Comparison Of One-Stage Managements In The Treatment Of Obstructing Left-Sided Colorectal Cancer: Endolaparoscopic Approach Vs. Emergency Open Surgery

yingdong cheng,hua yang,zhicao zhang,guoqing chen,guangsheng du,dan ma

2015-01-01

Iranian Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Letter to the Editor

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

[Comparison of Surgery for Staging Using Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in Patients with Endometrial Cancer].

Xiao-na Lin,Xiao-mei Tong,Hai-yan Zhu,Dong Huang,Lin Kuang,Xiao-feng Zhao,Guang-hui Song,Min-zhen Wang,Su-hua Fang,Song-ying Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2010.35.012

2010-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the surgical outcomes for staging by laparoscopy and laparotomy in patients with endometrial cancer, evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic surgical treatment of endometrial cancer, compare the difference between clinical and surgical staging of endometrial cancer and elucidate the advantages and feasibility of its surgical staging.METHODS:Fifty-six patients diagnosed pre-operatively as stage I endometrial cancer were reviewed for surgery for staging. They were assigned into laparoscopic group (n = 34) and laparotomic (open) group (n = 22). The operative parameters including operating time, intra-operative blood loss, the number of lymph nodes removed, gastrointestinal recovery time, urinary catheterization time, complications and post-operative hospital stay were compared.RESULTS:The pre-operative clinical characteristics before operation between two groups were similar. No significant differences were found in age and body mass index between two groups. As compared with the open group, the laparoscopic group had a longer operation time (213 min ± 49 min vs 162 min ± 30 min, P < 0.05), less hemoglobin change (12 g/L ± 8 g/L vs 19 g/L ± 8 g/L, P < 0.05), shorter hospital stay (6.3 d ± 1.7 d vs 9.5 d ± 1.8 d, P < 0.01) and shorter gastrointestinal recovery time (1.8 d ± 0.6 d vs 2.7 d ± 1.2 d, P < 0.01). While there was no significant difference between two groups in the number of lymph nodes removed, urinary catheterization time, costs and complications. The total coincidence was 57.14% between clinical and surgical staging.CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic staging surgery is both feasible and safe in the treatment of endometrial cancer. And the surgical staging truly reflects the extent of cancer invasion and it is thus necessary for early-stage endometrial cancer.
Clinical Study of Laparoscopic Vs Open Right Hemicolectomy for Right Colon Cancer

Giulio Giambartolomei,David Gutierrez,Andrea M. Petrucci,Giovanna Dasilva

2004-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the results of laparoscopic and open right hemicolectomy in the management of colon carcinoma Methods We compared operation safety,recovery,complications,expenditure, oncological clearance and short term outcome for the two groups of patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open right hemicolectomy for colon cancer Results Between September 2000 and January 2003, 30 patients underwent a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy; 34 patients were treated via an open approach 2 patients in the laparoscopic group were converted to open surgery The mean operative time,blood loss, complications and expenditure were comparable in the two groups ( P 0 05); Flatus, time to resume early activity and hospital stay in laparoscopic group were 2 24±0 56、 3 94±1 64、 13 94±6 5 days respectively, which was significantly shorter than those in open group ( P 0 05) No significant difference between the two groups was observed for the oncological clearance, in terms of the number of lymph nodes removed and length of specimen ( P 0 05) The mean follow up time of the two groups were 23 15±7 95 and 22 19±7 46 months, respectively Local recurrence rate,metachronous metastases rate and cumulative survival probability at 36 months were similar for the two groups Conclusion These results suggest that laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer can be performed safely, effectively and economically with the advantages of minimal invasiveness
Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection: the different endoscopic techniques for colorectal tumors

Guanqun Chao,Shuo Zhang,Jianmin Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.027

