Reference Citation Analysis: Find an Article, Find a Category, Find a Journal, Find a Scholar

For: Clancy C, O'Leary DP, Burke JP, Redmond HP, Coffey JC, Kerin MJ, Myers E. A meta-analysis to determine the oncological implications of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 2015;17:482-90. [PMID: 25524157 DOI: 10.1111/codi.12875] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2014] [Accepted: 10/02/2014] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]

For:	Clancy C, O'Leary DP, Burke JP, Redmond HP, Coffey JC, Kerin MJ, Myers E. A meta-analysis to determine the oncological implications of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 2015;17:482-90. [PMID: 25524157 DOI: 10.1111/codi.12875] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2014] [Accepted: 10/02/2014] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]

Number

Cited by Other Article(s)

Gahunia S, Wyatt J, Powell SG, Mahdi S, Ahmed S, Altaf K. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2025;29:98. [PMID: 40198499 PMCID: PMC11978707 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-025-03141-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2024] [Accepted: 03/08/2025] [Indexed: 04/10/2025]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evidence of superiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal resections remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques in high-risk patients undergoing resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception until December 2024. Randomised and non-randomised studies reporting outcomes of robotic-assisted or laparoscopic resections in the following high-risk categories were included: obesity, male gender, the elderly, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and previous abdominal surgery. Comparative meta-analyses for all sufficiently reported outcomes were completed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools for non-randomised and randomised studies, respectively.

RESULTS

48 studies, including a total of 34,846 patients were eligible for inclusion and 32 studies were utilised in the comparative meta-analyses. Conversion to open rates were significantly lower for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity, male patients and patients with low rectal tumours (obese OR 0.41 [CI 0.32-0.51], p < 0.00001); male gender (OR 0.28 [CI 0.22-0.34], p < 0.00001); low tumours OR 0.10 [CI 0.02-0.58], p = 0.01). Length of stay was significantly reduced for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity (SMD 0.25 [CI - 0.41 to - 0.09], p = 0.002). Operative time was significantly longer in all subgroups (obesity SMD 0.57 [CI 0.31-0.83], p < 0.0001; male gender SMD 0.77 [CI 0.17-1.37], p = 0.01; elderly SMD 0.50 [CI 0.18-0.83], p = 0.002; low rectal tumours SMD 0.48 [CI 0.12-0.84], p = 0.008; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy SMD 0.72 [CI 0.34-1.09], p = 0.0002; previous surgery SMD 1.55 [CI 0.05-3.06], p = 0.04). When calculable, blood loss, length of stay, complication rate and lymph node yield were comparable in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides further evidence of non-inferiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer and demonstrates conversion rates are superior in specific, technically challenging operations.

Collapse

Zou J, Zhu H, Tang Y, Huang Y, Chi P, Wang X. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 2025;25:86. [PMID: 40022103 PMCID: PMC11869447 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-025-02805-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/10/2025] [Indexed: 03/03/2025] Open

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer was increasing, but there was an ongoing debate as to whether it provided any benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and prognosis of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 1 February 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison between robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) and performed a meta-analysis of all RCTs according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

11 RCTs including a total of 3107 cases were identified. Compared with LS, RS had a significantly lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.63; P < 0.0001), lower reoperation rate (odds ratio: 0.454; 95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 0.94; P = 0.03), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 1.04; P = 0.0004), a smaller incidence of positive circumferential margin (CRM) (odds ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.85; P = 0.004). RS had less time to first autonomous urination (mean difference: -0.78; 95% confidence interval: -1.15 to -0.41; P < 0.0001), less time to first defecation (mean difference: -0.40; 95% confidence interval: -0.78 to -0.01; P = 0.04) and less time to first flatus (mean difference: -0.45; 95% confidence interval: -0.89 to -0.01; P = 0.04), more operating time (mean difference: 23.46; 95% confidence interval: 15.76 to 31.16; P < 0.00001). Overall postoperative complication, short-term postoperative complication, estimate blood loss, hospital stays, Intraoperative complication, postoperative mortality, preventive ostomy rates, readmission did not differ significantly between approaches. (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery demonstrated superior safety, efficacy, and prognosis. This meta-analysis supports that RS is a safe and effective option.

Collapse

Kang JH, Kim EM, Kim MJ, Oh BY, Yoon SN, Kang BM, Kim JW. Comparative analysis of the oncologic outcomes and risk factors for open conversion in laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective multicenter study. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2025;51:109357. [PMID: 39489039 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2024] [Revised: 08/16/2024] [Accepted: 10/29/2024] [Indexed: 11/05/2024]

Emile SH, Horesh N, Garoufalia Z, Gefen R, Rogers P, Wexner SD. An artificial intelligence-designed predictive calculator of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy in colon cancer. Updates Surg 2024;76:1321-1330. [PMID: 38926233 PMCID: PMC11341585 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-01915-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2024] [Accepted: 06/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/28/2024]

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery is safe and effective in colorectal cancer. Conversion to open surgery may be associated with adverse effects on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess risk factors of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy for colon cancer and impact of conversion on short-term and survival outcomes. This case-control study included colon cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine independent predictors of conversion from laparoscopic and robotic colectomy to open surgery. 26,546 patients (mean age: 66.9 ± 13.1 years) were included. Laparoscopic and robotic colectomies were performed in 79.1% and 20.9% of patients, respectively, with a 10.6% conversion rate. Independent predictors of conversion were male sex (OR: 1.19, p = 0.014), left-sided cancer (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), tumor size (OR: 1, p = 0.047), stage II (OR: 1.25, p = 0.007) and stage III (OR: 1.47, p < 0.001) disease, undifferentiated carcinomas (OR: 1.93, p = 0.002), subtotal (OR: 1.25, p = 0.011) and total (OR: 2.06, p < 0.001) colectomy, resection of contiguous organs (OR: 1.9, p < 0.001), and robotic colectomy (OR: 0.501, p < 0.001). Conversion was associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality and unplanned readmission, longer hospital stay, and shorter overall survival (59.8 vs 65.3 months, p < 0.001). Male patients, patients with bulky, high-grade, advanced-stage, and left-sided colon cancers, and patients undergoing extended resections are at increased risk of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy. The robotic platform was associated with reduced odds of conversion. However, surgeons' technical skills and criteria for conversion could not be assessed.

