Search

Background: Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial. Methods: A total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172). Discussion: Our study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a recent advancement in minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, SILS is a technically challenging procedure for novice surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for CRC performed by novice surgeons compared with those performed by well‐experienced surgeons. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1004 consecutive patients with stage I‐IV CRC who underwent SILS between May 2009 and December 2018, using propensity score‐matched analysis. Results: After propensity score‐matching, we enrolled 344 patients (n = 172 in each group). Before matching, significant group‐dependent differences were observed in terms of age (P = 0.034) and tumor location (P < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups, but operative time was longer in the Novice group (213 vs 171 min, P < 0.001). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the Novice group (23 vs 25, P = 0.040), and the number of patients with lymph node metastases was smaller in the Novice group (57 vs 86, P = 0.002). The 3‐year disease‐free survival rate was 85.8% in the Novice group and 89.9% in the Experienced group (P = 0.512). Three‐year overall survival rate was 92.2% in the Novice group and 90.0% in the Experienced group (P = 0.899). Conclusion: SILS for CRC was safely performed by novice surgeons under the guidance of well‐experienced surgeons, and could provide satisfactory oncological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay. Methods: Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included. Results: A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28–0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] − 8.32 min, 95%CI − 14.05– − 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46–1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66–2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06–1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI − 0.06–0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques. Conclusions: Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes. Results: Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = −0.73, 95%CI: −1.37, −0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= −1.10, 95%CI: −1.45, −0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = −3.31, 95%CI: −3.95, −2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS. Conclusions: SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The approach to the scientific literature is evolving. Currently, dissemination of articles happens in real time through social media (SoMe) channels, and little is known about its impact in medicine. The aim of this study was to investigate if SoMe dissemination followed trends independent from articles type and content. Methods: First, the SoMe engagement of a popular theme (#BlackFriday) and a relevant theme (#ClimateChange) was compared using a SoMe analytic tool to test if the popular theme would reach more engagement. In a second analysis, themes in colorectal surgery in the SoMe community were explored. Altmetric Explorer was searched for the term "colorectal surgery" and the outputs were categorized into 'randomized controlled trials' (RCTs) and 'other studies'. Subgroups were compared for the Altmetric scores using statistical analyses. Results: The analytic tool documented that #BlackFriday outnumbered #ClimateChange in mentions and engagement (1.6 million vs 127.000 mentions). Following, Altmetric Explorer identified 1381 articles, including 92 RCTs (7.1%). Overall, 25,554 mentions were documented from 1205 outputs (97.0% by Twitter). A greater percentage of "other studies" ranked in the lower Altmetric score categories (p = 0.0007). Similarly, the median Altmetric score was higher in the RCT subgroup comparing with "other studies" (6.5 vs. 2.0, Mann–Whitney p = 0.0001). Conclusions: In this study, RCTs represented just the 7.1% of the studies and produced 11% of Twitter outputs. The median Altmetric scores obtained by RCTs were higher than those of other studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 5‐factor modified frailty index (mFI‐5) is a new, NSQIP‐based, predictive tool for mortality and postoperative complications. The mFI‐5's predictive ability has been validated within the large‐scale NSQIP database but applicability in institutional databases has not been investigated. We sought to assess the association between the mFI‐5 and morbidity/mortality at the institutional level. Methods: A divisional database was queried for 2017 elective colorectal resections and an mFI‐5 calculated. The main outcome measure was the association and predictive value of the mFI‐5 with major morbidity/mortality and minor complications. Univariable analyses were performed via the Cochran‐Armitage Test and Cramer's V. Logistic regression evaluated the relationship between the mFI‐5 and morbidity/mortality while accounting for demographics and pre‐operative risk factors. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to visualize the predictive strength for outcomes. Results: Four hundred and twelve patients were analyzed. 8.7% had major morbidity/mortality and 31.6% minor complications. The mFI‐5 categorized patients into 0 (n = 335), 1 (n = 58), and 2+ (n = 19) groups. Univariable analysis showed a higher mFI‐5 was associated significantly with major morbidity/mortality (P = 0.004), but not minor (P = 0.281). Multivariable logistic regression showed a strong association between an mFI‐5 score of 2+ with major complications (Major: OR = 4.616, CI [1.442–14.776], P = 0.010). ROC curves showed the mFI‐5 was poor for predicting outcomes and performed better when other risk factors were added to the model. Conclusion: The mFI‐5 tool has an independent association with major morbidity/mortality in an institutional dataset for elective colorectal surgery, but is not predictive. Its predictive ability is enhanced when other patient‐specific risk factors are incorporated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of British Journal of Surgery is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article, published in Techniques in Coloproctology, discusses a case study of a patient with persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. The patient underwent a robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR) with en bloc resection of the posterior vagina and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). The surgery involved a multidisciplinary approach, with contributions from colorectal surgery, gynecological oncology, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. The article highlights the rarity of robotic resections involving these specific anatomical structures. [Extracted from the article]

