Laparoscopic Colectomy vs Laparoscopic CME: a Retrospective Study of Two Hospitals with Comparable Laparoscopic Experience.

PURPOSE: To compare laparoscopic non-CME colectomy with laparoscopic CME colectomy in two hospitals with similar experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively from Päijät-Häme Central Hospital (PHCH, NCME group) and Central Finland Central Hospital (CFCH, CME group) records. Elective laparoscopic resections performed during 2007-2016 for UICC stage I-III adenocarcinoma were included to assess differences in short-term outcome and survival. RESULTS: There were 340 patients in the NCME group and 325 patients in the CME group. CME delivered longer specimens (p < 0.001), wider resection margins (p < 0.001), and more lymph nodes (p < 0.001) but did not result in better 5-year overall or cancer-specific survival (NCME 77.9% vs CME 72.9%, p = 0.528, NCME 93.2% vs CME 88.9%, p = 0.132, respectively). Thirty-day morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups. Conversion to open surgery was associated with decreased survival. DISCUSSION: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is reported to improve survival. Most previous studies have compared open CME with open non-CME (NCME) or open CME with laparoscopic CME. NCME populations have been historical or heterogeneous, potentially causing bias in the interpretation of results. Studies comparing laparoscopic CME with laparoscopic NCME are few and involve only small numbers of patients. In this study, diligently performed laparoscopic non-CME D2 resection delivered disease-free survival results comparable with laparoscopic CME but was not safer.

Short- and long-term outcome following laparoscopic versus open resection for carcinoma of the rectum in the multimodal setting.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer has remained controversial because of the lack of level 1 evidence regarding oncologic safety and long-term survival. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer on clinical and oncologic outcome in the multimodal setting. DESIGN: This is a review of prospectively gathered data from a single-institution rectal cancer database. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in the Central Hospital of Central Finland. PATIENTS: From January 1999 to December 2006, 191 selected patients were included. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred patients underwent laparoscopic resection, and 91 patients, also suitable for laparoscopic surgery, underwent open major rectal resection in the multimodal setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main measures of outcome were early recovery and short- and long-term morbidity; local recurrence and survival were secondary outcomes. LIMITATIONS: This is not a randomized study. RESULTS: The study groups were balanced for baseline characteristics. Conversion rate to open surgery was 22%. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in significantly less bleeding (175 mL vs 500 mL, p < 0.001), 1 day earlier recovery of normal diet (3 days vs 4 days, p = 0.001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (7 days vs 9 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative 30-day mortality (1% vs 3%), morbidity (31% vs 43%), readmission (11% vs 15%), and reoperation (6% vs 9%) rates were similar in the 2 groups, but significantly fewer patients in the laparoscopic group had long-term complications (19% vs 36%, p = 0.033). The 5-year disease-free survival (78% vs 80%, p = 0.74) and local recurrence (5% vs 6%, p = 0.66) rates were similar in the laparoscopic and open group for those 175 patients treated for cure. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery resulted in faster postoperative recovery and fewer long-term complications than open surgery without apparently compromising the long-term oncologic outcome. Our results indicate that laparoscopic rectal resection is an acceptable alternative to open surgery in selected patients with rectal cancer.

Impact of functional results on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Quality of life is an important outcome measure that has to be considered when deciding treatment strategy for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to find out the impact of surgery-related adverse effects on quality of life. METHODS: The RAND-36 questionnaire and questionnaires assessing urinary, sexual, and bowel dysfunction were administered to 94 patients with no sign of recurrence a minimum of one year after curative surgery. Results were compared with age-matched and gender-matched general population. RESULTS: Eighty-two (87 percent) patients answered the questionnaires. Major bowel dysfunction was as common after high anterior resection as after low anterior resection. Urinary complaints occurred as often after anterior resection as after abdominoperineal resection, but sexual dysfunction was more common after abdominoperineal resection. Overall, the patients reported better general health perception but poorer social functioning than population controls. In particular, elderly patients reported a significantly better quality of life in many dimensions than their population controls. There was no significant difference in quality of life between treatment groups. Major bowel dysfunction after anterior resection impaired social functioning compared with that of patients without such symptoms. Urinary dysfunction impaired social functioning and impotence impaired physical and social functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of life after rectal cancer surgery is not worse than that of the general population. The major adverse impact of bowel and urogenital dysfunction is on social functioning. These adverse effects need to be discussed with the patient and preoperative function needs to be taken into account when choosing between treatment options. Permanent colostomy is not always the factor that disrupts a person's quality of life most.

Immediate repair of obstetric anal sphincter rupture: medium-term outcome of the overlap technique.