Collapse

Aday U, Akbaş A, Bayrak F, Şekho Z, Közgün A, Sevmis M, Oğuz A. Comparison of Early Clinical and Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Converted Rectal Cancer Resection: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Cureus 2024;16:e65086. [PMID: 39170993 PMCID: PMC11338673 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.65086] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/22/2024] [Indexed: 08/23/2024] Open

Cariati M, Brisinda G, Chiarello MM. Has the open surgical approach in colorectal cancer really become uncommon? World J Gastrointest Surg 2024;16:1485-1492. [PMID: 38983350 PMCID: PMC11230011 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i6.1485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Revised: 04/29/2024] [Accepted: 05/15/2024] [Indexed: 06/27/2024] Open

Wang Y, Wang X, Chen J, Huang S, Huang Y. Comparative analysis of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and upfront surgery in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer: oncological benefits, surgical outcomes, and cost implications. Updates Surg 2024;76:949-962. [PMID: 38240957 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01744-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2024]

Abstract

The value of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is not absolutely clear for upper-half (> 7-15 cm) rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of radical surgery with preoperative CRT vs. upfront surgery (US) in Chinese patients with stage II and III upper-half rectal cancer. A total of 809 patients with locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer between 2017 and 2021 were enrolled retrospectively (280 treated with CRT and 529 treated with US). Through 1:1 propensity score matching, the CRT (172 patients) and US (172 patients) groups were compared for short-term postoperative results and long-term oncological and functional outcomes. In the entire cohort, patients in the CRT group had a younger age, lower distance from the anal verge (DAV), and higher rates of cT4 stage, cN2 stage, mrCRM positivity, EMVI positivity, CEA elevation, and CA-199 elevation than those in the US group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was lower in the CRT group than in the US group (76% vs. 84%, p = 0.022), while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (85% and 88%, p = 0.084). The distant metastasis rate was higher in the CRT group than in the US group (12.5% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.028), though the local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% and 1.3%, p = 1.000). After performing PSM, the 5-year OS (86% vs. 88% p = 0.312), the 5-year DFS (79% vs. 80%, p = 0.435), the local recurrence rate (1.2% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000), and the distant metastasis rate (11.0% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.593) were comparable between the two groups. Notable pathological downstaging was observed in the CRT group, with a pathological complete response (PCR) rate of 14.5%. In addition, patients in the CRT group had a lower proportion of pT3 (61.6% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001), pN + (pN1, 15.1% vs. 30.2%, pN2, 9.3% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001), stage III (24.4% vs. 50.6%, p < 0.001), perineural invasion (19.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.014), and lymphovascular invasion (9.3% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001) than those in the US group. Postoperative complications and long-term functional results were similar, yet there was a trend toward a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (5 (2.9%) vs. 0 (0.0%), p = 0.061) and higher rates of robotic surgery (11.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), open surgery (7.0% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001), diverting stoma (47.1% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001), and surgery costs (1473.6 ± 106.5 vs. 1140.3 ± 54.3$, p = 0.006) in the CRT group. In addition, EMVI (OR = 2.516, p = 0.001) was the only independent risk factor associated with poor response to CRT, and in subgroup analysis of EMVI + , CRT group patients presented a lower 5-year DFS (72.9% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.025) compared to US group patients. CRT prior to surgery has no additional oncological benefits over US in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer. In contrast, CRT is associated with increased rates of conversion to laparotomy, stoma creation and higher surgery costs. Surgeons tend to favor robotic surgery in the treatment of complex cases such as radiated upper-half rectal cancers. Notably, EMVI + patients with upper-half rectal cancer should be encouraged to undergo upfront surgery, as preoperative CRT may not provide benefits and may lead to delayed treatment effects.

Collapse

Tirelli F, Lorenzon L, Biondi A, Neri I, Santoro G, Persiani R. Conversion rate to open surgery during transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: a single-center experience. Updates Surg 2024;76:943-947. [PMID: 38679626 PMCID: PMC11130019 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-01844-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2024] [Accepted: 04/08/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]

Abstract

Minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer have demonstrated considerable advantages in terms of faster recovery and less post-operative complications. However, due to the complex anatomy and a limited surgical field, conversion to open surgery is still sometimes required, with a negative impact on the short-and long-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to analyse the conversion rate to open abdominal surgery during laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) procedures performed at a high-volume Italian referral center. All consecutive TaTME performed for mid-to-low rectal cancer between 2015 and 2023 were reviewed, independently if treated with a primary anastomosis (with/without a diverting ostomy) or an end stoma. All procedures were performed using a standardized approach by the same surgical team. Patients with benign diagnosis that underwent different-from rectal resection procedures and cases pre-operatively scheduled for open surgery were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of conversion, defined as an un-planned intraoperative switch to open surgery using a midline laparotomy. Secondary aims included the comparison of patients who had a longer vs shorter operative time. Out of 220 patients, 210 were selected. In 187 cases, a primary anastomosis was performed, while 23 patients received a terminal colostomy (1 in the converted group; 22 in the full MIS- TaTME group, 10.6%). A surgical approach modification occurred in two cases, with a conversion rate of 0.95%. Median operative time was 281 min. Reasons for conversions included intra-operative difficulties impairing the mini-invasive procedure without intra-operative complications in one case, and difficulties in the laparoscopic control of an intraoperative bleeding due to a splenic lesion in another patient. Male sex and a higher BMI were found to be statistically significantly associated to longer operative time (respectively: p = 0.001 and p = 0.0025). In a high-volume center, a standardized TaTME is associated to a low conversion rate to open abdominal surgery.

Collapse

Goto K, Watanabe J, Nagasaki T, Uemura M, Ozawa H, Kurose Y, Akagi T, Ichikawa N, Iijima H, Inomata M, Taketomi A, Naitoh T. Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on conversion to laparotomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in Japan (a secondary analysis of the EnSSURE study). Surg Endosc 2024;38:2454-2464. [PMID: 38459211 PMCID: PMC11078784 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10740-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024]

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conversion to laparotomy is among the serious intraoperative complications and carries an increased risk of postoperative complications. In this cohort study, we investigated whether or not the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) affects the conversion rate among patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of data collected from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for cStage II and III rectal cancer from 2014 to 2016 across 56 institutions affiliated with the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Data from the original EnSSURE study were analyzed to investigate risk factors for conversion to laparotomy by performing univariate and multivariate analyses based on the reason for conversion.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 3,168 cases, including 65 (2.1%) involving conversion to laparotomy. Indicated conversion accounted for 27 cases (0.9%), while technical conversion accounted for 35 cases (1.1%). The multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors for indicated conversion to laparotomy: tumor diameter [mm] (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, p = 0.0002), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 7.92, 95% CI 3.14-19.97, p < 0.0001), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 4.46, 95% CI 2.01-9.90, p = 0.0002). The multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for technical conversion to laparotomy: registered case number of institution (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.0029), institution type [non-university/university hospital] (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.54-8.04, p = 0.0028), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 5.96, 95% CI 2.15-16.53, p = 0.0006), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 6.26, 95% CI 3.01-13.05, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation of ESSQS-certified physicians may reduce the risk of both indicated and technical conversion. Referral to specialized institutions, such as high-volume centers and university hospitals, especially for patients exhibiting relevant background risk factors, may reduce the risk of conversion to laparotomy and lead to better outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000040645.

Collapse

McFeetors C, O'Connell LV, Choy M, Dundon N, Regan M, Joyce M, Meshkat B, Hogan A, Nugent E. Influence of neoadjuvant treatment strategy on perioperative outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2024;26:684-691. [PMID: 38424706 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16929] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Revised: 11/20/2023] [Accepted: 12/28/2023] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]

Abstract

AIM

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer facilitates tumour downstaging and complete pathological response (pCR). The goal of neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (total neoadjuvant chemotherapy, TNT) is to further improve local and systemic control. While some patients forgo surgery, total mesorectal excision (TME) remains the standard of care. While TNT appears to be noninferior to nCRT with respect to short-term oncological outcomes few data exist on perioperative outcomes. Perioperative morbidity including anastomotic leaks is associated with a negative effect on oncological outcomes, probably due to a delay in proceeding to adjuvant therapy. Thus, we aimed to compare conversion rates, rates of sphincter-preserving surgery and anastomosis formation rates in patients undergoing rectal resection after either TNT or standard nCRT.

