Single-incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Appendiceal Mucoceles: Safety and Feasibility in a Series of 16 Consecutive Cases

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic surgery in patients with an uncomplicated appendiceal mucocele. METHODS: A review of a prospectively collected database at the Kyungpook National University Hospital from January 2006 to September 2010 revealed that a series of 16 consecutive patients underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for an appendiceal mucocele. Data regarding patient demographics, operating time, conversion, surgical morbidity, lateral lymph node status, and mid-term oncologic result were analyzed. RESULTS: The reported series consisted of 7 women (50%) and 9 men with a mean age of 61.6 years (range, 41 to 88 years). The mean operative time was 66.8 minutes (range, 33 to 150 minutes). Perioperative mortality and morbidity were 0% and 6.2%, respectively. Recovery after the procedure was rapid, and the mean hospital stay was 6.8 days (range, 3 to 22 days). Pathology revealed 12 lesions compatible with a mucinous cystadenoma and four others compatible with benign cystic tumors. All surgical margins were clear. In one case, an extra port had to be placed, and another case required conversion from SILS to a standard open laparotomy immediately after identification of the tumor because of a micro-perforation with focal mucin collection. With a median follow-up of 28.7 months, no re-admission or tumor recurrence, such as pseudomyxoma peritonei, was noted in 14 patients. CONCLUSION: A single-port laparoscopic mucocelectomy should be safe and feasible and has the advantage of being a minimally invasive approach. Prospective controlled studies comparing SILS and conventional open surgery, with long-term follow-up evaluation, are needed to confirm the author's initial experience.

Laparoscopic versus Open Approaches for Sigmoid Colon and Rectal Cancer: Comparison of Intraoperative Carcinoembryonic Antigen Elevation / 대한내시경복강경외과학회지

PURPOSE: Although the overall survival and recurrence rates after open or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer are similar, the potential oncological benefits of laparoscopic surgery have not been established. This study compared the effects of the two surgical approaches (open and laparoscopic) on the intraoperative inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in patients who were undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer. METHODS: Between December 2005 and July 2008, a total of 37 patients were enrolled in this study. Twenty one patients underwent open surgery and 16 patients were operated on laparoscopically. The baseline peripheral CEA level was measured preoperatively. The IMV blood was taken before and after mobilization of the cancer-bearing bowel segment and the CEA levels in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The baseline CEA levels in the peripheral vein were similar in the two groups. After mobilization, the overall CEA level was elevated. The median pre-mobilization CEA levels of the open and laparoscopic group were 2.3 (range: 1.2~3.7) ng/ml and 1.5 (range: 1.0~2.6) ng/ml, respectively. Hence, the degree of CEA elevation after mobilization was significantly higher in the open surgery group compared with that of the laparoscopic approach (4.2 vs. 1.6, respectively, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: The CEA levels measured from the IMV after mobilization were elevated to a lesser degree after laparoscopic mobilization of the cancer-bearing bowel segment, as compared with that of open surgery. However, the long term oncological effects need to be examined by conducting longer, larger scale studies.

A Comparison of the Oncologic Results after Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection and Ultra-low Anterior Resection with Hand-sewn Coloanal Anastomosis for Treating Distal Rectal Cancer / 대한내시경복강경외과학회지

PURPOSE: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been regarded as the standard procedure for the treatment of distal rectal cancer since Miles first described it in 1908. But because of the better understanding of the patterns of spreading tumor, the pelvic physiology, the development of stapling devices and introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME), the rate of sphincter preserving surgery has been increasing. The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic APR and ultra-low anterior resection with handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA) for treating distal rectal cancer. METHODS: Between January 2003 and October 2007, 95 patients who were followed up for more than 2 years after curative laparoscopic APR or CAA for distal rectal cancer were included in this study. The clinical characteristics, pathologic findings, postoperative complications and oncologic results were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: There were 31 APRs and 64 CAAs. The median follow-up period was 43 (5~79) months. The mean distance between the lower margin of the tumor and the anal verge was 2.1+/-1.2 cm in APR and 3.7+/-1.4 cm in CAA (p<0.001). There were 2 (6.5%) local recurrences and 8 (25.8%) systemic recurrences after APR and 3 (4.7%) local recurrences and 10 (15.6%) systemic recurrences after CAA, respectively (p=0.641, p=0.161). The 3-year disease-specific survival rate was 86.7% in APR and 93.5% in CAA (p=0.407). The 3-year disease free survival rate was 73.7% in APR and 80.1% in CAA (p=0.161) but there were no significant differences in the oncologic results according to the stages between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The operative procedures are changing toward sphincter preservation. Laparoscopic ultra-low anterior resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis is oncologically as safe as laparoscopic APR for treating lower rectal cancer. However, APR should be considered the standard treatment for distal rectal cancer when it invades the anal sphincter or the levator ani.

Surgical Outcomes and Risk Factors for Gallbladder Carcinoma of Polypoid Lesions of Gallbladder

PURPOSE: Most polypoid lesions of the gallbladder (PLGs) are benign, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the treatment of choice unless the suspicion of malignancy is high. PLGs were reviewed to identify risk factors for neoplastic polypoid lesions. METHODS: Between March 1992 and February 2005, 205 cases of PLGs, including 67 neoplastic and 138 nonneoplastic PLGs, were evaluated. Risk factors for neoplastic PLGs and gallbladder carcinomas were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was used to obtain a cut-off value of the tumor size and age of patients for predicting neoplastic PLGs and gallbladder carcinomas. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients, and the size, number and type of polyp were statistically different between 67 neoplastic (47 adenomas, 20 adenocarcinomas) and 138 nonneoplastic PLGs (104 cholesterol polyps, 22 hyperplastic polyps, 11 adenomyomas, and 1 xanthogranulomatous polyp). A multiple regression analysis showed that the size, number and type of polyp were significant risk factors for neoplastic PLGs. Of the 67 neoplastic PLGs, the age of the patient, and the size and type of polyp were significant risk factors of carcinomas. The sizes of tumors for predicting neoplastic PLGs and carcinomas were 0.85 and 1.1 cm, respectively, while the age for predicting a carcinoma was 55 years. In 5 carcinoma patients, an additional curative resection was performed. No recurrence or carcinoma related death were observed in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) only (15 cases) and additional surgery groups (5 cases). CONCLUSION: Risk factors of a carcinoma in PLGs include the age of the patients, and the size and sessile type of the PLG. The ROC curve showed that the appropriate size of the tumor and the age of the patient for predicting gallbladder cancer in PLGs were 1.1 cm and 55 years, respectively. Additional curative surgery immediately after an LC seems to increase the survival of gallbladder carcinoma patients, but its role should be determined through long term follow-up.