gaining popularity. Nonetheless, open surgery remains an important technique. Thus, surgeons should be technically proficient in both open and laparoscopic surgery. One question however remains unanswered: Can training for open and LCR occur simultaneously? The objective of this paper is to review the learning curve for open and laparoscopic colon resection of one surgeon who underwent a rigorous training program.

Methods

A review of consecutive patients who underwent surgery for colon and rectosigmoid junction cancers by one trainee surgeon was performed. This surgeon had completed his basic surgical residency but had limited experience in colorectal cancer surgery. In total, 75 patients were included in this study. All operations were supervised by at least one staff surgeon with experience of more than 300 LCR cases. The trainee surgeon was allowed to train in both laparoscopic and open colorectal resection simultaneously.

Results

Forty-three patients underwent laparoscopic resection, while 32 patients underwent open surgery. Age, gender, mean body mass index (BMI), preoperative risk, and history of past abdominal surgery showed no significant difference between laparoscopic and open groups. There were no differences in tumor stage [International Union against Cancer (UICC)] or tumor size (p = 0.068 and 0.228, respectively). The morbidity rate for open and laparoscopic surgery was 3.1% (1/32) and 4.7% (2/43), respectively (p = 0.484). Operation time decreased with increasing experience, and plateaued after 25 cases in the laparoscopic group and 22 cases in the open group. The learning curve for open cases was 11 cases, and 7 for laparoscopic surgery.

Conclusions

Surgeons who have completed a basic surgical residency but have limited colorectal surgery experience can learn both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery simultaneously in an effective manner under supervision by well-experienced surgeons.     

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Long-term oncologic outcome after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Background

Recent studies demonstrated favorable short- and mid-term results after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, long-term results from large series are lacking. The present study analyses long-term results of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery from a large-volume center.

Methods

From January 1998 until March 2005, 225 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal resection due to carcinoma at the Medical Centre of the University of Regensburg. From 224 patients, a follow-up over 10 years was performed using the data of the Tumour Centre of the University of Regensburg. The data were analysed using oncological data (tumour recurrence) as well as overall survival. In addition, the effect of conversion to open resection on overall survival was analysed.

Results

With a median of 10 years at follow-up, the overall and disease-free survival was 50.5 and 50.1 %, respectively. Local recurrence of all patients was 5.8 % and none of the converted patients was within this group. The median time interval for the development of local recurrence was 30 months. Six of the 13 patients with local recurrence (46.1 %) had received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy before surgery. Patients with a conversion to open surgery had primarily a significantly worse outcome than patients resected completely laparoscopically (p = 0.003). However, this difference was no longer apparent using a multivariant analysis (hazard ratio 1.221; p = 0.478).

Conclusions

Overall survival and local recurrence rate of patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer are comparable to open surgery. However, in our analysis, patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection had a higher survival rate compared with patients with abdominoperineal resection.     

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.     

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open colectomy for treatment of colon cancer in the elderly: morbidity and mortality outcomes in 545 patients

Background

Advanced age is a risk factor of major abdominal surgery due to diminished functional reserve and increased comorbidity. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy is a well-established procedure in colon cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare early outcome of elective laparoscopy surgery and open colectomy in colon cancer patients according to age.

Methods

A total of 545 patients with colonic adenocarcinoma underwent elective surgery between 2005 and 2009. There were 277 patients in the laparoscopic group and 268 in the open. Patient characteristics in both groups were homogeneous and further stratified into three subgroups by age: <75, between 75–84, and ≥85 years. Main outcome measures were early morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay.

Results

Open surgery group showed a higher overall morbidity rate (37.3 vs. 21.6 %, P = 0.001), medical complications (16.4 vs. 10.5 %, P = 0.033), surgical complications (23.5 vs. 15.5 %, P = 0.034), and mortality (6.7 vs. 3.2 %, P = 0.034). The overall morbidity rate difference between open and laparoscopy approach disappeared in the oldest group (≥85 years old). Surgical site infections rate was inferior for patients <75 years old in laparoscopy group compared with open. Mortality was also significantly inferior in laparoscopy group in younger patients (<75 years, 0 vs. 3 %, P = 0.038). Mean hospital stay was shorter for patients in <75 and 75–84 groups with laparoscopic approach (7.8 vs. 11.4 days and 10 vs. 14.3, respectively, P = 0.001) as compared with those who underwent open surgery, but these differences disappeared in patients aged ≥85 years.

