-
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 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery May 2024Colorectal surgery has progressed greatly via minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic and robotic. With the advent of ERAS protocols, patient recovery times have... (Review)
Review
Colorectal surgery has progressed greatly via minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic and robotic. With the advent of ERAS protocols, patient recovery times have greatly shortened, allowing for same day discharges (SDD). Although SDD have been explored through laparoscopic colectomy reviews, no reviews surrounding robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) exist to date. A systematic search was carried out across three databases and internet searches. Data were selected and extracted by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria included robotic colorectal resections with a length of hospital stay of less than one day or 24 h. 4 studies comprising 136 patients were retrieved. 56% of patients were female and were aged between 21 and 89 years. Main surgery indications were colorectal cancer and recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis (43% each). Most patients had low anterior resections (48%). Overall, there was a 4% complication rate postoperatively, with only 1 patient requiring readmission due to postoperative urinary retention (< 1%). Patient selection criteria involved ASA score cut-offs, nutritional status, and specific health conditions. Protocols employed shared similarities including ERAS education, transabdominal plane blocks, early removal of urinary catheters, an opioid-sparing regime, and encouraged early oral intake and ambulation prior to discharge. All 4 studies had various follow-up methods involving telemedicine, face-to-face consultations, and virtual ward teams. RACrRs is safe and feasible in a highly specific patient population; however, further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw more significant conclusions. Several limitations included small sample size and the potential of recall bias due to retrospective nature of 2 studies.
Topics: Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Length of Stay; Female; Aged; Colorectal Neoplasms; Aged, 80 and over; Middle Aged; Colectomy; Adult; Male; Postoperative Complications; Young Adult; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 38713324
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01961-3 -
Complete mesocolic excision for right hemicolectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in Coloproctology Nov 2023Complete mesocolic excision improves lymphadenectomy for right hemicolectomy and respects the embryological planes. However, its effect on cancer-free and overall... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Complete mesocolic excision improves lymphadenectomy for right hemicolectomy and respects the embryological planes. However, its effect on cancer-free and overall survival is questioned. Therefore, we aimed to determine the potential benefits of the technique by performing a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the available evidence.
METHODS
Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, and Embase were searched on February 22, 2023. Original studies on short- and long-term oncological outcomes of adult patients undergoing right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision as a treatment for primary colon cancer were considered for inclusion. Outcomes were extracted and pooled using a model with random effects.
RESULTS
A total of 586 publications were identified through database searching, and 18 from citation searching. Exclusion of 552 articles left 24 articles for inclusion. Meta-analysis showed that complete mesocolic excision increased the lymph node harvest (5 studies, 1479 patients, MD 9.62, 95% CI 5.83-13.41, p > 0.0001, I 84%), 5-year overall survival (5 studies, 2381 patients, OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.14-3.09, p = 0.01, I 66%), 5-year disease-free survival (4 studies, 1376 patients, OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.51-3.23, p < 0.0001, I 0%) and decreased the incidence of local recurrence (4 studies, 818 patients, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.79, p = 0.02, I 0%) when compared to standard right hemicolectomy. Perioperative morbidity was similar between the techniques (8 studies, 3899 patients, OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89-1.22, p = 0.97, I 0%).
CONCLUSION
Meta-analysis of observational and randomised studies showed that right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision for primary right colon cancer improves oncologic results without increasing morbidity/mortality. These results need to be confirmed by high-quality evidence and randomised trials in selected patients to assess who may benefit from the procedure.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Colonic Neoplasms; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Disease-Free Survival; Colectomy; Mesocolon; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37632643
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02853-8 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia... 2024The laparoscopic approach considerably reduced the morbidity of colorectal surgery when compared to the open approach. Among its benefits, we can highlight less...
BACKGROUND
The laparoscopic approach considerably reduced the morbidity of colorectal surgery when compared to the open approach. Among its benefits, we can highlight less intraoperative bleeding, early oral intake, lower rates of surgical site infection, incisional hernia, and postoperative pain, and earlier hospital discharge.
