Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Resection Research Articles

Superior mesenteric venous thrombosis after laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer: a report of a rare case and literature review*

Abstract Mesenteric venous thrombosis (MVT) is rare, but life-threatening. MVT is often characterized by occult and nonspecific signs and symptoms. Diagnosis requires a high index of clinical suspicion, and emergency surgery is necessary to optimize patient survival, especially in people aged more than 70 years. MVT is a rare but fatal complication after laparoscopic radical surgery for rectal cancer. This study reports a case of extensive intestinal ischemic infarction caused by acute MVT after laparoscopic radical surgery for rectal cancer in a 70-year-old male.

Comparison of Short-Term Clinical and Pathological Outcomes after Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Anterior Rectal Resection Due to Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a new technique that is designed to overcome the limits of the open and laparoscopic approach for rectal resections. Objective: This study is designed to compare TaTME with standard laparoscopic TME (LaTME). Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases covering a up to October 2018. Inclusion criteria for study enrolment: (1) study comparing laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer vs. TaTME for rectal malignancy, (2) reporting of overall morbidity, operative time, or major complications. Results: Eleven non-randomized studies were eligible with a total of 778 patients. We found statistical significant differences in regard to major complications in favour of TaTME (RR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.31–0.97; p = 0.04). We did not found significant differences regarding overall complications intraoperative adverse effects, operative time, anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess occurrence, Surgical Site Infection, reoperations, Length of stay, completeness of mesorectal excision, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin, and distal resection margin. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows benefits of TaTME technique regarding major postoperative complications. Regarding clinicopathological features transanal approach is not superior to LaTME. Currently, the quality of the evidence on benefits of TaTME is low due to lack of randomized controlled trials, which needs to be taken into consideration in further evaluation of the technique. Further evaluation of TaTME require conducting large randomized control trials.

The impact of the mesorectal apparent diffusion coefficient value on surgical difficulty in laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer.

We aimed to clarify the impact of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value of the mesorectum from preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on surgical difficulty in laparoscopic anterior resection (Lap-AR) for rectal cancer. In total, 67 patients who had undergone curative Lap-AR for rectal cancer in our hospital from January 2008 to March 2015 and had preoperative MRI findings available were included. We randomly calculated the average ADC in three regions of the mesorectum at the level of the upper edge of the superior border of the femur. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the correlation between the patients' clinicopathological characteristics, including the ADC value and short-term surgical outcomes. The univariate analysis revealed that a lower ADC value was associated with a significantly increased operative blood loss (p = 0.008) and prolonged operative time (p < 0.001). The multivariate analysis adjusted for the body mass index, anal verge, tumor location, covering stoma, clinical T factor and conversion revealed that the ADC value was an independent risk factor for a prolonged operative time (R2 = 0.6003, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the multivariate analysis adjusted for the body mass index, anal verge, covering stoma, clinical T factor and conversion revealed that the ADC value was an independent risk factor for an increased blood loss (R2 = 0.4345, p = 0.008). A lower ADC value of the mesorectum might be a predictor of surgical difficulty in Lap-AR for rectal cancer.

Frequency of Misinterpretation of Inconclusive Noninferiority Trials

This cross-sectional analysis of 71 articles discussing the ACOSOG Z6051 and ALaCaRT trials of laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer evaluates the frequency of misinterpretation of these inconclusive trials and determines whether interpretations were concordant with the findings of the primary studies.

Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of preserving the left colic artery in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: A meta‑analysis

The aim of the present meta-analysis compared left colic artery (LCA) preservation with non-preservation in laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer in terms of feasibility, efficacy and safety. The PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched prior to June 2017 for studies comparing LCA preservation and non-preservation in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Two researchers screened the literature independently, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias. The study was performed using RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies comparing LCA preservation and non-preservation in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were selected for this meta-analysis, with a combined study population of 1,471 patients. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that, when comparing LCA preservation with non-preservation in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time (P<0.01), estimated blood loss (P<0.01), percentage of neostomy (P<0.01), the number of retrieved lymph nodes (P<0.01), time to first postoperative exhaust (P<0.01) and amount of anastomotic leakage (P<0.01). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (P=0.28), incidence of recurrence (P=0.73) and incidence of metastasis (P=0.52). Therefore, compared with LCA non-preservation, patients in whom the LCA was preserved during laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer had a better prognosis. However, there was no difference in recurrence or metastasis between the two groups. Although the operative time and estimated blood loss were increased with LCA preservation, these may be reduced with improving proficiency of the operating surgeons. The conclusions of the present study require verification by larger samples and high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Approach for Rectal Cancer Surgery, First Egyptian Academic Center Experience, RCT.