Conclusion

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy in patients underwent elective surgical resections for colon cancer showed advantages in rate of early complications in patients younger than 85 years of age and was found to be as safe and well tolerated as open surgery in patients over 85 years of age.     

Surgical Outcomes of Gastrectomy for Elderly Patients with Gastric Cancer

Background

This study was designed to determine the surgical outcomes of gastric cancer in elderly patients. This information can help establish appropriate treatment for these patients.

Methods

A total of 1,193 patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy between 1995 and 2010 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The clinicopathologic features of 104 elderly patients (aged ≥80 years) were compared with those of 1,089 nonelderly patients.

Results

(1) Tumors located in the lower-third of the stomach, differentiated cancer, and surgery with limited lymph node dissection were more common in elderly patients. However, there was no difference in the proportion of laparoscopic gastrectomy between elderly and nonelderly patients. (2) Although surgical complication rates were similar in the two groups, the operative mortality rate was higher in elderly patients (1.9 %) than in nonelderly patients (0.7 %). (3) Elderly patients had a significantly poorer overall survival rate, whereas the disease-specific survival rates of the two groups were similar. Limited lymph node dissection did not influence the disease-specific survival rate of elderly patients. (4) The median life expectancy of elderly gastric cancer survivors was 9.8 years in patients aged 80–84 years and 6.0 years in those ≥85 years. The patients with limited lymph node dissection had slightly better prognosis.

Conclusions

The treatment results in elderly patients were comparable to those in nonelderly patients. These findings suggest that R0 resection with at least limited lymph node dissection according to Japanese guidelines should be considered, even for elderly patients.     

Survival following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

Background

We assessed the short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IA) in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer compared with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA).

Methods

A retrospective chart review of 86 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from March 2005 to June 2010 was performed.

Results

There were 51 and 35 patients who underwent intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis, respectively. The two groups were demographically comparable. The conversion rate to open surgery was 8.6 % in the EA group, but none in the IA group (p = 0.064). There was no significant difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, complications (intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, ileus, and wound infection), and length of hospital stay between the groups. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. There was no significant difference in median number of retrieved lymph node. The overall survival and the disease-free survival at 3 years were not different between the groups.

Conclusions

Compared with the extracorporeal anastomosis technique, intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis produces comparable short- and long-term outcomes in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.     

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.     

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.     

Can laparoscopy for colon resection reduce the need for discharge to skilled care facility?

Background

A significant proportion of patients, especially the elderly undergoing colon resections, are likely to be discharged to a skilled care facility. This study aims to examine whether the technique of colectomy, open versus laparoscopic, contributed to their discharge to a skilled care facility.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis using discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Adult patients who underwent colectomy in 2009 were evaluated. SAS and SUDAAN software were used to provide weighted estimates and to account for the complex sampling design of the NIS. We compared routine discharge to nonroutine discharge, defined as transfer to short-term hospital, skilled nursing facility, intermediate care, home health, or another type of facility.

Results

A weighted total of 221,294 adult patients underwent colectomy in 2009 and had the primary outcome of discharge available. Of these colon resections, 70,361 (32 %) were performed laparoscopically and 150,933 (68 %) by open technique. A total of 139,047 (62.8 %) patients had routine discharge and 73,572 (33.3 %) nonroutine. A total of 8,445 (3.8 %) patients died while in the hospital, and 229 (0.1 %) left against medical advice and were excluded from further analysis. On univariate analysis, age ≥65 years, female gender, Black/Hispanic race, open technique (compared to laparoscopic), Medicare/Medicaid insurance status, comorbidity index of ≥1, and malignant primary diagnosis predicted nonroutine discharge. A multivariate logistic model was then used to predict nonroutine discharge in these patients using variables significant in the univariate analysis at the α = 0.05 significance level. In the multivariate analysis, open compared to laparoscopic technique was independently associated with increased likelihood of discharge to skilled care facilities (odds ratio 2.85, 95 % confidence interval 2.59–3.14).

