Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Single Specialized Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. RESULTS: We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience. CONCLUSIONS: Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754.RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE LA RESECCIÓN ABDOMINOPERINEAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVA VERSUS ABIERTA PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO ESPECIALIZADOANTECEDENTES:Estudios aleatorizados han validado la proctectomía laparoscópica para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto igual a la proctectomía abierta, pero la mayoría de esos estudios han incluido resecciones con preservación del esfínter junto con resección abdominoperineal.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo entre la resección abdominoperineal abierta y mínimamente invasiva.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de una base de datos mantenida de forma prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:Servicio único especializado en cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resección abdominoperineal por cáncer de recto primario entre 2000 y 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a largo plazo.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron 452 pacientes, 372 en el grupo abierto y 80 en el grupo mínimamente invasivo, con una mediana de seguimiento de 74 meses. Hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en términos de tratamiento con radiación neoadyuvante (67,5% del grupo abierto versus 81,3% del grupo mínimamente invasivo, p = 0,01), tiempo operatorio (media de 200 minutos versus 287 minutos, p < 0,0001) y la duración media de la estancia (9,5 días frente a 6,6 días, p < 0,0001). Las tasas generales de complicaciones fueron similares entre los grupos (34,5% versus 27,5%, p = 0,177). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número medio de ganglios linfáticos extraídos (21,7 versus 22,2 ganglios, p = 0,7), márgenes radiales circunferenciales (1,48 cm y 1,37 cm, p = 0,4), ni en la tasa de márgenes radiales afectados (10,8 cm). % versus 6,3%, p = 0,37). La supervivencia general a 5 años fue del 70% en el grupo abierto frente al 80% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,344), mientras que la tasa de supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años en el grupo abierto fue del 63,2% frente al 77,6% en el grupo mínimamente invasivo (p = 0,09).LIMITACIONES:Experiencia en una institución de referencia única.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien ambos tienen resultados perioperatorios similares, el enfoque mínimamente invasivo, beneficia a los pacientes con estadía más corta y menor riesgo de infecciones de la herida quirúrgica. Ambos enfoques, producen una calidad técnica oncológica similar en términos de ganglios linfáticos extraídos y estado de los márgenes, y tienen resultados oncológicos comparables a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B754. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Transanal endoscopic surgery using a single access port: a practical tool in the surgeon's toybox.

BACKGROUND: Large polyps and early carcinomas of the rectum may be excised with transanal endoscopic surgery (TES). Single-port techniques are emerging in the field of colorectal surgery and have been adapted to many colorectal procedures so far. In this article, we aimed to present our initial experience with TES using a single access port with its technical details. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing TES using a single access port between July 2010 and January 2013 were included in the study. Patient demographics, operative technique, and both operative and postoperative outcomes were evaluated and presented. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients (ten males) were included in our study. The median age was 63.5 years (50-84), median American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was 3 (2-4), and median body mass index was 28.8 kg/m(2) (17.4-55.6). Median operating time was 79 min (43-261). Histopathological diagnoses were as follows: tubulovillous adenoma (n = 6), tubular adenoma (n = 4), adenocarcinoma (n = 1), and neuroendocrine tumor (n = 1). Five patients were sent home on the day of surgery and the median postoperative hospital stay was 1 day (0-38). Median estimated blood loss was 22.5 ml (5-150). A transient urinary retention was developed in one patient postoperatively, and two patients had postoperative bleeding. The first of these patients with a long history of anticoagulant usage had rectal bleeding 13 days after surgery, which was successfully managed with medical treatment. The second patient was morbidly obese, had multiple comorbidities, and had rectal bleeding on postoperative day 7 which was managed with local epinephrine injection. He suffered unrelated cardiac death on postoperative day 38. CONCLUSIONS: TES is safe and feasible when using a single port and in the standard laparoscopic setting. The single-port technique may play a major role in the widespread utilization of TES as a treatment for large adenomas and early rectal cancers.

Intraoperative colonoscopy does not worsen the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a case-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative colonoscopy is sometimes needed as an adjunct to colorectal surgery. When it is performed with laparoscopic surgery, there is the potential for prolonged bowel distension, obstructed surgical exposure, and increased morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate the overall safety and outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal procedures in which intraoperative colonoscopy was performed. METHODS: The study group consisted of patients who underwent intraoperative colonoscopy during laparoscopic intestinal resection at our institution between 1995 and 2011. They were individually matched for a number of factors including age, gender, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score, and type of surgical procedure with a cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic intestinal resection with no intraoperative colonoscopy during the same period. Early postoperative outcomes and time to flatus and first bowel movement were compared. RESULTS: For the study, 30 patients (18 females) and 30 matched control subjects were identified. The study and control groups did not differ in terms of operating time (132 vs 151 min; p = 0.5), estimated blood loss (216 vs 212 ml; p = 0.9), conversion to open surgery (n = 1 vs 5; p = 0.2), time to first flatus (3 vs 4 days; p = 0.4), time to first bowel movement (4 vs 4 days; p = 0.4), reoperation (n = 0 vs 1; p = 1), length of hospital stay (6 vs 9 days; p = 0.3), overall morbidity (n = 10 vs 14; p = 0.4), or readmission (n = 0 vs 1; p = 1). The complications that developed during or after surgery were similar in the two groups. No colonoscopy-related complications or deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative colonoscopy does not complicate the application and outcomes of laparoscopic intestinal resection. Surgeons should perform an intraoperative colonoscopy when it is indicated during laparoscopic surgery.