-
Nature Reviews. Disease Primers Nov 2015Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality... (Review)
Review
Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colectomy; Colonic Polyps; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Incidence; Laparoscopy; Radiotherapy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27189416
DOI: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.65 -
Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal... Apr 2019Comparisons with other high-income countries suggest that Canada has been slower to adopt laparoscopic colectomy (LC). The Canadian Association of General Surgeons... (Review)
Review
Comparisons with other high-income countries suggest that Canada has been slower to adopt laparoscopic colectomy (LC). The Canadian Association of General Surgeons sought to evaluate the barriers to adoption of laparoscopic colon surgery and to propose potential intervention strategies to enhance the use of the procedure. Given the clinical benefits of laparoscopic surgery for patients, the increasing needs for surgical care and the desire of Canadian general surgeons to advance their specialty and enhance the care of their patients, it is an important priority to improve the utilization of LC.
Topics: Canada; Clinical Competence; Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Elective Surgical Procedures; Health Plan Implementation; Humans; Laparoscopy; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Surgeons
PubMed: 30907994
DOI: 10.1503/cjs.003118 -
JAMA Surgery Feb 2021Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, with significant morbidity. Short-term results from randomized clinical trials have indicated that... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, with significant morbidity. Short-term results from randomized clinical trials have indicated that laparoscopic lavage is a feasible alternative to resection. However, it appears that no long-term results are available.
OBJECTIVE
To compare long-term (5-year) outcomes of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and primary resection as treatments of perforated purulent diverticulitis.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This international multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 21 hospitals in Sweden and Norway, which enrolled patients between February 2010 and June 2014. Long-term follow-up was conducted between March 2018 and November 2019. Patients with symptoms of left-sided acute perforated diverticulitis, indicating urgent surgical need and computed tomography-verified free air, were eligible. Those available for trial intervention (Hinchey stages
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or colon resection based on computer-generated, center-stratified block randomization.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was severe complications within 5 years. Secondary outcomes included mortality, secondary operations, recurrences, stomas, functional outcomes, and quality of life.
RESULTS
Of 199 randomized patients, 101 were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and 98 were assigned to colon resection. At the time of surgery, perforated purulent diverticulitis was confirmed in 145 patients randomized to lavage (n = 74) and resection (n = 71). The median follow-up was 59 (interquartile range, 51-78; full range, 0-110) months, and 3 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving a final analysis of 73 patients who had had laparoscopic lavage (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [13] years; 39 men [53%]) and 69 who had received a resection (mean [SD] age, 63.5 [14] years; 36 men [52%]). Severe complications occurred in 36% (n = 26) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 35% (n = 24) in the resection group (P = .92). Overall mortality was 32% (n = 23) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 25% (n = 17) in the resection group (P = .36). The stoma prevalence was 8% (n = 4) in the laparoscopic lavage group vs 33% (n = 17; P = .002) in the resection group among patients who remained alive, and secondary operations, including stoma reversal, were performed in 36% (n = 26) vs 35% (n = 24; P = .92), respectively. Recurrence of diverticulitis was higher following laparoscopic lavage (21% [n = 15] vs 4% [n = 3]; P = .004). In the laparoscopic lavage group, 30% (n = 21) underwent a sigmoid resection. There were no significant differences in the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire or Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Long-term follow-up showed no differences in severe complications. Recurrence of diverticulitis after laparoscopic lavage was more common, often leading to sigmoid resection. This must be weighed against the lower stoma prevalence in this group. Shared decision-making considering both short-term and long-term consequences is encouraged.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047462.
Topics: Aged; Colectomy; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Female; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Laparoscopy; Male; Norway; Peritoneal Lavage; Sweden
PubMed: 33355658
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5618 -
Surgical Endoscopy Dec 2018Complete mesocolic excision is gradually becoming an established oncologic surgical principle for right hemicolectomy. However, the procedure is technically demanding...
