Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery Group Research Articles

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection for the treatment of stage II and III sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is a novel technique. However, evidence in the literature regarding the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) is insufficient. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of sigmoid colon cancer. We performed a retrospective study at the Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital. Patients diagnosed with sigmoid colon cancer and underwent anterior resection between January 2019 to September 2023 were included in the study. We compared the basic characteristics of the patients and the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients in the two groups. A total of 452 patients were included. Based on propensity score matching, 212 patients (RLS, n = 106; CLS, n = 106) were included. The baseline data in RLS group was comparable to that in CLS group. Compared with CLS group, RLS group exhibited less estimated blood loss (P = 0.015), more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.005), longer operation time (P < 0.001) and higher total hospitalization costs (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in other perioperative or pathologic outcomes between the two groups. For 3-year prognosis, overall survival rates were 92.5% in the RLS group and 90.6% in the CLS group (HR 0.700, 95% CI 0.276-1.774, P = 0.452); disease-free survival rates were 91.5% in the RLS group and 87.7% in the CLS group (HR 0.613, 95% CI 0.262-1.435, P = 0.259). Compared with CLS, RLS for sigmoid colon cancer was found to be associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested, similar perioperative outcomes and long-term survival outcomes. High total hospitalization costs of RLS did not translate into better long-term oncology outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: single-center, retrospective, propensity score analyses

Although the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer are well known, the long-term oncologic outcomes of RALS compared with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) are not clear. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of RALS and CLS for rectal cancer using propensity score matching. This retrospective study included 185 patients with stage I–III rectal cancer who underwent radical surgery at our institute between 2010 and 2019. Propensity score analyses were performed with 3-year overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoints. After case matching, the 3-year OS and 3-year RFS rates were 86.5% and 77.9% in the CLS group and 98.4% and 88.5% in the RALS group, respectively. Although there were no significant differences in OS (p = 0.195) or RFS (p = 0.518) between the groups, the RALS group had slightly better OS and RFS rates. 3-year cumulative (Cum) local recurrence (LR) and 3-year Cum distant metastasis (DM) were 9.7% and 8.7% in the CLS group and 4.5% and 10.8% in the RALS group, respectively. There were no significant differences in Cum-LR (p = 0.225) or Cum-DM (p = 0.318) between the groups. RALS is a reasonable surgical treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, with long-term outcomes similar to those of CLS in such patients.

Short-term clinical outcomes and five-year survival analysis of laparoscopic-assisted transanal natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study.

The cosmetic benefits of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) are easily noticeable, but its principles of aseptic and tumor-free procedure have caused controversy. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE or conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for sigmoid and rectal cancer at our hospital between January 2018 and December 2018. The study aimed to compare the general characteristics, perioperative indicators, postoperative complications, and five-year follow-up results between the two groups. A total of 121 eligible patients were enrolled, with 52 underwent laparoscopic-assisted transanal NOSE and 69 underwent CLS. There were no significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), TNM stage, etc. (P > 0.05). However, the NOSE group exhibited significantly shorter total incision length and longer operation time compared to the CLS group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups in terms of positive rate of bacterial culture, incidence rates of intraabdominal infections or anastomotic leakage (P > 0.05). Furthermore, during follow-up period there was no statistically significant difference observed between these two groups concerning overall survival rate and disease-free survival outcomes (P > 0.05). The management of surgical complications in CLS is exemplary, with NOSE presenting a sole advantage in terms of incision length albeit at the cost of prolonged operative time. Therefore, NOSE may be deemed appropriate for patients who place high emphasis on postoperative cosmetic outcomes.

A comparative analysis of different reduced-port laparoscopic surgical procedures after non-curative endoscopic resection for early colorectal cancer.

