Search

Background: Sphincter-saving operation is the treatment of choice in patients with lower rectal cancer, although abdominoperineal resection (APR) is necessary in some cases for adequate oncological outcomes. This study compared the oncologic outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer undergoing APR and intersphincteric resection (ISR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT)., Methods: We compared 104 patients who underwent ISR for lower rectal cancer between 2008 and 2014 with 79 patients who underwent APR during the same period. Cases in which tumors involved the levator ani muscle or the external anal sphincter, as well as those in which surgeons were unable to obtain a negative distal margin via sphincter-saving operation were excluded. Fifty-two patients who underwent ISR were matched via propensity scoring with 52 patients who underwent APR. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and long-term outcomes before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM)., Results: After matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in clinical stage and tumor distance from anal verge. Short- and long-term outcomes were similar between the two groups. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 76.3% in the ISR group and 57.8% in the APR group (p = 0.080). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 89.5% in the ISR group and 85.4% in the APR group (p = 0.383)., Conclusions: This reveals that ISR and APR have similar oncologic outcomes following nCRT in patients with advanced low rectal cancer adjusted for background variables., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: To improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer, both transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be performed. However, few studies have compared outcomes of taTME and R-TME, especially for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT). Thus, the objective of this study was to compare outcomes of taTME and R-TME for patients with low rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT., Methods: A total of 306 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer who underwent taTME or R-TME after nCRT between 2008 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified into two groups: 1) taTME surgery group (n = 94); and 2) R-TME surgery group (n = 212)., Results: Clinicopathologic variables were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in circumference margin involvement (1.1% in taTME vs. 2.8% in R-TME, p = 0.680) or distal resection margin (2.3 cm in taTME vs. 2.4 cm in R-TME, p = 0.629). Total operation time (239 min in taTME vs. 243 min in R-TME, p = 0.675) and major complications (including anastomosis site leakage, surgical site infection, and voiding difficulty) showed no significant difference between the two groups either., Conclusions: Transanal and robotic TMEs have similar short-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer after undergoing nCRT. High quality TME can be equally achieved with both transanal and robotic approaches., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of patients with CRC undergoing laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection with simultaneous resection for liver metastases., Methods: A total of 126 patients underwent combined laparoscopic resection of CRC and synchronous colorectal liver metastases between 2008 and 2016. A total of 318 patients were treated by an open approach during the above period. By propensity score matching, 109 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection and 109 patients who had an open approach were compared. Analyzed variables included patient characteristics, tumor features, and short-term and mid-term outcomes., Results: Demographic features and pathologic outcomes were similar in both groups after propensity score matching. Three (2.8%) patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection experienced conversion to open procedure. There was no difference in hospital stay (p = 0.078), transfusion rate (p = 0.686), or time of bowel function return (p = 0.570) between the two groups. The laparoscopic group and the open approach group also showed similar 3-year overall survival rate (74.4% vs. 79.1%; p = 0.792) and 3-year disease-free survival rate (58.5% vs. 55.2%; p = 0.391). However, postoperative morbidity rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (20.2% vs. 33.0%; p = 0.032)., Conclusions: Laparoscopic colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases showed satisfactory oncologic outcomes with some short-term advantages compared to the open approach. Thus, laparoscopic approach could be a good alternative of open approach for simultaneous liver and colon resection in patients with CRC.