Background The international multicentre registry ECSPECT (European Consensus of Single Port Expertise in Colorectal Treatment) was established to evaluate the general feasibility and safety of single-port colorectal surgery with regard to preoperative risk assessment. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing single-port colorectal surgery were enrolled from 11 European centres between March 2010 and March 2014. Data were analysed to assess patient-, technique- and procedure-dependent parameters. A validated sex-adjusted risk chart was developed for prediction of single-port colorectal surgery-related conversion and complications. Results Some 1769 patients were enrolled, 937 with benign and 832 with malignant conditions. Procedures were completed without additional trocars in 1628 patients (92·0 per cent). Conversion to open surgery was required in 75 patients (4·2 per cent) and was related to male sex and ASA fitness grade exceeding I. Conversions were more frequent in pelvic procedures involving the rectum compared with abdominal procedures (8·1 versus 3·2 per cent; odds ratio 2·69, P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were observed in a total of 224 patients (12·7 per cent). Independent predictors of complications included male sex ( P < 0·001), higher ASA grade ( P = 0·006) and rectal procedures ( P = 0·002). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0·5 per cent (8 of 1769 patients); three deaths (0·2 per cent; 1 blood loss, 2 leaks) were attributable to surgical causes. Conclusion The feasibility and safety, conversion and complication profile demonstrated here provides guidance for patient selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is an increasing emphasis on optimizing and measuring surgical quality. The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive techniques have been proven; however, direct comparison of outcomes across platforms has not been performed. Our goal was to compare operative times and quality across three minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery.Methods: A prospective database was reviewed for elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) cases from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into multiport laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches (RALS). Demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to predict the demographic and procedural factors and outcomes associated with each platform. The main outcome measures were operative time and surgical quality by approach.Results: A total of 1055 cases were evaluated-28.4 % LAP, 18.5 % RALS, and 53.1 % SILS. RALS had the most complex patients, pathology, and procedures. The main diagnosis for RALS was rectal cancer (49.5 %), patients predominantly underwent pelvic surgery (72.8 %), had higher rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (p < 0.001) and stoma creation (p < 0.001). RALS had the longest operative time and highest complication and readmissions rates (all p < 0.001). Multiport patients were older than SILS and RALS (p = 0.021), had the most intraoperative complications (p < 0.001), conversions (p < 0.001), and had the longest length of stay (p = 0.001). SILS had the shortest operative times (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.001), and lowest rates of complications (p < 0.001), readmissions (p < 0.001), and unplanned reoperation (p = 0.014). All platforms offered high quality (HARM score 0) from overall short LOS, low readmission, and mortality rates.Conclusions: Multiport, RALS, and SILS each serve a distinct demographic and disease profile and have predictable outcomes. All have risks and benefits, but offer overall high-quality care with a composite of LOS, readmission, and mortality rates. Operative times were directly associated with readmission rates. As all three platforms offer good quality, the choice of which MIS approach to use should be guided by demographics and disease process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to reveal the short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (SILC) compared with multi-incision laparoscopic colorectal resection (MILC) for colorectal cancer using propensity score matching analysis.Methods: The study group included 235 patients who underwent SILC and 730 patients who underwent MILC for colorectal cancer between April 2009 and September 2014. The propensity score matching for age, gender, body mass index, tumor location (right-sided colon/sigmoid colon/upper rectum), lymph node dissection (D1/D2/D3), pathologic T (≤T3) stage and TNM (0-I/II/III) stage produced 107 matched pairs. The exclusion criteria for SILC were as follows: (1) tumors located at the transverse, descending colon or lower rectum, (2) stage IV tumors, synchronous or previous malignancies, (3) locally advanced tumors >T4, (4) acute obstructions or previous major abdominal surgery and (5) obese patients: BMI > 30.Results: No significant differences were observed in operating time, bleeding volumes, starting time of liquid diet and length of hospital stay between the SILC and MILC groups. However, the SILC group showed less analgesic requirements (1.1 vs. 1.9 times; p = 0.0006) and shorter length of incision (2.7 vs. 4.3 cm; p = 0.0000) compared to MILC group. The overall rate of postoperative complications was similar in both groups (2.8 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.70). The 5-year overall survival rate of SILC and MILC was 100 and 95% (p = 0.125) and 5-year disease-free survival rates in stages 0-III were 97 and 94% (p = 0.189), 100 and 92% in stage II and 90 and 85% in stage III, respectively.Conclusions: This study suggests that SILC for colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible option with better cosmetic results and less pain in strictly selected patients. SILC can also produce good oncological results with similar postoperative outcomes to MILC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients.Methods: Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort.Results: A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts.Conclusions: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing life expectancy requires specific attention on geriatric patients. Data support a potential reduction of surgical morbidity for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery as compared to conventional surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative effect of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on geriatric patients. Methods: A systematic review of electronic information sources was undertaken. Studies that provided outcome data on patients aged 65 years or older, subjected to laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery, were considered. Mortality, morbidity, cardiac and pulmonary complications were the outcome measures of treatment effect. The methodological quality of selected studies was independently appraised by two reviewers. Random effects model was applied to synthesize outcome data. Results: Twenty-seven articles providing data for 66,592 patients were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had a decreased risk for mortality (2.2 vs. 5.4 %; OR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.44-0.67), overall morbidity (19.3 vs. 26.7 %; OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.46-0.63), cardiac (4.7 vs. 7.7 %; OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.39-0.92) and respiratory complications (3.9 vs. 6.3 %; OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.47-0.95). Sensitivity analysis including reports with similar age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and/or similar prevalence of cardiopulmonary morbidity between the laparoscopic and the open treatment arm validated the outcome estimates of the primary analysis. Conclusions: This analysis supports a substantial benefit for elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic in comparison with open colorectal surgery. The comparative effect of either approach on geriatric patients with pulmonary and cardiac comorbidities is a subject of further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]