IF: 2.417

2016-01-01

Journal of Surgical Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used for the removal of colorectal tumors. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of ESD and EMR for colorectal tumors. METHODS:For the years 1966 until October 2014, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles comparing the effectiveness and safety of ESD and EMR. STATA 11.0 and RevMan 5.0 were used for meta-analysis and publication bias. RESULTS:Seventeen articles were included in this meta-analysis. ESD was more effective than EMR in endoscopic complete resection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-5.70; Z = 2.86; P = 0.004) and pathologic complete resection rate (OR = 2.81; 95% CI, 1.39-5.70; Z = 2.86; P = 0.004). ESD resulted in a higher perforation rate (OR = 5.27; 95% CI, 2.75-10.08; Z = 5.01; P < 0.00001) and a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30; Z = 5.04; P < 0.00001). The tumor size was larger in the ESD group (OR = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.54-4.63; Z = 3.92; P < 0.0001), and the procedure time was longer in the ESD group (OR = 21.39; 95% CI, 10.33-32.46; Z = 3.79; P = 0.0002). But bleeding rate did not differ significantly (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.81-2.20; Z = 1.14; P = 0.25). There was no publication bias analyzed by Begg test and Egger test. CONCLUSIONS:The study indicates that ESD is the better treatment for colorectal tumors for its higher complete resection rate despite the longer procedure time and higher perforation rate.
Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid and Distal Rectal Cancer

SHI Debing,LI Xinxiang,CAI Sanjun,GU Weilie,XIAO Changchun,MO Shanjing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-6358.2012.01.016

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To evaluate the difference of short-term outcomes between laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and open operation for mid and distal rectal cancer.Methods: A total of 138 patients with mid-lower rectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic surgery group(n=67) and open surgery group(n=71) from September 2008 to July 2011.Data about the patients' demographics,operative details and postoperative outcomes were collected retrospectively.Comparison of the short-term outcomes was performed between the two groups.Results: Anterior resection was performed in 65.7%(44/67)patients of the laparoscopic surgery group and 60.6%(43/71)patients of the open surgery group.The operating time of the laparoscopic surgery group [(176.4±68.3) min] was longer than the open surgery group [(122.7±42.5) min],and the difference is significant(P<0.05).The blood loss in the laparoscopic surgery group [(86.9±37.6)ml] was less than the open group [(119.1±32.7)ml],and the difference is significant(P<0.05).Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection had a shorter analgesic time,an earlier return of bowel function,a shorter indwelling catheter time,as well as a shorter hospital stay.There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested,specimen length,the rate of positive circumfeential margins,as well as the length of distal margin between the two groups.Conversion to conventional surgery was necessary in two cases(2.99%).There were no significant differences in the rate of perioperative complications between the two groups,four in the laparoscopic surgery group and six in the open surgery group.Conclusions: Compared with open operation,laparoscopic TME for mid and distal rectal cancer is a safe and effective option for less blood loss,faster recovery,less pain,less postoperative complications and short hospitalization,while the short-term outcomes of the two methods is similar.
A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy from a Single Surgeon and Open Surgery from Three Surgeons

Wei-Wei Jin,Xiao-Wu Xu,Yiping Mou,Chao Lu,Ren-Chao Zhang,Jia-Fei Yan,Jing-Rui Wang,Yu-Cheng Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.08.336

2016-01-01

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract:Jin, Wei-Wei MD; Xu, Xiao-Wu MD; Mou, Yiping MD, FACS; Lu, Chao; Zhang, Ren-Chao MD; Yan, Jia-Fei MD; Wang, Jing-Rui; Zhou, Yu-Cheng Author Information
Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus The Open Approach In Curative Resection Of Rectal Cancer

F. L. Liu,J. J. Lin,F. Ye,L. S. Teng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147323001003800317

2010-01-01

Journal of International Medical Research

Abstract:This prospective, randomized study compared the outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open surgery for the resection of rectal cancer. The main outcome measures were procedure time, blood loss, post-operative pain, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, morbidity and functional recovery. Patients in each group were similar with regard to general status, procedure types and the histopathological features of tumours. Procedure times were significantly longer with HALS versus open surgery. Analgesic requirements, surgical blood loss, time to first passing flatus, time to first oral fluids and postoperative hospital stay length were all significantly shorter in the HALS group. At a median follow-up of 16.3 months, local recurrence of tumour was not observed in either group. In this study, the HALS approach for curative resection of rectal cancer was safe and effective and may offer several potential advantages to patients in their post-operative recovery.
Operational Approaches for Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision in Right Hemicolon Cancer

Feng Bao,Sen Zhang,Xialin Yan,Junjun Ma,Jun Sun,Jiao Lu,Jianwen Li,Mingliang Wang,Lu Zang,Feng Dong,Aiguo Liu,Min Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/ales.2016.10.03

