Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III colon cancer: results of a prospective multicenter study in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is still debate about the practicality of performing laparoscopic colectomy instead of open colectomy for patients with curable cancer, although laparoscopic surgery is now being performed even for patients with advanced colon cancer. We compared the long-term results of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III carcinoma of the colon in a large series of patients followed up for at least 3 years. METHODS: The subjects of this prospective non-randomized multicentric study were 290 consecutive patients, who underwent open surgery (OS group; n = 164) or laparoscopic surgery (LS group; n = 126) between 1994 and 2005, at one of the four surgical centers. The same surgical techniques were used for the laparoscopic and open approaches to right and left colectomy. The distribution of TNM substages (III A, III B, IIIC) as well as the grading of carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) were similar in each arm of the study. The median follow-up periods were 76.9 and 58.0 months after OS and LS, respectively. RESULTS: There were 10 (6.1 %) versus 9 (7.1 %) deaths unrelated to cancer, 15 (9.1 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of local recurrence, 7 (4.2 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of peritoneal carcinosis, and 37 (22.5 %) versus 14 (11.1 %) cases of metastases in the OS and LS groups, respectively. There was also one case of port-site recurrence after LS (0.8 %). The OS group had a significantly higher probability of local recurrence and metastases (p < 0.001) with a significant higher probability of cancer-related death (p = 0.001) than the LS group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that LS is safe and effective for advanced carcinoma of the colon. Although the LS group in this study had a significantly better long-term outcome than the OS group, further investigations are needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

Neoadjuvant therapy and mini-invasive total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: feasibility and outcome analysis from a single institution prospectively collected data base.

AIM AND BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma improves local control and represents the standard for locally advanced disease. Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision has been increasingly adopted. It provides magnified visualization of the pelvic cavity, thereby facilitating the mesorectal dissection. METHODS: Consecutive patients with locally advanced/ultralow rectal adenocarcinoma received neoadjuvant treatment and mini-invasive total mesorectal excision at our center. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records by using a prospectively collected data base and focusing on feasibility, tumor response and treatment outcomes. RESULTS: In a 13-year period, 117 rectal adenocarcinoma patients (80 males and 37 females) received neoadjuvant treatment and mini-invasive total mesorectal excision. Median age at diagnosis was 67 years; pre-treatment stage was I in 10 (9%); IIA in 58 (50%); IIC in 5 (4%); IIIA in 10 (9%); IIIB in 31 (26%) and IV in 3 (2%) patients. All patients received external beam radiation therapy, 79 (67%) combined with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. One-hundred and three patients underwent laparoscopic surgery and 14 robotic surgery. Overall, 90 patients (77%) had anterior resection and 27 (23%) had abdominoperineal resection. Down-staging was obtained in 70 patients (66%). No major intraoperative nor delayed surgical complications were observed. At a median follow up of 52 months, 8 patients (7%) had a local relapse, 7 of them along with distant relapse, and 16 (14%) had distant relapse. The 5-year relapse-free survival was 76.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in a community hospital mini-invasive surgery after neoadjuvant treatment is feasible in real clinical practice and achieves consistent results in term of disease control rate.

A Single Centre Retrospective Evaluation of Laparoscopic Rectal Resection with TME for Rectal Cancer: 5-Year Cancer-Specific Survival.

Laparoscopic colon resection has established its role as a minimally invasive approach to colorectal diseases. Better long-term survival rate is suggested to be achievable with this approach in colon cancer patients, whereas some doubts were raised about its safety in rectal cancer. Here we report on our single centre experience of rectal laparoscopic resections for cancer focusing on short- and long-term oncological outcomes. In the last 13 years, 248 patients underwent minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer at our centre. We focused on 99 stage I, II, and III patients with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. Of them 43 had a middle and 56 lower rectal tumor. Laparoscopic anterior rectal resection was performed in 71 patients whereas laparoscopic abdomino-perineal resection in 28. The overall mortality rate was 1%; the overall morbidity rate was 29%. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 69.7%, The 5-year overall survival rate was 78.8%.

Robotic laparoscopic surgery with the da Vinci® system: an early experience.

Theoretically, robotic surgery is likely to overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopic surgery, such as a view not under the direct surgeon's control, two-dimensional imaging, and limited motion of instruments. In this chapter, the preliminary experience with a robotic laparoscopic surgery system in the Surgical Department of the Alessandria Hospital, Italy, is reported. From November 2005 to August 2007, a total of 162 laparoscopic robotic operations were performed, in which robotic surgery was found to be feasible and safe. It takes a longer time than standard laparoscopy but seems able to reduce the need of a steep learning curve.

Thoracoscopic and Laparoscopic Esophagectomy in a Case of Spontaneous Rupture of the Esophagus (Boerhaave's Syndrome).

Spontaneous barogenic rupture of the esophagus is a rare disease with high morbidity and mortality. Many therapeutic options are available. Esophagectomy is indicated when a large rupture is found with huge mediastinal contamination. Here, we describe a minimal invasive esophagectomy procedure for an esophageal barogenic rupture. A thoracoscopic esophagectomy was performed with the patient in a prone position. After a laparoscopic gastric tubulization, a cervical esopagho-gastro anastomosis was performed with a retro-sternal passage of the stomach in order to avoid the heavily contaminated posterior mediastinum. The postoperative outcome was almost uneventful. This minimal-invasive approach allowed direct optimal visualization of the esophageal laceration and a thorough mediastinal cleansing, thereby avoiding any septic complications, which are the major concern in this particular clinical procedure. In our case, the esophagectomywas mandatory because of the large laceration and massive mediastinal contamination. The minimal invasive thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy approach is feasible even in an emergency setting. This is the first report of this procedure being used in a high-risk patient with Boerhaave's syndrome.

Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is believed to be technically and oncologically feasible. However, some limitation of traditional laparoscopic surgery may cause difficulties. Robotic-assisted surgery may overcome these pitfalls. METHODS: From December 2005 to July 2007, 50 patients were selected for robotic-assisted colorectal resection mainly for cancer. RESULTS: Of the 50 patients enrolled, 32 (64 percent) were men and 18 (36 percent) were women. Their mean age was 66.7 (range, 37-92) years. The American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) class distribution was 13 (26 percent) ASA I, 24 (48 percent) ASA II, 12 (24 percent) ASA III, and 1 (2 percent) ASA IV. Forty-four patients suffered from cancer and six patients from benign disease. Amongst the cancer patients, 3 percent were at UICC (International Union Against Cancer) Stage 0, 36 percent at UICC Stage I, 24 percent at Stage II, 28 percent at Stage III, and 9 percent at Stage IV. The global conversion rate was 4 percent. The mean operative time was 338.8 minutes. It decreased as the experience increased (419 minutes in the first 20 cases vs. 346 minutes in the last 30 cases; P = 0.036). As a gross comparison, the results of a coeval standard laparoscopy group of patients were shown. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic laparoscopic colon surgery is feasible and safe. A longer operating time is needed.