Surgery serves as a salvage procedure for non-curative resection of early-stage colorectal cancer under endoscopy. A standard method for performing additional surgery after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early colorectal cancer has yet to be established. To enhance the understanding of different surgical outcomes by discussing additional treatment strategies following non-complete curative endoscopic resection of early colorectal cancer. This retrospective study included 88 patients who were divided into three groups based on the surgical approach: conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS+1), and three-port laparoscopic surgery combined with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (three-port NOSES). The study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes, safety, and postoperative recovery among these groups. The SILS+1 and three-port NOSES groups demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to the CLS group in terms of blood loss, complications, number of lymph node dissections, and length of bowel resection. However, the SILS+1 and three-port NOSES groups had advantages in terms of incision length (7.11 ±0.38, 4.24 ±0.33, 3.16 ±0.22, p < 0.001), postoperative pain (4.000 [3.0,5.0], 3.500 [3.0,4.0], 3.000 [3.0,4.0]; p = 0.003), cosmetic result (4.000 [3.8,5.0], 7.000 [7.0,8.0], 7.000 [7.0,8.0]; p < 0.001), and hospital stay (8.000 [7.0,9.0], 7.000 [6.3,8.0.], 7.000 [6.3,8.0]; p = 0.035). Different strategies of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated to be effective and safe in additional surgery after non-curative ESD. These techniques have shown reduced pain and increased satisfaction among patients. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is expected to become the preferred treatment option for these patients.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies.

The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) performed through conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) versus robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Perioperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications, were retrospectively analyzed in 731 patients with gynecologic malignancies who underwent transperitoneal PLND, including 460 and 271 in the CLS and RAS groups, respectively. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test or Student's t-test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The mean age was 50 ± 14 years and 53 ± 13 years in the RAS and CLS groups (P < 0.01), respectively. The mean body mass index was 23.4 ± 4.8 kg/m2 and 22.4 ± 3.6 kg/m2 in the RAS group and CLS groups (P < 0.01), respectively. The operative time, blood loss, and number of resected lymph nodes were 52 ± 15 min, 110 ± 88 mL, and 45 ± 17, respectively, in the RAS group and 46 ± 15 min, 89 ± 78 mL, and 38 ± 16, respectively, in the CLS group (all P < 0.01). The rate of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications was 6.3% and 8.7% in the RAS and CLS groups, respectively (P = 0.17). Shorter operative time and lower blood loss are achieved when PLND for gynecologic malignancies is performed through CLS rather than RAS. However, RAS results in the resection of a greater number of pelvic lymph nodes.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThough our previous study has demonstrated that the single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) is safe and feasible for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer and has better short-term outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), the long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 remains uncertain and are needed to evaluated by an RCT.MethodsPatients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The 3-year DFS, 5-year OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed.ResultsBetween April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients were randomly assigned to either the SILS + 1 group (n = 99) or CLS group (n = 99). The median follow-up in the SILS + 1 group was 64.0 months and in CLS group was 65.0 months. The 3-year DFS was 87.8% (95% CI, 81.6–94.8%) in SILS + 1 group and 86.9% (95% CI, 81.3–94.5%) in CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.09 (95% CI, 0.48–2.47; P = 0.84)). The 5-year OS was 86.7% (95% CI,79.6–93.8%) in the SILS + 1 group and 80.5% (95% CI,72.5–88.5%) in the CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.53 (95% CI, 0.74–3.18; P = 0.25)). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the two groups.ConclusionsWe found no significant difference in 3-year DFS and 5-year OS of patients with sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer treated with SILS + 1 vs. CLS. SILS + 1 is noninferior to CLS when performed by expert surgeons.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117557 (registered on 21/04/2014).

Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery

BackgroundSingle-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial.MethodsA total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared.ResultsBaseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172).DiscussionOur study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer.

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection.