BACKGROUND
Complete mesocolic excision is gradually becoming an established oncologic surgical principle for right hemicolectomy. However, the procedure is technically demanding and carries the risk of serious complications, especially when performed laparoscopically. A standardized procedure that minimizes technical hazards and facilitates teaching is, therefore, highly desirable.
METHODS
An expert group of surgeons and one anatomist met three times. The initial aim was to achieve consensus about the surgical anatomy before agreeing on a sequence for dissection in laparoscopic CME. This proposal was evaluated and discussed in an anatomy workshop using post-mortem body donors along with videos of process-informed procedures, leading to a definite consensus.
RESULTS
In order to provide a clear picture of the surgical anatomy, the "open book" model was developed, consisting of symbolic pages representing the corresponding dissection planes (retroperitoneal, ileocolic, transverse mesocolic, and mesogastric), vascular relations, and radicality criteria. The description of the procedure is based on eight preparative milestones, which all serve as critical views of safety. The chosen sequence of the milestones was designed to maximize control during central vascular dissection. Failure to reach any of the critical views should alert the surgeon to a possible incorrect dissection and to consider converting to an open procedure.
CONCLUSION
Combining the open-book anatomical model with a clearly structured dissection sequence, using critical views as safety checkpoints, may provide a safe and efficient platform for teaching laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME.
Topics: Anatomy, Regional; Colectomy; Colon, Ascending; Colonic Neoplasms; Germany; Humans; Laparoscopy; Models, Anatomic; Postoperative Complications; Quality Improvement; Reference Standards
PubMed: 30324463
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6267-0 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jul 2022This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.
RESULTS
Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.
Topics: Colectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35650261
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8 -
Annals of Surgery Dec 1992Fifty-one laparoscopic colectomies were attempted at two institutions. The clinical results and methods are presented. Seven cases (14%) were converted to facilitated...
Fifty-one laparoscopic colectomies were attempted at two institutions. The clinical results and methods are presented. Seven cases (14%) were converted to facilitated procedures, and four cases (8%) were converted to "open." Cases of cancer, diverticulitis, endometriosis, regional enteritis, villous adenomas, and sessile polyps were operated. Right, transverse, left, low anterior, and abdominoperineal colectomies were performed. Colotomies and wedge resections were also performed. Laparoscopic suturing was required in five cases of incomplete anastomosis by circular stapler (18%). Suturing was required in all right, transverse colectomies and colotomies. Operative time averaged 2.3 hours. Hospitalization averaged 4.6 days. Four patients had complications (8%), and one 95-year-old died of pneumonia (2%). Laparoscopic colectomies can be performed safely, but require two-handed laparoscopic coordination, as well as suturing and knot-tying skills.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colectomy; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 1466626
DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199212000-00015 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2018Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only one meta-analysis (performed in 2013; including 9 studies, a total of 585 cases) compared single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy (SILRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (CLRC). An updated meta-analysis was undertaken to explore more convinced comparative findings between SILRC and CLRC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The search for studies that compared SILRC with CLRC was done on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 17 studies (including 1778 cases) were identified, the data of appointed outcomes were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index and previous abdominal operation) did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between SILRC and CLRC in operative time, conversion, reoperation, perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and 30-days readmission. Pathological outcomes, including lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin, were similar. SILRC showed less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.67 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.36 to -6.98; p = 0.0004), less skin incisions (WMD: -1.56 cm; 95%CI, -2.63 to -0.49; p = 0.004) and shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.73d; 95%CI, -1.04 to -0.41; p < 0.00001), without publication bias.
CONCLUSION
SILRC may provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLRC with similar short-term outcomes and aesthetic advantage of less skin incision. Well-designed randomized controlled trials, involving large cases and carrying long-term outcomes, are needed.
Topics: Aged; Colectomy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Postoperative Period; Surgical Wound; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 29777881
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.013 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Dec 2017The objective of this study is to systematically assess the clinical efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to systematically assess the clinical efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).