Conclusions

In addition to the expected factors like advancing age, female gender, and increasing comorbidity index, open compared to laparoscopic technique for colectomy is associated with an increased likelihood of discharge to skilled care facilities. When feasible, the laparoscopic technique should be considered as an option, especially in the elderly patients who require colon resection, because it may reduce their likelihood of discharge to a skilled care facility.     

Laparoscopic Versus Open Multivisceral Resection for Primary Colorectal Cancer: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

Background

The role of laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced colorectal cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs is controversial. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer.

Methods

This study included 126 patients who underwent multivisceral resection for primary colorectal cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs or structures between July 2005 and November 2012 at our institution. Perioperative outcomes were compared between laparoscopic and open resections.

Results

Laparoscopic and open multivisceral resections were performed in 60 and 66 patients, respectively. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 6.7 % of patients. The median operative time was significantly longer (271 vs. 227 min), but the median blood loss was significantly less (40 vs. 205 mL), in the laparoscopic compared with the open group. The R0 resection rate of the primary tumor (95 vs. 98.5 %), number of lymph nodes harvested (18 vs. 18), and postoperative complications (28 vs. 24 %) were comparable between the groups. The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (13.5 vs. 18 days) in the laparoscopic compared with the open group.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer invading or adhering to neighboring organs is safe and feasible in selected patients.     

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: quality of life and satisfaction with care in elderly patients

Background

The purpose of this multicentric prospective study was to evaluate postoperative HRQL and satisfaction with care after laparoscopic colonic resection for colorectal cancer in elderly patients.

Methods

A total of 116 patients were enrolled in this study: 33 patients older than age 70 years had laparoscopic colectomy, whereas 24 had open colectomy; 44 patients younger than age 70 years had laparoscopic colectomy and 15 of them had open colectomy. The patients answered to three questionnaires about generic (EORTC QLQ C30) and disease-specific quality of life (EORTC CR29) and about treatment satisfaction (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Nonparametric tests and forward stepwise multiple regression analysis were used for statistical analysis.

Results

One month after surgery, global quality of life (QL2 item) was significantly impaired in elderly patients who had laparoscopic colectomy compared with younger patients who had the same operation (p = 0.003). Similarly, role function (RF), physical function (PF), emotional function (EF), cognitive function (CF), and social function (SF) were impaired in elderly patients who had laparoscopic colectomy compared with younger patients (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.013, p < 0.001, p = 0.01, respectively). Fatigue (FA), sleep disturbances (SL), appetite loss (AP), and dyspnea (DY) affected the quality of life of these patients more than younger patients (p < 0.001, p = 0.055, p = 0.051, and p = 0.003, respectively).

Conclusions

Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy for cancer experience less postoperative local complications than elderly patients undergoing open colectomy. Nevertheless, in the first postoperative month, these patients experience a worse global quality of life than younger patients undergoing the same operation with impairment of all the functions and the presence of fatigue, sleep disturbances, appetite loss, and dyspnea.     

Multicenter Study of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Palliative Resection for Incurable, Symptomatic Stage IV Colorectal Cancer in Japan

Background

This Japanese multicenter retrospective study evaluated short- and long-term outcomes of palliative laparoscopic procedures for symptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer compared with conventional open procedures.

Methods

Of 968 eligible patients with stage IV colorectal cancer enrolled during January 2006–December 2007 from 41 participating surgical units (Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Group), we studied 409 patients who underwent palliative resection of symptomatic primary colorectal tumor.

Results

Data from patients with laparoscopic resection (n?=?98) and open colorectal resection (n?=?311) were analyzed. Eleven (11.2 %) laparoscopic operations were converted to an open procedure. Fewer complications were reported for laparoscopic resections than for open procedures (13.3 vs. 26.7 %; p?=?0.0042). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic vs. open resection group (median, 14 vs. 17 days; p?=?0.0242). Postoperative chemotherapy treatment was administered to 245 (78.9 %) patients in the open and 78 (79.6 %) patients in the laparoscopic resection group. Time from surgery to start of postoperative chemotherapy was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic vs. open resection group (median, 32 vs. 27 days; p?=?0.0487). Median survival time between the two groups was not significantly different (22.0 vs. 22.2 months; p?=?0.948).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic palliative resection results in reduced postoperative complications and earlier recovery with acceptable long-term outcomes comparable with open surgery. When performed by experienced surgeons in selected patients, it may be a safe and feasible option. Because of the potential of significant bias arising from the included studies, further randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to confirm this bias.     

