Should be a locally advanced colon cancer still considered a contraindication to laparoscopic resection?

BACKGROUND: The role of elective laparoscopic resection (LR) for the treatment of locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) is unclear. Most studies have retrospectively investigated the outcomes of LR for pT4 cancers, while clinical T4 (cT4) cancers are excluded in the large randomized controlled trials comparing LR and open resection (OR). The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes in patients undergoing elective LR for LACC. METHODS: A prospective single-institution database including consecutive patients undergoing elective LR for clinical LACC (high-risk T3 or T4 N0-2) between March 1996 and March 2017 was retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of conversion to OR and risk factors for adverse oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients undergoing LR for LACC were included. A multi-visceral resection was needed in 17 (5.7%) patients. A total of 63 (21%) LRs were converted to OR, mainly due to suspected adjacent organ invasion (82.5%) or obesity (9.5%). Overall postoperative Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complication rate was 4.7%, with no significant differences between completed and converted LRs. Final pathology showed 18 (6%) pT2, 215 (71.7%) pT3, 54 (18%) pT4a, and 13 (4.3%) pT4b cancers. A R0 resection was achieved in 98.3% of patients. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 7 cm and tumor site (splenic flexure) were the independent risk factors for conversion to OR. A pT4 colon cancer and LNR of 0.25 or greater, but not conversion to OR, were independently associated with both poorer OS and DFS. CONCLUSION(S): Clinical LACC should not be considered a contraindication to LR itself. Bulky tumors ≥ 7 cm and splenic flexure cancers are at higher risk of conversion to OR; however, there is no increased postoperative morbidity or adverse oncologic outcomes in converted patients.

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive (Laparoscopic and Robotic) Colorectal Cancer Surgery.

Current high-quality evidence supports the routine use of the laparoscopic approach for patients with colon cancer. Laparoscopic colectomy is associated with earlier resumption of gastrointestinal function and shorter hospital stay, with no increased morbidity or mortality. Pathology and long-term oncologic outcomes are similar to those achieved with open surgery. The absolute benefits of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer are still under evaluation. While its safety in terms of early postoperative clinical outcomes has been confirmed, two recent randomized controlled trial (RCTs) have questioned its routine use even in expert hands, since its non-inferiority has not been demonstrated when compared with the gold standard of open surgery. Furthermore, the impact of robotic technology is still unclear, since the only RCT available so far failed to demonstrate any benefits compared with standard laparoscopic rectal resection.

Intracorporeal or Extracorporeal Ileocolic Anastomosis After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: A Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine whether there are clinically relevant differences in outcomes between laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) and LRC with extracorporeal IA (EIA). BACKGROUND: IIA and EIA are 2 well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after LRC. There are no high-quality studies demonstrating the superiority of one anastomotic technique over the other. METHODS: This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a benign or malignant right-sided colon neoplasm. Primary endpoint was length of hospital stay (LOS). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03045107. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Median operative time was comparable in IIA versus EIA group {130 [interquartile range (IQR) 105-195] vs 130 (IQR 110-180) min; P = 0.770} and no intraoperative complications occurred. The quicker recovery of bowel function after IIA than EIA [gas: 2 (IQR 2-3) vs 3 (IQR 2-3) days, P = 0.003; stool: 4 (IQR 3-5) vs 4.5 (IQR 3-5) days, P = 0.032] was not reflected in any advantage in the primary endpoint: median LOS was similar in the 2 groups [6 (IQR 5-7) vs 6 (IQR 5-8) days; P = 0.839]. No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, length of skin incision, 30-day morbidity (17.1% vs 15.7%, P = 0.823), reoperation rate, and readmission rate between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: LRC with IIA is associated with earlier recovery of postoperative bowel function than LRC with EIA; however, it does not reflect into a shorter LOS.

Surgical Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) affects an estimated 20% of the population in the USA, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Lifestyle modifications and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) therapy are effective in the majority of patients and remain the mainstay of treatment of GERD. However, some patients will need surgical intervention because they have partial control of symptoms, do not want to be on long-term medical treatment, or suffer complications related to PPI therapy. AIMS: The aim of this study was to review the available evidence that supports laparoscopic antireflux surgery, and to study the effect of surgical therapy on the natural history of GERD. RESULTS: The key elements for the success of antireflux surgery are proper patient selection, careful analysis of the indications for surgery, complete pre-operative work-up, and proper execution of the surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: When the key elements are respected, antireflux surgery is very effective in controlling GERD, and it is associated to minimal morbidity and mortality.