In the field of minimally invasive surgery, the two-port laparoscopic surgery is on the rise. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of two-port laparoscopic surgery (TLS) for resecting sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancers compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer resection at the Department of General Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical College between July 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively collected. Grouped according to different laparoscopic surgery. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria,A total of 81 patients were enrolled, of the 25 patients from the TLS group,and of the 56 patients from the CLS group. We mainly compared whether there were statistical differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, postoperative complication rate, and other surgical outcomes. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In terms of the surgical outcomes, there were statistical differences in the total incision length (TLS: 6.21 ± 0.67cm, CLS: 8.64 ± 1.08cm, P < 0.001)), time to first ambulation (TLS: 2.0 ± 0.7d, CLS:3.1 ± 0.9d, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (TLS: 2.5 ± 0.8d, CLS: 3.0 ± 0.8d, P = 0.028), time to first defecation (TLS: 3.8 ± 1.3d, CLS: 5.1 ± 2.1d, P = 0.010), and time for liquid diet (TLS: 4.3 ± 1.4d, CLS: 5.3 ± 1.9d, P = 0.021). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the pathology (P > 0.05). In terms of safety, TLS in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection is comparable to CLS. However, its incision is smaller and more aesthetic, and it causes lesser trauma than CLS. Additionally, it is also superior to CLS in postoperative recovery.

Is single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) dependent on the location of the tumor?

BackgroundWe compared the surgical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).MethodsWe performed single-incision gastric wedge resection on prospectively-enrolled 15 consecutive patients with gastric GIST between November 2020 and April 2022 in a single tertiary center. The early perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared to those of patients who underwent CLS. The indications did not differ from those for conventional laparoscopic procedures for gastric GIST.ResultsIn total, 30 patients were assigned to the SILS (n = 15) and CLS (n = 15) groups. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss and intraoperative blood transfusion between the SILS and CLS groups. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to multiple-port or open surgery in the SILS group. Proximally located tumors were more commonly treated with CLS than with SILS (P = 0.045). GISTs located in the greater curvature were more commonly treated with SILS than with CLS, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). The mean incision length in the SILS group was 4.1 cm shorter than that in the CLS group (3.2 ± 0.7 and 7.3 ± 5.2 cm, respectively, P = 0.01). The postoperative analgesic dose was significantly lower in the SILS than in the CLS group (0.4 ± 1.4 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively P = 0.01). Also, the duration of postoperative use of analgesic was shorter in SILS than in CLS (0.4 ± 0.7 and 2.0 ± 1.8, respectively, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the early postoperative complications between the groups.ConclusionsSILS is as safe, feasible, and effective for the treatment of gastric GIST as CLS with comparable postoperative complications, pain, and cosmesis. Moreover, SILS can be considered without being affected by the type or location of the tumor.

Laparo-endoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for early-stage endometrial cancer. MethodsPatients with clinical stage IA, IB, grade 1–3 endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to undergo LESS or CLS. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of LESS to CLS in terms of operation time and the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes. We set the non-inferior margin of the operation time as within 15% (24 min) and the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes as within 20% (5.2 lymph nodes). ResultsThere was no significant difference between the LESS group (n = 53) and the CLS group (n = 54) in terms of age, weight, body mass index, parity, menopausal status, history of abdominal surgery, and preoperative CA-125 levels. The total operation time was comparable between the two groups. On average, 4.6 fewer pelvic lymph nodes were retrieved in the LESS group, which was within the non-inferiority margin. There were no significant differences in the incidence of intra- and postoperative complications, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. After a median follow-up time of 34 months (range, 2–242), the progression-free survival rates were 96.2% and 98.1% (P = 0.55) in the LESS group and the CLS group, and the overall survival rates were 98.1% and 100.0% (P = 0.31), respectively. ConclusionLESS surgical staging was non-inferior to CLS and had acceptable feasibility, safety, and efficacy for the surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer.Trial registration: Clinicaltrial.gov identifier number: NCT01679522

Short-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for total gastrectomy: a single-institute experience