Background Undoubtedly, robotic systems have largely penetrated the surgical field. For any new operative approach to become an accepted alternative to conventional methods, it must be proved safe and result in comparable outcomes. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term operative as well as oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections. MethodsThis is a prospective randomized clinical trial conducted on patients with rectal cancer undergoing either robotic-assisted or laparoscopic surgery from April 2015 till February 2017. Patients' demographics, operative parameters, and short-term clinical and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Results Fifty-seven patients underwent permuted block randomization. Of these patients, 28 were assigned to undergo robotic-assisted rectal surgery and 29 to laparoscopic rectal surgery. After exclusion of 12 patients following randomization, 45 patients were included in the analysis. No significant differences exist between both groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, ASA score, clinical stage, and rate of receiving upfront chemoradiation. Estimated blood loss was evidently lower in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (median: 200 versus 325 ml, p= 0.050). A significantly more distal margin is achieved in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (median: 2.8 versus 1.8, p< 0.001). Although the circumferential radial margin (CRM) was complete in 18 patients (85.7%) in the robotic group in contrast to 15 patients (62.5%) in the laparoscopic group, it did not differ statistically (p=0.079). The overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the two groups. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first prospective randomized trial of robotic rectal surgery in the Middle East and Northern Africa region. Our early experience indicates that robotic rectal surgery is a feasible and safe procedure. It is not inferior to standard laparoscopy in terms of oncologic radicality and surgical complications. Organization number is IORG0003381. IRB number is IRB00004025.

Effect of Age and Comorbidities on Short- and Long-Term Results in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Curative Resection for Rectal Cancer.

Conflicting findings have been reported in older patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of age and comorbidities on short- and long-term results of patients undergoing laparoscopic curative resection for rectal cancer (LCRRC). We retrospectively evaluated all 173 consecutive patients undergoing LCRRC at our unit (June 2005-September 2015). They were divided into two age groups as follows: <75 (n = 122) and ≥75 (n = 51) years. Comorbidities were evaluated using American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and age-related Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI). Tumor characteristics were similar in the two groups. Comorbidity status (ASA, CCI, ACCI) was worse in elderly patients. Type of surgery performed was similar in the two groups. Medical complications were significantly higher in elderly (10.7% versus 29.4%, P = .006), while surgical complications were similar. Postoperative stay was longer in older patients (13 days versus 9 days, P = .0007). Multivariable analysis identified older age, higher CCI, and longer operative time as independent predictors of morbidity. Five years overall survival and disease-free survival were 49% and 43% in older and 84% and 77% in younger group (P < .0001). Multivariable analysis identified age, CCI, tumor, node, metastasis stage, and postoperative morbidity as independent risk factors for overall and disease-free survival. LCRRC achieves excellent short- and long-term results, but age and comorbidities may significantly affect postoperative morbidity and survival.

Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancer (LRC) is performed worldwide. However, APR involves technical difficulties and often causes intractable perineal complications. Therefore, a novel and secure technique during APR is required to overcome these critical issues. Although the usefulness of the endoscopic trans-anal approach has been documented, no series of the endoscopic trans-perineal approach during laparoscopic APR for LRC has been reported. Trans-perineal minimally invasive surgery (TpMIS) has been used during laparoscopic APR in our institution since April 2014. TpMIS is defined as an endoscopic trans-perineal approach using a single-port device and laparoscopic instruments. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated 50 consecutive patients with LRC who underwent laparoscopic APR at our institution from February 2011 to June 2017 and compared the outcomes of the patients who underwent TpMIS [trans-perineal APR (TpAPR) group, n = 21] versus the conventional trans-perineal approach (conventional group, n = 29). We investigated our experiences with TpMIS in detail and evaluated the safety and utility of TpMIS for patients with LRC. Moreover, major features and difficulties of TpMIS were examined from a surgical viewpoint. Intraoperative blood loss (median (range) 55 (10-600) vs. 120 (20-1650) ml) and severe perineal wound infection (Clavien-Dindo grade 3, 0 vs. 5 cases) were significantly lower in the TpAPR than conventional group. TpMIS led to a shortened hospital stay (median (range), 14 (10-74) vs. 23 (10-84) days), and neither mortality nor conversion to open surgery occurred in the TpAPR group. Magnified visualization via endoscopy provided more accurate dissection and less blood loss during surgery. Minimal skin incisions enabled a reduction in postoperative perineal complications, and consequently shortened the hospital stay. TpMIS during laparoscopic APR is safe and beneficial for patients with LRC.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach—report of a single-center experience