Gastroesophageal Reflux and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive interstitial lung disease of unknown origin that affects about 40,000 new patients every year in the USA. Albeit the disease is labelled as idiopathic, it is thought that pathologic reflux, often silent, plays a role in its pathogenesis through a process of microaspiration of gastric contents. AIMS: The aim of this study was to review the available evidence linking reflux to IPF, and to study the effect of medical and surgical therapy on the natural history of this disease. RESULTS: Medical therapy with acid-reducing medications controls the production of acid and has some benefit. However, reflux and aspiraion of weakly acidic or alkaline gastric contents can still occur. Better results have been reported after laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery, as this form of therapy re-establishes the competence of the lower esophageal sphincter, therefore stopping any type of reflux. CONCLUSIONS: A phase II NIH study in currently in progress in the USA to determine the role of antireflux surgery in patients with GERD and IPF. The hope is that this simple operations might alter the natural history of IPF, avoiding progression and the need for lung transplantation.

Increased Esophageal Exposure to Weakly Acidic Reflux 5 Years After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term effects of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) on gastroesophageal function. BACKGROUND: LRYGB is considered the weight loss procedure of choice for obese patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, long-term instrumental evaluations of GERD after LRYGB are not available. METHODS: Morbidly obese patients selected for LRYGB were included in a prospective study. We performed clinical evaluation with GERD-HRQoL questionnaire, upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-hour impedance pH (24-hour MII-pH) monitoring preoperatively and at 12 and 60 months after surgery. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT02618044). RESULTS: From May 2006 to May 2009, 86 patients entered the study and 72 (84%) completed the 5-year protocol. At preoperative 24-hour MII-pH monitoring, 54 patients (group A) had normal values, whereas 32 (group B) had diagnosis of GERD: 23 had acidic reflux, whereas 9 had combined reflux [acidic + weakly acidic reflux (WAR)]. The groups were similar in preoperative age, body mass index, and comorbidities. At 12 and 60 months, significant improvement in questionnaire scores was observed in group B patients. No manometric changes occurred in both groups; 24-hour MII-pH monitoring showed a significant reduction in acid exposure, but an increase of WAR in both group A (from 0% to 52% to 74%) and group B (from 35% to 42% to 77%). At long-term follow-up, esophagitis was found in 14 group A (30%) and in 18 group B patients (69%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB allows to obtain an effective GERD symptom amelioration and a reduction in acid exposure. However, 3 out 4 patients present with distal esophagus exposure to WAR.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer: T1 and beyond? An evidence-based review.

BACKGROUND: The last three decades have witnessed significant improvements in the diagnosis, staging and treatment of rectal cancer leading to a more tailored approach. One of the most clinically relevant advances in this field is represented by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Several studies have investigated its role in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, evidence-based recommendations are limited. The aim of this report is to provide an evidence-based review of current indications, controversies and future perspectives of TEM in the management of rectal cancer. METHODS: A review of the literature has been performed in PubMed/Medline electronic databases and the Cochrane Library. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE system. RESULTS: TEM allows to perform a more accurate en bloc full-thickness local excision of rectal tumors than transanal excision. TEM alone seems to provide similar oncologic results in selected T1sm1 N0 rectal cancers to those achieved by rectal resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), without impairing anorectal function. The oncologic outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by TEM for selected T2 N0 rectal cancers are promising, but this approach is still under evaluation. A word of caution comes from the increased rate of suture dehiscence and rectal pain after TEM. TEM is a promising tool for the surgical treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer as a platform for transanal TME. CONCLUSIONS: Selected T1 rectal cancers with favorable features may be effectively treated with TEM without jeopardizing long-term oncologic outcomes. The lack of adequate lymphadenectomy represents the main concern of this approach for the treatment of rectal cancer. Several approaches are under evaluation to overcome this limitation.