METHODS

An institutional colorectal oncology database was searched from January 2018 to July 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised patients with histologically confirmed rectal cancer who had undergone neoadjuvant therapy and TME. Exclusion criteria comprised patients with a noncolorectal primary, those operated on emergently or who had local excision only. Outcomes evaluated included rates of conversion to open, sphincter-preserving surgery, anastomosis formation and anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were eligible for inclusion (60 with standard nCRT, 59 with TNT). There were no differences in rates of sphincter preservation or primary anastomosis formation between the groups. However, a significant increase in conversion to open (p = 0.03) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03) was observed in the TNT cohort.

CONCLUSION

In this series TNT appears to be associated with higher rates of conversion to open surgery and higher anastomotic leak rates. While larger studies will be required to confirm these findings, these factors should be considered alongside oncological benefits when selecting treatment strategies.

Collapse

Lee B, Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Lee HW, Kang M, Park Y, Kim J. Association between Unplanned Conversion and Patient Survival after Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. J Clin Med 2024;13:1116. [PMID: 38398431 PMCID: PMC10889730 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13041116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2024] [Revised: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 02/10/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open

Martínez-Pérez A, Piccoli M, Casoni Pattacini G, Winter DC, Carcoforo P, Celentano V, Chiarugi M, Di Saverio S, Bianchi G, Frontali A, Fuks D, Genova P, Guerrieri M, Kraft M, Lakkis Z, Le Roy B, Micelli Lupinacci R, Milone M, Petri R, Scabini S, Tonini V, Valverde A, Zorcolo L, Ris F, Espin E, de'Angelis N. Conversion to Open Surgery During Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy for Cancer: Results from a Large Multinational European Study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2023;33:344-350. [PMID: 36602521 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2022.0434] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open

Abstract

Background: The risk of conversion to open surgery is inevitably present during any minimally invasive colorectal surgical procedure. Conversions have been associated with adverse postoperative and oncologic outcomes. No previous study has evaluated the specific causes and consequences of conversion during a minimally invasive right colectomy (MIS-RC). Materials and Methods: We analyzed the Minimally invasivE surgery for oncologic Right ColectomY (MERCY) study database including patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic RC because of colon cancer between 2014 and 2020. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine the different reasons for conversion. Uni- and multivariate logistic regressions were run to identify potential variables associated with this outcome. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of conversion on tumor recurrence. Results: Over a total of 1574 MIS-RC, 120 (7.6%) were converted to open surgery. The main reasons for conversion were procedural difficulties related to adherences from previous abdominal surgical procedures (39.2%), or owing to large tumor size or infiltration of adjacent structures (26.7%). Only 16.7% of the conversions were caused by intraoperative medical or surgical complications. Converted patients required longer operative times and developed more postoperative complications, both overall (39.2% versus 27.5%; P = .006) and severe ones (13.3% versus 8.3%; P = .061). Male gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89 [95% confidence interval: 1.31-2.71]), obesity (OR = 1.99 [1.4-2.83]), prior abdominal surgery (OR = 1.68 [1.19-2.37]), and pT4 cancers (OR = 4.04 [2.86-5.69]) were independently associated with conversion. Conversion to open surgery was not significantly associated with tumor recurrence (hazard ratios = 1.395 [0.724-2.687]). Conclusions: Although conversion to open surgery during MIS-RC for cancer is associated with worsened postoperative outcomes, it seems not to impact on the oncologic prognosis.

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Aleix Martínez-Pérez Unit of General Surgery, CARE Department, Henri Mondor University Hospital (AP-HP), Créteil, France Faculty of Health Sciences, Valencian International University (VIU), Valencia, Spain
Micaela Piccoli Department of General Surgery, Emergencies and New Technologies, Baggiovara Civil Hospital, Modena, Italy
Gianmaria Casoni Pattacini Department of General Surgery, Emergencies and New Technologies, Baggiovara Civil Hospital, Modena, Italy
Des C Winter Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Paolo Carcoforo Department of Surgery, Unit of General Surgery, University Hospital of Ferrara, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
Valerio Celentano Faculty of Medicine, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
Massimo Chiarugi General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
Salomone Di Saverio Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Giorgio Bianchi Unit of General Surgery, CARE Department, Henri Mondor University Hospital (AP-HP), Créteil, France
Alice Frontali Department of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences 'L. Sacco', University of Milan, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milan, Italy
David Fuks Department of Digestive Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
Pietro Genova Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Mario Guerrieri Department of General Surgery, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Miquel Kraft Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Zaher Lakkis Department of Digestive Surgical Oncology-Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
Bertrand Le Roy Department of Digestive and Oncologic Surgery, Hospital Nord, CHU Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France
Renato Micelli Lupinacci Department of Digestive, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Ambroise Paré Hospital, AP-HP Paris Saclay University, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
Marco Milone Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, "Federico II" University of Naples, Naples, Italy
Roberto Petri General Surgery Department, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (ASU FC), Udine, Italy
Stefano Scabini General and Oncologic Surgical Unit, Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy
Valeria Tonini Emergency Surgery Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Alain Valverde Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint-Simon, Paris, France
Luigi Zorcolo Colon and Rectal Surgery Unit, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
Frederic Ris Division of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Eloy Espin Service of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital (AP-HP), Faculty of Medicine, University Paris Cité, Paris, France
Nicola de'Angelis Unit of General Surgery, CARE Department, Henri Mondor University Hospital (AP-HP), Créteil, France Service of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital (AP-HP), Faculty of Medicine, University Paris Cité, Paris, France

Collapse

Larach JT, Kong J, Flynn J, Wright T, Mohan H, Waters PS, McCormick JJ, Warrier SK, Heriot AG. Impact of the approach on conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023;38:83. [PMID: 36971883 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04382-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the approach on conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision within a single unit.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision between January 2006 and June 2020 were included. Subjects were classified according to the presence or absence of conversion. Baseline variables and short-term outcomes were compared. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the approach and conversion.

RESULTS

During the study period, 318 patients underwent a restorative proctectomy. Of these, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches were undertaken in 147 (61.3%) and 93 (38.8%) cases, respectively. A transanal approach was utilised in 62 (25.8%) cases (58.1% in combination with a robotic transabdominal approach). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 30 cases (12.5%). Conversion was associated with an increased overall complication rate (P = 0.003), surgical complications (P = 0.009), superficial surgical site infections (P = 0.02) and an increased length of hospital stay (P = 0.006). Robotic and transanal approaches were both associated with decreased conversion rates. The multiple logistic regression analysis, however, showed that only a transanal approach was independently associated with a lower risk of conversion (OR 0.147, 0.023-0.532; P = 0.01), whilst obesity was an independent risk factor for conversion (OR 4.388, 1.852-10.56; P < 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

A transanal component is associated with a reduced conversion rate in minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision, regardless of the transabdominal approach utilised. Larger studies will be required to confirm these findings and define which subgroup of patients could benefit from transanal component when a robotic approach is undertaken.

