Andrew R. L. Stevenson

Short-term outcomes of the Australasian Randomized Clinical Study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer The ALCCaS Trial

Background:Laparoscopy has revolutionized many abdominal surgical procedures. Laparoscopic colectomy has become increasingly popular. The short- and long-term benefits and satisfactory surgical oncological treatment of colorectal cancer by laparoscopic-assisted resection remain topical. The long-term outcomes of all international randomized controlled trials are still awaited, and short-term outcomes are important in the interim. Methods:Between January 1998 and April 2005, a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial in patients with colon cancer was conducted. Six hundred and one eligible patients were recruited by 33 surgeons from 31 Australian and New Zealand centers. Patients were allocated to colectomy by either laparoscopic-assisted surgery (n = 294) or open surgery (n = 298). Patient demographics and secondary end-points, such as operative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and histopathological data, will be presented in this article. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Survival will be reported only as the study matures. Results:Histopathological parameters were similar between the two groups, except in regard to distal resection margins. There was no statistically significant difference found in postoperative complications, reoperation rate, or perioperative mortality. Statistically significant differences in quicker return of gastrointestinal function and shorter hospital stay were identified in favor of laparoscopic-assisted resection. A statistically significant increased rate of infective complications was seen in cases converted from laparoscopic-assisted to open procedures but with no difference in reoperation or in-hospital mortality. Conclusions:Laparoscopic-assisted colonic resection gives significant improvements in return of gastrointestinal function and length of stay, with an increased operative time and no difference in the postoperative complication rate.

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection on Pathological Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: The ALaCaRT Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic procedures are generally thought to have better outcomes than open procedures. Because of anatomical constraints, laparoscopic rectal resection may not be better because of limitations in performing an adequate cancer resection. OBJECTIVE To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open rectal cancer resection for adequacy of cancer clearance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial (Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum; ALaCaRT) conducted between March 2010 and November 2014. Twenty-six accredited surgeons from 24 sites in Australia and New Zealand randomized 475 patients with T1-T3 rectal adenocarcinoma less than 15 cm from the anal verge. INTERVENTIONS Open laparotomy and rectal resection (n = 237) or laparoscopic rectal resection (n = 238). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was a composite of oncological factors indicating an adequate surgical resection, with a noninferiority boundary of Δ = -8%. Successful resection was defined as meeting all the following criteria: (1) complete total mesorectal excision, (2) a clear circumferential margin (≥1 mm), and (3) a clear distal resection margin (≥1 mm). Pathologists used standardized reporting and were blinded to the method of surgery. RESULTS A successful resection was achieved in 194 patients (82%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 208 patients (89%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -7.0% [95% CI, -12.4% to ∞]; P = .38 for noninferiority). The circumferential resection margin was clear in 222 patients (93%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 228 patients (97%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -3.7% [95% CI, -7.6% to 0.1%]; P = .06), the distal margin was clear in 236 patients (99%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 234 patients (99%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -0.4% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.0%]; P = .67), and total mesorectal excision was complete in 206 patients (87%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 216 patients (92%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -5.4% [95% CI, -10.9% to 0.2%]; P = .06). The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with T1-T3 rectal tumors, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for successful resection was not established. Although the overall quality of surgery was high, these findings do not provide sufficient evidence for the routine use of laparoscopic surgery. Longer follow-up of recurrence and survival is currently being acquired. TRIAL REGISTRATION anzctr.org Identifier: ACTRN12609000663257.

laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery for Cancer : intermediate to Long-term Outcomes

AbstractPURPOSE: Since 1991, a laparoscopic-assisted resection has been used at the Royal Brisbane Hospital selectively for patients with colorectal cancer. This article audits the intermediate to long-term postoperative complications and cancer follow-up data. METHODS: All patients undergoing a laparoscopic resection for cancer were prospectively followed up with regard to long-term outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients have been studied. One hundred fifty-four patients had potentially curative procedures performed in the study period. Median follow up was 71 (range, 7–108) months. The overall recurrence rate in this group was 6 percent (21 recurrences). There was one port site recurrence after a potentially curative procedure (0.6 percent) and one port site recurrence after a palliative resection. Perioperative mortality was 1 percent (2 patients). Only six patients suffered an adhesive small-bowel obstruction postoperatively. There was one incisional hernia. Unadjusted five-year median survival data for Australian Clinico-pathological Staging A was 91 percent (3.5 percent recurrence); for Australian Clinico-pathological Staging B, 83 percent (15 percent recurrence); and for Australian Clinico-pathological Staging C, 74 percent (26 percent recurrence). CONCLUSION: In selected patients a laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer produces acceptable intermediate to long-term oncologic outcomes and a low long-term complication rate.

Laparoscopically assisted anterior resection for diverticular disease: follow-up of 100 consecutive patients.