2016-01-01

Annals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery

Abstract:Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has the potential to become the standard procedure for colon cancer surgery as a result of its effectiveness in reducing local recurrence rate and improving prognosis. There are two strategies to perform CME: medial and lateral. Researchers have demonstrated that laparoscopic CME via medial access is comparable to a traditional open surgery. Technically, we proposed two approaches for medial access: hybrid medial approach (HMA) and completely medial approach (CMA). HMA involves the entrance to the intermesenteric space (IMS) by an incision of the gastrocolonic ligament followed by the dissection of the middle colic vessels and the Henle trunk in a top-to-bottom fashion. The approach is capped by the dissection of the inferior edge of the pancreas, requiring the blending of both top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top approaches. CMA, on the other hand, involves a bottom-to-top approach in every step, including the entrance of IMS through transverse retrocolic space (TRCS); dissection of the middle colic vessels and the Henle trunk; and dissection of the inferior edge of the pancreas. According to the previous research of our medical center, laparoscopic CME via the total medial approach is safe and technically feasible after the precise identification of the surgical planes and spaces for the right hemicolon. Meanwhile, this procedure reduces operation time and has fewer vessel-related complications, which is a better choice for right hemicolectomy.
Clinical Analysis of Laparoscopic Resection of Colorectal Cancer

CHENG Ying-dong,LIANG Ping,ZHANG Chao-jun,LUO Yun-sheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-6947.2005.12.002

2005-01-01

Abstract:Objective To study the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer.Methods A(retrospectively) analysis of the clinical data of 110 patients with colorectal cancer treated by laparoscopic(resection) during last three years was made.Of them,24 cases were converted to open operation.In 86 (cases),laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer was completed.Among them,5 cases underwent right(hemicolectomy),2 cases left hemicolectomy,10 cases sigmoidectomy,22 cases Dixon′s operation,46 cases of Miles operation,and 1 case total colorectomy.Results No patient died within 30 days postoperatively in this series.The average operation time was 225(120-360) min with average 135(20-400) mL blood loss.The average number of lymph nodes excised was 8.7(1-30).The average number of positive lymph nodes was 2.2(0-24).Six cases had intraoperative complications,including 1 case of ureteral injury and 5 cases of intra-abdominal bleeding.These patients were immediately converted to open surgery.There were 6 cases with postoperative complications,among them,2 cases of urinary leakage,2 cases of massive bleeding and 2 cases of intestinal obstruction.All of them recovered after reoperation.The time of bowel funtion(recovering) was 12-72h after operation.The hospital stay after operation was 8.6(7-15)days.The median follow-up was 14.3 months(range 1-33) for 100(90.9%) patients.There was no port-site tumor(metastasis) and no tumor recurrence at the small abdominal incision.Six to fifteen months after opteration,3 cases had diffase peritoneal metastases.1 case of Miles resection had perineal metastasis 3 months after(surgery).Conclusions Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is technically feasible,and have(advantages),such as less surgical trauma,less bleeding,less gastrointestinal interference and quicker(recovery).Laparoscopic radical operation for colorectal cancer can meet the requirements of safety and radical operation.
A comparative analysis of different reduced-port laparoscopic surgical procedures after non-curative endoscopic resection for early colorectal cancer

Dandan Song,Chongjie Huang,Chen Yang,Yating Shen,Changbao Liu,Zhonglin Wang,Limiao Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2024.134750

Abstract:Introduction: Surgery serves as a salvage procedure for non-curative resection of early-stage colorectal cancer under endoscopy. A standard method for performing additional surgery after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early colorectal cancer has yet to be established. Aim: To enhance the understanding of different surgical outcomes by discussing additional treatment strategies following non-complete curative endoscopic resection of early colorectal cancer. Material and methods: This retrospective study included 88 patients who were divided into three groups based on the surgical approach: conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS+1), and three-port laparoscopic surgery combined with natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (three-port NOSES). The study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes, safety, and postoperative recovery among these groups. Results: The SILS+1 and three-port NOSES groups demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to the CLS group in terms of blood loss, complications, number of lymph node dissections, and length of bowel resection. However, the SILS+1 and three-port NOSES groups had advantages in terms of incision length (7.11 ±0.38, 4.24 ±0.33, 3.16 ±0.22, p < 0.001), postoperative pain (4.000 [3.0,5.0], 3.500 [3.0,4.0], 3.000 [3.0,4.0]; p = 0.003), cosmetic result (4.000 [3.8,5.0], 7.000 [7.0,8.0], 7.000 [7.0,8.0]; p < 0.001), and hospital stay (8.000 [7.0,9.0], 7.000 [6.3,8.0.], 7.000 [6.3,8.0]; p = 0.035). Conclusions: Different strategies of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated to be effective and safe in additional surgery after non-curative ESD. These techniques have shown reduced pain and increased satisfaction among patients. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is expected to become the preferred treatment option for these patients.
Comparison between laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision and D2 radical operation in colon carcinoma resection: A propensity score matching analysis