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

José Tomás Larach Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia Department of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Department of Digestive Surgery, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Joseph Kong Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia Department of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Julie Flynn Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia Department of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Timothy Wright Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
Helen Mohan Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
Peadar S Waters Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia
Jacob J McCormick Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia General Surgery and Gastrointestinal Clinical Institute, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia
Satish K Warrier Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia. Department of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. General Surgery and Gastrointestinal Clinical Institute, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia. Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Alexander G Heriot Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia Department of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia General Surgery and Gastrointestinal Clinical Institute, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Australia

Collapse

Khajeh E, Aminizadeh E, Dooghaie Moghadam A, Nikbakhsh R, Goncalves G, Carvalho C, Parvaiz A, Kulu Y, Mehrabi A. Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15:cancers15030839. [PMID: 36765797 PMCID: PMC9913667 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2022] [Revised: 01/21/2023] [Accepted: 01/23/2023] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open

Chen P, Zhou H, Chen C, Qian X, Yang L, Zhou Z. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy for T4 colon cancer: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies. Front Surg 2022;9:1006717. [DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1006717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Accepted: 10/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open

Guidolin K, Ng D, Chadi S, Quereshy FA. Post-operative outcomes in patients with locally advanced colon cancer: a comparison of operative approach. Surg Endosc 2022;36:4580-4587. [PMID: 34988743 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08772-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons may choose an open approach to locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) because of the elevated conversion rate (minimally invasive to open) in these patients (resulting in part from a judgment of the technical feasibility of a minimally invasive approach). Poorer outcomes have been suggested in those requiring conversion from a minimal access to an open approach; however, the influence of conversion has not been studied in LACC. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes in patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS), planned open (PO), and converted (CN) procedures to evaluate the influence of conversion in this subgroup.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the NSQIP database. Patients with T4aN2 colon cancer undergoing elective resection were included; rectal/unknown tumor location, and T4b disease were excluded (to ensure homogeneity in surgical management). Patients were divided into cohorts based on approach: PO, MIS, and CN. Summary statistics were compared between groups. Multivariable analysis was conducted for mortality and morbidity outcomes.

RESULTS

1286 cases were included (313 PO, 842 MIS, 131 CN); 10.2% underwent conversion. Those undergoing MIS had a shorter length of stay than those undergoing PO or CN (p < 0.0001). On univariable analysis, CN resulted in increased rates of any complication (p < 0.0001). CN also had a greater rate of anastomotic leak (p = 0.0046) and death (p = 0.05). On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of any complication included age, ASA class, M stage, and approach; however, CN did not increase the risk of complication compared with MIS, whereas PO nearly doubled the risk of complication (OR = 1.98, p = 0.0083). The only significant predictor of mortality on multivariable analysis was age (HR = 1.09, p = 0.0002)-approach was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

PO confers the greatest risk of suffering any complication. Surgical approach was not associated with death. Results of our study challenge the notion that conversion is associated with the worst perioperative outcomes and an MIS approach should be considered in patients with LACC.

Collapse

Preliminary results of a program for the implementation of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in an Italian comprehensive cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Updates Surg 2022;74:1271-1279. [PMID: 35606625 PMCID: PMC9126695 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01283-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]

Abstract

Despite operative benefit and oncological non-inferiority, videolaparoscopic (VLS) colorectal surgery is still relatively underutilized. This study analyzes the results of a program for the implementation of VLS colorectal surgery started in an Italian comprehensive cancer center shortly before COVID-19 outbreak. A prospective database was reviewed. The study period was divided in four phases: Phase-1 (Open surgery), Phase-2 (Discretional phase), Phase-3 (VLS implementation phase), and Phase-4 (VLS consolidation phase). Formal surgical and perioperative protocols were adopted from Phase-3. Postoperative complications were scored by the Clavien–Dindo classification. 414 surgical procedures were performed during Phase-1, 348 during Phase-2, 360 during Phase-3, and 325 during Phase-4. In the four phases, VLS primary colorectal resections increased from 11/214 (5.1%), to 55/163 (33.7%), 85/151 (57.0%), and 109/147 (74.1%), respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). All-type VLS procedures were 16 (3.5%), 61 (16.2%), 103 (27.0%), and 126 (38.6%) (P < 0.001). Conversions to open surgery of attempted laparoscopic colorectal resections were 17/278 in the overall series (6.1%), and 12/207 during Phase-3 and Phase-4 (4.3%). Severe (grades IIIb-to-V) postoperative complications of VLS colorectal resections were 9.1% in Phase-1, 12.7% in Phase-2, 12.8% in Phase-3, and 5.3% in Phase-4 (P = 0.677), with no significant differences with open resections in each of the four phases: 9.4% (P = 0.976), 11.1% (P = 0.799), 13.8% (P = 1.000), and 8.3% (P = 0.729). Despite the difficulties deriving from the COVID-19 outbreak, our experience suggests that volume of laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be significantly and safely increased in a specialized surgical unit by means of strict operative protocols.

Collapse

Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis in Experienced Centers. Dis Colon Rectum 2022;65:218-227. [PMID: 34459449 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000002031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The superiority of robot-assisted over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision has not been proven. Most studies do not consider the learning curve while comparing the surgical technique.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare laparoscopic with robot-assisted total mesorectal excision performed by surgeons who completed the learning curve of the technique.

DESIGN

This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.

SETTINGS

The study was performed in 2 large, dedicated robot-assisted hospitals and 5 large, dedicated laparoscopic hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients were included if they underwent a robot-assisted or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with curative intent at a dedicated center for the minimally invasive technique between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

We compared robot-assisted with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was conversion to laparotomy during surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity and positive circumferential resection margin.

RESULTS

A total of 884 patients were included and, after matching, 315 patients per treatment group remained. Conversion was similar between laparoscopic and robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (4.4% vs 2.5% (p = 0.20)). Positive circumferential resection margin was equal (3.2% vs 4.4% (p = 0.41)). Overall morbidity was comparable as well, although a lower rate of wound infections was observed in the robot-assisted group (5.7% vs 1.9% (p = 0.01)). More primary anastomoses were constructed in the robot-assisted group (50.8% vs 68.3% (p < 0.001)). Finally, more open procedures were performed in dedicated laparoscopic centers, with an overrepresentation of cT4N+ tumors in this group.

LIMITATIONS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort; however, propensity score matching was applied to control for confounding by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision are equally safe in terms of short-term outcomes. However, with the robot-assisted approach, more primary anastomoses were constructed, and a lower wound infection rate was observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677.ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ASISTIDA POR ROBOT VERSUS ESCISIÓN MESORRECTAL TOTAL LAPAROSCÓPICA: UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE PROPENSIÓN RETROSPECTIVA ANÁLISIS DE COHORTES EMPAREJADAS EN CENTROS EXPERIMENTADOS.