Robotic surgery allows for a better visualization and more precise dissection especially in the narrow male pelvis and mid and lower third of the rectum. However, superiority to laparoscopic TME has yet to be proven. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer. From 2011 to 2016, 44 robotic (RTME) and 41 laparoscopic (LTME) low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision were performed at a single institution. Specimen quality was assessed and reported by an independent pathologist following international guidelines. The groups did not differ significantly regarding gender, age, ASA stage, BMI, and distance of the lower tumor margin from the anal verge. More patients in the RTME group underwent preoperative chemoradiation (43.2 vs. 19.5%, p = 0.019). The quality of the TME specimen was significantly better in the RTME group (complete/nearly complete/incomplete for RTME 97/0/3% and for LTME 78/17/5%, p = 0.03). The conversion rate tended to be lower in the RTME group (7 vs. 17%, p = 0.143). There was no difference in CRM positivity between the groups. Robotic surgery is safe and can improve the quality of TME for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy. Any effect on long-term survival remains to be established.

Loop ostomy following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

BackgroundBoth loop ileostomy (LI) and loop transverse colostomy (LTC) could achieve absolute fecal diversion and have several advantages. This study compared LI and LTC following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.MethodsBetween January 2009 and December 2016, 186 patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer and loop ostomy were included. All patients received preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Of these, 77 underwent LI and 109 underwent LTC. Demographic characteristics, operative details, and complications were analyzed.ResultsIn the fecal diversion period, the LTC group showed significantly less dermatitis (p = 0.001) and electrolyte disturbance (p = 0.002), while LI group showed significantly shorter time to first defecation (p = 0.006) and lower incidence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.014). In the stoma closure period, a significantly higher incidence of wound infection was found in LTC group (p = 0.001).ConclusionsBoth LI and LTC have advantages and disadvantages. For its lower wound infection rate, lower incidence of parastomal hernia, and shorter time to first defecation, LI is recommended for all patients except those with potential electrolyte disturbance and sensitive skin.

Preliminary Report on Introduction of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol for Laparoscopic Rectal Resection: A Single-Center Experience.

Laparoscopic rectal surgery seems to improve postoperative recovery of patients who undergo surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate preliminary results of implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) for cancer at our institute. We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients who underwent LRR for cancer at our institute after introduction of enhanced recovery protocol were compared with a control group of patients who previously underwent surgery with traditional protocol. Primary endpoints evaluated were length of stay (LOS) and rates of complications and readmissions. We studied 150 consecutive patients, 56 operated with the traditional approach and 94 according to ERAS protocol. The mean (range) LOS was 10 (4-27) days for patients in control group versus 8.5 (3-32) days for patients in the ERAS group (P = .0823). No evidence of a different rate (P = .227) of complications was registered between the two groups. One patient in each group was readmitted. The introduction of the ERAS protocol in LRR for cancer at our institute led to an initial reduction in hospital LOS, without increase in morbidity or readmission rate compared with our previous experience with traditional protocol.

Early Urinary Dysfunction after Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Does Surgeons’ Learning Curve Matter?

Poor early urinary outcomes after laparoscopy were reported in studies comparing laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer surgery. One possible explanation was that these studies might include a number of patients on the laparoscopic surgeons' learning curve. This study aims to evaluate whether the learning curve of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery influences early postoperative urinary dysfunction. Between September 2009 and December 2014, 208 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer were enrolled in the present study. All the clinical data were obtained from a prospectively compiled database. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) and major urinary dysfunction requiring long-term urinary catheterization. POUR and major urinary dysfunction rate were 20.2 per cent (42/208) and 4.3 per cent (9/208), respectively. The learning curve analysis for operative time using the moving average method showed stabilization at 80 cases. Surgeon experience was divided into two periods: learning curve period (1-80 cases) and experienced period (81-208 cases). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (OR = 3.250, P = 0.006) and learning curve (OR = 2.241, P = 0.024) were independent risk factors for POUR. Learning curve was not significantly associated with increased rates of major urinary dysfunction (OR = 3.378, P = 0.092). Learning curve is a significant risk factor for increased rate of POUR after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Technical training may be key to shorten the learning curve and limit its impact on the postoperative urinary complications.