Zhen Han,Yangan Liu,Ming Tan,Zhaolai Hua,Chun Dai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-241149

2024-07-31

Abstract:Background: Surgery remains the most effective treatment for colon cancer. However, there are still controversies regarding the tumor treatment effect, prognosis, and perioperative impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) surgery in colon carcinoma resection. Objective: This study aims to compare laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) and traditional open D2 radical surgery in colon carcinoma resection through a retrospective analysis using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). Methods: 98 cases undergoing LCME or open D2 colon carcinoma resection at our hospital from January 2014 to November 2021 were retrospectively collected. After excluding cases and 1:1 matching using PSM based on baseline clinical data, 86 patients were assigned in research queue. 43 patients were in each group. Two groups were compared for general clinical baseline indicators. Surgical results and postoperative adverse events of patients were also compared. Disease-free survival (DFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate was analyzed. Results: After 1:1 PSM matching, there was no statistically significant differences in baseline data between the LCME group and D2 group (P> 0.05). LCME was characterized by longer total duration of surgery (P< 0.001), less intraoperative bleeding volume (P< 0.001), more postoperative drainage fluid volume (P< 0.001), greater number of lymph nodes retrieved (P= 0.014). No statistically differences was observed regarding intraoperative blood transfusion, hospital stay, Clavien-Dindo complicating disease classification (all P> 0.05), 1 and 3-year DFS rate (P= 0.84) and OS rate (P⩾ 0.1). Conclusion: LCME had a longer duration of surgery but less intraoperative bleeding volume and more postoperative drainage fluid volume and retrieved lymph nodes compared to D2 radical surgery. LCME surgery is comparable to D2 surgery in terms of postoperative prognosis, but LCME surgery shows a positive trend in the overall survival curve.
Comparative analysis between laparoscopic and open approaches in treatment of early-stage endome-trial carcinoma

焦海宁,龙雯睛,彭远飞,沈育红,喇端端

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13455/j.cnki.cjcor.2009.04.012

2009-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the clinical value of laparoscopic operation in patients with early-stage endometrial carcinomas.Methods A retrospective analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for stage Ⅰ endometrial carcinoma in terms of operative time,blood loss,complication,postoperative recovery and recurrence.Results All operations were performed with no events.The operation success rate,operative time,postoperative complication,number of lymph nodes excised and postoperative recovery were similar.The blood loss in laparoscopic group was significantly less than that in open group.Faster return of bowel function was observed in laparoscopic group(1.8±0.3 vs 2.8±1.9,P< 0.05).The length of hospital stay in laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than that in open group(7.4±2.8 vs 10.1±3.4,P< 0.05).Conclusion Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy can be used as an alternative method for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer.
Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hemicolectomy with Curative Intent for Colon Carcinoma

Min-Hua Zheng,Bo Feng,Ai-Guo Lu,Jian-Wen Li,Ming-Liang Wang,Zhi-Hai Mao,Yan-Yan Hu,Feng Dong,Wei-Guo Hu,Dong-Hua Li,Lu Zang,Yuan-Fei Peng,Bao-Ming Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v11.i3.323

IF: 5.374

2005-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM: Laparoscopic surgery, especially laparoscopic rectal surgery, for colorectal cancer has been developed considerably. However, due to relatively complicated anatomy and high requirements for surgery techniques, laparoscopic right colectomy develops relatively slowly. This study was designed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) with open right hemicolectomy (ORH) in the treatment of colon carcinoma.METHODS: Between September 2000 and February 2003, 30 patients with colon cancer who underwent LRH were compared with 34 controls treated by ORH in the same period. All patients were evaluated with respect to surgery-related complications, postoperative recovery, recurrence and metastasis rate, cost-effectiveness and survival.RESULTS: Among 30 LRH, 2 (6.7%) were converted to open procedure. No significant differences were observed in terms of mean operation time, blood loss, post-operative complications, and hospital cost between LRH and ORH groups. Mean time for bowel movement, hospital stay, and time to resume early activity in the LRH group were significantly shorter than those in the ORH group (2.24 +/- 0.56 vs 3.25 +/- 1.29 d, 13.94 +/- 6.5 vs 18.25 +/- 5.96 d, 3.94 +/- 1.64 vs 5.45 +/- 1.82 d respectively, P<0.05). As to the lymph node yield, the specimen length and total cost for operation and drugs, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Local recurrence rate and metachronous metastasis rate had no marked difference between the two groups. Cumulative survival probability at 40 mo in LRH group (76.50%) was not obviously different compared to the ORH group (74.04%).CONCLUSION: LRH in patients with colon cancer has statistically and clinically significant advantages over ORH. Thus, LRH can be regarded as a safe and effective procedure. (C) 2005 The WJG Press and Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comparison Of Laparoscopic Versus Open Complete Mesocolic Excision In Elderly Patients With Right Hemicolon Cancer: Retrospective Analysis Of One Single Cancer

Zhiliang Chen,Qinsong Sheng,Xiaojiang Ying,Wenbin Chen

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To investigate the clinical safety, performance, perioperative and oncologic outcome of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for elderly patients with right hemicolon cancer. Methods: A total of 82 patients with right hemicolon cancer who underwent CME between January 2011 and December 2012 were included in this study and divided into laparoscopic colectomy (LC, n=27) group and open colectomy (OC, n=55) group according to surgical procedure. Demographic variables, perioperative and oncologic outcomes of these two groups were compared. Results: There were no significant differences of demographic and tumor characteristics between two groups. During the surgical procedures, the patients in LC group had shorter incision length (P<0.05), longer operation time (P<0.05) and similar blood loss (P>0.05) compared to those in OC group. After the operation, compared to OC group, LC group had lower pain scores (P<0.05), proceeded an earlier first passage of flatus (P<0.05), and restored the ability to consume solid food sooner (P<0.05). Moreover, when LC group was compared to OC group, hospitalization (P<0.05) was recorded shorter, total costs (P<0.05) were increased, similar numbers of lymph nodes were obtained (P>0.05), and comparable levels of postoperative complications occurred (P>0.05). With a 39-month follow-up, significant differences of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, local recurrence, distant metastasis, 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were not observed. Conclusions: Laparoscopic CME has short-term advantages and comparable long term outcomes compared to open CME. It is safer, more feasible and more effective minimally invasive surgery procedure for elderly patients with right hemicolon cancer.
Short-term Efficacy Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Laparoscopy for Patients with Rectal Cancer-a Prospective Multi-Center Study

Zhixun Zhao,Xu Guan,Guanyu Yu,Yi Feng,Qingchao Tang,Qian Liu,Zhaoxu Zheng,Haitao Zhou,Jianwei Liang,Zheng Jiang,Zheng Liu,Zheng Lou,Haipeng Chen,Jiagang Han,Yiping Lu,Ang Li,Xiaohui Du,Zhanlong Shen,Guole Lin,Guiyu Wang,Bo Jiang,Wei Zhang,Xishan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44178-023-00031-2

2023-01-01

Holistic Integrative Oncology

Abstract:Objective To compare the short-term efficacy indicators of laparoscopic technique and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer surgery, and to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Methods This study adopted a prospective multicenter, open-label, non-randomized concurrent control method to analyze patients who received rectal cancer surgery from 10 colorectal tumor centers across the country from January 2017 to December 2018. The two groups of patients received laparoscopic-assisted surgery and conventional open surgery respectively. All surgeons were selected according to relevant standards and participated in the two groups of operations at the same time. Comprehensive evaluation and analysis of the operation and postoperative recovery, postoperative pathological results, survival information, postoperative related functional scores and other indicators. Results In the open surgery group, the proportion of tumors with a maximum diameter of more than 5 cm was higher (χ2 = 0.089, P = 0.018), and the proportion of T4 was higher (χ2 = 0.478, P < 0.001). In the laparoscopic group, the proportion of more than 12 harvested lymph nodes was higher (χ2 = 0.248, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the length of postoperative hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, time to first flatus after operation, time to first out of bed, time to first liquid diet, and preservation rate of anal sphincter between the two groups, but in the laparoscopic surgery group the operation time was shorter (t = 6.750, P < 0.001) and postoperative pain was less (t = 0.896, 0.63, 0.964, and 0.989 on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, respectively, all P < 0.001). The incidence of grade 2–4 adverse complication in the two groups was 12.5% and 14.6%, respectively, with no statistical difference (χ2 = 0.061, P = 0.105), but the incidence of incision infection was lower in the laparoscopy group (χ2 = 0.19, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 3-year disease-free survival between the two groups (HR = 1.089, 95% CI = 0.962–1.232, P = 0.170). Multivariate analysis suggested that intraoperative blood loss, T stage, N stage, nerve invasion, and postoperative sepsis were independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival. Wexner score, IPSS score and LARS score were not statistically different between the two groups. Conclusion The pathological results and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer are comparable to those of conventional open surgery, and laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients.
Open Right Hemicolectomy:Lateral to Medial or Medial to Lateral Approach?

Pingping Xu,Li Ren,Dexiang Zhu,Qi Lin,Yunshi Zhong,Wentao Tang,Qingyang Feng,Peng Zheng,Meiling Ji,Ye Wei,Jianmin Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145175

IF: 3.7

2015-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:Currently, no published studies have compared the clinical outcomes of the medial-to-lateral approach (MA) and lateral-to-medial approach (LA) for open right hemicolectomy. Thus, the present study aimed to assess whether one of these approaches has any potential benefits over the other.METHODS:A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent open right hemicolectomy with pathologically confirmed disease who met the eligibility criteria between June 2008 and June 2012. The population was divided into an MA group and an LA group by propensity scoring. We compared patient demographic and clinical characteristic variables between the two groups and assessed short-term and long-term outcomes.RESULTS:A total of 450 patients (MA, n = 150; LA, n = 300) were evaluated. The operation time (MA,138.4 minutesvs.LA,166.2 minutes; P < .05) and blood loss (MA,52.0mL vs. LA,62.6mL; P < .05)were significantly lower in the MA group. No differences in the number of harvested lymph nodes and oncologic outcomes were observed between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis for stage III colon cancer revealed that the MA group had significantly more retrieved lymph nodes (MA,18.8vs. LA,16.0; P = .028). There were no differences in other variables between the two groups.CONCLUSIONS:The MA reduced operative time and blood loss compared with the LA. We thus concluded that the MA provided short-term benefits compared with the LA in open right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer.
Comparison of clinical efficacy of different colon anastomosis methods in laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer

Weimin Sun,Jie Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24875/CIRU.23000602

Abstract:Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical effect of overlap anastomosis and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) in laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: The clinical data of 180 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical resection of CRC and side-to-side anastomosis were retrospectively collected; the patients were divided into the Overlap group and FEEA group, according to the anastomosis method that was used to treat them. Results: The Overlap group had a shorter operation time, anastomosis time, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative feeding time, and post-operative exhaust time than the FEEA group (p < 0.05). The total incidence of post-operative complications was 14.4% (13/90) in the FEEA group and 0.7% (6/90) in the Overlap group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Overlapping anastomosis can shorten the operation time and accelerate the recovery of intestinal function without increasing the incidence of post-operative complications, and it will not affect the quality of life and survival of patients in the short term after surgery.
Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgeries for Early-stage Endometrial Carcinoma

Song Xiaochen,Li Meng,Xiong Guangwu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2011.05.009

2011-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopy for endometrial carcinoma in an early stage.Methods From August 2003 to October 2010,79 patients with early-stage endometrial carcinoma who underwent laparoscopic(LPS group,n=56) or laparotomic(LPT group,n=23) surgeries were retrospectively analyzed.The operation time,intraoperative blood loss,number of resected pelvic lymph nodes,gastrointestinal recovery time,and postoperative complications,hospital stay,morbidity and recurrence rate were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results LPS group showed significantly less intraoperative blood loss,and shorter gastrointestinal recovery time and hospital stay [(157.1±111.2) ml vs.(221.7±169.8) ml,t=1.349,P=0.049;t=4.055,P=0.000;and t=2.310,P=0.028,respectively].No significant difference was found in the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes,postoperative complications and morbidity(P>0.05).The patients were followed up until February 2011.The mean follow-up in the LPS group(50 cases) was 28.7 months(ranged from 4 to 82 months),and that in the LPT group was 39.0 months(ranged from 17 to 64 months).In the LPS group,1 patient showed recurrence in 24 months,and 1 patient developed metastasis at the puncture site at month 31,but no patient died.In the LPT group,1 patient showed recurrence in 27 months,and 1 patient died at month 59.No significant difference was found in the recurrent rate between the two groups(P=0.493).Conclusions Compared with open surery,laparoscopic surgery has the advantages of less blood and quick recovery in the treatment of early-stage endometrial carcinoma.It may be another choice for endometrial carcinoma,but its clinical value needs to be confirmed by long-term research.
Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resection in the Multimodality Management of Low Rectal Cancers.

Yu-Wei Wang,Li-Yong Huang,Cheng-Li Song,Chang-Hua Zhuo,De-Bing Shi,Guo-Xiang Cai,Ye Xu,San-Jun Cai,Xin-Xiang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i35.10174

IF: 5.374

2015-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM:To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.METHODS:A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathological results, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Disease-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.RESULTS:No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time (180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss (93.9 ± 60.0 mL vs 88.4 ± 55.2 mL, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes (12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications (12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia (2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time (6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission (11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications (perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed.CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Multicenter Study of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Extra-Levator Versus Conventional Abdominoperineal Excision for Lower Rectal Cancer

Zhanlong Shen,Zhaode Bu,Ang Li,Junyang Lu,Liyu Zhu,Choon Seng Chong,Zhidong Gao,Kewei Jiang,Shan Wang,Fei Li,Yi Xiao,Jiafu Ji,Yingjiang Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.08.017

2020-01-01

Abstract:Background: The surgical and oncological outcome of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) procedure remains unclear in low rectal cancer. Methods: A total of 194 cases of rectal cancer patients underwent ELAPE or conventional abdominoperineal excision (APE) procedure were analyzed in four hospitals' databases from January 2010 to December 2015. Clinicopathological data, overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and local recurrence free survival (LRFS) of patients were compared between two groups. Results: The operation time spent in perineal phase was significantly shorter in the ELAPE group than that in conventional APE procedure (P < 0.001). There were more specimens with excellent or good quality in ELAPE group compared to conventional APE group (P = 0.033). Patients whom underwent ELAPE procedures showed significantly better OS, DFS and LRFS than those underwent conventional APE procedures. Patients with preoperative stage cT3 similar to T4 (P = 0.033, P = 0.008, P = 0,033), cN+ (P = 0.002, P < 0.001, P = 0.006) and pathological stage III-IV (P = 0.023, P = 0.008, P = 0.016) were associated with significant benefits from ELAPE procedure in terms of OS, DFS and LRFS. DFS differed significantly between two groups of patients whom got preoperative chemoradiation therapy (P = 0.009) or postoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.029). For patients of pathological stage IIII-IV without preoperative chemoradiation, ELAPE procedures resulted in statistically better OS (P = 0.018) and DFS (P = 0.030). ELAPE procedure was an independent risk factor of OS, DFS and LRFS in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Low rectal cancer patients might benefit from ELAPE procedure on both surgical and oncological outcomes, especially in patients with relatively advanced tumors, inspite of the effects of preoperative radio- and chemotherapy. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.
[Comparison of clinical efficacy between bursa omentalis approach and medial-to-lateral approach in laparoscopic left hemicolectomy: a propensity score matching analysis]

S J Luo,Y Y Wang,Z S Fan,L J Luo,Y S Zheng,J Li,W Wang,W W Xiong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20200715-00420

2021-10-25

Abstract:Objective: Splenic flexure mobilization is technically difficult during the resection of left hemicolon cancer. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness between the bursa omentalis approach (BOA) and medial-to-lateral approach (MTLA) in laparoscopic radical resection of left-sided colon cancer. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Inclusion criteria: (1) patients underwent radical resection of left hemicolon cancer; (2) the postoperative pathological result was adenocarcinoma; (3) patients aged 18-80 years old; (4) no liver, peritoneal or other distant metastasis. Exclusion criteria: (1) poor physical condition with serious heart, brain, lung, liver, kidney and hematopoietic system diseases; (2) unable to tolerate laparoscopic surgery; (3) history of other malignancies simultaneously, or multisource tumors; (4) emergency operation due to bleeding, obstruction, perforation, etc. Clinical data of 189 patients who underwent laparoscopic left hemicolectomy in the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine from 2014 to 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. According to surgical approaches, patients were divided into the BOA group (52 cases) and MTLA group (137 cases). The whole group of patients were matched by propensity score matching (PSM) according to the nearest neighbor matching method. The caliper value was 0.01. The matching variables included gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, tumor location and tumor stage. After PSM, 47 patients were included in the BOA group and MTLA group, respectively. There were no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups after PSM (all P>0.05). Paired t-test, paired rank sum test and paired Chi-square test were used to compare intraoperative and postoperative paramether between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier method was used to draw the survival curve, and log rank test was used for inter group comparison. When the two survival curves intersect, the two-stage method and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were further performed. Results: Both groups of patients successfully completed the operation without conversion to laparotomy or intraoperative death. No combined splenectomy or pancreatectomy were performed in the two groups. There were also no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, time to the first flatus and the length of hospital stay between the two groups (all P>0.05). However, the median laparoscopic dissection time in the BOA group was shorter than that in the MTLA group, and the difference was statistically significant (median: 56 minutes vs. 65 minutes, P=0.032). No entry to posterior pancreatic space was recorded in the BOA group but wrong entry to posterior pancreatic space happened to 6.4% (3/47) of patients (body mass index >25 kg/m(2)) when dissecting left Toldt's fascia in the MTLA group. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in BOA group and MTLA group was 90.2% and 86.1%, respectively (P=0.909) and the 3-year overall survival rate was 85.6% and 94.4%, respectively (P=0.532). Conclusions: BOA is safe and feasible in laparoscopic left hemicolectomy, especially for inexperienced surgeons. For obese patients, BOA facilitates the entrance into the correct anatomical level and avoid entering the retropancreatic space.

Comparison Of One-Stage Managements In The Treatment Of Obstructing Left-Sided Colorectal Cancer: Endolaparoscopic Approach Vs. Emergency Open Surgery

[Comparison of Surgery for Staging Using Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in Patients with Endometrial Cancer].

Clinical Study of Laparoscopic Vs Open Right Hemicolectomy for Right Colon Cancer

Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection: the different endoscopic techniques for colorectal tumors

Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid and Distal Rectal Cancer

A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy from a Single Surgeon and Open Surgery from Three Surgeons

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus The Open Approach In Curative Resection Of Rectal Cancer

Operational Approaches for Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision in Right Hemicolon Cancer

Clinical Analysis of Laparoscopic Resection of Colorectal Cancer

A comparative analysis of different reduced-port laparoscopic surgical procedures after non-curative endoscopic resection for early colorectal cancer

Comparison between laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision and D2 radical operation in colon carcinoma resection: A propensity score matching analysis

Comparative analysis between laparoscopic and open approaches in treatment of early-stage endome-trial carcinoma

Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hemicolectomy with Curative Intent for Colon Carcinoma

Comparison Of Laparoscopic Versus Open Complete Mesocolic Excision In Elderly Patients With Right Hemicolon Cancer: Retrospective Analysis Of One Single Cancer

Short-term Efficacy Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Laparoscopy for Patients with Rectal Cancer-a Prospective Multi-Center Study

Open Right Hemicolectomy:Lateral to Medial or Medial to Lateral Approach?

Comparison of clinical efficacy of different colon anastomosis methods in laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgeries for Early-stage Endometrial Carcinoma

Laparoscopic Vs Open Abdominoperineal Resection in the Multimodality Management of Low Rectal Cancers.

Multicenter Study of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Extra-Levator Versus Conventional Abdominoperineal Excision for Lower Rectal Cancer

[Comparison of clinical efficacy between bursa omentalis approach and medial-to-lateral approach in laparoscopic left hemicolectomy: a propensity score matching analysis]