Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a nonrandomized comparative prospective trial in a tertiary center in Mexico City.

Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer remains controversial. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). However, few prospective randomized studies have been performed. The main purpose of our study was to evaluate whether relevant differences in safety and efficacy exist after elective LTME for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with OTME in a tertiary referral medical center. This comparative nonrandomized prospective study analyzes data in 56 patients with middle and lower rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection from November 2005 to November 2007. Follow-up was determined through office charts or direct patient contact. Statistical analysis was performed using chi2 test and Student's t test. Twenty-eight patients underwent LTME and 28 patients were in the OTME group. No conversion was required in the LTME group. Mean operating time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (LTME) (181.3 vs 206.1 min, P < 0.002). Less intraoperative blood loss and fewer postoperative complications were seen in the LTME group. Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after laparoscopic surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and the overall morbidity was 17 per cent in the LTME group versus 32 per cent in the OTME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in the OTME group (12.1 +/- 2 vs 9.3 +/- 3). Mean follow-up time was 12 months (range 9-24 months). No local recurrence was found. LTME is a feasible procedure with acceptable postoperative morbidity and low mortality, however it is technically demanding. This series confirms its safety, although oncologic results are at present comparable with the OTME published series with the limitation of a short followup period. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.

[Open vs. laparoscopic loop ileostomy clousure after colorectal surgery: retrospective analysis]. / Análisis del cierre de ileostomía en asa subsecuente a cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica vs. abierta.

INTRODUCTION: A protective loop ileostomy for a distal anastomosis of the rectum or anus, decreases the risk of sepsis secondary to anastomotic leak or dehiscence. This study examines whether the surgical technique employed in the construction of the anastomosis (open vs. laparoscopic) alters the subsequent closure of ileostomy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to determine whether at the time of a protective ileostomy closure, the fact of doing an initial laparoscopic surgery has advantages over those who underwent open surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a comparative and retrospective analysis of the results of an ileostomy closure with prior open surgery (ICPOS) vs those performed with a prior laparoscopic surgery (ICPLS). Demographic and surgical results were analyzed. Fisher's test and Chi square tests were used. A statistically significant results was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were included: 42 (59.2%) ICPOS and 29 (40.8%) ICPLS. Surgical time and hospital stay were less in the ICPLS group when compared with the ICPOS group. 79 vs. 133 min (p = 0.0001) and 3 vs. 5 days (p = 0.0001). Four patients (66.7%) from the ICPOS group developed ileum, whereas only 2 (33.3% from the ICPLS presented it (p = 0.04). Six patients had surgical wound infection, 5 (83.3%) of them represented the ICPOS group and only 1 (16.7%) represented the ICPLS group (p = 0.01). Four patients (5.6%) had anastomotic dehiscence, all of them were from the ICPOS group (p = 0.0037). On the ICPOS group 6 patients were reinterveined after the ileostomy closure, whereas none from the ICPLS required it (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: An ICPLS seems to have advantages over a ICPOS when analyzing surgical time, hospital stay and surgical ileum development, a lesser infection rate and a lesser re intervention rate at last.

Laparoscopic vs. open total mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer remains controversial. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). However, few prospective randomized studies have been performed. OBJECTIVES: The main purpose was to evaluate whether there are relevant differences in safety and efficacy after elective LTME for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with OTME in a tertiary academic medical center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This comparative non-randomized prospective study analyzes data of 20 patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection (LAR) or abdomino perineal resection (APR) from November 2005 to April 2006. Follow-up was determined through office charts or direct patient contact. Statistical analysis was performed using chi2 test and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent LTME and 10 patients underwent OTME. No conversion was required in the LTME group. Mean operating time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (LTME) (186.7 vs. 204.4 min, p < 0.007). Less intraoperative blood loss and fewer postoperative complications were seen in the LTME group. An earlier return of bowel motility was achieved after laparoscopic surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and the overall morbidity was 20% in the LTME group vs. 40% in the OTME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in OTME group (10.2 +/- 2.5 vs. 8.3 +/- 3). Mean follow-up time was 12 months (range 9-15 months). No local recurrence was found. CONCLUSION: LTME is a feasible procedure with acceptable postoperative morbidity and low mortality, however it is technically demanding. This series confirms its safety, while oncologic results are at present comparable to the OTME published series, with limitation of a short follow-up period though. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.