BackgroundThe efficacy of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RLS) for total gastrectomy remains unclear. This study focused on evaluating the short-term outcomes of RLS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for total gastrectomy.MethodsOne hundred and ten patients who underwent completed laparoscopic total gastrectomy for gastric cancer between September 2018 and June 2022 were retrospectively collected and classified into two groups (65 CLS and 45 RLS) according to different operation approach. Twenty-four RLS cases underwent single-incision plus two ports laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 2) and twenty-one underwent single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1). Surgical outcomes, pain intensity, cosmetic and postoperative morbidity, and mortality were compared between groups.ResultsThe overall incidence of postoperative complications was similar between the CLS group and the RLS group (16.9% vs. 8.9%, P = 0.270). It was also comparable in the Clavien-Dindo classification (P = 0.774). However, compared with the CLS group, the RLS group had a significantly shorter total length of incision (5.6 ± 1.0 cm vs. 7.1 ± 0.7 cm, P = 0.000); shorter time to first ambulation (24.9 ± 5.9 h vs. 27.6 ± 5.0 h, P = 0.009), flatus (3.0 ± 0.8 d vs. 3.5 ± 1.0 d, P = 0.022) and oral intake (4.0 ± 1.6 d vs. 6.1 ± 5.1 d, P = 0.011); lower white blood cell count on the third day after the operation (9.8 ± 4.0*109/L vs. 11.6 ± 4.7*109/L, P = 0.037); and lower visual analogue scale score on postoperative days 1 and 3(3.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.3 ± 0.7, P = 0.044 and 0.6 ± 0.7 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6, P = 0.000 respectively). On the other hand, it didn’t find any difference in short-term outcomes between the SILS + 2 group and the SILS + 1 group (P > 0.05). But the proximal resection margin was longer in the SILS + 2 group than in the SILS + 1 group (2.6 ± 0.7 cm vs. 1.5 ± 0.9 cm, P = 0.046) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).ConclusionsRLS for total gastrectomy is a feasible and safe technique when performed by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. Moreover, compared with SILS + 1, SILS + 2 might have some advantages in AEG patients.

Learning curve of robotic rectal surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative summation: a 5-year institutional experience.

Outline learning phases of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer and compare surgical and clinical outcomes between each phase of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery and the mastery phase of conventional laparoscopic surgery. From 2015 to 2020, 210 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at Sendai Medical Center. We performed conventional laparoscopic surgery in 110 patients and, laparoscopic surgery in 100 patients. The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative summation method, risk-adjusted cumulative summation method, and logistic regression analysis. The risk-adjusted cumulative summation learning curve was divided into three phases: phase 1 (cases 1-48), phase 2 (cases 49-80), and phase 3 (cases 81-100). Duration of hospital stay (13.1days vs. 18.0days, respectively; p = 0.016) and surgery (209.1min vs. 249.5min, respectively; p = 0.045) were significantly shorter in phase 3 of the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group. Blood loss volume was significantly lower in phase 1 of the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (17.7ml vs. 79.7ml, respectively; p = 0.036). The International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group (p = 0.0131). Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was safe and demonstrated better surgical and clinical outcomes, including a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and a shorter surgical duration, than conventional laparoscopic surgery. After experience with at least 80 cases, tactile familiarity can be acquired from visual information only (visual haptic feedback). UMIN reference no. UMIN000019857.

A propensity score matching investigation of short-term results of single-incision laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection via ileostomy site.

The study was performed to verify the results of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) through the ileostomy site for low rectal cancer compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). From January 2019 to November 2021, 133 patients with low rectal cancer underwent single-incision (n = 27) or conventional (n = 106) methods of low anterior rectal resection surgery with ileostomy. All patients were balanced by propensity score matching for basic information in a ratio of 1:2, resulting in 27 and 54 in SILS and CLS groups, respectively. Relative to the CLS group, the SILS group exhibited fewer leucocyte changes, shorter time to first exhaust and first bowel sounds, shorter length of hospital stay and lower Visual Analogue Score on post-operative days (POD2) and POD3. Intraoperative or post-operative complications or readmissions were comparable between the two groups. The oncologic results remained consistent between the two groups other than the number of lymph nodes dissected in group no. 253. Single-incision laparoscopic low rectal resection surgery through the ileostomy site has advantages in terms of reduced post-operative pain, shorter post-operative exhaust time and length of hospital stay while also achieving oncologic outcomes similar to those of conventional laparoscopy. It can be an alternative procedure for patients with low rectal cancer who require ileostomy.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

