Open Rectal Cancer Resection Research Articles

Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection yields comparable clinical and oncological results with shorter hospital stay compared to open access: a 5-year national cohort

PurposeAlthough widely applied, the results following laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) compared to open rectal resection (ORR) are still debated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical short- and long-term results as well as oncological resection quality following LRR or ORR for cancer in a 5-year national cohort.MethodsData from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry were retrieved from January 2014 to December 2018 for patients who underwent elective resection for rectal cancer. Primary end point was 5-year overall survival. Secondary end points were local recurrence rates within 5 years, oncological resection quality, and short-term outcome measures.ResultsA total of 1796 patients were included, of whom 1284 had undergone LRR and 512 ORR. There was no difference in 5-year survival rates between the groups after adjusting for relevant covariates with Cox regression analyses. Crude 5-year survival was 77.1% following LRR compared to 74.8% following ORR (p = 0.015). The 5-year local recurrence rates were 3.1% following LRR and 4.1% following ORR (p = 0.249). Length of hospital stay was median 8.0 days (quartiles 7.0–13.0) after ORR compared to 6.0 (quartiles 4.0–8.0) days after LRR. After adjusting for relevant covariates, estimated additional length of stay after ORR was 3.1 days (p < 0.001, 95% CI 2.3–3.9). Rates of positive resection margins and number of harvested lymph nodes were similar. There were no other significant differences in short-term outcomes between the groups.ConclusionLRR was performed with clinical and oncological outcomes similar to ORR, but with shorter hospital stay.

Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer in a Center with a Beginning Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program

Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer in a Center with a Beginning Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program

The Risk Factors of Anastomotic Leakage After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Background: Anastomotic leakage is a significant complication after colorectal anastomosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors and preventive measures for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Methods: A total of 171 patients who had undergone laparoscopic and open rectal cancer resection with a double stapling participated in this study. Twelve independent variables include age, sex, obesity, smoking, ASA grading, medical diseases, preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative chemotherapy, splenic flexure mobilization, diverting ileostomy, and the number of stapler firing were analyzed. Results: The anastomotic leakage rate was 2.33% (4 of 171). The mean age of the patients was 58.33 years old while their mean body mass index (BMI) was calculated as 24.10 kg/m2. In our study, 16.3% of patients were cigarette smokers. Of the 171 rectal surgeries, 69.0% of patients were diverted by loop ileostomy and 1.16% were supported by ghost ileostomy. Of 171 patients included in this study, 17.5 % of patients required a single staple firing for rectal division. In contrast, 47.9% of patients required 2 linear staplers, others, 24.5% of patients required 3 cartridges for rectal division, and 9.9% of patients required 4 cartridges in their surgeries. There were significant differences between men and women in the number of cartridges used (P = 0.023). Conclusions: All our leakage cases were men and the higher number of stapler firings for rectal division, history of smoking; male gender, and level of anastomosis were independent risk factors for the anastomotic leak.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: An individual patient data meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aimsThe role of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection remains controversial. Thus, we aimed to conduct a one-stage meta-analysis with reconstructed patient-level data using randomized trial data to compare long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgical resection for rectal cancer. MethodsMedline, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for articles comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcome was disease free survival (DFS) while secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). One-stage meta-analysis was conducted using patient-level survival data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves with Web Plot Digitizer. Shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints. ResultsSeven randomized trials involving 1767 laparoscopic and 1293 open resections for rectal cancer were included. There were no significant differences between both groups for DFS and OS with respective hazard ratio estimates of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78–1.06, p = 0.241) and 0.86 (95% CI:0.73–1.02, p = 0.090). Sensitivity analysis for non-metastatic patients and patients with mid and lower rectal cancer showed no significant differences in OS and DFS between both surgical approaches. In the laparoscopic arm, improved DFS was noted for stage II (HR: 0.73, 95% CI:0.54–0.98, p = 0.036) and stage III rectal cancers (HR: 0.74, 95% CI:0.55–0.99, p = 0.041). ConclusionsThis meta-analysis concludes that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection does not compromise long-term oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery with potential survival benefits for a minimal access approach in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer.

Healthcare Costs of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients in the First 12 Months: A Secondary Endpoint Analysis of the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT).

Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is widely used, however the healthcare costs are thought to be higher than for open resection. This secondary endpoint analysis of a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate total healthcare costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with open resection for rectal cancer over a 12-month period. Patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT) were included in a prospective costing analysis. All healthcare use for the index surgery and hospital admission, readmissions, and follow-up care over 12months were included. Unit costs were valued in Australian dollars (AUD$) using scheduled Medicare fees and hospital cost weights. The primary outcome was mean per patient cost. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was undertaken for robustness checks. Data from 468 patients indicated that the laparoscopic-assisted surgical procedure incurred a mean cost of AUD$4542 (standard deviation [SD] AUD$1050)-AUD$521 higher than the open procedure mean cost of AUD$4021 (SD AUD$804) due to longer operative time and involvement of more costly equipment (95% confidence interval [CI] AUD$354-AUD$692). At 12 months, the average cost for the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups was AUD$43,288 (SD AUD$40,883) and AUD$45,384 (SD AUD$38,659), respectively, due to the shorter subsequent hospital stays. No overall significant cost difference between groups was found (95% CI -AUD$9358 to AUD$5003). One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. While initially higher, the costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer were similar to open resection at 12 months. Clinicians may choose a surgical approach based on clinical need. The Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG) was the legal sponsor and trial coordination was performed by the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12609000663257).

The role of CRP in the diagnosis of postoperative complications in rectal surgery.

Postoperative complications of rectal resections classified as grade III or higher according to Clavien-Dindo system, which also include anastomotic leaks, are usually life-threatening conditions. Delayed diagnosis may account for almost 18% of deaths. Due to nonspecific clinical signs in the early postoperative period, diagnosing these complications may truly be a challenge for clinicians. Nowadays, with the implementation of the ERAS protocol (enhanced recovery after surgery) and efforts concentrated on quickly delivered treatment to patients suffering from the above-mentioned complications, an appropriate marker with high specificity is required. Postoperative levels of C-reactive protein in blood serum seem promising in this aspect. The presented study aimed to determine the cut-off level of serum C-reactive protein as a possible predictive factor for early diagnosis of serious postoperative complications associated with rectal resections. This could also lead clinicians to the diagnosis of anastomotic leak after other possible options are ruled out. This study is a retrospective observational analysis of patients who underwent open resection of rectal cancer during a one-year period. Collected data included risk factors (age, gender, BMI, bowel preparation), record of complications and C Reactive Protein (CRP) serum levels. The study included 162 patients. Uncomplicated postoperative course was observed in 58 patients (35.8%). Complications were present in 104 cases (64.2%), including surgical site infections (16.7%) and anastomotic leak (9.9%). The mortality rate was 2.5%. Serum CRP threshold predicting relevant complications reached a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 82.7% on POD 4, with a 175.4 mg/L cut-off value, burdened with a 95.7% negative predictive value. Postoperative serum C-reactive protein may be used as a good predictor of infectious complications, including anastomotic leaks. Measuring CRP levels in the early postoperative period may facilitate identification oflow-risk patients ensure early and safe discharges from hospital after rectal resections.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Individual Data on 3060 Patients Treated in Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Aims: The role of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection remains controversial. Previous meta-analyses of survival outcomes have utilized a standard meta-analytical approach less amenable to the incorporation of flexible and robust survival models. Thus, we aimed to conduct a one-stage meta-analysis with reconstructed patient-level data using randomized trial data to compare long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgical resection for rectal cancer. Methods: Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for articles comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcome was disease free survival (DFS) while secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). One-stage meta-analysis was conducted using patient-level survival data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves with Web Plot Digitizer. Shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints. Results: Seven randomized trials, with a median follow-up of six years, involving 1,767 laparoscopic and 1,293 open resections for rectal cancer in 3,060 patients were included. There were no significant differences between both groups for DFS and OS with respective hazard ratio estimates of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78 – 1.06, p =0.241) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.73 - 1.02, p = 0.090). Sensitivity analysis for non-metastatic patients and patients with mid and lower rectal cancer showed no significant differences in OS and DFS between both surgical approaches. In the laparoscopic arm, improved DFS was noted for stage II (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54 - 0.98, p = 0.036) and stage III rectal cancers (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55 - 0.99, p =0.041). Conclusions: This meta-analysis concludes that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection does not compromise long-term oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery with potential survival benefits for a minimal access approach in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer. Funding: No funding was required for this work. Declaration of Interest: None to declare.

