Search

Study Objective: Evaluate the impact of deep neuromuscular blockade on intraoperative nociception Deep neuromuscular blockade has been shown to improve surgical conditions and postoperative outcomes compared to moderate neuromuscular blockade in laparoscopic surgery. Still, its impact on intraoperative nociception and opioid requirement has never been assessed., Design: Monocentric randomised controlled trial., Setting: Operating room., Patients: We included 100 ASA I to III patients who underwent colorectal laparoscopic surgery with desflurane-remifentanil anesthesia., Interventions: Patients were randomised into two groups to achieve either moderate (1-3 train of four response) or deep (1-2 post-tetanic count) neuromuscular block (NMB) with repeated boluses of rocuronium. The Nociception Level (NOL) index guided intraoperative remifentanil administration in both groups., Measurements: The primary endpoint was total intraoperative remifentanil administration per hour of surgery. Secondary endpoints included, Leiden Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS), intra-abdominal pressure, postoperative pain scores and opioids' consumption., Main Results: Ninety-three patients were analysed. Forty-five in the deep group and 48 patients in moderate group. Intraoperative administration of remifentanil was 348 (228-472) μg.h -1 in the deep NMB group compared to 494 (392-618) μg.h -1 in the moderate NMB group (P < 0.001). Lowest L-SRS was 5 (4-5) in the deep NMB group versus 3 (2-5) (P < 0.001) in the moderate NMB group. Mean intra-abdominal pressure was 11.9 (1.3) in the deep NMB group versus 13 (1.3) (P < 0.001) in the moderate NMB group. Secondary postoperative outcomes including pain scores and analgesics administration were not significantly different., Conclusions: This study shows that deep neuromuscular blockade reduces intraoperative NOL-guided administration of remifentanil in colorectal laparoscopic surgeries. It also improves surgical conditions., Trial Registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT03910998., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Philippe Richebé received honorariums as a consultant and to give lectures from the following companies: Medasense, Abbvie, Medtronic-Covidien, Biosyent, and Merck. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Adoption of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer treatment has been slow owing to initial case study results suggesting high recurrence rates at port sites. The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer still raises a number of concerns, particularly with the technique's complexity, learning curve and longer duration. After exploring the scientific literature comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer with respect to oncologic efficacy and shortterm outcomes, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) made recommendations for surgical practice in Quebec., Methods: Scientific literature published from January 1995 to April 2012 was reviewed. Phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses were included., Results: Sixteen randomized trials and 10 meta-analyses were retrieved. Analysis of the literature confirmed that for curative treatment of colorectal cancer, laparoscopy is not inferior to open surgery with respect to survival and recurrence rates. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including a shorter hospital stay, reduced analgesic use and faster recovery of intestinal function. However, this approach does require a longer operative time., Conclusion: Considering the evidence, the CEPO recommends that laparoscopic resection be considered an option for the curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer; that decisions regarding surgical approach take into consideration surgeon experience, tumour stage, potential contraindications and patient expectations; and that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer be performed only by appropriately trained surgeons who perform a sufficient volume annually to maintain competence.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and open abdominoperineal resection for cancer., Methods: Records of 194 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (42 patients) or open abdominoperineal resection (152 patients) at three institutions between 1991 and 1997 were reviewed. Follow-up was through office charts, American College of Surgeons cancer registry, or telephone contact. Tumors included (laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and open abdominoperineal resection, respectively) adenocarcinoma (86 and 92 percent), squamous (12 and 7 percent), and gastrointestinal stromal (2 and 1.4 percent) types; Stages I (17 and 26 percent), II (24 and 33 percent), III (43 and 32 percent), and IV (14 and 9 percent); and those with invasion of pelvic structures (14 and 16 percent)., Results: Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection was converted to open abdominoperineal resection in 21 percent because of vessel injury (33 percent), poor exposure (22 percent), adhesions (22 percent), inguinal hernia (11 percent), or radiation fibrosis (11 percent). Perineal infections occurred more often in the laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection group (24 vs. 8 percent; P=0.02). Late stoma complications were similar. Mean hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (7 vs. 12 days). Radial margins were positive in 12 percent of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and 12.5 percent of open abdominoperineal resection specimens. Tumor recurrence was similar for both local (19 and 14 percent) and distant (38 and 26 percent) recurrence. Survival rates were similar by Kaplan-Meier curves, with median follow-up of 19 and 24 months, respectively (P=0.22; log rank)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection can be performed safely and results in a shorter hospital stay. A randomized, prospective trial is needed to determine the long-term outcome of cancer treatment.

Review article of the actual level of knowledge about laparoscopic colorectal surgery and laparoscopic-assisted procedures. At present time laparoscopy for the cure of colorectal neoplasia should only be performed within prospective randomized trials. In the meantime it is perfectly appropriate to perform laparoscopy for palliation of metastatic disease. Patients with benign colorectal neoplasms can achieve better outcome if treated by laparoscopy rather than laparotomy. Other areas in which laparoscopy may be useful include enterolysis and possibly, treatment of rectal prolapse. Laparoscopy can be appropriately applied for the treatment of terminal ileal Crohn's disease, sigmoid diverticulitis, reversal of Hartmann's pouches and the construction of stomas.