The benefits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remain controversial. Only a few studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of RALS following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of RALS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) after NCRT for rectal cancer. Propensity score matching of 111 consecutive patients who underwent RALS or CLS after NCRT for rectal adenocarcinoma between February 2014 and February 2022 was performed. Among them, 60 matched patients were enrolled and their short-term outcomes were compared. Although operative time, conversion rate to open laparotomy and blood loss were comparable, the incidence of postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage, was significantly lower, urinary retention tended to be lower, and the days to soft diet intake and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the RALS than the CLS group. No postoperative mortality was observed in either group, and there were no significant differences in terms of resection margins and number of lymph nodes dissected. RALS after NCRT for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible, and has acceptable short-term outcomes. Further studies are required for validation of the long-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic single site versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian masses

AimTo explore the clinical application of laparoendosopic single-site surgery (LESS) in the treatment of benign ovarian masses of different sizes. MethodsWe reviewed 117 patients with benign ovarian mass. 57 underwent LESS with self-made approach, and 60 underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). ResultsFor the group with the maximum diameter of mass <10 cm, the average operation time was 65.29 ± 8.76 min in the LESS group, which was longer than 50.12 ± 8.73 min in the CLS group (P < 0.001). For the other group with the maximum diameter of mass ≥10 cm, the operation time in the LESS group was 59.32 ± 10.15 min, shorter than that in the CLS group (71.30 ± 10.52 min) (P < 0.001), and incision aesthetic score was better in the LESS group than in the CLS group. There were no significant differences between the LESS and CLS groups in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative ventilation time, postoperative ambulation time, postoperative pain score, surgical satisfaction score and postoperative length of stay (P > 0.05). ConclusionLESS is feasible in the surgery of benign ovarian mass. Especially, it can fully demonstrate the advantages of LESS in large benign ovarian mass (maximum diameter of ≥10 cm).

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CSILS): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundIn most previous studies, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was feasible and safe in the short term. However, long-term oncologic outcomes remain uncertain, as only a few studies contained long-term survival data. SILS for CRC is still in the early stages of research. Further studies, particularly large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials, are necessary to assess the value of SILS for CRC.MethodsThis study is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that investigates the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for CRC. A total of 710 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to the SILS group or the CLS group at a 1:1 ratio using a central, dynamic, and stratified block randomization method. Patients with ages ranging from 18 to 85 years old, of both sexes, with CRC above the peritoneal reflection diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2M0 and a tumour size no larger than 5 cm will be considered for the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints include: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain assessment, pathological outcomes, early morbidity and mortality rate, cosmetic effects, quality of life, 3-year overall survival (OS), incidence of incisional hernia, 5-year DFS and 5-year OS. The first two follow-up visits will be scheduled at one month and three months postoperatively, then every three months for the first two years and every six months for the next three years.DiscussionCurrently, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS for CRC. This study is expected to provide clinical evidence of the oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to CLS for CRC to promote its widespread use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 04527861 (registered on August 27, 2020).

Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis.

The advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remain controversial. This study clarified and compared the short-term outcomes of RALS for rectal cancer with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The records of 303 consecutive patients who underwent RALS or CLS for rectal adenocarcinoma between November 2016 and November 2021 were analyzed using propensity score-matched analysis. After matching, 188 patients were enrolled in our study to compare short-term outcomes, such as operative results, postoperative complications, and pathological findings, in each group. After matching, baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Although operative time in the RALS group was significantly longer than in the CLS group (p < 0.0001), the conversion rate to open laparotomy and the postoperative complication rate in the RALS group were significantly lower than in the CLS group (p=0.0240 and p=0.0109, respectively). Blood loss was comparable between groups. In the RALS group, postoperative hospital stay and days to soft diet were significantly shorter than those in the CLS group (p=0.0464 and p < 0.0001, respectively). No postoperative mortality was observed in either group and significant differences were observed in resection margins and number of lymph nodes harvested. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was safe, technically feasible, and had acceptable short-term outcomes. Further studies are required to validate long-term oncological outcomes.