ANTECEDENTES

No se ha demostrado la superioridad de la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot sobre la laparoscópica. La mayoría de los estudios no tienen en cuenta la curva de aprendizaje al comparar la técnica quirúrgica.

OBJETIVO

Este estudio tiene como objetivo comparar la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica con la asistida por robot realizada por cirujanos que completaron la curva de aprendizaje de la técnica.

DISEO

Este es un análisis multicéntrico retrospectivo emparejado por puntuación de propensión.

AJUSTES

El estudio se realizó en dos grandes hospitales dedicados asistidos por robots y cinco grandes hospitales laparoscópicos dedicados.

PACIENTES

Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot o laparoscópica para cáncer de recto con intención curativa, en un centro dedicado a la técnica mínimamente invasiva entre el 1 de enero de 2015 y el 31 de diciembre de 2017.

INTERVENCIONES

Comparamos la escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot con la laparoscópica.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

El principal resultado fue la conversión a laparotomía durante la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad posoperatoria y el margen circunferencial positivo.

RESULTADOS

Se incluyó a un total de 884 pacientes y, después de emparejar, quedaron 315 pacientes por grupo de tratamiento. La conversión fue similar entre la escisión mesorrectal total laparoscópica y asistida por robot (4,4% frente a 2,5% [p = 0,20]). El margen de resección circunferencial positivo fue igual (3,2% vs 4,4% [p = 0,41]). La morbilidad general también fue comparable, aunque se observó una menor tasa de infecciones de heridas en el grupo asistido por robot (5,7% frente a 1,9% [p = 0,01]). Se construyeron más anastomosis primarias en el grupo asistido por robot (50,8% frente a 68,3% [p < 0,001]). Finalmente, se realizaron procedimientos más abiertos en centros laparoscópicos dedicados, con una sobrerrepresentación de tumores cT4N + en este grupo.

LIMITACIONES

Ésta es una cohorte multicéntrica retrospectiva; sin embargo, se aplicó el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión para controlar los factores de confusión por indicación.

CONCLUSIONES

La escisión mesorrectal total asistida por robot y laparoscópica son igualmente seguras en términos de resultados a corto plazo. Sin embargo, con el abordaje asistido por robot, se construyeron más anastomosis primarias y se observó una menor tasa de infección de la herida. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B677. (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman).

Collapse

Burghgraef TA, Crolla RMPH, Fahim M, van der Schelling G, Smits AB, Stassen LPS, Melenhorst J, Verheijen PM, Consten ECJ. Local recurrence of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre cohort study evaluating the initial cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022;37:1635-1645. [PMID: 35708836 PMCID: PMC9262776 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04199-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/03/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]

Piozzi GN, Kim SH. Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes. Ann Coloproctol 2021;37:351-367. [PMID: 34784706 PMCID: PMC8717069 DOI: 10.3393/ac.2021.00836.0119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Revised: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open

Surgical management of splenic flexure colon cancer: a retrospective propensity-matched study comparing open and minimally invasive approaches using the national cancer database. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021;36:2739-2747. [PMID: 34536115 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-04029-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/11/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]

Abstract

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive resection of colon cancer at the splenic flexure can be technically challenging with concerns for a suboptimal oncologic outcome. We aimed to compare open and minimally invasive approaches following curative resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma at the splenic flexure who underwent resection from 2010 to 2016. Cohorts were separated into open and minimally invasive approaches, and demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was utilized to balance potential confounding covariates between cohorts to elucidate the independent association between surgical approach and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression or Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

After matching, 842 patients were compared between approaches. Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery had no significant difference in regional nodes ≥ 12 examined, positive margins, negative circumferential margins, unplanned 30-day readmission, or time from surgery to initiation of chemotherapy when compared to patients who underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive surgery was significantly associated with decreased odds of 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and decreased mortality hazard for 5-year overall survival compared to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

The optimal approach for surgical management of splenic flexure colon cancer has not been standardized given its rarity and exclusion from randomized controlled trials. Our retrospective review suggests that minimally invasive resection of splenic flexure colon cancers in carefully selected patients is associated with equivalent oncologic outcomes as well as improved short and long-term survival compared to an open approach.

Collapse

Xie FN, Chen J, Li ZY, Bai B, Song D, Xu S, Song XT, Ji G. Impact of Laparoscopic Converted to Open Gastrectomy on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2021;25:2484-2494. [PMID: 33821415 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-04975-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 03/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether laparoscopic conversation to open gastrectomy causes higher morbidity and has an adverse effect on the long-term survival outcomes of patients with gastric cancer. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of the conversion on short and long-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 871 patients who initially underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for pathologically confirmed diagnosis of AGC between February 2009 and April 2018. The patients were grouped as the conversion (CONV) group and completed laparoscopic (LAP) group. The 1:2 propensity score matching was performed to reduce the effect of bias due to the imbalanced baseline features between the two groups. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for conversion and poor survival.

RESULTS

After propensity-score matching, 168 patients (56 in the CONV group and 112 in the LAP group) were studied. The CONV group was associated with significantly longer operation time (252.4 vs. 216.7 min, P < 0.001) and greater estimated blood loss (234.8 vs. 171.2 ml, P < 0.001) as compared with the LAP group. The time to first flatus (3.8 vs. 3.3 days, P = 0.043), time to start a liquid diet (4.1 vs. 3.5 days, P = 0.021), and postoperative hospital stay (8.7 vs. 7.6 days, P = 0.020) were significantly longer in the CONV group than that in the LAP group. The overall complication rate did not differ significantly between the CONV group and the LAP group (16.1% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.692). Both 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) did not differ significantly between the CONV group and the LAP group (P = 0.805, P = 0.945, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that lymphovascular invasion and stage III were independent prognostic factors for poor OS and DFS, whereas conversion was not.

CONCLUSIONS

The conversion from laparoscopic to open gastrectomy had no negative impact on morbidity and long-term survival outcomes for patients with locally AGC.

Collapse

Matsuyama T, Endo H, Yamamoto H, Takemasa I, Uehara K, Hanai T, Miyata H, Kimura T, Hasegawa H, Kakeji Y, Inomata M, Kitagawa Y, Kinugasa Y. Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan. BJS Open 2021;5:6374226. [PMID: 34553225 PMCID: PMC8458638 DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2021] [Accepted: 08/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Collapse

Conversion to Open Surgery in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Resection: Predictive Factors and its Impact on Long-Term Outcomes. A Case Series Study. SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY, ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES 2021;32:28-34. [PMID: 34369479 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000986] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/18/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]

Hol JC, Burghgraef TA, Rutgers MLW, Crolla RMPH, van Geloven NAW, Hompes R, Leijtens JWA, Polat F, Pronk A, Smits AB, Tuynman JB, Verdaasdonk EGG, Consten ECJ, Sietses C. Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes. Br J Surg 2021;108:1380-1387. [PMID: 34370834 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab233] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]

Fleming CA, O’Connell EP, Kavanagh RG, O’Leary DP, Twomey M, Corrigan MA, Wang JH, Maher MM, O’Connor OJ, Redmond HP. Body Composition, Inflammation, and 5-Year Outcomes in Colon Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e2115274. [PMID: 34459908 PMCID: PMC8406082 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15274] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Obesity, particularly visceral obesity and sarcopenia, are poor prognostic indicators in colon cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the association between body composition profiles and 5-year colon cancer outcomes and delineate the associated underlying inflammatory processes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter translational cohort study included patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer who did not have underlying chronic inflammatory disorders and were not receiving anti-inflammatory drugs referred to tertiary cancer centers from 2009 to 2015. Preoperative acute phase proteins (white cell count, C-reactive protein, and albumin), cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1b, IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, interferon γ, and tumor necrosis factor α), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and cell surface receptor expression levels (CD11b and CD14) were measured. All patients underwent follow-up for at least 5 years. Data were analyzed in December 2020.

