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.

Prognostic factors for return to work and work disability among colorectal cancer survivors; A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is diagnosed progressively in employed patients due to screening programs and increasing retirement age. The objective of this study was to identify prognostic factors for return to work and work disability in patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: The research protocol was published at PROSPERO with registration number CRD42017049757. A systematic review of cohort and case-control studies in colorectal cancer patients above 18 years, who were employed when diagnosed, and who had a surgical resection with curative intent were included. The primary outcome was return to work or work disability. Potentially prognostic factors were included in the analysis if they were measured in at least three studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the QUality In Prognosis Studies tool. A qualitative synthesis analysis was performed due to heterogeneity between studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: Eight studies were included with a follow-up period of 26 up to 520 weeks. (Neo)adjuvant therapy, higher age, and more comorbidities had a significant negative influence on return to work. A previous period of unemployment, extensive surgical resection and postoperative complications significantly increased the risk of work disability. The quality of evidence for these prognostic factors was considered very low to moderate. CONCLUSION: Health care professionals need to be aware of these prognostic factors to select patients eligible for timely intensified rehabilitation in order to optimize the return to work process and prevent work disability.

GERD: Presence and Size of Hiatal Hernia Influence Clinical Presentation, Esophageal Function, Reflux Profile, and Degree of Mucosal Injury.

A hiatal hernia (HH) is a frequent finding in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We examined a consecutive series of patients with GERD diagnosed by a 24-hour pH monitoring. Based on the presence and size of HH on barium swallow, patients were divided into the following groups: no HH, HH <3 cm, HH 3-5 cm and HH >5 cm. A total of 175 patients were included: 43 with no HH, 86 with HH <3 cm, 34 with HH 3-5 cm, and 12 with HH >5 cm. Patients with larger HH had more frequent episodes of coughing and wheezing associated with episodes of reflux. High-resolution manometry showed that the increasing size of the HH was associated with decreasing pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter and weaker peristalsis. Ambulatory pH monitoring revealed that patients with larger HH had more acid reflux, in both the distal and proximal esophagus. Endoscopy showed that patients with larger HH had more severe esophagitis. Fifty per cent of patients with HH >5.0 cm had Barrett's esophagus. These findings should guide gastroenterologists and surgeons in choosing the appropriate therapy in patients with GERD and large HH.

Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy for Achalasia Technical Aspects.

Esophageal achalasia is a primary esophageal motility disorder defined by the lack of esophageal peristalsis, and by a lower esophageal sphincter that fails to relax in response to swallowing. Patients' symptoms include dysphagia, regurgitation, aspiration, heartburn, and chest pain. Achalasia is a chronic condition without cure, and treatment options are aimed at providing symptomatic relief, improving esophageal emptying, and preventing the development of megaesophagus. Presently, a laparoscopic Heller myotomy with a partial fundoplication is considered the best treatment modality. A properly executed operation is key for the success of a laparoscopic Heller myotomy.

Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy and Fundoplication: What Is the Evidence?

There is no agreement about the best type of fundoplication to add in patients undergoing laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for achalasia to reduce the risk of postoperative gastroesophageal reflux. This article reviews the current evidence about the outcomes in achalasia patients undergoing LHM with a partial anterior, a partial posterior, or a total fundoplication. We performed a review of the literature in PubMed/Medline electronic databases, which was evaluated according to the GRADE system. The results of the published randomized controlled trials show with a high level of evidence that the addition of a fundoplication reduces the risk of postoperative abnormal reflux, without impairing the food emptying of the esophagus. LHM with partial fundoplication is considered in most centers worldwide the standard of care for the treatment of patients with achalasia. The current evidence fails to show any significant difference between partial anterior and posterior fundoplication. In the absence of further large randomized controlled trial, the decision of performing an anterior or a posterior wrap is based on the surgeon's experience and preference. The addition of a partial fundoplication to LHM leads to a significantly lower rate of postoperative pathological reflux without impairing the esophageal emptying.

Local excision for rectal cancer: a minimally invasive option.

Transanal excision (TAE) with conventional retractors and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) are two well established minimally invasive surgical options for the treatment of selected rectal cancers. TEM is nowadays considered the standard of care for the transanal excision of rectal tumors, since it is associated with significantly better quality of excision and lower rates of recurrence than TAE. When compared with rectal resection and total mesorectal excision, TEM has lower postoperative morbidity and better functional outcomes, with similar long-term survival rates in selected early rectal cancers. More recently, transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has been developed as an alternative to TEM. Possible benefits of TAMIS are under evaluation.