AIMS
To compare the perioperative morbidity of right versus left colectomy for cancer and the quality of laparoscopic oncologic resection.
METHODS
Retrospective analysis of patients submitted to laparoscopic right and left colctomy between 2006 and 2016. Postoperative complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo scale, 30 days after surgery.
RESULTS
A total of 293 patients were analyzed, 97 right colectomies (33.1%) and 196 left colectomies (66.9%). The averageage was 62.8 years. The groups were comparable in terms of age, comorbidities, body mass index, and the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification. Preoperative transfusion was higher in the right colectomy group (5.1% versus 0.4%, p=0.004, p<0.05). Overall, 233 patients (79.5%) had no complications. Complications found were grade I and II in 62 patients (21.1%) and grade III to V in 37 (12.6%). Twenty-three patients (7.8%) underwent reoperation. The comparison between left and right colectomy was not statistically different for operative time, conversion, reoperation, severe postoperative complications, and length of stay. The anastomotic leak rate was comparable in both groups(5.6% versus 2.1%, p=0.232, p>0.05). The oncological results were similar in both surgeries. In multiple logistic regression, ASA statistically influenced the worst results (≥ III; p=0.029, p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic right and left colectomies are similar, making this the preferred approach for both procedures.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Infection; Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Colectomy; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Length of Stay
PubMed: 38324853
DOI: 10.1590/0102-672020230074e1792 -
Cureus Feb 2024Chilaiditi's sign (colonic interposition) is a rare anomaly due to an abnormally located portion of the colon that is interposed in between the liver and the diaphragm....
Chilaiditi's sign (colonic interposition) is a rare anomaly due to an abnormally located portion of the colon that is interposed in between the liver and the diaphragm. This rare anomaly is often incidentally seen on chest or abdominal radiographs. Chilaiditi's radiographic sign is usually asymptomatic, whereas the medical condition accompanied by clinical symptoms is termed Chilaiditi's syndrome. Possible causes of the syndrome include a long and mobile colon, scarring of the liver (cirrhosis), ascites, long-standing lung disease, as well as laxity of the falciform ligament. The most common clinical signs of Chilaiditi's syndrome include gastrointestinal symptoms; however, clinical presentation can vary. This report describes a case of a 21-year-old male patient who presented with a longstanding history of left upper quadrant epigastric abdominal pain with diarrhea (six to eight loose watery stools). The patient was diagnosed with Crohn's colitis and had tried a myriad of medical therapies with no adequate response. He chose to seek a second opinion and was subsequently discovered to have Chilaiditi's syndrome via computed tomography (CT) and confirmed by barium enema. The patient then elected to undergo a right laparoscopic colectomy to resolve the symptoms. By postoperative day five, all symptoms had resolved including abdominal pain and diarrhea. Therefore, it is important to consider Chilaiditi's syndrome as a differential diagnosis in persons presenting with left upper quadrant pain and symptoms of Crohn's colitis, especially those treated with adequate medical therapy without alleviation of symptoms.
PubMed: 38524032
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54655 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Aug 2023Robotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy...
BACKGROUND
Robotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy that could improve patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery for CRC using a national cohort of patients.
METHODS
Using the colectomy-targeted ACS-NSQIP database (2015-2020), colorectal procedures for malignant etiologies were identified by CPT codes for right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and low anterior resection (LAR). Optimal pair matching was performed. "Textbook outcome" was defined as the absence of 30-day complications, readmission, or mortality and a length of stay < 5 days.
