Comparison of 30-Day Postoperative Outcomes after Laparoscopic vs Robotic Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: The robotic platform has been used increasingly to perform colorectal surgery. The benefits of robotic colectomy when compared with laparoscopic colectomy have not been definitively established. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of the NSQIP database was performed on patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or robotic colectomy in 2013. Demographic characteristics, length of stay, operative time, and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of the 17,774 colectomies performed during the study period, 11,267 (63.4%) were performed laparoscopically and 653 (3.7%) were performed robotically. In comparison with laparoscopic colectomy, robotic colectomy was associated with increased operative time (233 vs 180 minutes; p < 0.01) and decreased length of stay (5.04 vs 6.06 days; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to mortality (0.2% vs 0.4%; p < 0.312), anastomotic leak (3.4% vs 3.1%; p = 0.715), reoperation (4.9% vs 4.0%; p = 0.27), conversion (10.3% vs 12.2%; p = 0.13), or readmission (9.3% vs 8.7%; p = 0.593) rates. The differences in length of stay and operative time persisted in the right colectomy and left colectomy/sigmoid resection subgroup analysis with no difference in conversion rates. CONCLUSIONS: In this head-to-head comparison of laparoscopic colectomy and robotic colectomy, the majority of postoperative outcomes were equivalent, except for an increase in operative time and shorter length of stay in the robotic group. Robotic colectomy appears to be a safe option for minimally invasive colectomy, but additional studies are needed to elucidate whether it is cost-effective when compared with laparoscopic colectomy.

Timing of colonoscopy after resection for colorectal cancer: are we looking too soon?

BACKGROUND: Based on current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, colonoscopic surveillance after colorectal cancer resection should begin at 1 year. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the incidence of cancer or advanced polyp detection rate was high enough to justify colonoscopy at 1 year. DESIGN: The Ochsner Clinic Tumor Registry Database was queried for patients who underwent a segmental colectomy or proctectomy between 2002 and 2010. Patients who had a preoperative colonoscopy and at least 1 documented postoperative colonoscopy were included. We considered new cancer or polyps of ≥1 cm as missed on the preoperative colonoscopy. Patients with an identified genetic trait causing a predisposition to colorectal cancer were excluded. RESULTS: Five hundred twelve patients underwent resection, and 155 met our inclusion criteria. The average age was 64 years, and 53% patients were male. There were 32.9% with stage I disease, 35% with stage II disease, 27.1% with stage III disease, and 5.2% with stage IV disease. Of these patients, 52.2% had a right colectomy, 7.1% had a left colectomy, 16.8% had a sigmoid colectomy, 22% had a low anterior resection, and 1.3% had a transanal resection. The average time to first postoperative colonoscopy was 478 days (SD ±283 days). Twenty-four patients had adenomatous polyps detected on their first surveillance colonoscopy, but only 5 (3.2%) polyps were ≥1 cm, and there was no correlation between stage of cancer and finding a polyp. No new cancers were detected, but 3 (1.9%) had an anastomotic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of surveillance colonoscopy at 1 year resulted in the detection of only 5 missed polyps ≥1 cm and no metachronous cancers. Anastomotic recurrences were rare, and the majority were in patients who had rectal cancer that could be evaluated by in-office flexible sigmoidoscopy. Extending the time to first colonoscopy appears to be safe and would help conserve valuable resources, including physician and facility time, which is imperative in the current health care climate.

Solitary neurofibroma of the anal canal: report of two cases.

Neurofibromas are benign nerve sheath tumors commonly found in patients afflicted with neurofibromatosis-1. In the absence of multiple neurofibromas or a diagnosis of neurofibromatosis-1, neurofibromas are referred to as solitary and have been reported to involve the skin, subcutaneous tissue, deep soft tissue, and viscera of almost all areas of the body. A neurofibroma involving the anal canal is a rare entity, with only one report in the literature. We present two cases in which large masses involving the anal canal of elderly females were locally resected and proved to be neurofibromas by histopathology. Although rare, these tumors should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with an anal mass, because resection alone is the treatment of choice.

Defining the role of laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy for the treatment of diverticulitis. METHODS: The Norfolk Surgical Group Laparoscopic Surgery Registry identified all patients undergoing laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery. Retrospective chart review was performed for all patients undergoing elective sigmoid resection for a final diagnosis of diverticulitis and minimum follow-up of 12 months. Demographic data, indications for surgery, operative data, conversion rate, reason for conversion, complications, postoperative course (days to flatus and regular diet), and length of stay were identified. A telephone survey determined the incidence of recurrent diverticulitis. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the frequency of conversion over time, to determine risk factors for conversion, and to compare the laparoscopic-assisted and conversion groups with regard to postoperative days to flatus, regular diet, and discharge. RESULTS: From June 1992 to September 1997, elective laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy was attempted in 69 patients. Uncomplicated recurrent diverticulitis was the most common indication for surgery, occurring in 51 of 69 patients (75 percent). No deaths occurred. Complications were identified in seven patients (10.1 percent) including one wound infection and one incarcerated port-site hernia with small bowel obstruction. There were no anastomotic leaks or major septic complications. Conversion to laparotomy occurred in 18 of 69 patients (26 percent). Uncomplicated, recurrent diverticulitis was associated with conversion in 7 of 51 patients (14 percent), whereas complicated diverticulitis required conversion in 11 of 18 patients (61 percent). Logistic regression identified fistula and abscess as predictors of conversion (P = 0.0009). Comparison of the laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy group with the conversion group revealed that postoperative days to regular diet were 3.5 and 5.2 (P = 0.0004), respectively, and lengths of stay were 4.2 and 6.4 days (P < 0.0001), respectively. No difference was noted with regard to operative time or postoperative complications. Median follow-up was 48 (range, 13-76) months, and a single recurrence of diverticulitis has been identified. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis can be safely performed. Conversion appears to be associated with complicated diverticulitis (fistula or abscess), which may be better approached by laparotomy. Short-term follow-up indicates that recurrence is rare and suggests that laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy achieves adequate resection. Laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid colectomy offers benefits of decreased ileus and length of stay and may represent the procedure of choice for elective resection for uncomplicated sigmoid diverticulitis.