Miguel A. Cuesta

Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND The safety and short-term benefits of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer remain debatable. The multicentre COLOR (COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection) trial was done to assess the safety and benefit of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for curative treatment of patients with cancer of the right or left colon. METHODS 627 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic surgery and 621 patients to open surgery. The primary endpoint was cancer-free survival 3 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, metastasis, overall survival, and blood loss during surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. Here, clinical characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative outcome are reported. FINDINGS Patients assigned laparoscopic resection had less blood loss compared with those assigned open resection (median 100 mL [range 0-2700] vs 175 mL [0-2000], p<0.0001), although laparoscopic surgery lasted 30 min longer than did open surgery (p<0.0001). Conversion to open surgery was needed for 91 (17%) patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure. Radicality of resection as assessed by number of removed lymph nodes and length of resected oral and aboral bowel did not differ between groups. Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with earlier recovery of bowel function (p<0.0001), need for fewer analgesics, and with a shorter hospital stay (p<0.0001) compared with open colectomy. Morbidity and mortality 28 days after colectomy did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION Laparoscopic surgery can be used for safe and radical resection of cancer in the right, left, and sigmoid colon.

Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer : long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer. METHODS Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842. FINDINGS During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]). INTERPRETATION Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to open surgery in patients with rectal cancer has not yet been shown to be oncologically safe. The aim in the COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR II) trial was to compare laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS A non-inferiority phase 3 trial was undertaken at 30 centres and hospitals in eight countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge without evidence of distant metastases were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio, stratified by centre, location of tumour, and preoperative radiotherapy. The study was not masked. Secondary (short-term) outcomes-including operative findings, complications, mortality, and results at pathological examination-are reported here. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding those patients with post-randomisation exclusion criteria and for whom data were not available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00297791. FINDINGS The study was undertaken between Jan 20, 2004, and May 4, 2010. 1103 patients were randomly assigned to the laparoscopic (n=739) and open surgery groups (n=364), and 1044 were eligible for analyses (699 and 345, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic surgery group lost less blood than did those in the open surgery group (median 200 mL [IQR 100-400] vs 400 mL [200-700], p<0·0001); however, laparoscopic procedures took longer (240 min [184-300] vs 188 min [150-240]; p<0·0001). In the laparoscopic surgery group, bowel function returned sooner (2·0 days [1·0-3·0] vs 3·0 days [2·0-4·0]; p<0·0001) and hospital stay was shorter (8·0 days [6·0-13·0] vs 9·0 days [7·0-14·0]; p=0·036). Macroscopically, completeness of the resection was not different between groups (589 [88%] of 666 vs 303 [92%] of 331; p=0·250). Positive circumferential resection margin (<2 mm) was noted in 56 (10%) of 588 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 30 (10%) of 300 in the open surgery group (p=0·850). Median tumour distance to distal resection margin did not differ significantly between the groups (3·0 cm [IQR 2·0-4·8] vs 3·0 cm [1·8-5·0], respectively; p=0·676). In the laparoscopic and open surgery groups, morbidity (278 [40%] of 697 vs 128 [37%] of 345, respectively; p=0·424) and mortality (eight [1%] of 699 vs six [2%] of 345, respectively; p=0·409) within 28 days after surgery were similar. INTERPRETATION In selected patients with rectal cancer treated by skilled surgeons, laparoscopic surgery resulted in similar safety, resection margins, and completeness of resection to that of open surgery, and recovery was improved after laparoscopic surgery. Results for the primary endpoint-locoregional recurrence-are expected by the end of 2013. FUNDING Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe, Swedish Cancer Foundation, West Gothia Region, Sahlgrenska University Hospital.

Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Surgical resection is regarded as the only curative option for resectable oesophageal cancer, but pulmonary complications occurring in more than half of patients after open oesophagectomy are a great concern. We assessed whether minimally invasive oesophagectomy reduces morbidity compared with open oesophagectomy. METHODS We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at five study centres in three countries between June 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011. Patients aged 18-75 years with resectable cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either open transthoracic or minimally invasive transthoracic oesophagectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, and investigators undertaking interventions, assessing outcomes, and analysing data, were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was pulmonary infection within the first 2 weeks after surgery and during the whole stay in hospital. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 56 patients to the open oesophagectomy group and 59 to the minimally invasive oesophagectomy group. 16 (29%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in the first 2 weeks compared with five (9%) in the minimally invasive group (relative risk [RR] 0·30, 95% CI 0·12-0·76; p=0·005). 19 (34%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in-hospital compared with seven (12%) in the minimally invasive group (0·35, 0·16-0·78; p=0·005). For in-hospital mortality, one patient in the open oesophagectomy group died from anastomotic leakage and two in the minimally invasive group from aspiration and mediastinitis after anastomotic leakage. INTERPRETATION These findings provide evidence for the short-term benefits of minimally invasive oesophagectomy for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. FUNDING Digestive Surgery Foundation of the Unit of Digestive Surgery of the VU University Medical Centre.

Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study).

Objective:To investigate which perioperative treatment, ie, laparoscopic or open surgery combined with fast track (FT) or standard care, is the optimal approach for patients undergoing segmental resection for colon cancer. Summary Background Data:Important developments in elective colorectal surgery are the introduction of laparoscopy and implementation of FT care, both focusing on faster recovery. Methods:In a 9-center trial, patients eligible for segmental colectomy were randomized to laparoscopic or open colectomy, and to FT or standard care, resulting in 4 treatment groups. Primary outcome was total postoperative hospital stay (THS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative hospital stay (PHS), morbidity, reoperation rate, readmission rate, in-hospital mortality, quality of life at 2 and 4 weeks, patient satisfaction and in-hospital costs. Four hundred patients were required to find a minimum difference of 1 day in hospital stay. Results:Median THS in the laparoscopic/FT group was 5 (interquar-tile range: 4–8) days; open/FT 7 (5–11) days; laparoscopic/standard 6 (4.5–9.5) days, and open/standard 7 (6–13) days (P < 0.001). Median PHS in the laparoscopic/FT group was 5 (4–7) days; open/FT 6 (4.5–10) days; laparoscopic/standard 6 (4–8.5) days and open/standard 7 (6–10.5) days (P < 0.001). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly among the groups. Regression analysis showed that laparoscopy was the only independent predictive factor to reduce hospital stay and morbidity. Conclusions:Optimal perioperative treatment for patients requiring segmental colectomy for colon cancer is laparoscopic resection embedded in a FT program. If open surgery is applied, it is preferentially done in FT care. This study was registered under NTR222 (www.trialregister.nl).

A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. However, robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking. A trial was designed to compare 3-year rates of cancer recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer. METHODS In this international trial conducted in 30 hospitals, we randomly assigned patients with a solitary adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, not invading adjacent tissues, and without distant metastases to undergo either laparoscopic or open surgery in a 2:1 ratio. The primary end point was locoregional recurrence 3 years after the index surgery. Secondary end points included disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS A total of 1044 patients were included (699 in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 345 in the open-surgery group). At 3 years, the locoregional recurrence rate was 5.0% in the two groups (difference, 0 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], -2.6 to 2.6). Disease-free survival rates were 74.8% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 70.8% in the open-surgery group (difference, 4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 9.9). Overall survival rates were 86.7% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 83.6% in the open-surgery group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer was associated with rates of locoregional recurrence and disease-free and overall survival similar to those for open surgery. (Funded by Ethicon Endo-Surgery Europe and others; COLOR II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00297791.).

