Robotic complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation for right colonic tumours - a propensity score-matching study comparing with standard laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) of the right colon with central vascular ligation (CVL) is a technically demanding procedure. This study retrospectively evaluated the feasibility, safety and oncological outcomes of the procedure when performed using the da Vinci® robotic system. METHODS: A prospective case series was collected over 3 years for patients with right colonic cancers treated by standardized robotic CME with CVL using the superior mesenteric vessels first approach. The CME group was compared to a 2 : 1 propensity score-matched non-CME group who had conventional laparoscopic right colectomy with D2 nodal dissection. Primary outcomes were total lymph node harvest and length of specimen. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative complications, and disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: The study included 120 patients (40 in the CME group and 80 in the non-CME group). Lymph node yield was higher (29 versus 18, P = 0.006), the specimen length longer (322 versus 260 mm, P = 0.001) and median operative time was significantly longer (180 versus 130 min, P < 0.001) with robotic CME versus laparoscopy, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was longer with robotic CME, although not significantly (median 6 versus 5 days, P = 0.088). There were no significant differences in R0 resection rate, complications, readmission rates and local recurrence. A trend in survival benefit with robotic CME for disease-free (P = 0.0581) and overall survival (P = 0.0454) at 3 years was documented. CONCLUSION: Robotic CME with CVL is feasible and, although currently associated with a longer operation time, it provides good specimen quality, higher lymph node yield and acceptable morbidity, with a disease-free survival advantage.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

AIM: Evidence supporting the role of laparoscopy in abdominoperineal resection (APR) is limited. This study compared the short-term and long-term outcomes and complications associated with open and laparoscopic APR. METHOD: The Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications comparing open and laparoscopic APR. The rates of local and distant recurrence of rectal cancer were compared as the primary end-point. The occurrence of complications related to the two procedures was studied as the secondary end-point. The adequacy of cancer resection and postoperative recovery were also compared in a secondary analysis. Combined and separate analyses were performed for randomized and non-randomized studies. RESULTS: Eight publications comparing open and laparoscopic APR were identified. The rates of local and distant disease recurrence were lower after laparoscopic surgery compared with open APR (odds ratio 2.736 and 1.994, 95% confidence interval 1.137-6.584 and 1.062-3.742, P = 0.025 and P = 0.032, respectively). Early postoperative complications were fewer after laparoscopic APR (OR 2.159, 95% CI 1.426-3.269, P = 0.000). No significant benefit of either technique was observed in the secondary analysis. CONCLUSION: The long-term oncological benefits of laparoscopic APR are not convincingly superior to open surgery and need further validation. The laparoscopic approach is apparently associated with fewer postoperative complications, yet its role in improving the short-term outcomes is uncertain.

A meta-analysis of ambulatory versus inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is increasingly used on an ambulatory basis. This study aimed to examine its effectiveness for carefully selected patients. METHODS: A systematic review of Cochrane, Embase, and Medline using the keywords "ambulatory," "laparoscopic," and "cholecystectomy" was performed. Postoperative complications leading to admissions and readmissions were compared between day care and inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy groups. Postoperative quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cost effectiveness also were analyzed. RESULTS: The search process identified seven clinical trials suitable for meta-analysis. These trials, consisting of 598 patients, compared day care and inpatient procedures. The unplanned admission rate in the ambulatory group was comparable with the prolonged hospitalization of inpatients (odds ratio [OR], 1.979; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.846-4.628). There was no significant difference between the readmission rates of the two groups (OR, 0.964; 95% CI, 0.318-2.922). The quality-of-life indicators were similar for the ambulatory and overnight-stay patients (p = 0.195). The cost effectiveness was better for the day care procedures because of the shorter mean hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely for selected patients, with reduced cost and a high level of patient satisfaction.