Robotic technological aids in esophageal surgery.

Robotic technology is an emerging technology that has been developed in order to overcome some limitations of the standard laparoscopic approach, offering a stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization of the surgical field, increased maneuverability of the surgical tools with consequent increased movement accuracy and precision and improved ergonomics. It has been used for the surgical treatment of most benign esophageal disorders. More recently, it has been proposed also for patients with operable esophageal cancer. The current evidence shows that there are no real benefits of the robotic technology over conventional laparoscopy in patients undergoing a fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal closure for giant hiatal hernia, or Heller myotomy for achalasia. A few small studies suggest potential advantages in patients undergoing redo surgery for failed fundoplication or Heller myotomy, but large comparative studies are needed to better clarify the role of the robotic technology in these patients. Robot-assisted esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective in selected patients; however, there are no data showing superiority of this approach over both conventional laparoscopic and open surgery. The short-term and long-term oncologic results of ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are awaited to validate this approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Long-term Oncologic Outcome After Laparoscopic Converted or Primary Open Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to critically review the current evidence regarding the oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic converted or open resection for colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in Pubmed. Study selection and data acquisition were independently performed by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded a total of 746 articles, resulting in 7 studies eligible for inclusion. A total of 9190 (57 to 8307) patients were included in the open and 238 (17 to 56) in the converted group. In none of the studies, differences were found in disease stage between both groups. There were no significant differences between both groups with regard to overall survival, local recurrence and distant metastasis rate. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence that patients who had a laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer converted to open surgery have a worse oncologic outcome than patients who were primarily treated by an open approach.

Paraesophageal Hernia Repair in the USA: Trends of Utilization Stratified by Surgical Volume and Consequent Impact on Perioperative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The impact of surgical volume on perioperative results after a paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair has not yet been analyzed. We sought to characterize the trend of utilization of this procedure stratified by surgical volume in the USA, and analyze its impact on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective population-based analysis was performed using the National Inpatient Sample for the period 2000-2013. Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent PEH repair were included. Surgical volume was categorized as small (<6 operations/year), intermediate (6-20 operations/year), or high (>20 operations/year). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of surgical volume on patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 63,812 patients were included. Over time, the rate of procedures across high-volume centers increased from 65.8 to 94.4%. The use of the laparoscopic approach was significantly different among the groups (small volume 38.4%; intermediate volume 41.8%; high volume 67.4%; p < 0.0001). Patients undergoing PEH repair at high-volume hospitals were less likely to experience postoperative bleeding, cardiac failure, respiratory failure, and shock. On average, patients at low- and intermediate-volume hospitals stayed 0.8 and 0.6 days longer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A spontaneous centralization towards high-volume centers for PEH repair has occurred in the last decade. This trend is beneficial for patients as it is associated with higher rates of laparoscopic operations, decreased surgical morbidity, and a shorter length of hospital stay.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and morbid obesity: To sleeve or not to sleeve?

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has reached wide popularity during the last 15 years, due to the limited morbidity and mortality rates, and the very good weight loss results and effects on comorbid conditions. However, there are concerns regarding the effects of LSG on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The interpretation of the current evidence is challenged by the fact that the LSG technique is not standardized, and most studies investigate the presence of GERD by assessing symptoms and the use of acid reducing medications only. A few studies objectively investigated gastroesophageal function and the reflux profile by esophageal manometry and 24-h pH monitoring, reporting postoperative normalization of esophageal acid exposure in up to 85% of patients with preoperative GERD, and occurrence of de novo GERD in about 5% of cases. There is increasing evidence showing the key role of the surgical technique on the incidence of postoperative GERD. Main technical issues are a relative narrowing of the mid portion of the gastric sleeve, a redundant upper part of the sleeve (both depending on the angle under which the sleeve is stapled), and the presence of a hiatal hernia. Concomitant hiatal hernia repair is recommended. To date, either medical therapy with proton pump inhibitors or conversion of LSG to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass are the available options for the management of GERD after LSG. Recently, new minimally invasive approaches have been proposed in patients with GERD and hypotensive LES: the LINX® Reflux Management System procedure and the Stretta® procedure. Large studies are needed to assess the safety and long-term efficacy of these new approaches. In conclusion, the recent publication of pH monitoring data and the new insights in the association between sleeve morphology and GERD control have led to a wider acceptance of LSG as bariatric procedure also in obese patients with GERD, as recently stated in the 5th International Consensus Conference on sleeve gastrectomy.