PURPOSE The objectives of this study were to refine the technique of laparoscopically assisted anterior resection (LAR) for diverticular disease and to analyze the morbidity and mortality rates, and longer term follow-up of the first 100 consecutive patients. METHODS Data were collected prospectively, and follow-up was performed by an independent assessor using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS The median duration of surgery was 180 minutes, the median time for passage of flatus was 2 days after surgery, and the median length of hospital stay was 4 days. Overall, the morbidity rate was 21%, and the wound infection rate was 5%. There were no deaths. Eight patients underwent open laparotomy. The rate of complications was significantly greater in the latter group of patients (75%) than in those who underwent laparoscopy (16%, p = 0.002). The comparison between the first 20 cases and the last 20 patients revealed a significantly shorter duration of surgery (median 225 min. vs. 150 min.; p < 0.0001) and decreased length of stay (6 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001). Apart from a nonsignificant increase in the length of surgery, there were no differences in other study parameters when comparisons were made between those patients who underwent LAR for complicated diverticular disease and those patients who underwent uncomplicated diverticular disease. FOLLOW-UP Ninety patients were available for follow-up at a median time of 37 months. Ninety-three percent of the patients reported that the surgery had improved their symptoms. No patient required hospitalization, and no one was treated with antibiotics for recurrent symptoms. CONCLUSION Laparoscopically assisted anterior resection for diverticular disease has acceptable morbidity and mortality rates and a median postoperative hospital stay of only 4 days. Follow-up investigations revealed no recurrence of diverticulitis, and patients reported satisfaction regarding cosmetic and functional results.

Long-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study Trial

Objective:We report a multicentered randomized controlled trial across Australia and New Zealand comparing laparoscopic-assisted colon resection (LCR) with open colon resection (OCR) for colon cancer. Background:Colon cancer is a significant worldwide health issue. This trial investigated whether the short-term benefits associated with LCR for colon cancer could be achieved safely, without survival disadvantages, in our region. Methods:A total of 601 patients with potentially curable colon cancer were randomized to receive LCR or OCR. Primary endpoints were 5-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and freedom from recurrence rates, compared using an intention-to-treat analysis. Results:On April 5, 2010, 587 eligible patients were followed for a median of 5.2 years (range, 1 week–11.4 years) with 5-year confirmed follow-up data for survival and recurrence on 567 (96.6%). Significant differences between the 2 trial groups were as follows: LCR patients were older at randomization, and their pathology specimens showed smaller distal resection margins; OCR patients had some worse pathology parameters, but there were no differences in disease stages. There were no significant differences between the LCR and OCR groups in 5-year follow-up of overall survival (77.7% vs 76.0%, P = 0.64), recurrence-free survival (72.7% vs 71.2%, P = 0.70), or freedom from recurrence (86.2% vs 85.6%, P = 0.85). Conclusions:In spite of some differences in short-term surrogate oncological markers, LCR was not inferior to OCR in direct measures of survival and disease recurrence. These findings emphasize the importance of long-term data in formulating evidence-based practice guidelines.

Laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease: follow-up of 500 consecutive patients.

Objective:To examine morbidity, mortality, conversion rates, and disease recurrence after laparoscopic resection of complicated and uncomplicated diverticular disease in a single center. Summary Background Data:In contrast to colorectal cancer, there are few large studies of laparoscopic or open resection for diverticular disease. Methods:This study represents a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all laparoscopic resections for uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis from a single center. Results:Five hundred patients (305 female) were identified (median age 58; range, 26–89). Recurrent diverticulitis was the most common indication for surgery (77%), followed by perforation (10%) and fistulation (9%). Median operating time was 120 minutes (range, 45–285) and median length of hospital stay was 4 (2–33) days. The splenic flexure was routinely mobilized. There was 1 (0.2%) 30-day and in-hospital death and 55 (11%) patients had major morbidity after the procedure. Conversion to an open operation was performed in 14 (2.8%) cases. Dense adhesions were the most common cause for conversion (6 patients). Among patients with complicated diverticulitis, the conversion rate was 5.3%, whereas for those with uncomplicated disease, it was 2.1% (P = ns). Operating time and length of hospital stay do not differ significantly between patients with complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis. The conversion rate has come down from 8% for the first 100 cases to 1.5% for the last 400 cases (P = 0.002). To our knowledge, there have been no cases of recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions:Laparoscopic resection even in complicated cases of diverticulitis is safe and effective. It can be achieved with short operating times and length of stay in conjunction with very low rates of morbidity and mortality. Adherence to surgical principles including routine mobilization of the splenic flexure and anastomosis onto the rectum may explain the absence of disease recurrence in our experience.

Laparoscopic-assisted resection-rectopexy for rectal prolapse: Early and medium follow-up

PURPOSE: Objectives of this study were to describe the technique of laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy and audit the clinical outcomes, including review of functional results. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for duration of operation, time to passage of flatus and feces postoperatively, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Follow-up was performed by an independent assessor using a standardized questionnaire. Patients were also assessed by clinical review or telephone interview. RESULTS: During a four-year period, 34 patients underwent laparoscopic repair for rectal prolapse, of which 30 patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy. Median duration of the operations was 185 minutes, median time for passage of flatus was two days postoperatively, and median length of hospital stay was five days. Morbidity was 13 percent and mortality rate was 3 percent. Comparison between the first ten patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy and the last ten revealed a significant reduction in both median duration of operating time (224vs. 163 minutes;P<0.005) and length of stay (6vs. 4 days;P<0.015). Follow-up study conducted at a median time of 18 months revealed that most patients (92 percent) felt that the operation had improved their symptoms, that incontinence was improved in 14 of 20 patients with impaired continence (70 percent), and that constipation was improved in 64 percent. Symptoms of incomplete emptying and the need to strain at stool were both improved in 62 and 59 percent of patients, respectively. No full-thickness recurrences have occurred, but two patients have had mucosal prolapse detected (7 percent) and treated. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic-assisted resection rectopexy is feasible and safe, with acceptable recurrence rates and functional results compared with the open procedure in the surgical literature. There is rapid return of intestinal function associated with an early discharge from hospital.

