Conventional and/or laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: what is the current evidence?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mik M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6753985 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Laparoscopic gastrectomy has been widely accepted as a standard alternative for the treatment of early-stage gastric adenocarcinoma because of its favorable short-term outcomes. Although controversies exist, such as establishing clear indications, proper preoperative staging, and oncologic safety, experienced surgeons and institutions have applied this approach, along with various types of function-preserving surgery, for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. With technical advancement and the advent of state-of-the-art instruments, indications for laparoscopic gastrectomy are expected to expand as far as locally advanced gastric cancer. Laparoscopic gastrectomy appears to be promising; however, scientific evidence necessary to generalize this approach to a standard treatment for all relevant patients and care providers remains to be gathered. Several multicenter, prospective randomized trials in high-incidence countries are ongoing, and results from these trials will highlight the short- and long-term outcomes of the approach. In this review, we describe up-to-date findings and critical issues regarding laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
| S-EPMC4716072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLaparoscopic colectomy has not been accepted as quickly as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is because of its steep learning curve, concerns with oncological outcomes, lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and initial reports on port-site recurrence after curative resection. The aim of this review is to summarise current evidence on laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Patients and methodsReview of literature following Medline search using key words 'laparoscopic', 'colorectal' and 'surgery'.ConclusionsLaparoscopic colorectal surgery proved to be safe, cost-effective and with improved short-term outcomes. However, further studies are needed to assess the role of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and the value of enhanced recovery protocols in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections.
| S-EPMC2966156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: -139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -159.11 to -120.86; P?<?0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: -2.10, 95% CI: -3.47 to -0.73; P?=?0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P?=?0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: -0.97, 95% CI?=?-1.06 to -0.88, P?<?0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: -1.71.95% CI?=?-3.31 to -0.12, P?=?0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.
| S-EPMC4882598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fast-track surgery (FTS), a multimodal rehabilitation technique, has been recommended as surgical therapy for colorectal cancer. The objective of the present study was to compare the outcomes of FTS and conventional laparoscopic surgery. This study was a blinded randomized trial. A total of 70 patients with colorectal cancer were divided into two groups and underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection. The FTS group consisted of 31 patients and the control group consisted of 39 patients. Protocols for the treatment of the FTS group included skipping pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation, early restoration of diet and early post-operative ambulation. Outcome measures, length of hospital stay, post-operative surgical stress response [C-reactive protein (CRP)] and post-operative complications were compared between the two groups. The average length of total hospital stay for the FTS and the control groups was 5.9±0.8 and 10.9±1.3 days, respectively (P<0.05), and the length of post-operative hospital stay for the FTS and control group was 4.3±0.8 and 8.0±1.1 days, respectively. (P<0.05) First flatus time for the FTS and control groups was 1.6±0.8 and 2.5±0.9 days, respectively (P<0.05). Defecation time for the FTS and control groups was 2.2±0.7 and 4.5±0.7 days, respectively (P<0.05). The time to restoration of a solid diet also showed a significant difference between the FTS and control groups (1.1±0.3 vs. 3.6±0.9 days; P<0.05). Following surgery, due to post-operative surgical stress, the two groups CRP levels increased significantly, but the levels of the FTS group were lower than those of the conventional control group (P<0.05). There was no difference in post-operative complications between the FTS and control groups. This study confirms that FTS shortens hospital stay and accelerates the recovery of bowel function without increase of post-operative complications. FTS is safe, improves post-operative recovery and is a better option than conventional laparoscopic surgery for treating colorectal cancer patients.
| S-EPMC4487143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Minimally invasive surgery is the first-line management for endometrial cancer. The role of 2-port access laparoscopy (TPA) has been underestimated. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CL), TPA is associated with smaller total incision size and less postoperative pain. Compared to single-incision laparoscopic surgery, no specific instruments and surgical techniques are needed. This study primarily evaluated the surgical and pathologic outcomes of TPA with conventional instruments, and additionally evaluated the surgeon's learning curve. Consecutive patients who underwent TPA and CL for endometrial cancer between 2015 and 2019 were included. Baseline characteristics were recorded. In total, 148 patients (TPA, 89; CL, 59) were identified. The baseline characteristics were similar, except for a greater proportion of patients in the CL group receiving para-aortic lymph node dissection (5.62% vs. 35.59%, P < 0.01). The mean operation time was significantly less in the TPA group (152.09 vs. 187.15 min; P < 0.01). Both the groups had comparable 5-year progression-free survival (TPA, 86.68%) and 5-year overall survival rates (TPA, 93.24%). Analysis of the learning curve showed that the operation time decreased after 3-4 procedures. TPA using conventional laparoscopic instruments for endometrial cancer is feasible and is easily accessible to patients and surgeons.