EXPOSURE

Nonmetastatic colon cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The associations of body composition profiles with 5-year cancer recurrence and disease-specific mortality were analyzed using Mantel Cox log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were included (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [58-72] years; 22 [78.6%] men). Low skeletal muscle area (SMA) and high visceral to total fat ratio were associated with poor clinical and oncological outcomes, including increased 5-year recurrence (low SMA: hazard ratio [HR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.41-2.89]; P = .04; high visceral to total fat ratio: HR, 5.78 [95% CI, 3.66-7.95]; P = .02). High visceral to total fat ratio was associated with increased 5-year disease-specific mortality (HR, 5.92 [95% CI, 4.04-8.00]; P = .02). Patients with low SMA who developed a cancer recurrence, compared with those who did not, had higher C-reactive protein (mean [SD], 31.24 [6.95] mg/dL vs 8.11 [0.58] mg/dL; P = .003), IL-6 (mean [SD], 1.93 [1.16] ng/mL vs 0.88 [0.14] ng/mL; P = .004), VEGF (mean [SD], 310.03 [122.66] ng/mL vs 176.12 [22.94] ng/mL; P = .007), and CD14 (mean [SD], 521.23 [302.02] ng/mL vs 322.07 [98.35] ng/mL; P = .03) expression and lower albumin (mean [SD], 3.8 [0.6] g/dL vs 43.50 [3.69] g/dL; P = .01), IL-2 (mean [SD], 0.45 [0.25] ng/mL vs 0.94 [0.43] ng/mL; P < .001), IL-10 (mean [SD], 8.15 [1.09] ng/mL vs 16.32 [4.43] ng/mL; P = .004), and interferon γ (mean [SD], 2.61 [1.36] ng/mL vs 14.87 [3.43] ng/mL; P = .02) levels. Patients with high visceral to total fat ratio who developed recurrence had higher levels of IL-6 (mean [SD], 5.26 [7.05] ng/mL vs 2.76 [3.11] ng/mL; P = .03) and tumor necrosis factor α (mean [SD], 5.74 [4.53] ng/mL vs 4.50 [1.99] ng/mL; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that low SMA and high visceral to total fat ratio were associated with worse colon cancer outcomes and with increased expression of proinflammatory cytokines and VEGF and inhibition of anti-inflammatory cytokines.

Collapse

Yamamoto M, Ashida K, Hara K, Sugezawa K, Uejima C, Tanio A, Shishido Y, Miyatani K, Hanaki T, Kihara K, Matsunaga T, Tokuyasu N, Sakamoto T, Fujiwara Y. Initial Experience in Rectal Cancer Surgery for the Next Generation of Robotic Surgeons Trained in a Dual Console System. Yonago Acta Med 2021;64:240-248. [PMID: 34429701 PMCID: PMC8380558 DOI: 10.33160/yam.2021.08.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]

Affiliation(s)

Manabu Yamamoto Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Keigo Ashida Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake 470-1192, Japan
Kazushi Hara Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Ken Sugezawa Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Chihiro Uejima Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Akimitsu Tanio Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Yuji Shishido Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Kozo Miyatani Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Takehiko Hanaki Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Kyoichi Kihara Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Tomoyuki Matsunaga Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Naruo Tokuyasu Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Teruhisa Sakamoto Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan
Yoshiyuki Fujiwara Division of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8504, Japan

Collapse

Granero L, Cienfuegos JA, Baixauli J, Pastor C, Sánchez Justicia C, Valentí V, Rotellar F, Hernández Lizoáin JL. Predictive Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications and Its Impact on Survival in Laparoscopic Resection for Colon Cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2021;31:558-564. [PMID: 33840737 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000936] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2020] [Accepted: 02/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection is the ideal treatment of colon cancer. The aim of the study was to analyze the predictive factors for postoperative complications and their impact on oncologic outcomes in laparoscopic resections in colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery the number and degree of severity of postoperative complications were recorded and classified according to Clavien-Dindo. A univariate analysis was made of the demographic, surgical, and oncologic variables of patients with and without complications. The statistically significant variables were then entered into a multivariate model. In both groups overall and disease-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Of 524 patients, 138 (26.3%) experienced some type of complication, 110 less severe (79.7%) and 28 (20.4%) severe. Twenty-nine conversions to open surgery occurred (5.5%) and hospital mortality was 0.2%.In the multivariate analysis, use of corticosteroids [odds ratio (OR): 3.619], oral anticoagulants (OR: 3.49), blood transfusions (OR: 4.30), and conversion to open surgery (OR: 3.93) were significantly associated with the development of complications. However, sigmoid resections were associated with fewer complications (OR: 0.45).Overall 5-year and 10-year survival in both groups, was 83.3%, 74.1%, 76.0%, and 67.1%, respectively (P=0.18). Disease-free survival at 5 and 10 years, excluding stage IV tumors, was 88.6% and 90.4%, respectively (P=0.881).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of corticosteroids, oral anticoagulants, blood transfusions, and conversion to open surgery are all independent predictive factors of postoperative complications. Sigmoid resections are associated with fewer complications. In laparoscopic resections of the colon, complications do not negatively affect long-term oncologic outcomes.

Collapse

Outcomes of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: an observational single hospital study of 300 cases. J Robot Surg 2021;16:179-187. [PMID: 33743145 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01227-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2020] [Accepted: 03/14/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]

Egberts JH, Kersebaum JN, Mann B, Aselmann H, Hirschburger M, Graß J, Becker T, Izbicki J, Perez D. Defining benchmarks for robotic-assisted low anterior rectum resection in low-morbid patients: a multicenter analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021;36:1945-1953. [PMID: 34244856 PMCID: PMC8346389 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03988-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/25/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]

Rinne JKA, Ehrlich A, Ward J, Väyrynen V, Laine M, Kellokumpu IH, Kairaluoma M, Hyöty MK, Kössi JAO. Laparoscopic Colectomy vs Laparoscopic CME: a Retrospective Study of Two Hospitals with Comparable Laparoscopic Experience. J Gastrointest Surg 2021;25:475-483. [PMID: 32026336 PMCID: PMC7904727 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04502-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2019] [Accepted: 12/16/2019] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]

Risk factors for suboptimal laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2020;406:309-318. [PMID: 33244719 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-02029-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2020] [Accepted: 11/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]

Abstract

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is technically complex. This study aimed to identify risk factors for suboptimal laparoscopic surgery (involved margins, incomplete mesorectal excision, and/or conversion to open surgery) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We included patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer between June 2009 and June 2018. We defined the outcome variable suboptimal laparoscopic surgery as conversion to open surgery or inadequate histopathological specimens (margins < 1 mm or involved and/or poor-quality mesorectal excision). To identify independent predictors of suboptimal laparoscopic surgery, we analyzed 15 prospectively recorded demographic, clinical, and anthropometric variables obtained from our rectal cancer unit's database. Subanalyses examined the same variables with respect to conversion and to inadequate histopathological specimens.