PURPOSE: Overlap sphincteroplasty is gaining popularity in the primary repair of obstetric sphincter ruptures. This study was designed to evaluate the medium-term outcome of the overlap technique. METHODS: Between August 1997 and October 2001, 31 consecutive females who were diagnosed with a complete third-degree or fourth-degree anal sphincter rupture underwent overlap sphincteroplasty immediately after delivery. Thirty of the females were followed-up for a median of 24 months. The outcome was assessed by clinical examination, anal endosonography, Wexner score, and pelvic floor electromyography. RESULTS: Median 24 (range, 12-63) months after delivery, 23 females (77 percent) were free of symptoms of anal incontinence. Occasional incontinence to flatus and liquid stool occurred in 17 and 7 percent of patients, respectively. Seven percent of patients had a Wexner incontinence score of > 9. The maximum mean resting pressure was 55 (range, 20-90) mmHg, and the maximum mean incremental squeeze pressure was 37 (range, 14-95) mmHg. On anal endosonography, an unrecognized internal sphincter rupture was found in one and a failed repair in two females. Overlap of the external sphincter was demonstrated in 29 patients (97 percent). One female with anal incontinence and persisting external sphincter rupture underwent redo sphincteroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: The median-term outcome of primary overlap repair for obstetric sphincter rupture is good; however, larger, randomized studies with a longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the advantage of this technique over the end-to-end technique.

Complications and survival after surgery for rectal cancer in patients younger than and aged 75 years or older.

PURPOSE: An increasing number of rectal cancer patients are elderly and have comorbid medical diseases. This study was designed to compare perioperative morbidity, mortality, and survival after surgery for rectal cancer in patients younger than and aged 75 years or older. METHODS: Between 1980 and 1997, 294 patients with rectal cancer were admitted to the Fourth Department of Surgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital. Of these, 95 (32 percent) were aged 75 or older and comprise the elderly group. RESULTS: Major curative operation was possible in 59 of 95 patients in the elderly group and in 147 of 199 patients in the younger age group. Among those operated on with curative intent, 20 of 59 patients (34 percent) in the older age group and 39 of 147 patients (27 percent) in the younger age group had complications ( P = 0.31). Thirty-day mortality was 2 percent (n = 1) and 0, respectively. Although five-year crude survival was significantly lower in the older age group (43 vs. 65 percent, P = 0.01), five-year cancer-specific survival (60 vs.70 percent, P = 0.6) and disease-free, five-year survival (60 vs. 69 percent, P = 0.4) were similar in both groups. Patients (n = 17) treated with local excision had a cancer-specific survival of 81 and 83 percent in younger and older age groups, respectively. After palliative resection, the two-year survival was similar (20 vs. 24 percent) in both age groups. Ten elderly patients (11 percent) were not operated on at all in contrast to two patients (1 percent) younger than aged 75 years ( P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Major, curative, rectal cancer surgery in selected elderly patients can be performed with similar indications, perioperative morbidity, and mortality, as well as five-year, cancer-specific and disease-free survival as in younger patients.

Open vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal prolapse: a case-controlled study assessing short-term outcome.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic repair for rectal prolapse. METHODS: A case-control study was undertaken. The case group consisted of a consecutive series of patients who underwent laparoscopic repair for rectal prolapse between February 1993 and June 2000. The control group underwent open prolapse repair between October 1987 and January 2000. RESULTS: There were 53 patients in each group. The groups were matched according to operation type, gender, and age. Median operative time was longer in the case group than in the control group (resection rectopexy 210 vs. 117 minutes, rectopexy 127.5 vs. 72 minutes, respectively). Median postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the case group than in the control group (resection rectopexy 5 vs. 7 days, rectopexy 4.5 vs. 7 days, respectively). Median intraoperative bleeding was minor in the case group (resection rectopexy 35 vs. 300 ml, rectopexy 15 vs. 100 ml, respectively). Mortality (0 vs. 4 percent), complications (23 vs. 30 percent), late complications (4 vs. 13 percent), and the rate of recurrent prolapse (6 vs. 13 percent) did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair for rectal prolapse is technically feasible and can be performed with mortality and morbidity rates comparable to those of the conventional technique. The main advantages of the laparoscopic approach appear to be a shorter hospital stay and lessened intraoperative blood loss. Recurrence rate is not increased in the short term.

New approaches in the management of rectal carcinoma result in reduced local recurrence rate and improved survival.

OBJECTIVE: To find out whether total mesorectal excision (TME) technique alone or combined with preoperative radiotherapy reduces local recurrence rate and improves survival. DESIGN: Partly retrospective (the first period), partly prospective (the second period) study. SETTING: University hospital, Helsinki, Finland. SUBJECTS: 144 patients between 1980 and 1990 and 61 patients between 1991 and 1997 with rectal cancer, who underwent major curative surgery. INTERVENTIONS: A conventional surgical technique was used during the first period and TME alone or combined with preoperative radiotherapy when appropriate during the second period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative morbidity and mortality, local recurrence rate, and 5-year survival. RESULTS: After anterior resection 4/76 of the patients (5%) during the first period and 8/43 (19%) during the second period developed anastomotic leaks. Operative 30-day mortality was 1% (n = 1) and 0, respectively. Actuarial local recurrence rate was 17% in the first period and 9% in the second period. Actuarial crude 5-year survival improved from 55% to 78% and cancer-specific survival from 67% to 86% between the two study periods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increased number of anastomotic complications TME is safe. Refinement of the surgical technique together with preoperative radiotherapy yields lower local recurrence rates and an improved survival compared with conventional surgery alone.