10-Year Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic or Open Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Only few studies have compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) and open total mesorectal excision (OTME) for rectal cancer with follow-up longer than 5 years. The aim of this study was to compare 10-year oncologic outcomes after LTME and OTME for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of rectal cancer patients undergoing LTME or OTME. Statistical analyses were performed on an ''intention-to-treat'' basis and by actual treatment. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared by using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival. RESULTS: Between April 1994 and August 2005, a total of 153 LTME patients and 154 OTME patients were included. Similarly, 10-year OS and DFS after LTME and OTME were observed: 76.8 versus 70.6 % (P = 0.138) and 69.1 versus 67.6 % (P = 0.508), respectively. Conversion to OTME did not adversely affect OS and DFS. Stage-by-stage comparison showed no significant differences between LTME and OTME. No significant differences were observed in local recurrence rates after LTME and OTME (6.5 vs. 7.8 %, P = 0.837). Median time until local recurrence was 24.5 (range, 12-56) months after LTME and 22 (6-64) months after OTME (P = 0.777). Poor tumor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and a lymph node ratio of 0.25 or more were the independent predictors of poorer OS and DFS. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study with long follow-up did not show significant differences between the two groups in OS and DFS.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for colon cancer: 10-year outcomes of a prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection (LR) and open resection (OR) for colon cancer have similar oncologic outcomes at 5-year follow-up. However, results from studies with longer follow-up are limited. This study aimed to compare 10-year oncologic outcomes of LR and OR for non-metastatic colon cancer. METHODS: A prospective non-randomized trial comparing patients undergoing LR or OR for non-metastatic colon cancer at a single institution was conducted. Statistical analyses were performed on an ''intention-to-treat'' basis and by actual treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of poor survival. RESULTS: The study included 304 colon cancer patients: 154 patients underwent LR and 150 underwent OR. Fifteen (9.7 %) had LR converted to OR. During a median follow-up period of 138 (range, 120-220) months, no significant differences were observed between LR and OR patients in 10-year OS and DFS rates: 87.2 % versus 78.7 % (P = 0.182) and 80.9 % versus 76.8 % (P = 0.444), respectively. Conversion to open surgery was associated with a non-significant reduction in OS and DFS. Stage-by-stage comparison showed no significant differences between the two groups. Both OS and DFS were similar between right colon and left-sided colon cancer patients. On multivariate analysis, pT4 cancer and a lymph node ratio of 0.20 or more were the only independent predictors of both OS and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-year follow-up results confirm the oncological effectiveness of the laparoscopic approach to non-metastatic colon cancer.

Heller myotomy for achalasia. From the open to the laparoscopic approach.

The last three decades have witnessed a progressive evolution in the surgical treatment of esophageal achalasia, with a shift from open to a minimally invasive Heller myotomy. The laparoscopic approach is currently the standard of care with better short-term outcomes and similar long-term functional results when compared to open surgery. More recently, the laparoscopic single-site approach and the use of the robot have been proposed to further improve the surgical outcome in achalasia patients.

Recurrent symptoms after Heller myotomy for achalasia: evaluation and treatment.

A laparoscopic Heller myotomy with partial fundoplication is considered today in most centers in the United States and abroad the treatment of choice for patients with esophageal achalasia. Even though the operation has initially a very high success rate, dysphagia eventually recurs in some patients. In these cases, it is important to perform a careful work-up to identify the cause of the failure and to design a tailored treatment plan by either endoscopic means or revisional surgery. The best results are obtained by a team approach, in Centers where radiologists, gastroenterologists, and surgeons have experience in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease.

Antireflux surgery for dysplastic Barrett.

INTRODUCTION: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the result of continuous injury of the esophageal mucosa by gastric refluxate. This condition can progress to low-grade (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and eventually to adenocarcinoma. While excellent results are reported in terms of reflux and symptom control in patients with BE undergoing antireflux surgery (ARS), the impact of a fundoplication on progression and regression of dysplasia is debated. The aim of this article is to review the effects of ARS on regression and progression of LGD to HGD or cancer in patients with dysplastic BE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the literature in PubMed/Medline electronic databases has been performed. RESULTS: ARS might decrease but not eliminate the risk of progression to dysplasia or cancer in BE patients. ARS may promote regression of dysplastic BE only in short-segment BE, but not in long-segment BE. Modulation of gene expression is involved in the genesis and reversion of short-segment intestinal metaplasia after ARS. CONCLUSIONS: Close and long-term surveillance by 24-hour pH monitoring and upper endoscopy is recommended in BE patients who undergo ARS to identify postoperative pathological reflux, and to early detect dysplasia or even adenocarcinoma. Further studies are requested to assess the molecular effects of ARS in dysplastic BE.

Is resection of an esophageal epiphrenic diverticulum always necessary in the setting of achalasia?