| S-EPMC7804851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is an intra-abdominal procedure that does not require an auxiliary incision to take a surgical sample from the abdominal wall through the natural orifice, but there are few systematic clinical studies on it. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of NOSES. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and follow-up of 165 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent NOSES or conventional laparoscopic surgery at our center from January 2013 to June 2015. From the perioperative data and postoperative follow-up results of both groups, patients in the NOSES group had less intraoperative bleeding (49.3 ± 55.8 ml vs. 75.1 ± 57.3 ml, p = 0.02), shorter postoperative gastrointestinal recovery (42.3 ± 15.5 h vs. 50.1 ± 17.0 h, p = 0.01), less postoperative analgesic use (35.6% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.02), lower postoperative pain scores, lower rate of postoperative complications (6.8% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.01), better satisfaction of the image and cosmesis of the abdominal wall postoperatively, and higher quality of life. Moreover, there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between two groups. Overall, NOSES is a safe and reliable minimally invasive surgical technique for patients with low rectal cancer.
| S-EPMC8085046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study set out to determine whether Needlescopic surgery (NS) produces comparable surgical outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPS). METHODS:We used the five-port method with a 3.5 cm umbilical incision for extraction and reconstruction during MPS for CRC. One or two 5 mm ports were exchanged for needle forceps and all surgical procedures were as for previous MPS since July 2012. We investigated the short-term outcomes of 138 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection of CRC by NS (July 2012-August 2014) and 130 consecutive patients with CRC treated with MPS during a previous period (January 2010-June 2012). RESULTS:Operative time in the NS group was comparable to that of MPS (p=0.467); the NS group had significantly less estimated blood loss (p=0.002) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p<0.001). The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 27 in both groups (p=0.730). No mortality occurred in either group, and similar morbidity rates were observed (p=0.454). CONCLUSIONS:NS using Endo Relief needle forceps is a safe and feasible option compared to conventional MPS for CRC.
| S-EPMC6768669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProtective ileostomy is always applied to avoid clinically significant anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications for patients receiving laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether it is necessary to perform the ileostomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the efficacy of ileostomy on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.MethodsCochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were applied for systematic search of all relevant literature, updated to May 07, 2021. Studies compared patients with and without ileostomy for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. We applied Review Manager software to perform this meta-analysis. The quality of the non-randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the randomized studies were assessed using the Jadad scale.ResultsWe collected a total of 1203 references, and seven studies were included using the research methods. The clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in ileostomy group (27/567, 4.76%) than that in non-ileostomy group (54/525, 10.29%) (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73, P for overall effect = 0.0009, P for heterogeneity = 0.18, I2 = 32%). However, the postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time showed no significant difference between the ileostomy and non-ileostomy groups.ConclusionThe results demonstrated that protective ileostomy could decrease the clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate for patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, ileostomy has no effect on postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time. The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.
| S-EPMC8567543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.
| S-EPMC4814646 | biostudies-other
Project description:Though our previous study has demonstrated that the single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) is safe and feasible for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer and has better short-term outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), the long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 remains uncertain and are needed to evaluated by an RCT. Patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The 3-year DFS, 5-year OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed. Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients were randomly assigned to either the SILS + 1 group (n = 99) or CLS group (n = 99). The median follow-up in the SILS + 1 group was 64.0 months and in CLS group was 65.0 months. The 3-year DFS was 87.8% (95% CI, 81.6-94.8%) in SILS + 1 group and 86.9% (95% CI, 81.3-94.5%) in CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.09 (95% CI, 0.48-2.47; P = 0.84)). The 5-year OS was 86.7% (95% CI,79.6-93.8%) in the SILS + 1 group and 80.5% (95% CI,72.5-88.5%) in the CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.53 (95% CI, 0.74-3.18; P = 0.25)). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the two groups. We found no significant difference in 3-year DFS and 5-year OS of patients with sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer treated with SILS + 1 vs. CLS. SILS + 1 is noninferior to CLS when performed by expert surgeons. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117557 (registered on 21/04/2014).
| S-EPMC10702022 | biostudies-literature