Endolaparoscopic approach vs conventional open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare self-expanding metal stents with emergency open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING: An acute care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients with an obstructing tumor between the splenic flexure and rectosigmoid junction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful 1-stage operation, cumulative operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, pain score, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were analyzed. Twenty-four underwent endoluminal stenting followed by laparoscopic resection and 24 underwent emergency open surgery. The 2 groups were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and disease staging. Patients in the endolaparoscopic group had significantly less cumulative blood loss and lower pain, incidence of anastomotic leak, and wound infection. Significantly more patients in the endolaparoscopic group had a successful 1-stage operation performed (16 vs 9, P = .04). None of the patients in the endolaparoscopic group had a permanent stoma compared with 6 patients in the emergency open surgery group (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Self-expanding metal stents serve as a safe and effective bridge to subsequent laparoscopic surgery in patients with obstructing left-sided colon cancer. This endolaparoscopic approach makes a 1-stage operation more feasible, is associated with reduced incidence of stoma creation, and allows patients with malignant large-bowel obstruction to enjoy the full benefit of minimally invasive surgery. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00654212.

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancers: lessons learned from 579 cases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes and long-term survival of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection at a single institution with 579 cases over a 15-year period. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has been shown to be safe with comparable oncological outcomes. However, the role of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is still controversial with few studies looking into long-term outcomes. METHODS: From May 1992 to April 2007, 579 patients underwent laparoscopic resection for rectosigmoid and rectal cancer. The clinical data of these patients were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Data evaluated includes short- and long-term results, with survival outcomes calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Over this 15-year period, 316 patients had laparoscopic anterior resection for rectosigmoid and upper rectal cancer, 152 patients had laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision, 92 patients had laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection, 17 patients had laparoscopic Hartmann procedure for rectal cancer, and 2 patients had proctocolectomy. The median age of these patients was 68 years (range, 35-95). The overall early and late operative morbidity was 18.8% and 9.7%, respectively. Conversion to open surgery was required in 5.4%of patients. Anastomotic leak rate was 3.5%. The median follow-up time was 56 months (range, 8-288). Port-site recurrence occurred in 2 patients. Locoregional recurrence occurred in 7.4% of patients after curative resection. The overall 5- and 10-year survivals for rectal cancer were 70% and 45.5%, respectively. The cancer-specific 5- and 10- year survival was 76% and 56%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study with large number of patients over a long follow-up period suggested that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is safe with good long-term oncological outcomes.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic colectomy has been proved to be both technically and oncologically feasible. However, the approach has been criticized for its procedural complexity and long operative time as a result of the loss of tactile feedback and absence of depth perception. The advent of hand-access devices offered a potential solution to these problems. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with open colectomy (OC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma of cancer or ascending colon were recruited. Patients were excluded if they presented with surgical emergencies, had synchronous tumors on work-up, or when the tumor was larger than 6.5 cm in any dimension or preoperative imaging. Recruited patients were randomized to undergo either HALC or OC by the same surgical team. Outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, as well as disease recurrence and patient survival. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (HALC = 41, OC = 40) were successfully recruited. The 2 groups were matched for age, gender distribution, body mass index, and comorbidities. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the distribution of tumors and the final histopathological staging. HALC took significantly longer than OC (110 min vs. 97.5 minutes, P = 0.003) but resulted in significantly less blood loss (35 mL vs. 50 mL, P = 0.005). Patients after HALC experienced significantly less pain, required significantly less parenteral and enteral analgesia, recovered faster, and was associated with a shorter length of stay (7 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.004). With median follow-up of 28 to 30 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83% vs. 74%, P = 0.90). CONCLUSION: HALC retained the same short-term benefits of the pure laparoscopic approach. The technique is associated with a slightly increased but acceptable operative time. Aside as a useful adjunct in complex laparoscopic procedures, the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is also a useful, if not more effective, alternative for patients with right-sided colonic cancer.