Safety and oncological outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is a new technique and uses natural orifice as the delivery route for specimen extraction to avoid supererogatory incision, and the safety and oncological outcomes of NOSES for right hemicolectomy are still inconclusive, so a meta-analysis was performed to compare these to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Related literature comparing NOSES with CLS for right hemicolectomy, whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective studies, were systematically searched. A random-effect model or fixed-effect model was used based on the I2 value. A total of six studies (all retrospective trials) involving 609 participants were included. Compared with CLS, NOSES was more preponderant than CLS in terms of surgical morbidity [odds ratio (OR) = 0.31; P = 0.0002], length of hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 1.52; P = 0.006], time to first flatus (WMD = - 0.82; P = 0.0008) and liquid intake (WMD = - 1.40; P < 0.00001), pain score of POD1 (WMD = - 1.99; P < 0.00001) and POD3 (WMD = - 1.15; P = 0.02),and cosmetic result (WMD = 1.84; P < 0.00001), while operative time of NOSES was prolonged (WMD = 18.29; P = 0.04). The number of dissected lymph nodes, recurrence, and 3-year overall survival (3-year OS) in NOSES group were comparable to the CLS group. Despite the lack of enough evidence, NOSES for right hemicolectomy has demonstrated comparable safety and oncological outcomes as CLS with less postoperative morbidity and pain, better cosmetic effect, and rapider recovery.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for distal gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundThe technical safety and efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS+1) for distal gastric cancer remain unclear. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients with distal gastric cancer undergoing SILS+1 versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).MethodsThis randomized controlled trial involved patients with clinical stage cT1b-3N0-2M0 distal gastric cancer. The patients were randomized to the CLS group or SILS+1 group. The surgical and pathologic outcomes, postoperative mortality, and pain intensity were compared between the two groups.ResultsFrom January 2019 to April 2021, 117 patients were enrolled and assigned to either the CLS group (n=59) or SILS+1 group (n=58). The clinical characteristics, including blood loss, tumor diameter, pathologic stage, number of lymph nodes harvested, and postoperative recovery, were similar between the two groups (P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the overall postoperative complication rates between the CLS group and SILS+1 group (10.2% vs. 6.9%, respectively; P=0.743). The Clavien-Dindo classification was also comparable (P=0.435). However, the operating time was significantly longer in the CLS group than SILS+1 group (207.0±41.2 vs. 185.1±40.7 min, respectively; P=0.005), and the total incision length was significantly shorter in the SILS+1 group than CLS group (6.1±0.6 vs. 7.6±0.7 cm, respectively; P=0.000). Moreover, on the third day after surgery, the visual analog scale (VAS) score was significantly higher in the CLS group than SILS+1 group (1.6±0.6 vs. 0.6±0.7, respectively; P=0.000).ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that SILS+1 for distal gastric cancer performed by an experienced surgeon might be a feasible and safe technique with better cosmetic results and less pain in strictly selected patients.Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100051491).

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Right-Side Colon Cancer

Introduction: There are little data concerning the long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colon cancer. Therefore, we investigated not only the short-term outcomes but also the long-term outcomes of SILS for right-side colon cancer. Methods: We retrospectively compared short- and long-term outcomes of SILS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for right-sided colon cancer in our institution. Intergroup differences of short-term outcomes were evaluated using χ2 or Fisher exact tests and 2-sample Student t tests. The disease-free survival rates (long-term outcome) of stage II and III patients were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Results: There were 290 operations conducted for right-side (cecum and ascending) colorectal cancers from April 2011 to July 2018. Open surgery was performed in 12 cases from start to the operation. SILS was performed in 196 cases and CLS in 55 cases. One patient underwent intraoperative conversion from SILS to laparotomy for bleeding control. In addition, 1 port was added to SILS in 3 cases. These 4 cases were included in the analysis as the SILS group according to the principle of intent to treat. Background: Factors including age, gender, body mass index, performance status, and tumor stage were not statistically different between the SILS and CLS groups. In short-term outcomes, the number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically different. SILS required less operating time (p < 0.001) and resulted in a reduced bleeding volume (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of overall complications (p = 0.06). The disease-free survival of stage II and III patients was not statistically different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: With the proper adaptation of SILS by an experienced surgeon, the short- and long-term outcomes of SILS were not inferior to those of CLS. Therefore, SILS could be a treatment option for right-sided colon cancer.