A Conservative and Minimally Invasive Approach to Necrotizing Pancreatitis Improves Outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS Treatment of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiologic, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome. RESULTS Overall mortality was 15% (n=93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0 to 14 days, 56%; 14 to 29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15% (P<.001). A total of 208 patients (33%) received interventions for infected necrosis, with 19% mortality. Catheter drainage was most often performed as the first intervention (63% of cases), without additional necrosectomy in 35% of patients. Primary catheter drainage had fewer complications than primary necrosectomy (42% vs 64%, P=.003). Patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (n=324), compared with patients with only peripancreatic necrosis (n=315), had a higher risk of organ failure (50% vs 24%, P<.001) and mortality (20% vs 9%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Approximately 62% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated without an intervention and with low mortality. In patients with infected necrosis, delayed intervention and catheter drainage as first treatment improves outcome.

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis decreases major morbidity rates: a randomized control trial. Short-term Results of the Sigma-trial

Background:No randomized controlled trial has compared laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) to open sigmoid resection (OSR) for symptomatic diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. This study tested the hypothesis that LSR is associated with decreased postoperative complication rates as compared with OSR. Methods:This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were randomized to either LSR or OSR. Endpoints included postoperative mortality, and complications were classified as major and minor. The generator of the allocation sequence was separated from the executor. Blinding was ensured using an opaque wound dressing to cover the abdomen. Symptomatic diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon was defined as recurrent disease Hinchey I, IIa, IIb, symptomatic stricture, or severe rectal bleeding. The decision to discharge patients was made by independent physicians blind to the allocation sequence. Data were analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. Results:From 2002 to 2006, 104 patients were randomized in 5 centers. All patients underwent the allocated intervention. Fifty-two LSR patients were comparable to 52 OSR patients for gender, age, BMI, ASA grade, comorbid conditions, previous abdominal surgery, and indication for surgery. LSR took longer (P = 0.0001) but caused less blood loss (P = 0.033). Conversion rate was 19.2%. Mortality rate was 1%. There were significantly more major complications in OSR patients (9.6% vs. 25.0%; P = 0.038). Minor complication rates were similar (LSR 36.5% vs. OSR 38.5%; P = 0.839). LSR patients had less pain (Visual Analog Scale 1.6; P = 0.0003), systemic analgesia requirement (P = 0.029), and returned home earlier (P = 0.046). The short form-36 questionnaire showed significantly better quality of life for LSR. Conclusions:LSR was associated with a 15.4% reduction in major complication rates, less pain, improved quality of life, and shorter hospitalization at the cost of a longer operating time.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis - a randomized trial

Objective:The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial. Methods:Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs. Results:There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and total GIQLI score (P < 0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were &U20AC; 16.728 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and &U20AC; 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095). Conclusions:Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Versus Open Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's Disease: A Randomized Trial

Objective:The aim of the study was to compare laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for primary Crohns disease in a randomized controlled trial. Methods:Sixty patients were randomized for laparoscopic-assisted or open surgery. Primary outcome parameter was postoperative quality of life (QoL) during 3 months of follow-up, measured by SF-36 and GIQLI questionnaire. Secondary parameters were operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, postoperative morphine requirement, pain, and costs. Results:Patient characteristics were not different. Conversion rate was 10% (n = 3). Median operating time was longer in laparoscopic compared with open surgery (115 versus 90 minutes; P < 0.003). Hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 7 days; P = 0.008). The number of patients with postoperative morbidity within the first 30 days differed between the laparoscopic and open group (10% versus 33%; P = 0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in QoL between the groups during follow-up. Significant time effects were found on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and the GIQLI score (P < 0.001). QoL declined in the first week, returned to baseline levels after 2 weeks, and was improved 4 weeks and 3 months after surgery. Median overall costs during the 3 months follow-up were significantly different: &U20AC;6412 for laparoscopic and &U20AC;8196 for open surgery (P = 0.042). Conclusions:Although QoL measured by SF-36 and GIQLI questionnaires was not different for laparoscopic-assisted compared with the open ileocolic resection, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs were significantly lower.