BACKGROUND: Esophageal epiphrenic diverticulum (ED) is usually secondary to a primary esophageal motility disorder, such as achalasia. Whereas the recommended surgical treatment includes esophageal myotomy and diverticulectomy, the outcome of patients in whom a myotomy without ED resection is performed is not known. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of ED patients who underwent ED resection and myotomy and those of ED patients who had a myotomy only. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospective database. Thirteen ED patients had symptom evaluation, barium swallow, endoscopy, and esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). All patients underwent laparoscopic myotomy and Dor fundoplication. In six patients, the ED was resected (excised ED group), whereas in seven it was left in place (nonexcised ED group): in three because it was small and in four for technical reasons. RESULTS: Preoperatively all patients had dysphagia and 85 % had regurgitation. The mean preoperative Eckardt score was 6.5 ± 2.1 in excised ED group and 6.6 ± 3.3 in nonexcised ED group (p = 0.95). HRM showed type II esophageal achalasia in 85 % of patients. One excised ED group patient had a staple line leak (17 %). At a median follow-up of 2 years, the Eckardt score was 0 in excised ED group and 0.1 in nonexcised ED group (p = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that patients in whom a myotomy without ED resection was performed had resolution of their symptoms. These findings suggest that in patients with achalasia and ED the underlying motility disorder rather than the ED may be the cause of symptoms. Studies with a larger number of patients and a longer follow-up will determine the validity of this approach.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a physiopathologic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in morbidly obese patients. BACKGROUND: Symptomatic GERD is considered by many a contraindication to LSG. However, studies evaluating the relationship between LSG and GERD by 24-hour pH monitoring are lacking. METHODS: Consecutive morbidly obese patients selected for LSG were included in a prospective clinical study. Gastroesophageal function was evaluated using a clinical validated questionnaire, upper endoscopy, esophageal manometry, and 24-hour pH monitoring before and 24 months after LSG. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT02012894). RESULTS: From June 2009 to September 2011, a total of 71 patients were enrolled into the study; 65 (91.5%) completed the 2-year protocol. On the basis of preoperative 24-hour pH monitoring, patients were divided into group A (pathologic, n=28) and group B (normal, n=37). Symptoms improved in group A, with the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale score decreasing from 53.1±10.5 to 13.1±3.5 (P<0.001). The DeMeester score and total acid exposure (% pH<4) decreased in group A patients (DeMeester score from 39.5±16.5 to 10.6±5.8, P<0.001; % pH<4 from 10.2±3.7 to 4.2±2.6, P<0.001). Real "de novo" GERD occurred in 5.4% group B patients. No significant changes in lower esophageal sphincter pressure and esophageal peristalsis amplitude were found in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: LSG improves symptoms and controls reflux in most morbidly obese patients with preoperative GERD. In obese patients without preoperative evidence of GERD, the occurrence of "de novo" reflux is uncommon. Therefore, LSG should be considered an effective option for the surgical treatment of obese patients with GERD.

Postoperative portomesenteric venous thrombosis: lessons learned from 1,069 consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections.

BACKGROUND: Portomesenteric venous thrombosis (PVT) is a known complication after open and laparoscopic colorectal (LCR) surgery. Risk factors and the prognosis of PVT have been poorly described. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Patients with new-onset postoperative abdominal pain were evaluated with a computed tomography scan of the abdomen. Patients found to have PVT were analyzed. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of PVT. RESULTS: A total of 1,069 patients undergoing LCR surgery for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or nonmetastatic cancer between June 2002 and June 2012 were included. Altogether, 37 (3.5 %) patients experienced symptomatic postoperative PVT. On univariate analysis, IBD (p < 0.001), ulcerative colitis (p = 0.016), preoperative therapy with steroids (p = 0.008), operative time ≥220 min (p = 0.004), total proctocolectomy (TPC) (p < 0.001), ileoanal pouch anastomosis (p = 0.006), and postoperative intraabdominal septic complications (p < 0.001) were found to be significant risk factors. By multivariate analysis, TPC (p = 0.026) and postoperative intraabdominal septic complications (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of PVT. In the PVT group, postoperative length of stay was longer (14.8 vs. 7.4 days, p < 0.001). Of the patients evaluated with a hematologic workup, 72.7 % were found to have a hypercoagulable condition. All patients were managed with oral anticoagulation for at least 6 months. No death or complications related to PVT occurred. CONCLUSIONS: PVT is a potentially serious complication that is more likely to occur after TPC and in the presence of postoperative intraabdominal septic complications, particularly in patients with a coagulation disorder. Prompt diagnosis and treatment with oral anticoagulation are recommended to avoid long-term sequelae.