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Risk analysis of pulmonary resection for elderly patients with lung cancer

Purpose

The indications for pulmonary resection in elderly patients with lung cancer concomitant with another disease are unclear. We conducted this retrospective study to establish the risk factors of complications and survival to improve patient selection.

Methods

The subjects were 295 patients aged ≥75 years, who underwent pulmonary resection for lung cancer. We assessed comorbidity according to the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and examined risk factors for morbidity and the prognostic factors.

Results

Postoperative complications developed in 55 patients (morbidity 18.6 %). The median survival time was 59.3 months and the 5-year survival rate was 69.7 %. Multivariate logistic regression analyses selected smoking and thoracotomy as risk factors for complications, and a history of cerebrovascular disease, cancer stage, and thoracotomy as risk factors for a prolonged hospital stay (PHS). Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) decreased the risk of morbidity and PHS, and influenced survival. Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model identified CCI ≥ 2, morbidity, and PHS as unfavorable survival factors, in addition to age ≥80 and cancers that were non-adenocarcinoma or advanced.

Conclusions

Although CCI ≥ 2 was associated with poorer survival, it was not necessarily a risk factor of postoperative complications or PHS. Performing VATS when possible could reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and PHS in elderly patients.     

Initial Experience of Single-port Laparoscopic Surgery for Sigmoid Colon Cancer

Background

Single-port laparoscopic surgery has attracted attention in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. We hypothesized that an experienced laparoscopic surgeon could perform single-port surgery for colon cancer eligible for conventional laparoscopic anterior resection. Our aim was to analyze our initial experience and immediate surgical outcomes of single-port anterior resection.

Methods

A total of 37 consecutive patients with presumed sigmoid colonic cancer underwent single-port anterior resection with standard laparoscopic instruments between May 2009 and June 2010. Each operation was performed by one of two experienced colorectal surgeons. A cohort of patients who had undergone conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the same duration a year earlier (August 2007 to September 2008) was used as a historical control. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed and compared with those of CLS.

Results

There were no significant differences in mean estimated blood loss, mean length of the resection margin, or morbidity between the two groups, but operative time for the single-port group was significantly shorter (118 ± 41 vs 140 ± 42 min; p = 0.017). Single-port laparoscopic surgery was successfully performed in 78.4 % (29/37) of the patients treated in 2010, and CLS was successfully completed in all of the patients treated the previous year (p = 0.000). The main causes of single-port surgery failure were adhesion and tumor location.

Conclusions

Single-port anterior resection is a feasible and safe procedure with immediate outcomes comparable to those of conventional laparoscopy. Further studies are required to determine the feasibility of single-port surgery for colonic tumors outside the sigmoid colon and the long-term outcome.     

Postoperative Complications and Survival after Gastric Cancer Surgery in Patients Older than 80 Years of Age

Background

This study sought to identify and evaluate the risk factors of postoperative complications, prognostic factors, and appropriate surgical strategies in elderly patients undergoing surgery for gastric cancer.

Methods

The medical records of 396 radical gastrectomies conducted from January 2006 to December 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical results and survival rates were assessed for 60 elderly patients (aged?≥?80 years) and 336 non-elderly patients (aged?<?80 years). The study groups were compared with respect to clinicopathological findings, surgical outcomes, and survival.

Results

Elderly patients underwent gastrectomies with shorter operation time, showed less extensive lymphadenectomy, and had a significant difference in overall survival compared with non-elderly patients, although there was no difference in cause-specific survival among patients receiving curative resection. No significant risk factors affecting postoperative complications were identified in the elderly patients. Number of comorbidities (≥2) (HR, 5.30; 95 % CI, 1.11–25.32; P?=?0.037) and TNM stage (≥II) (HR, 12.97; 95 % CI, 1.60–105.38; P?=?0.017) were identified as independent prognostic factors in the elderly patients receiving curative resection.

Conclusions

Age is not an independent prognostic factor for patients receiving curative resection for gastric cancer. Multiple comorbidities may also influence the prognosis of elderly patients. Careful follow-up would improve overall survival for elderly patients.