RESULTS

Of the 323 patients included, 91 (28.2%) had suboptimal laparoscopic surgery. In the multivariate analysis, the independent factors associated with all suboptimal laparoscopic surgery were tumor location ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge (OR = 2.95, 0.95% CI 1.32-6.60; p = 0.008) and the intertuberous distance (OR = 0.79, 0.95% CI 0.65-0.96; p = 0.019). In the subanalyses, the promontorium-retropubic axis was an independent predictor of conversion (OR 0.70, 0.95% CI 0.51-0.96; p = 0.026), and tumor location ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge (OR 3.71, 0.95% 1.51-9.15; p = 0.004) was an independent predictor of inadequate histopathological specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive factors for suboptimal laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer were tumor location and the intertuberous distance. These results could help surgeons decide whether to use other surgical approaches in complex cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.org (No. NCT03107650).

Collapse

Favorable short-term oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic surgery for small T4 colon cancer: a multicenter comparative study. World J Surg Oncol 2020;18:299. [PMID: 33187538 PMCID: PMC7666454 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-02074-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2020] [Accepted: 10/29/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer may be safe in selected patients. We hypothesized that small tumor size might preoperatively predict a good laparoscopic surgery outcome. Herein, we compared the clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in small T4 colon cancer.

Methods

In a retrospective multicenter study, we reviewed the data of 449 patients, including 117 patients with tumors ≤ 4.0 cm who underwent surgery for T4 colon cancer between January 2014 and December 2017. We compared the clinicopathologic and 3-year oncologic outcomes between the laparoscopic and open groups. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity were lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (median [range], 50 [0–700] vs. 100 [0–4000] mL, p < 0.001; 8 vs. 10 days, p < 0.001; and 18.0 vs. 29.5%, p = 0.005, respectively). There were no intergroup differences in 3-year overall survival or disease-free survival (86.6 vs. 83.2%, p = 0.180, and 71.7 vs. 75.1%, p = 0.720, respectively). Among patients with tumor size ≤ 4.0 cm, blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (median [range], 50 [0–530] vs. 50 [0–1000] mL, p = 0.003). Despite no statistical difference observed in the 3-year overall survival rate (83.3 vs. 78.7%, p = 0.538), the laparoscopic group had a significantly higher 3-year disease-free survival rate (79.2 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery showed similar outcomes to open surgery in T4 colon cancer patients and may have favorable short-term oncologic outcomes in patients with tumors ≤ 4.0 cm.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-020-02074-5.

Collapse

Peltrini R, D'Ambra M, Bartolini C, Lionetti R, Bracale U, Corcione F. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cT4b caecal adenocarcinoma involving the bladder - a video vignette. Colorectal Dis 2020;22:1771-1772. [PMID: 32473044 DOI: 10.1111/codi.15162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2020] [Accepted: 05/08/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]

Are oncological long-term outcomes equal after laproscopic completed and converted laparoscopic converted rectal resection for cancer? Tech Coloproctol 2020;25:91-99. [PMID: 32857297 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-020-02334-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2020] [Accepted: 08/18/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]

Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis. Surg Endosc 2020;35:3154-3165. [PMID: 32601761 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07756-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Accepted: 06/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study examined utilization and conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer. Secondary aims were to examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy from each approach.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was reviewed for all cases of non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Utilization rates of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches were examined. Patients were split into cohorts by approach. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and surgical procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed by multivariable logistic regression for binary outcomes and multivariable general linear models for continuous outcomes. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariable cox-proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2016, there was a statistically significant increase in utilization of the robotic and laparoscopic approaches over the study period and a statistically significant decrease in utilization of the open approach. The conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic cohorts were 7.0% and 15.7%, p < 0.0001. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically lower conversion rates between robotic and laparoscopic approaches for rectosigmoid and rectal tumors and for LAR and APR. Converted cohorts had statistically significant higher odds of short term mortality than the non-converted cohorts (p < 0.05).Laparoscopic conversion had statistically higher odds of positive margins (p < 0.0001) and 30-day unplanned readmission (p < 0.0001) than the laparoscopic non-conversion. Increased adjusted mortality hazard was seen for converted laparoscopy relative to non-converted laparoscopy (p = 0.0019).

CONCLUSION

From 2010 to 2016, there was a significant increase in utilization of minimally invasive approaches to surgical management of non-metastatic rectal cancer. A robotic approach demonstrated decreased conversion rates than a laparoscopic approach at the rectosigmoid junction and rectum and for LAR and APR. Improved outcomes were seen in the minimally invasive cohorts compared to those that converted to laparotomy.

Collapse

Asoglu O, Tokmak H, Bakir B, Aliyev V, Saglam S, Iscan Y, Bademler S, Meric S. Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of long-term outcomes. J Robot Surg 2020;14:393-399. [PMID: 31313071 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-01001-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2019] [Accepted: 07/08/2019] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]

Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Asian J Surg 2020;43:880-890. [PMID: 31964585 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2019] [Accepted: 11/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open

Does conversion during laparoscopic rectal oncological surgery increases postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage rates? A meta-analysis. J Visc Surg 2019;157:277-287. [PMID: 31870627 DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]

Aliyev V, Tokmak H, Goksel S, Meric S, Acar S, Kaya H, Asoglu O. The long-term oncological outcomes of the 140 robotic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single surgeon experience. J Robot Surg 2019;14:655-661. [PMID: 31811567 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-01037-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2019] [Accepted: 12/02/2019] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]

Li L, Zhang W, Guo Y, Wang X, Yu H, Du B, Yang X, Luo Y. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials. Surg Innov 2019;26:497-504. [PMID: 31081483 DOI: 10.1177/1553350619839853] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]

Kit OI, Gevorkyan YA, Soldatkina NV, Kharagezov DA, Milakin AG, Dashkov AV, Egorov GY, Kaymakchi DO. [Conversion of laparoscopic access in colorectal cancer surgery (in Russian only)]. Khirurgiia (Mosk) 2019:32-41. [PMID: 30938355 DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia201903132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]

Duraes LDC, Steele SR, Camargo MGMD, Gorgun E, Kalady MF, Valente M, Bhama A, Delaney CP. Conversion to open from laparoscopic colon resection is a marker for worse oncologic outcomes in colon cancer. Am J Surg 2019;217:491-495. [DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.10.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2018] [Revised: 10/25/2018] [Accepted: 10/26/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]

