Single-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery shows equivalent or better outcomes to standard laparoscopic surgery: results of a 190-patient, 7-criterion case-match study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-port (SP) surgery has been characterized as having limited applicability regarding procedure, disease, and patient characteristics. There is a question if SP procedures offer disadvantages or advantages to multiport (MP) colorectal surgery. We hypothesize that SP is equivalent to MP and is a safe alternative in the full spectrum of colorectal disease and procedures. METHODS: A case-matched analysis of a prospectively maintained database to compare perioperative outcomes in SP versus MP was performed. Criteria included age, gender, BMI, previous abdominal surgery, previous XRT, disease process, and procedure. 95 exact matches for all 7 criteria were found between 159 SP and 1,617 MP cases. Perioperative outcomes, surgical technique, morbidity, mortality, local recurrence, and 5-year survival were analyzed. RESULTS: There was lower mean EBL in SP but no difference in transfusion requirement. OR time for SP left colectomy was shorter, with a trend to shorter OR times found in all procedures. 99 % SP and 98 % MP had no intra-operative complications. Conversion to open was equivalent (0/1). Mean largest incision was smaller for SP. There were no differences in return of bowel function or length of hospital stay. There were no mortalities. There were no differences in perioperative morbidity, local recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall 5-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: SP is a safe alternative to MP colorectal surgery across the full array of procedures in equivalent patients. This study demonstrates SP has less blood loss, smaller incisions, is quicker in left colectomy, and tends to be quicker across all procedures. Conversion and morbidity rates are equivalent to MP, without compromise in quality of surgical technique. While proper training is essential, concerns regarding the inability to use SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery safely are unfounded in nearly exactly matched patients. These issues will require further study as SP laparoscopic colorectal surgery is practiced more widely.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery with entrance into the peritoneal cavity: is it safe?

BACKGROUND: Relative contraindications for transanal endoscopic microsurgery include high, anterior-based lesions for full-thickness excisions because of worries about entering the peritoneal cavity. Concerns exist regarding safety and oncological outcome. OBJECTIVE: We examined the outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery excisions with entry into the peritoneal cavity and compared them with those that did not to address our hypothesis that entry is safe with no ill infectious or oncological consequences. DESIGN: This single-institution retrospective review uses a prospectively maintained database. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary colorectal surgery referral center. PATIENTS: From 1997 to 2012, we identified 303 patients who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery resections, with 26 patients having entrance into the peritoneal cavity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative data, postoperative morbidities, delayed morbidities, and oncological outcomes were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: Of 26 patients, there were 8 women with a mean age of 67.5 years. Mean BMI was 31 kg/m, and ASA class was III or IV in 69%. Mean superior border of the lesion was 10.4 cm (4.5-16). Forty-eight percent had anterior-based lesions. Anterior location, level from anorectal ring, and diagnosis of cancer were significantly higher in the peritoneal entry group (p = 0.003, p = 0.007, and p = 0.007). Preoperative diagnoses included 16 adenocarcinomas, 8 polyps, and 2 carcinoid tumors. Thirteen patients had preoperative chemoradiation. Median estimated blood loss was 15 mL (5-400), and 3 patients underwent diversions. Median time to discharge was 3 days (2-10). There were no perioperative mortalities. Median follow-up time was 21.0 months. There was 1 local recurrence (3.8%), and there was no development of carcinomatosis. LIMITATIONS: This review was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: High anterior location rectal lesions should be considered candidates for transanal endoscopic microsurgery excision in experienced hands. After obtaining considerable transanal endoscopic microsurgery experience, our use of transanal endoscopic microsurgery in a high-risk patient population allowed us to definitively treat 88% of patients without an abdominal operation and the need for a temporary or permanent colostomy. Theoretic concerns of abscess or carcinomatosis were not experienced (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A154).

Maximizing rectal cancer results: TEM and TATA techniques to expand sphincter preservation.

Rectal cancer management benefits from a multidisciplinary approach involving medical and radiation oncology as well as surgery. Presented are the current dominant issues in rectal cancer management with an emphasis on our treatment algorithm at the Lankenau Medical Center. By basing surgical decisions on the downstaged rectal cancer we explore how sphincter preservation can be extended even for cancers of the distal 3 cm of the rectum. TATA and TEM techniques can be used to effectively treat cancer from an oncologic standpoint while maintaining a high quality of life through sphincter preservation and avoidance of a permanent colostomy. We review the results of our efforts, including the use of advanced laparoscopy in the surgical management of low rectal cancers.