Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery with and without neoadjuvant chemo-irradiation: a comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the perioperative short-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in patients after neoadjuvant chemo-irradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a comparative cohort study designed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in patients with and without neoadjuvant therapy. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemo-irradiation formed the study group; those receiving surgery without neoadjuvant therapy and in whom the final histology confirmed either transmural or node-positive diseases were selected as controls. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients in the neoadjuvant group were compared with 138 patients in the control group. Both groups were comparable in terms of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading and gender distribution. Median operating time was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant group (155 versus 135 mins, p = 0.09, Mann-Whitney U test). No significant difference was observed in terms of blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay or sphincter preservation rates. Overall 5-year survival rates in the two groups remained similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirmed that, aside from a slightly longer operating time, laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in patients with neoadjuvant chemo-irradiation is safe with no increased morbidity. Based on our experience, patients after neoadjuvant therapy should not be deterred from the minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in octogenarians: results in a decade.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the results of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in octogenarians. METHODS: Patients aged 80 years or older who underwent elective laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 2006 were recruited for analysis, with the following exceptions: 1) patients who did not give informed consent; 2) unfit for operative treatment; 3) presented as surgical emergencies; 4) multiple previous abdominal operations; or 5) locally advanced tumors. Operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, mortality and morbidities, including anastomotic dehiscence, pulmonary and wound sepsis, disease recurrence, and patient survival were used to measure outcome. RESULTS: During a ten-year period, laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection was attempted in 101 octogenarians. The median age was 83 (range, 80-95) years and 45 patients were males. The median operating time was 110 (range, 60-245) minutes, with a median blood loss of 50 (range, 0-1,000) ml. Conversion was required in only one case with a leakage rate of 3.3 percent. The overall morbidity and operative mortality rate were 17 and 3 percent, respectively. With a median follow-up of 24 (range, 0-102) months, 22 patients developed recurrence, with 8 of those still surviving. The overall five-year survival is 51 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience confirms that laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in selected octogenarians is safe and feasible. Aside from the obvious short-term benefits, the long-term oncologic outcomes are favorable.

Comparison of needlescopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Laparoscopic appendectomy has been shown to improve postoperative recovery when compared with open appendectomy. The present randomized trial was conducted to evaluate any further difference in outcome between needlescopic appendectomy (NA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis. Patients with the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either NA (instrument size < or = 3 mm) or CLA (instrument size > or = 5 mm). Standardized anesthetic technique and perioperative management were adopted. The primary end point was length of postoperative hospital stay. Other parameters such as conversion rate, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, return of bowel function, resumption of normal activities, complication rate, and length of the final scars were also assessed and compared. A total of 363 patients (NA: 174, CLA: 189) were recruited. Both approaches could accurately arrive at the diagnosis (NA: 98.3%; CLA: 100%). Compared with CLA, NA resulted in a significantly longer operation time (P = 0.015) and a higher conversion rate (P < 0.001). The final scars of the NA group were significantly shorter when compared with the CLA group (P < 0.001). Otherwise, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in terms of complication rate, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative stay, and other recovery parameters. NA resulted in a longer operation time and higher conversion rate. Except for a smaller scar, the present study was unable to demonstrate any other short-term benefits. Thus, the technique cannot be routinely recommended.