Elmore U, Vignali A, Rosati R, Valeri A, Silecchia G. SICE national survey: current state on the adoption of laparoscopic approach to the treatment of colorectal disease in Italy. Updates Surg 2019;71:77-81. [PMID: 30470995 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-018-0606-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2018] [Accepted: 11/09/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]

Bellio G, Troian M, Pasquali A, de Manzini N. Outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for pT3/pT4 colorectal cancer in young vs. old patients. MINERVA CHIR 2019;74:297-303. [PMID: 30761829 DOI: 10.23736/s0026-4733.19.07895-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy for locally advanced colorectal cancer is not standardized yet and its potential risks and benefits in elderly patients are still under debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncologic results of laparoscopic surgery for pT3/pT4 lesions in both old and young people.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2015, 115 patients aged <70 years and 112 patients aged ≥70 years underwent elective laparoscopic surgery for pT3/pT4 colorectal cancer presenting without distant metastasis at the Department of General Surgery, Trieste. Characteristics of the study populations, including demographic, operative and tumor features, were prospectively collected and short-term and long-term clinical, pathologic and oncologic outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

No difference was found in terms of tumor features, type and duration of surgery, and quality of resection. Old patients were found to have significantly higher rates of conversion (P=0.02) and postoperative mortality(P=0.03), whereas postoperative complications and reintervention rates - although higher in the elderly - did not differ on statistical analysis (P=0.13 and P=0.19, respectively). Local and distant recurrence rates were not statistically different between the two groups (P=0.64 and P=0.34, respectively). Adjuvant chemotherapy was more frequently offered to young people (P<0.001), who were considered significantly healthier than old ones (P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly lower among the elderly (P=0.001), but 5-year disease-free survival did not differ between the two groups (P=0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced lesions is feasible, but old patients present an increased risk of conversion and postoperative morbidity and mortality, which may alter long-term outcomes determining an apparent decrease in survival.

Collapse

Petrucciani N, Memeo R, Genova P, Roy BL, Courtot L, Voron T, Aprodu R, Tabchouri N, Saleh NB, Berger A, Ouaïssi M, Pezet D, Mutter D, Brunetti F, De'Angelis N. Impact of Conversion from Laparoscopy to Open Surgery in Patients with Right Colon Cancer. Am Surg 2019. [DOI: 10.1177/000313481908500225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]

Affiliation(s)

Niccolò Petrucciani Department of Digestive Surgery, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est-Créteil, Créteil, France
Riccardo Memeo Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgical Unit, IRCAD-IHU, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Pietro Genova Department of Digestive Surgery, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est-Créteil, Créteil, France
Bertrand Le Roy Department of Digestive and Hepato-Biliary Surgery, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, INSERM, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Lise Courtot Department of Digestive, Endocrine, Oncological Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Regional University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France
Thibault Voron Department of General, Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, APHP, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
Razvan Aprodu Department of General, Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, APHP, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
Nicolas Tabchouri Department of Digestive, Endocrine, Oncological Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Regional University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France
Nour Bou Saleh Department of Digestive and Hepato-Biliary Surgery, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, INSERM, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Anne Berger Department of General, Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, APHP, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
Mehdi Ouaïssi Department of Digestive, Endocrine, Oncological Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Regional University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France
Denis Pezet Department of Digestive and Hepato-Biliary Surgery, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, INSERM, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France
Didier Mutter Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgical Unit, IRCAD-IHU, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Francesco Brunetti Department of Digestive Surgery, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est-Créteil, Créteil, France
Nicola De'Angelis Department of Digestive Surgery, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor University Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est-Créteil, Créteil, France

Collapse

Phan K, Kahlaee HR, Kim SH, Toh JWT. Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies. Tech Coloproctol 2019;23:221-230. [PMID: 30623315 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1920-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2018] [Accepted: 12/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. The aim of the present study was to determine if robotic surgery results in less conversion to an open operation than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies comparing a robotic vs. laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was conversion to open. All statistical analyses and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14·2, Windows 64 bit (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-one studies were identified through electronic database search. After application of selection criteria as per PRISMA and MOOSE criteria, six RCTs and five PSM articles were analyzed. From the six RCTs, 512 robotic and 519 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower rate of conversion for the robotic surgery arm (4.1% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.00-0.57). Of the five PSM studies, 2097 robotic and 3053 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower conversion to open rate found in the robotic surgery cohort (7.4% vs. 15.6%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.47). Pooled RCT and PSM data demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates for robotic surgery (6.7% vs. 14.5%; OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion to open surgery compared to a laparoscopic approach.

Collapse

Influence of Conversion and Anastomotic Leakage on Survival in Rectal Cancer Surgery; Retrospective Cross-sectional Study. J Gastrointest Surg 2019;23:2007-2018. [PMID: 30187334 PMCID: PMC6773666 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-3931-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2018] [Accepted: 08/16/2018] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]

Leijssen LGJ, Dinaux AM, Kunitake H, Bordeianou LG, Berger DL. Is There a Drawback of Converting a Laparoscopic Colectomy in Colon Cancer? J Surg Res 2018;232:595-604. [PMID: 30463779 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.07.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2018] [Revised: 06/19/2018] [Accepted: 07/13/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]

Park JH, Park HC, Park SC, Sohn DK, Oh JH, Kang SB, Heo SC, Kim MJ, Park JW, Jeong SY, Park KJ. Laparoscopic approach for left-sided T4 colon cancer is a safe and feasible procedure, compared to open surgery. Surg Endosc 2018;33:2843-2849. [PMID: 30413928 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6579-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2018] [Accepted: 11/02/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach can be attempted for pathologic T4 (pT4) colon cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the clinico-oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic versus open surgery for right and left-sided pT4 colon cancer.

METHODS

From a multicentric collaborative database, we enrolled 245 patients with right-sided colon cancer (RCC, 128 laparoscopy and 117 open) and 338 with left-sided colon cancer (LCC, 176 laparoscopy and 162 open). All patients underwent intended curative surgery for histologically proven T4 adenocarcinoma, between 2004 and 2013. The primary end-point of our analysis was the oncologic outcome, including the 5-year disease-free survival (5 year-DFS) and the 5-year overall survival (5 year-OS). The secondary end-points included the R0 resection rate and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Our study group included 224 T4N0 and 359 T4N+ tumors. The median follow-up was 53 months. For patients with RCC, the rate of postoperative morbidities was lower for the laparoscopy than that for the open surgery group (12.5 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.044). There was no difference in the R0 resection rate (94.5 vs. 96.6%, p = 0.425) between the groups. The 5 year-DFS and 5 year-OS rates were lower for the laparoscopy than that in the open group (48.9% vs. 59.2%, p = 0.093; 60.0% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.284, respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Among patients with LCC, there were no differences in the rate of postoperative complication and R0 resection (15.3 vs. 21.0%, p = 0.307; 96.0 vs. 95.7%, p = 0.875, respectively). Both groups had comparable 5 year-DFS and 5 year-OS rates (62.7% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.552; 72.0% vs. 71.8%, p = 0.611, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery appears to be a safe procedure for patients with pT4 LCC, but requires careful consideration for patients with pT4 RCC.

Collapse