RESULTS
We included 53,209 out of 139,759 patients screened for eligibility. Laparoscopic-to-robotic matching of 2:1 was performed for RC and LC, and 1:1 for LAR. The largest standardized mean difference was 0.048 after matching. Robotic surgery was associated with an increased rate of textbook outcomes compared to laparoscopy in RC and LC, but not in LAR (71% vs. 64% in RC, 75% vs. 68% in LC; p < 0.001). Robotic LAR was associated with increased major morbidity (7.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.012). For all three procedures, the mean conversion rate of robotic surgery was lower than laparoscopy (4.3% vs. 9.2%; p < 0.001), while the mean operative time was higher for robotic (225 min vs. 177 min; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic surgery for CRC offers an advantage over conventional laparoscopy by improving textbook outcomes in RC and LC. This advantage was not found in robotic LAR, which also showed an increased risk of serious complications. The associations highlighted in our study should be considered in the discussion of the surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer.
Topics: Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Propensity Score; Retrospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37644538
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03138-y -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2023The conventional laparoscopic approach for the surgical management of deep endometriosis (DE) infiltrating the rectum appears to ensure improved digestive functional... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction colectomy versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resection in patients with rectal endometriosis: a randomized, controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
The conventional laparoscopic approach for the surgical management of deep endometriosis (DE) infiltrating the rectum appears to ensure improved digestive functional outcomes. The natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) technique for the treatment of colorectal DE can significantly accelerate postoperative recovery; however, data on gastrointestinal function following conventional laparoscopic segmental bowel resection (CLR) compared with NOSE colectomy (NC) for DE are sparse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Between 30 September 2019 and 31 December 2020, a randomized, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group controlled trial with women aged 18-45 years was conducted at University Hospital.Ninety-nine patients were randomized to CLR or NC, with DE infiltrating at least the muscular layer, at least 50% of the circumference of the bowel, up to 15 cm from the anal verge, exhibiting pain and bowel symptoms and/or infertility. The primary endpoint was bowel function, represented by low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Secondary parameters included the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP30), Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores preoperatively and at set times (1 and 6 months, 1 year) following surgery.
RESULTS
No significant differences were observed in the postoperative LARS scores, VAS, EHP30, and GIQLI between the NC and CLR groups. LARS scores did not reveal significant differences 12 months postoperatively compared to the preoperative values in both groups (CLR group P =0.93 versus NC group, P =0.87). GIQLI scores were significantly improved 12 months after the operation compared with baseline values in the CLR group ( P =0.002) and NC group ( P =0.001). Pain symptoms and quality of life scores significantly improved 12 months postoperatively in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
NC is a feasible surgical approach for treating patients with rectal DE. Our study did not show a statistically significant difference between CLR and NC techniques in mid-term digestive and pain outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Postoperative Complications; Endometriosis; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Syndrome; Rectal Diseases; Laparoscopy; Colectomy; Pain
PubMed: 37720929
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000728 -
Cureus Jul 2023In this paper, different studies were integrated to conclude the impact of ulcerative colitis (UC) on the patient's vital prognosis, specifically highlighting the... (Review)
Review
In this paper, different studies were integrated to conclude the impact of ulcerative colitis (UC) on the patient's vital prognosis, specifically highlighting the association with colorectal cancer (CRC). These severe complications have led us to consider studying the role of preventive surgery in managing UC. This study reviewed total preventive colectomy in UC patients for preventing the onset of CRC, the role of surgery in UC management, and its potential as a definitive treatment for the condition. The study also emphasized the effectiveness of annual colonoscopic monitoring and preventive colectomy in reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). It discussed the role of laparoscopic surgery in minimizing postoperative complications and highlighted that partial surgical resection of the colon can be a viable option, offering improved bowel function without increasing the risk of CRC-related mortality. Elective surgery has an important place in UC management by preventing the development of forms requiring emergency surgery. Although surgery can cure UC, it can lead to significant postoperative complications and adverse effects.
PubMed: 37588306
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41962 -
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2023To compare the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) during laparoscopic colectomy to those undergoing extracorporeal anastomosis...
BACKGROUND
To compare the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) during laparoscopic colectomy to those undergoing extracorporeal anastomosis (EA).