Risk factors for small bowel obstruction after open rectal cancer resection

BackgroundSmall bowel obstruction (SBO) is observed in around 10% of patients with prior open abdominal surgery. Rectal resection causes the highest readmission rates. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors for readmission for SBO and causes for SBO in patients who needed surgery following rectal cancer surgery.MethodsA population-based registry with prospectively gathered data on 752 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent open pelvic surgery between January 1996 and January 2017 was used. Univariable and multivariable regression analysis was performed, and the risk of SBO was assessed.ResultsIn total, 84 patients (11%) developed SBO after a median follow-up time of 48 months. Of these patients, 57% developed SBO during the 1st year after rectal cancer surgery. Surgery for SBO was performed in 32 patients (4.3%), and the cause of SBO was stoma-related in one-fourth of these patients. In the univariable analysis previous RT and re-laparotomy were found as risk factors for readmission for SBO. Re-laparotomy was an independent risk factor for readmission for SBO (OR 2.824, CI 1.129–7.065, P = 0.026) in the multivariable analysis, but not for surgery for SBO. Rectal resection without anastomoses, splenic flexors mobilization, intraoperative bleeding, operative time were not found as risk factors for SBO.ConclusionsOne-tenth of rectal cancer patients who had open surgery developed SBO, most commonly within the 1st postoperative year. The risk of SBO is greatest in patients with complications after rectal cancer resection that result in a re-laparotomy.

Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThe application of robotic surgery for rectal cancer is increasing steadily. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare pathologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer who underwent open rectal surgery (ORS) versus robotic rectal surgery (RRS).MethodsWe systematically searched the literature of EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) comparing ORS with RRS.ResultsFourteen nRCTs, including 2711 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.16, P = 0.13), number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD: −0.31, 95% CI, −2.16 to 1.53, P = 0.74), complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rates (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.78, P = 0.83) and the length of distal resection margins (DRM) (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.25, P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the RRS and ORS groups.ConclusionBased on the current evidence, robotic resection for rectal cancer provided equivalent pathological outcomes to ORS in terms of CRM positivity, number of harvested lymph nodes and complete TME rates and DRM.

The effect of laparoscopically assisted versus open resection of rectal cancer on short-term and pathological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

Background Laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer is well established, but its use in rectal cancer is still controversial as it needs a long duration of learning curve; moreover, its oncological adequacy is questionable. This study was conducted to compare laparoscopic and open approaches regarding the short term as well as the oncological outcomes. Materials and methods A prospective randomized study was conducted to compare between open and laparoscopic surgeries regarding short-term and oncological outcomes. Two groups (31 patients in LAP group and 32 patients in the OPEN group) were classified in the study. Results A total of 63 patients with rectal cancer included in the study in the period between January 2015 and March 2016 were classified into two groups: LAP group (31 patients) and OPEN group (32 patients). They underwent rectal cancer resection according to the allocated surgery. There was a longer operative time in LAP group with a significant improved short-term outcomes (blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, and rapid gastrointestinal tract recovery). There was no difference in morbidities and local and distant recurrence between the two groups. The conversion rate was 12.9% in the LAP group, whereas the median number of removed lymph nodes was 12 in the LAP group and 10 in the OPEN group, with no significant difference. Conclusion Laparoscopy can be used safely in rectal cancer resection with an acceptable short-term outcomes, but it is a difficult technique and needs a learning curve. Its oncological outcomes are still a matter of debate.

Laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer\u2014is age an effect modifier for short- and long-term survival?

IntroductionRectal cancer is a frequently diagnosed tumor worldwide. Various studies have shown the noninferiority or even slight superiority of laparoscopic resection. However, there is no clear recommendation on whether age should influence the choice of surgical approach.Materials and methodsThis study compared outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients. Perioperative mortality and 5-year overall, relative, and recurrence-free survival rates were analyzed separately for three age groups. Data originate from 30 regional German cancer registries that cover approximately one quarter of the German population. All primary nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma cases with surgery between 2005 and 2014 were eligible for inclusion. To compare survival rates, Kaplan–Meier analysis, a relative survival model, and multivariable Cox regression were used; a sensitivity analysis assessed bias by exclusion.ResultsTen thousand seven hundred fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. The mean laparoscopy rate was 23.0% and increased over time. Analysis of 30-day postoperative mortality rates revealed advantages for laparoscopically treated patients, although the significance level was not reached in any age group. Regarding 5-year overall survival, laparoscopy generally seems to be the superior approach, whereas for recurrence-free survival, an age-dependent gradient in effect size was observed: with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.703 for laparoscopy, patients under 60 years benefitted more from the minimally invasive approach than older patients (septuagenarians, HR 0.923).ConclusionLaparoscopy shows similar results to the open approach in terms of postoperative survival in all age groups. Concerning long-term outcomes, younger patients benefitted most from the minimally invasive approach.

Preservation of Pathologic Outcomes in Robotic versus Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: Can the Robot Fill the Minimally Invasive Gap?

Open resection remains the standard of care in the surgical management of rectal cancer with recent studies unable to prove noninferiority of laparoscopic resection. Few studies directly compare robotic versus open techniques. This is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic or open rectal cancer resection during a three-year period. The primary endpoint was a composite of complete mesorectal excision, circumferential resection margin <1 mm, and distal resection margin <1 mm. The study cohort included 64 patients undergoing robotic (n = 28) or open (n = 36) resection. Successful surgical resection was similar between the robotic (75%) and open (76%) approaches. Robotic resection was associated with significantly lower blood loss (P = 0.02) and significantly longer operative times (P = 0.009) compared with open resection. Length of hospital stay and complications were similar between groups. Both male gender (P = 0.03) and shorter tumor distance from the anal verge (P = 0.01) were predictors for unsuccessful surgical resection in open, but not robotic, surgery. Pathologic outcomes are similar between robotic and open rectal cancer resection, even early in the learning curve. Tumor distance from the anal verge complicates open total mesorectal excision; however, robotic surgery is less impacted. Robotic resection may be a promising minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection.

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.

Rectal resection following neoadjuvant therapy in a Midwest community hospital setting: The case for standardization over centralization as the means to optimize rectal cancer outcomes in the United States

BackgroundIncomplete and flawed national databases reveal strikingly inferior outcomes for rectal cancer patients resected at “low” versus “high “ volume hospitals, therefore, a study of outcomes of a “high” volume surgeon in a “low” volume Midwest community hospital setting examined this perception in comparison to contemporary studies. MethodsReview of 109 consecutive patients who underwent open resection of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy, 1999–2010. ResultsDespite the majority of tumors in the low rectum (54%), the rate of abdominoperineal resection was only 39% with R0 resection achieved in 94% and primary anastomosis in 61/109 patients (56%). Disease-free survival (DFS) 73%: stage 0 (complete response)- 100%, stage I- 88%, stage II- 68%, stage III- 50%, stage IV- 0% with recurrence rate of 11% (local recurrence (LR) - 3%, distant - 8%). ConclusionOutcomes of rectal cancer resection by a “high” volume surgeon in a “low” volume Midwest community hospital setting were comparable to contemporary studies from tertiary care institutions. Geographic location and hospital capacity matter less than access to multispecialty expertise providing neoadjuvant therapy and following standard principles of oncologic resection, in efforts to optimize rectal cancer outcomes.

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.

Pathological outcomes in rectal cancer following laparoscopic surgery.

This study examined pathological quality-of-surgery indicators in laparoscopic and open rectal cancer resection specimens. Retrospective analysis of consecutive, prospectively recorded laparoscopic (LR) or open (OR) resections for rectal cancer. Indicators included integrity of the perirectal fascial envelope, circumferential margin clearance, lymph node yield and distal margin clearance. Between January 2007 and December 2013, 168 LR and 189 OR were performed. Univariate analysis showed that the presence of tumor within 1mm of the circumferential margin was lower in LR (13/168 vs 28/189 cases, P=0.039) as was a distal margin of clearance of<1cm (3/165 vs 12/186, P=0.032). There was no difference in the surgical disruption of the fascial envelope (P=0.091) or the percentage of specimens with a lymph node yield<12 (P=0.576) between the LR and OR groups. Multivariate analysis did not reveal any significant differences in pathological outcomes. With careful case selection, laparoscopic surgery has similar pathological outcomes to open surgery for rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: Long-term outcomes of a propensity score matched study.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer has short-term benefits when compared to open resection. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT). In this propensity matched study, a series of 72 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer following NCRT between 2004 and 2010 (Lap group) were matched with 72 patients who underwent open surgery for rectal cancer in the same period (Open group). The survival and recurrence patterns were compared between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 69.5 months (range 1-138 months), local recurrence rate was observed in 4 patients (5.5%) and 7 patients (9.7%) in the Lap and Open groups, respectively (P = 0.35). The 5- and 10-year disease-free survival in the Lap and Open groups were 61.3% versus 47.9% and 48.8% versus 41%, respectively (P = 0.16). The 5- and 10-year overall survival was 66.9% versus 60.2% and 49% versus 46.2% in the Lap and Open groups, respectively (P = 0.38). Laparoscopic surgery following NCRT for low and mid third rectal cancers was associated with similar long-term oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery.

Predictors of Utilization and Quality Assessment in Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Review of the National Cancer Database

Robotic surgery (RS) is a novel treatment for rectal cancer resection (RCR); however, this technology is not widely accessible. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utilization of RS in RCR compared with open and laparoscopic techniques and to assess the quality of resection. RCR from 2010 to 2012 were identified using the National Cancer Database and placed into categories: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. A total of 23,857 patients who received open, laparoscopic, and robotic RCR were included (n = 14,735 (61.8%); 7,185 (30.1%); 1,937 (8.1%), respectively). Patients over 70 had a lower likelihood of robotic RCR. Patients with insurance were 2 times more likely to have robotic RCR. Patients at an academic/research program were more likely to undergo RS compared with a community cancer program (OR 3.6, 95% CI [2.79, 4.78]; P < 0.0001). Length of stay (LOS) was longer in open (7.9 ± 7.1) versus laparoscopic (6.6 ± 6.3) or robotic (6.8 ± 6.4) RCR (P < 0.0001). Although there was an increased likelihood of positive surgical margins with open RCR (OR 1.3, 95% CI [1.09, 1.66]; P < 0.0001), there was no difference in robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Younger insured patients at academic/research affiliated hospitals have a higher likelihood of receiving robotic RCR. Compared with open RCR, robotic RCR have a lower likelihood of positive surgical margins and shorter LOS.

P-377 - Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer. A lower middle income country experience

Introduction: To measure the short and long term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery at a cancer hospital in a lower middle income country Methods: All patients with a diagnosis of rectal cancer from Jun 2006 to Jun 2015 were studied. Patient demographics were recorded. Short term surgical outcomes were recorded. Oncological factors indicating an adequate surgical resection were identified. Successful resection was defined as having negative linear and radial margins and a complete TME. LN yield was also recorded. Post op complications were also compared. Results: A total of 440 surgeries were performed. 154 abdominoperineal resections, 35 extra levator abdominoperineal resections, 151 anterior resections, 40 ultralow resections, 40 Hartmann's procedures and 20 total colectomies were performed. 262 were laparoscopic and 178 were open. There were 27 conversions (10%). Tumours in the open group were more aggressive and more advanced. There were more T4 lesions (5.2% vs 0.6%), more mucinous (38.7 vs 26.7%) and more nodal involvement (45% vs 34%). Distal resection margins were negative in all open and laparoscopic resections. CRM was clear in 83.9% in open resections vs 88.8% in laparoscopic resections. TME was complete in in 86% in open surgery and 91% in laparoscopic surgery. Median number of LNs excised were similar in both groups (median of 13). Complications were seen in 8.4% patients in open group versus 5.7% patients in laparoscopic group. Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery is similar to open surgery in terms of early surgical and oncological outcomes. A long term comparison of oncological outcomes in terms of recurrence and survival is required.

Laparoscopic right colectomy reduces short-term mortality and morbidity. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

While definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic surgery for right colectomy remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in safety of laparoscopic right colectomy, compared with open surgery, with particular attention to cancer patients. A systematic review from 1991 to 2014 was performed searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42014015256). We included randomised and controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary endpoints were 30 days mortality and overall morbidity. Then, a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR less than 1.0 was in favour of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot, heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on oncologic patients. Twenty-seven studies, representing 3049 patients, met the inclusion criteria; only 2 were randomised for a total of 211 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.2 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 3.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.45 (95 % CI 0.21-0.93, p = 0.031). The raw incidence of overall complications was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (16.8 %) compared to the open group (24.2 %). The overall RR was 0.81 (95 % CI 0.70-0.95, p = 0.007). Based on the evidence of few randomised and mostly controlled series, mortality and morbidity were significantly lower after laparoscopy compared to open surgery.