Search

Background: Tissue adhesives may be useful for sealing bowel anastomoses by preventing anastomotic leakage. Prior to clinical implementation, an in-depth analysis of the clinical and immunohistopathological effects of tissue adhesives on the target tissue and of the mechanical strength of the adhesive bond in an in vivo model is needed. Materials and methods: In 84 rats, two bowel segments were glued using one of the following tissue adhesive: Bioglue, Gelatin-resorcinol-formaldehyde (GRF), Glubran 2, Histoacryl Flex, Omnex, Duraseal Xact, or Tissucol. Rats were followed for 7 or 28 days. Endpoints were clinical complication rate, mechanical strength, and immunohistopathological reactions. Results: Of the seven tissue adhesives, GRF and Bioglue showed the highest rates of bowel wall destruction and ileus and the most severe immunohistopathological tissue reactions at 7 and 28 days. Cyanoacrylates (Histoacryl Flex, Omnex, Glubran 2) showed high mechanical strength and mild immunohistopathological reactions at 7 and 28 days. Duraseal Xact and Tissucol were the most inert tissue adhesives, but exhibited low mechanical strength. At 28 days, mechanical strength was significantly correlated to CD8, CD68, and Ki67 cell counts. Conclusion: Based on the clinical and immunohistopathological outcomes, GRF and Bioglue were found to be the least suitable tissue adhesives for colonic use. Duraseal Xact and Tissucol were inert but also showed low mechanical strength. Cyanoacrylates exhibited mild clinical and immunohistopathological effects while maintaining high strength, which makes them promising as colonic sealants.

The safety and short-term benefits of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer remain debatable. The multicentre COLOR (COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection) trial was done to assess the safety and benefit of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for curative treatment of patients with cancer of the right or left colon.627 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic surgery and 621 patients to open surgery. The primary endpoint was cancer-free survival 3 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, metastasis, overall survival, and blood loss during surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. Here, clinical characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative outcome are reported.Patients assigned laparoscopic resection had less blood loss compared with those assigned open resection (median 100 mL [range 0-2700] vs 175 mL [0-2000], p0.0001), although laparoscopic surgery lasted 30 min longer than did open surgery (p0.0001). Conversion to open surgery was needed for 91 (17%) patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure. Radicality of resection as assessed by number of removed lymph nodes and length of resected oral and aboral bowel did not differ between groups. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with earlier recovery of bowel function (p0.0001), need for fewer analgesics, and with a shorter hospital stay (p0.0001) compared with open colectomy. Morbidity and mortality 28 days after colectomy did not differ between groups.Laparoscopic surgery can be used for safe and radical resection of cancer in the right, left, and sigmoid colon.

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer.Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842.During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]).Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.

Background: High hospital case volume has been associated with improved outcome after open operation for colorectal malignancies. Methods: To assess the impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colon cancer, we conducted an analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic colon resection within the COlon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial. Results: A total of 536 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were included in the analysis. Median operating time was 240, 210 and 188 min in centers with low, medium, and high case volumes, respectively (p < 0.001). A significant difference in conversion rate was observed among low, medium, and high case volume hospitals (24% vs 24% vs 9%; p < 0.001). A higher number of lymph nodes were harvested at high case volume hospitals (p < 0.001). After operation, fewer complications (p = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) were observed in patients treated at hospitals with high caseloads. Conclusions: Laparoscopic operation for colon cancer at hospitals with high caseloads appears to be associated with improved short-term results.

We thank Tihomir Georgiev-Hristov and Angel Celdran for their comment on our review on the surgical treatment of large incisional hernias. The authors suggest a double-mesh technique for the closure of large incisional hernias. The results of our review are in line with their statement that the use of a mesh reduces the recurrence rate. The use of two meshes in different planes of the abdominal wall is an interesting concept. However, as they describe in their comment, all articles on ‘double mesh’ techniques advocate a different surgical repair. Meshes are placed in different planes of the abdominal wall, some techniques are bridging, others insist on midline closure, even applying additional releases or component separation techniques. The varying techniques make it different to compare outcomes and complication rates. We would like to encourage a high-quality cohort study with a clearly described double-mesh technique to make the results of this technique comparable to the techniques reported in our review.