Background: The introduction of complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vessel ligation (CVL) for right-sided colon cancer has improved oncologic outcomes. However, there is controversy over the oncologic safety of laparoscopic CME with CVL. This study compared short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open modified CME (mCME) with CVL in patients with right-sided colon cancer., Methods: We enrolled 1239 patients who underwent open mCME with CVL and 1010 patients treated by a laparoscopic approach for right-side colon cancer between 2000 and 2013 and used 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for potential baseline confounders between two groups., Results: After propensity score matching, 683 patients who underwent open mCME with CVL were compared with 683 patients treated with a laparoscopic approach. There were no significant differences between these groups in age, sex, ASA score, TNM stage, tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, and perineural invasion. Comparison of open and laparoscopic mCME groups showed no significant difference in postoperative morbidity (21.4 vs. 18.3%, p = 0.175) and mortality (0.1 vs. 0%, p = 1.000). The laparoscopic mCME group showed shorter length of hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate was 83.7% in the open group and 94.7% in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). The laparoscopic group also showed a significantly better 5-year disease-free survival rate (82.7 vs. 88.7%, p = 0.009) and 5-year disease-specific survival rate (83.7 vs. 94.7%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic modified mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation is a safe and feasible approach with better short-term recovery profiles and potential oncologic benefits than the open approach for right-sided colon cancer.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes and perioperative variables following conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for rectal cancer., Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2012, 2680 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer were analyzed. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for potential baseline confounders between groups including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical T and N categories, pathologic T and N categories, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and the status of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. After matching, we analyzed 278 patients in each group (n = 556)., Results: The median follow-up period was 36.2 and 37.4 months in the HALS group and the conventional LAP group, respectively. Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.531). The 5-year overall survival rate was 88.8 % in the HALS group and 91.2 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.329). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.0 % in the HALS group and 79.7 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.591)., Conclusions: HALS is considered a safe and feasible approach for rectal cancer treatment that enables the preservation of the advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention compared with open surgery in patients with anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive colorectal surgery., Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2012, 77 patients who required surgical reintervention for anastomotic leakage following minimally invasive colorectal surgery were included in this study. Data on the patients' demographics, operative management, morbidity, hospital stay, and mortality were analyzed for differences based on whether they received laparoscopic or open surgery., Results: Sixteen patients underwent open surgery following laparoscopy, and 61 patients received laparoscopic reintervention following laparoscopy. The conversion rate was 8.2 % (5/61). The median total hospital stay following reintervention was significantly shorter for laparoscopic surgery (16.0 days, range 9-117 days) than for open surgery (35.5 days, range 10-135 days, p < 0.001). The postoperative 30-day morbidity rate, including wound dehiscence (25.0 vs 3.3 %, p = 0.015) and intra-abdominal infection (31.3 vs 6.6 %, p = 0.016), was lower in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group. The rate of stoma closure was lower in the open surgery group than in the laparoscopic surgery group (43.8 vs 80.5 %, p < 0.001). There was one in-hospital mortality in the open surgery group., Conclusions: Laparoscopic reintervention for anastomotic leakage following minimally invasive colorectal surgery is associated with a shorter hospital stay, fewer postoperative complications, and a higher stoma closure rate than open surgery. Laparoscopic reintervention for anastomotic leakage is feasible and safe.

Background: Laparoscopic colectomy for malignancy currently is the standard operative technique together with open colectomy. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SIL) is a recent advance in minimally invasive surgical techniques. This study aimed to compare SIL right colectomy with conventional laparoscopy (CL) used to treat patients with colon cancer., Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of data from the authors' prospectively collected colorectal surgery database. Between August 2009 and November 2010, 159 patients who underwent primary laparoscopic right colectomy at the Samsung Medical Center were recruited to participate in this study. Of these, 66 patients underwent SIL colectomy., Results: The SIL and CL right colectomy groups did not differ significantly in terms of general characteristics including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American society of anesthesiology (ASA) score, previous abdominal operation, and diagnosis. The two groups also did not differ significantly in terms of perioperative complications (9.1 vs. 15.1 %, p = 0.335). Oncologic resection was similar in the two groups. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 24 for SIL and 27 for CL right colectomy (p = 0.068). Tumor size, disease stage, adjuvant chemotherapy, and proximal and distal resection margins did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mean follow-up period was 24.5 for the SIL group and 26.4 months for the CL group (p = 0.098), with six recurrences in the SIL group (9.1 %) and three recurrences in the CL group (3.2 %) (p = 0.120). One death occurred in the CL group. Disease-free survival at 24 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (89.7 vs. 96.3 %, p = 0.120)., Conclusion: The findings show that SIL right colectomy for colon cancer is safe and can provide resection and oncologic outcomes equal to those of conventional laparoscopic right colectomy.