Consensus on ventral rectopexy: report of a panel of experts

Ventral rectopexy (VR) has gained in popularity amongst colorectal surgeons as an operation that addresses functional bowel symptoms by correcting anatomical abnormalities in patients with internal (rectal intussusception) and external rectal prolapse. The operation includes fixation of a synthetic or biological implant to the ventral rectum and vaginal vault. There is current concern over the fixation of any material placed transvaginally or paravaginally in pelvic organ prolapse surgery because of the risks of erosion and sepsis [1]. Concerns have also been expressed regarding patient selection for VR, choice of material, operative technique and a lack of high-level evidence. In order to address these concerns, two Consensus Conferences were held, the first on 25 September 2012 at the Austria Trend Hotel, Vienna, Austria and the second on 17 May 2013 at St John’s College, Oxford, UK to develop a consensus opinion from expert colorectal surgeons with a subspeciality of pelvic floor practice and experience of performing VR. Most had performed 100 or more ventral rectopexies.

Laparoscopically-Assisted Resection Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse: Ten Years’ Experience

PURPOSEThis study has been undertaken to audit a single-center experience with laparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. The clinical outcomes and long-term results were evaluated.METHODSThe data were prospectively collected for the duration of the operation, time to passage of flatus postoperatively, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. For follow-up, patients received a questionnaire or were contacted. The data were divided into quartiles over the study period, and the differences in operating time and length of hospital stay were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test.RESULTSBetween March 1992 and October 2003, a total of 117 patients underwent laparoscopic resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse. The median operating time during the first quartile (representing the early experience) was 180 minutes compared with 110 minutes for the fourth quartile (Kruskal-Wallis test for operating time = 35.523, 3 df, P < 0.0001). Overall morbidity was 9 percent (ten patients), with one death (<1 percent). One patient had a ureteric injury requiring conversion. One minor anastomotic leak occurred, necessitating laparoscopic evacuation of a pelvic abscess. Altogether, 77 patients were available for follow-up. The median follow-up was 62 months. Eighty percent of the patients reported alleviation of their symptoms after the operation. Sixty-nine percent of the constipated patients experienced an improvement in bowel frequency. No patient had new or worsening symptoms of constipation after surgery. Two (2.5 percent) patients had full-thickness rectal prolapse recurrence. Mucosal prolapse recurred in 14 (18 percent) patients. Anastomotic dilation was performed for stricture in five (4 percent) patients.CONCLUSIONSLaparoscopically-assisted resection rectopexy for rectal prolapse provides a favorable functional outcome and low recurrence rate. Shorter operating time is achieved with experience. The minimally invasive technique benefits should be considered when offering rectal prolapse patients a transabdominal approach for repair, and emphasis should now be on advanced training in the laparoscopic approach.

A multicenter collaboration to assess the safety of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential risk of mesh complications after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the risk of mesh and nonmesh morbidity after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and to compare the safety of synthetic meshes with biological grafts. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The study used data collated from prospective pelvic floor databases in 5 centers (3 in the United Kingdom, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Italy). PATIENTS: All of the patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral rectopexy over a 14-year period (1999–2013) at these centers were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mesh morbidity, classified as vaginal erosion, rectal erosion, rectovaginal fistula, or perineal erosion. Secondary outcomes were nonmesh morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 2203 patients underwent surgery; 1764 (80.1%) used synthetic mesh and 439 (19.9%) used biological grafts. There were 2 postoperative deaths (0.1%). Forty-five patients (2.0%) had mesh erosion, including 20 vaginal, 17 rectal, 7 rectovaginal fistula, and 1 perineal. Twenty-three patients (51.1%) required treatment for minor erosion morbidity (local excision of stitch/exposed mesh), and 18 patients (40.0%) were treated for major erosion morbidity (12 laparoscopic mesh removal, 3 mesh removal plus colostomy, and 3 anterior resection). Erosion occurred in 2.4% of synthetic meshes and 0.7% of biological meshes. The median time to erosion was 23 months. Nonmesh complications occurred in 11.1% of patients. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study including patients with minimal follow-up. The study was unable to determine whether patients will develop future erosions, currently have asymptomatic erosions, or have been treated in other institutions for erosions. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is a safe operation. Mesh erosion rates are 2% and occasionally require resectional surgery that might be reduced by the use of biological graft. An international ventral mesh registry is recommended to monitor mesh problems and to assess whether type of mesh has any impact on functional outcomes or the need for revisional surgery for nonerosion problems.