Clinical impact of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: case-controlled study

Background: Recently, laparoscopic (Lap) intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low-lying rectal cancer is gradually permeating worldwide. However, the usefulness of Lap-ISR after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has not been clarified. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of Lap-ISR after NCRT for locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer. Methods: Fourteen patients with primary locally low-lying rectal cancer were enrolled in this study and underwent curative Lap-ISR between January 2008 and December 2011. Seven patients underwent Lap-ISR after NCRT (NCRT group) and seven patients underwent Lap-ISR without NCRT (non-NCRT group). Patient characteristics, short-term outcomes, postoperative anal function, and long-term oncological outcomes were evaluated and compared between the groups. Results: The tumor diameter was significantly larger in the NCRT group than the non-NCRT group (38±7 and 28±9 mm, respectively; P=0.04) and cStage was significantly more advanced in the NCRT group than the non-NCRT group (P=0.02). There were no significant differences in operative data or postoperative course between the groups. The Wexner score measured 5 years after initial surgery was significantly higher the NCRT group than the non-NCRT group (8.8±4.1 and 4.6±1.9, respectively; P=0.04). There were no significant differences in local recurrence rate, distant recurrence rate, or cancer-specific death rate between the two groups (median follow-up period was 60 months). Conclusions: Lap-ISR after NCRT is a feasible treatment option based on short-term outcomes, long-term oncological outcomes, and postoperative anal function. These data suggest that Lap-ISR after NCRT may be an appropriate treatment option for locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer.

Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Are Not Prognostic Biomarkers in Rectal Cancer Patients with Curative Resection

BackgroundActual predictors of survival and recurrence for rectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection mostly come from pathological data of surgical specimen. Recently, novel blood biomarkers have been proposed as useful tools in cancer patient management, but few and conflicting data have been reported in rectal cancer. We evaluated the prognostic relevance of preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte (P/L) ratio and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (N/L) ratio on survival and recurrence in patients undergoing laparoscopic curative resection for rectal cancer. MethodsAll consecutive patients who referred for primary rectal disease to the Department of General Surgery in Cittadella (Italy) from June 2005 to September 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with metastatic disease at surgery were excluded. P/L and N/L ratios were calculated. For patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, pre-treatment data were considered. Follow-up data were updated at December 2016. ResultsOne hundred fifty-two patients were included in the study, 49 (32%) received neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. Both P/L and N/L ratios showed poor discriminative performance on 5-year OS and DFS. Time-dependent ROC curves showed no improvements in discriminative performance of P/L and N/L ratios when considering different time endpoints. Multivariable analysis identified CEA—rather than P/L or N/L ratios—as independent predictor of OS and DFS, adjusting for age, tumor stage, and postoperative morbidity. ConclusionNeither P/L nor N/L ratios were associated with survival after rectal cancer surgery. Further studies on large series might provide insights on the role of these inexpensive blood biomarkers in rectal cancer.

Long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open rectal cancer resection: a high-quality population-based analysis in a Southern German district

BackgroundAn increasing number of rectal carcinoma resections in Germany and worldwide are performed laparoscopically. The recently published COLOR II trial demonstrated the oncologic safety of this surgical approach. It remains unclear whether these findings can be transferred to clinical practice.Patients and methodsThis population-based retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate 5-year overall, relative, disease-free, and local recurrence-free survival of rectal cancer patients treated by open surgery and laparoscopy. Data from a southern German region of 1.1 million inhabitants were collected by an official clinical cancer registry. All primary non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma cases with surgery between 2004 and 2013 were eligible for inclusion. To compare survival rates, Kaplan–Meier analyses, relative survival models, and multivariate Cox regression were applied; a sensitivity analysis assessed bias by exclusion.ResultsFinally, 1507 patients with a median follow-up time of 7.1 years were included. Of these patients, 28.4% underwent laparoscopic procedures, with an increasing rate over time. Patients with tumors of the upper or middle rectum, younger patients, and patients of specialized colorectal cancer centers were more likely to undergo laparoscopy. After 5 years, 80.4% of laparoscopy patients were still alive, compared to 68.6% in the open group (p < 0.001). Moreover, laparoscopy was associated with superior local recurrence-free survival rates. This advantage was also significant in multivariate analysis (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.92).ConclusionLaparoscopic rectal cancer surgery can be considered safe in daily clinical practice. This should be confirmed by future studies outside the setting of randomized trials.