Background: Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices have been widely used for thrombosis prophylaxis in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, periodic compression using an IPC device may inject augmented boluses of cool blood from the lower limbs into the central circulation repetitively, thereby causing a reduction in core temperature. The authors therefore conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to compare the effects of intraoperative IPC on core temperature in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery., Methods: For this study, 56 patients ages 18-60 years and scheduled to undergo laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either no IPC (control group) or calf-thigh-length IPC in both legs using the SCD Express (IPC group). Anesthetic, thermal, and pneumoperitoneum management were standardized. Esophageal temperature, as an indicator of core temperature, was measured at 15-min intervals for 2 h after induction of anesthesia., Results: A total of 47 subjects (23 control and 24 IPC subjects) were included in the analysis. The core temperature drop in the IPC group was significantly greater than in the control group, starting from 45 min after induction of anesthesia (P < 0.05). As a result, the total temperature drop during the 2-h study period was significantly greater in the IPC group (1.2 ± 0.3 °C) than in the control group (0.9 ± 0.3 °C) (P = 0.004)., Conclusions: Because intraoperative application of IPC carries an increased risk of a core temperature drop, appropriate temperature monitoring and active thermal management are required for surgical patients receiving IPC.

Background: Though single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) can reduce operative scarring and facilitates postoperative recovery, it does have some limitations, such as reduction in instrument working, difficulty in triangulation, and collision of instruments. To overcome these limitations, development of new instruments is needed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a magnetic anchoring system in performing SILS ileocecectomy., Methods: Experiments were performed in a living dog model. Five dogs (26.3-29.2 kg) underwent ileocecectomy using a multichannel single port (OCTO port; Darim, Seoul, Korea). The port was inserted at the umbilicus and maintained a CO(2) pneumoperitoneum. Two magnet-fixated vascular clips were attached to the colon using an endoclip applicator, and it was held together across the abdominal wall by using an external handheld magnet. The cecum was then retracted in an upward direction by moving the external handheld magnet, and the mesocolon was dissected with Ultracision(®). Extracorporeal functional end-to-end anastomosis was done using a linear stapler. All animals survived during the observational period of 2 weeks, and then re-exploration was performed under general anesthesia for evaluation of intra-abdominal healing and complications., Results: Mean operation time was 70 min (range 55-100 min), with each subsequent case taking less time. The magnetic anchoring system was effective in achieving adequate exposure in all cases. All animals survived and convalesced normally without evidence of clinical complication during the observation period. At re-exploration, all anastomoses were completely healed and there were no complications such as abscess, bleeding or organ injury., Conclusions: SILS ileocecectomy using a magnetic anchoring system was safe and effective in a dog model. The development of magnetic anchoring systems may be beneficial for overcoming the limitations of SILS.

Background: The clinical application of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for sigmoidectomy is associated with several difficulties that need to be overcome before wider clinical application of the procedure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of transgastric sigmoidectomy in a survival animal model, as well as to evaluate the safety and usability of a custom paired magnetic intraluminal device, which we developed for the NOTES procedure., Methods: Survival experiments were conducted on 24-33-kg dogs. After anesthesia, a gastrotomy was created using double-channel endoscope, and peritoneoscopy was performed. The sigmoid colon was retracted laterally using paired magnetic intraluminal device, the mesocolon was dissected, and the branch vessel was sealed. The anvil was placed into the descending colon through anus. A proximal and distal colonic transection was then performed. The circular stapler was passed through the anus and performed end-to-end anastomosis. Afterwards the specimen was removed through gastrotomy, and the gastric incision was closed. Postoperatively, all dogs were recovered and monitored for well-being during convalescence. Reexploration was practiced under anesthesia 2 weeks after surgery for evaluation of intra-abdominal complications, and intra-peritoneal cultures for microorganism., Results: The mean operative time was 141 (range, 122-157) min. There were no complications or physical evidence of sepsis or bowel obstruction during the observation period. Only one dog exhibited decreased body weight, decreasing to 20.4 kg from 22.4 kg after surgery; all of the other dogs exhibited increased body weight. We observed no evidence of peritonitis, intra-abdominal abscess, bleeding, or organ injury on reexploration conducted on day 14 after surgery., Conclusions: Transgastric NOTES sigmoidectomy is a safe operation technique as evaluated in a dog model. The paired magnetic intraluminal device that was used in this study was useful to avoid an abdominal incision for retracting the sigmoid colon.