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The study was a single-centre retrospective propensity score-matched analysis conducted. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy without the double stapling technique between January 2018 and June 2021 were investigated. The main outcome was overall postoperative complications within 30 days after the procedure. The authors also performed a sub-analysis of the postoperative results of ileocolic anastomosis and colocolic anastomosis, respectively.
RESULTS
A total of 283 patients were initially extracted; after propensity score matching, there were 113 patients in each of the IA and EA groups. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. The IA group had a significantly longer operative time than the EA group (208 vs. 183 min, P =0.001). The rate of overall postoperative complications was significantly lower in the IA group ( n =18, 15.9%) than in the EA group ( n =34, 30.1%; P =0.02), especially in colocolic anastomosis after left-sided colectomy (IA: 23.8% vs. EA: 59.1%; P =0.03). Postoperative inflammatory marker levels were significantly higher in the IA group on postoperative day 1 but not on postoperative day 7. There was no difference in the postoperative lengths of hospital stay between the two groups, and no deaths occurred.
CONCLUSION
The data suggest that performing IA during laparoscopic colectomy can potentially reduce the risk of postoperative complications, especially in colocolic anastomosis after left-sided colectomy.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Propensity Score; Treatment Outcome; Colectomy; Postoperative Complications; Anastomosis, Surgical; Laparoscopy; Colonic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37222668
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000485 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2023Informed consent is a critical component of patient care before invasive procedures, yet it is frequently inadequate. Electronic consent forms have the potential to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
IMPORTANCE
Informed consent is a critical component of patient care before invasive procedures, yet it is frequently inadequate. Electronic consent forms have the potential to facilitate patient comprehension if they provide information that is readable, accurate, and complete; it is not known if large language model (LLM)-based chatbots may improve informed consent documentation by generating accurate and complete information that is easily understood by patients.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the readability, accuracy, and completeness of LLM-based chatbot- vs surgeon-generated information on the risks, benefits, and alternatives (RBAs) of common surgical procedures.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This cross-sectional study compared randomly selected surgeon-generated RBAs used in signed electronic consent forms at an academic referral center in San Francisco with LLM-based chatbot-generated (ChatGPT-3.5, OpenAI) RBAs for 6 surgical procedures (colectomy, coronary artery bypass graft, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, knee arthroplasty, and spinal fusion).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Readability was measured using previously validated scales (Flesh-Kincaid grade level, Gunning Fog index, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and the Coleman-Liau index). Scores range from 0 to greater than 20 to indicate the years of education required to understand a text. Accuracy and completeness were assessed using a rubric developed with recommendations from LeapFrog, the Joint Commission, and the American College of Surgeons. Both composite and RBA subgroup scores were compared.
RESULTS
The total sample consisted of 36 RBAs, with 1 RBA generated by the LLM-based chatbot and 5 RBAs generated by a surgeon for each of the 6 surgical procedures. The mean (SD) readability score for the LLM-based chatbot RBAs was 12.9 (2.0) vs 15.7 (4.0) for surgeon-generated RBAs (P = .10). The mean (SD) composite completeness and accuracy score was lower for surgeons' RBAs at 1.6 (0.5) than for LLM-based chatbot RBAs at 2.2 (0.4) (P < .001). The LLM-based chatbot scores were higher than the surgeon-generated scores for descriptions of the benefits of surgery (2.3 [0.7] vs 1.4 [0.7]; P < .001) and alternatives to surgery (2.7 [0.5] vs 1.4 [0.7]; P < .001). There was no significant difference in chatbot vs surgeon RBA scores for risks of surgery (1.7 [0.5] vs 1.7 [0.4]; P = .38).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that despite not being perfect, LLM-based chatbots have the potential to enhance informed consent documentation. If an LLM were embedded in electronic health records in a manner compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, it could be used to provide personalized risk information while easing documentation burden for physicians.
Topics: Humans; Cross-Sectional Studies; Documentation; Informed Consent; Language; Surgeons; United States
PubMed: 37812419
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36997