METHODS
The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were collected by searching electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). The outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using of RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of five studies involving 438 patients were finally included, with 202 cases in HALS group and 236 cases in LRC group. Results of meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between HALS and LRC in terms of conversion rate, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. The operative time was 6.5 min shorter in HALS group; however, it was not a clinically significant difference. Although the incision length was longer in HALS, it did not influence the postoperative recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
HALS can be considered an alternative to LRC which combines the advantages of open as well as laparoscopic surgery.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Diseases; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Conversion to Open Surgery; Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29202820
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-017-1277-2 -
Familial Cancer Oct 2022Desmoid tumours (DT) are one of the main causes of death in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Surgical trauma is a risk factor for DT, yet a colectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Desmoid tumours (DT) are one of the main causes of death in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Surgical trauma is a risk factor for DT, yet a colectomy is inevitable in FAP to prevent colorectal cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the available evidence on DT risk related to type, approach and timing of colectomy. A search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Studies were considered eligible when DT incidence was reported after different types, approaches and timing of colectomy. Twenty studies including 6452 FAP patients were selected, all observational. No significant difference in DT incidence was observed after IRA versus IPAA (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69-1.42) and after open versus laparoscopic colectomy (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42-1.86). Conflicting DT incidences were seen after early versus late colectomy and when analysing open versus laparoscopic colectomy according to colectomy type. Three studies reported a (non-significantly) higher DT incidence after laparoscopic IPAA compared to laparoscopic IRA, with OR varying between 1.77 and 4.09. A significantly higher DT incidence was observed in patients with a history of abdominal surgery (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.64-7.03, p = 0.001). Current literature does not allow to state firmly whether type, approach, or timing of colectomy affects DT risk in FAP patients. Fewer DT were observed after laparoscopic IRA compared to laparoscopic IPAA, suggesting laparoscopic IRA as the preferred choice if appropriate considering rectal polyp burden. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020161424.
Topics: Humans; Fibromatosis, Aggressive; Colectomy; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Laparoscopy; Incidence; Proctocolectomy, Restorative
PubMed: 35022961
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-022-00288-y -
BJS Open Jul 2023A central lymphadenectomy in right-sided colon cancer involves dissection along the superior mesenteric axis, but the extent is debated due to a lack of consensus and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
A central lymphadenectomy in right-sided colon cancer involves dissection along the superior mesenteric axis, but the extent is debated due to a lack of consensus and the fear of major complications. This randomized controlled trial compared the rate of postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open right-sided colectomy with central lymphadenectomy.
METHODS
This open, prospective, randomized controlled trial compared patients operated on with open and laparoscopic right-sided colectomy (cStages I-III) with a central lymphadenectomy at two Norwegian institutions between October 2016 and December 2021. Dissections were conducted along the superior mesenteric vein in the laparoscopic group, and along the left anterior border of the superior mesenteric artery in the open group, both according to complete mesocolic excision principles. Surgery was standardized and performed by three experienced surgeons for each study group. The primary outcome of interest was to measure postoperative 30-day complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade II).
RESULTS
Of 273 eligible patients, 135 were randomized and 128 analysed (63 operated on with open and 65 using laparoscopic procedures). Postoperative complications occurred in 42.8 per cent of the patients treated with open and 38.4 per cent of the patients treated using laparoscopic surgery, P = 0.372. The incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb complications was 7.9 per cent in the open versus 4.6 per cent in the laparoscopic group, P = 0.341. There were no grade IV or V complications, and no re-operations due to anastomotic leakages. There was no significant difference in the mean(s.e.m.) number of removed lymph nodes (open versus laparoscopic respectively: 31.9(1.8) versus 29.3(1.3); P = 0.235).
CONCLUSION
There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups. Standardized oncologic right-sided colectomy with central lymphadenectomy along the mesenterial root was performed safely, both open and laparoscopic, with incidence of major complications ranging between 4.6 and 7.9 per cent and no re-operations for anastomotic leakage. Radicality in terms of lymphadenectomy was comparable between the two groups.Registration number: NCT03776591 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Colonic Neoplasms; Lymph Node Excision; Laparoscopy; Colectomy; Anastomotic Leak
PubMed: 37643373
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad074