Efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in older adult patients (≥80 years) with primary colorectal cancer.

Background: From 2004 to 2014, 821 colorectal cancer primary resections were conducted at our institution. Of these, 102 patients (12.4%) were older adults over 80 years old. underwent either the conventional laparotomy group (72 patients) or the hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) group (30 patients). Methods: Data were extracted for 102 patients over 80 years old who underwent primary resection for colorectal cancer and were divided into two groups: conventional laparotomy (CL) (n=72) and hand-assisted laparoscopy (n=30). Pre-operative characteristics and outcomes were compared. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for age: CL group median 83.5 years old (range, 80-92 years old) and hand-assisted laparoscopy (HALS) group median 81.5 years old (range, 80-88 years old) (P=0.027). Pre-operative cardiac and lung function risk, performance status, and pathological classification stage (pStage) were almost similar between groups (P=0.668, P=0.176, P>0.999, P=0.217). No significant differences were found for operation time. The HALS group resulted in less blood loss (median 204 mL in the CL group and median 68 mL in the HALS group, P=0.003), shorter postoperative hospital stay (median was 18 days in the CL group and median was 12 days in the HALS group, P<0.001), and fewer postoperative wound infections (18 cases in the CL group and 2 cases in the HALS group, P=0.034). Five-year relapse-free survival (5Y-RFS) was 48.1% in the CL group and 73.3% in the HALS group (P=0.028). Five-year overall survival (5Y-OS) was 48.2% in the CL group and 73.3% in the HALS group (P=0.027). Conclusions: Approximately 70% of surgical treatment for patients over 80 years old with colorectal carcinoma were performed by CL. However, HALS had significant advantages including less blood loss, fewer wound infections, and shorter hospital stays. Therefore, HALS could proactively be considered to older adult patients with colorectal cancer.

The Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Treating Patients with Early Cervical Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of minimally invasive surgery on treating patients with early cervical adenocarcinoma (CA). METHODS: From April 2016 to December 2019, patients with early CA and underwent surgery were prospectively included in this study. They were randomly divided into 2 groups: the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) group and conventional laparotomy (CL) group. The baseline characteristics, pathological features, surgical related parameters, serum tumor markers, complications and prognosis were analyzed and compared between the 2 groups. The risk factors for disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were also analyzed with logistic regression analyses. RESULT: The baseline characteristic and pathological features had no statistical difference between the 2 groups. The mean operation duration in MIS group was significantly longer than CL group (262.39 ± 34.98 vs 241.29 ± 36.98 min, P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss volume (189.87 ± 23.87 vs 306.87 ± 24.98 mL, P < 0.001), postoperative anal exhaust time (45.98 ± 4.39 vs 59.87 ± 4.87 days, P < 0.001), catheter removal time (18.29 ± 3.21 vs 21.53 ± 3.19 days, P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (12.98 ± 2.09 vs 16.98 ± 2.32 days, P < 0.001) were significant lower in MIS group. The serum tumor markers decreased significantly postoperative in both groups with no different levels between the 2 groups. The incidence of complications had no difference between the 2 groups except lymphocysts (P = 0.023). After mean follow up time for 4.23 ± 0.34 years, the DFS rate and OS rate also had no statistical difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.069 and 0.151, respectively). CONCLUSION: Extensive hysterectomy with MIS was equally efficacy and safe to CL.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Laparoscopic and Open Distal Gastrectomy in the Treatment of Gastric Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: The purpose of this article was to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LDG) and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) in the treatment of gastric carcinoma (GC). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched for relevant articles on surgical treatment of GC published from 2010 to 2020. GC patients in the treatment group received LDG, whereas those in the control group received ODG. The evaluation criteria of these two surgical methods included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative first exhaust time, number of dissected lymph nodes, postoperative hospital stay, and incidence of complications. Results: A total of 18 studies, with 2102 patients, which met the criteria were included in this meta-analysis. The analysis results showed that in comparison with the control group, both the incidence rate of complications (odds ratio = 0.31, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.23 to 0.41]) and intraoperative blood loss (standardized mean difference, SMD = -2.72, 95% CI [-3.43 to -2.00]) were lower in the treatment group. In addition, in comparison with the control group, LDG led to an increase in the number of dissected lymph nodes (SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.10 to 0.25], P = .403) and associated with shorter hospital stay (SMD = -1.42, 95% CI [-1.90 to -0.94]) and earlier postoperative first exhaust time (SMD = -2.12, 95% CI [-2.86 to -1.38]). Conclusion: LDG can significantly reduce the incidence of complications of GC, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative exhaust time, and hospital stay, whereas increase the number of lymph node dissection. Therefore, LDG is worthy of clinical application.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted surgery, mini-laparotomy and conventional laparotomy in patients with Stage I-III colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Three operative techniques have been used for colorectal cancer (CRC) resection: Conventional laparotomy (CL) and the mini-invasive techniques (MITs)- laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) and mini-laparotomy (ML). The aim of the study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the three surgical approaches for Stage I-III CRC resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study enrolled 688 patients with Stage I-III CRC undergoing curative resection. The primary endpoints were perioperative quality and outcomes. The secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR). RESULTS: Patients undergoing LAS had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001), earlier first flatus (P = 0.002) and earlier resumption of normal diet (P = 0.025). Although post-operative complication rates were remarkably higher in patients undergoing CL than in those undergoing MITs (P = 0.002), no difference was observed in the post-operative mortality rate (P = 0.099) or 60-day re-intervention rate (P = 0.062). The quality of operation as assessed by the number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R0 resection did not differ among the groups (all P > 0.05). During a median follow-up of 5.42 years, no significant difference was observed among the treatment groups in the rates of 3-year late morbidity, 3-year LR, 5-year LR, 5-year OS or 5-year DFS (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing CL had higher post-operative morbidities. Moreover, the study findings confirm the favourable short-term and comparable long-term outcomes of LAS and ML for curative CRC resection. Therefore, both MITs may be feasible and safe alternatives to CL for Stage I-III CRC resection.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center.

In recent years, the use of laparoscopic surgery has been expanded to include radical curative resection. In a previous study, 212 patients with primary colorectal cancer (stages I-III) underwent radical curative resection by hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (n=98) or conventional laparotomy (CL) (n=114) and were compared with respect to 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS). The study included 210/212 patients who were followed up to 5 years, including 96 patients who underwent HALS and 114 treated with CL. The two groups were matched for stage, clinical background, and postoperative management. Patient characteristics were compared and the 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS were determined. The 5-year follow-up rate was 97.6%. In stage I-III patients, 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS showed no significant differences between HALS and CL. The patients with stage I disease accounted for 41.7% (40/96) of the patients undergoing HALS, while stage I patients only accounted for 23.7% (27/114) of the patients undergoing CL, and the difference was significant (P=0.005). Stage II patients undergoing CL were older than those treated with HALS (P=0.017). However, there were no differences in the characteristics of stage III patients undergoing HALS or CL. In conclusion, HALS achieved a similar survival to CL in patients with stage I to III colorectal cancer. Compared with CL, HALS was performed more safely and achieved superior cosmetic results.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for rectal cancer: Interim results from a single center.

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has become widespread and the indications for such surgery have recently been extended to various conditions, including rectal cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy (CL) in patients with rectal cancer. Patients who underwent radical resection of stage I-III primary rectal cancer (n=111) were classified into those receiving HALS (n=57) and those receiving CL (n=54); the two groups were matched for stage and postoperative treatment. The 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS) were calculated and compared between the two groups. Intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative hospital stay and complications were also compared between the two groups. There were no significant differenceS in 3Y-RFS or 3Y-OS between the HALS and CL groups for patients with all-stage (I, II and III) rectal cancer. The mean (median) intraoperative blood loss was 344.0 (247.0) ML in the HALS group vs. 807.5 (555.5) ML in the CL group (P<0.001). The mean (median) postoperative hospital stay was 19.8 (17) and 25.5 (18.3) days, respectively (P=0.039). There were no significant differences in the operating time or the incidence of complications between the two groups. Based on these results, HALS was found to be comparable to CL regarding survival, while achieving less blood loss and a superior cosmetic outcome. However, longer follow-up is required to confirm these findings.