Pelvic Drain After Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer in Patients With Diverting Stoma.

This study is intended to assess whether the use of pelvic drain reduces incidence of pelvic sepsis in the era of laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR). In total, 200 of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer with diverting stoma were analyzed. Pelvic sepsis occurred in 14 of 110 patients (12.7%) in the drain group and in 9 of 90 patients (10.0%) in the no drain group (P=0.548). Furthermore, there were no differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage, time to diagnosis of pelvic sepsis, and type of treatments for pelvic sepsis. Prophylactic pelvic drain use after laparoscopic LAR in patients with diverting stoma does not reduce incidence of pelvic sepsis. Routine use of pelvic drain is not recommended. This study was registered at UMIN (Registration Number: UMIN000026076).

Clinical impact of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: case-controlled study

Background: Recently, laparoscopic (Lap) intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low-lying rectal cancer is gradually permeating worldwide. However, the usefulness of Lap-ISR after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has not been clarified. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of Lap-ISR after NCRT for locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer. Methods: Fourteen patients with primary locally low-lying rectal cancer were enrolled in this study and underwent curative Lap-ISR between January 2008 and December 2011. Seven patients underwent Lap-ISR after NCRT (NCRT group) and seven patients underwent Lap-ISR without NCRT (non-NCRT group). Patient characteristics, short-term outcomes, postoperative anal function, and long-term oncological outcomes were evaluated and compared between the groups. Results: The tumor diameter was significantly larger in the NCRT group than the non-NCRT group (38±7 and 28±9 mm, respectively; P=0.04) and cStage was significantly more advanced in the NCRT group than the non-NCRT group (P=0.02). There were no significant differences in operative data or postoperative course between the groups. The Wexner score measured 5 years after initial surgery was significantly higher the NCRT group than the non-NCRT group (8.8±4.1 and 4.6±1.9, respectively; P=0.04). There were no significant differences in local recurrence rate, distant recurrence rate, or cancer-specific death rate between the two groups (median follow-up period was 60 months). Conclusions: Lap-ISR after NCRT is a feasible treatment option based on short-term outcomes, long-term oncological outcomes, and postoperative anal function. These data suggest that Lap-ISR after NCRT may be an appropriate treatment option for locally advanced low-lying rectal cancer.

Safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic low anterior resection for upper rectal cancer

BackgroundSingle-port surgery for rectal cancer is challenging and controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of single-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (S-LAR) to multi-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (M-LAR) for upper rectal cancer. MethodsFrom January 2011 to December 2015, a total of 93 patients who underwent S-LAR (n = 44) or M-LAR (n = 49) without protective diverting ileostomy for upper rectal cancer were identified. Tumors were located between the inferior margin of the second sacral vertebra and the peritoneal reflection. Short-term outcomes were compared between groups. ResultsS-LAR was successful in 75% of cases: 25% of cases required one additional port. Operative factors, perioperative outcomes, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. In patients with stage I-III disease, the 3-year relapse-free survival rate was significantly higher in the S-LAR group than in the M-LAR group (p = 0.032). The 3-year overall survival rate was similar between groups. ConclusionsS-LAR is safe, feasible and can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes in selected patients with upper rectal cancer.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study

PurposeLaparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients.MethodsAll consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined.ResultsA total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033).ConclusionsIn this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal metastases

The video shows the case of a 66-year old male patient who underwent one year earlier, laparoscopic resection for mid rectal cancer, following radio-chemotherapy (Folfiri + Cetuximab, 12 courses). At diagnosis the patient presented with synchronous colorectal liver metastases: 2 lesions of 5 cm in segments 5–8, invading the right hepatic vein and 2 lesions of 5 cm in segments 6–7. At pathology it was an adenocarcinoma of the rectum, pT3 N1c M1, TRG 3. The patient was referred to our Unit after other 10 courses of chemotherapy. The CT scan showed a partial clinical response. A laparoscopic right hepatectomy was planned.