Roger C. Grégoire

Defining a learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal resections.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to define the learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal resections. METHODS: A prospectively accumulated, computerized database of all laparoscopic colorectal resections performed by three surgeons between April 1991 and March 1999 was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 461 consecutive resections were evenly distributed among three surgeons (141, 155, and 165). Median operating time was 180 minutes for Cases 1 to 30 in each surgeons experience and declined to a steady state (150–167.5 minutes) for Cases 31 and higher. Subsequently, Cases 1 to 30 were considered “early experience,” whereas Cases 31 and higher were combined as “late experience” for statistical analysis. There were no significant differences between patients undergoing resections in the early experience and those undergoing resections in the late experience with respect to age, weight, or proportion of patients with malignancy, diverticulitis, or inflammatory bowel disease. There were greater proportions of males (42vs. 54 percent,P=0.046) and rectal resections performed (14vs. 32 percent,P=0.002) in the late experience. Trends toward declining rates of intraoperative complications (9vs. 7 percent,P=0.70) and conversion to open surgery (13.5vs. 9.7 percent,P=0.39) were observed with experience. Median operating time (180vs. 160 minutes,P<0.001) and overall length of postoperative hospital stay (6.5vs. 5 days,P<0.001) declined significantly with experience. There was no difference in the rate of postoperative complications between early and late experience (30vs. 32 percent,P=0.827). CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for performing colorectal resections was approximately 30 procedures in this study, based on a decline in operating time, intraoperative complications, and conversion rate. Learning was also extended to clinical care because it was appreciated that patients could be discharged to their homes more quickly.

Subcutaneous Heparin Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin as Thromboprophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: Results of the Canadian Colorectal DVT Prophylaxis Trial: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of low-dose unfractionated heparin and a low-molecular-weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after colorectal surgery. MethodsIn a multicenter, double-blind trial, patients undergoing resection of part or all of the colon or rectum were randomized to receive, by subcutaneous injection, either calcium heparin 5,000 units every 8 hours or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily (plus two additional saline injections). Deep vein thrombosis was assessed by routine bilateral contrast venography performed between postoperative day 5 and 9, or earlier if clinically suspected. ResultsNine hundred thirty-six randomized patients completed the protocol and had an adequate outcome assessment. The venous thromboembolism rates were the same in both groups. There were no deaths from pulmonary embolism or bleeding complications. Although the proportion of all bleeding events in the enoxaparin group was significantly greater than in the low-dose heparin group, the rates of major bleeding and reoperation for bleeding were not significantly different. ConclusionsBoth heparin 5,000 units subcutaneously every 8 hours and enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily provide highly effective and safe prophylaxis for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. However, given the current differences in cost, prophylaxis with low-dose heparin remains the preferred method at present.

Laparoscopic resection does not adversely affect early survival curves in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE To determine the survival curves for laparoscopic resection (LR) of colorectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Laparoscopic resection for cure of colorectal cancer is controversial, and survival curves have not been determined. METHODS A prospective database of 177 consecutive LRs of colorectal cancers performed between November 1991 and 1997 was reviewed. The TNM classification (stage 0, I, II, III, and IV) for colorectal cancers and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to determine survival curves. RESULTS Of the 177 patients, 5 were excluded for not having adenocarcinomas. Twenty-five patients (14.5%) had conversion to open surgery; most of these patients had rectal cancer or tumor invasion to adjacent organs. Twelve patients were lost to follow-up. All 135 remaining patients had follow-up. Overall, 28 deaths occurred during the follow-up period, 15 of which were cancer-related. The median follow-up was 24 months for patients with stage I, II, and III disease and 9 months for patients with stage IV disease. Observed 2-year survival rates were 100% stage I, 88.7% stage II, 80.6% stage III, and 28.6% stage IV. Survival rates at 4 years were 100% stage I, 79.5% stage II, 53.7% stage III, and 0% stage IV. No trocar site recurrence was observed. CONCLUSIONS Early survival curves for patients with colorectal cancer who underwent LR do not differ negatively from historical controls for conventional surgery. Further validation is needed.

Local recurrence and survival after laparoscopic mesorectal resection for rectal adenocarcinoma

BackgroundLaparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is controversial. Actuarial survival and local recurrence rates have not been determined.MethodsA prospective database containing 80 consecutive unselected laparoscopic resections of rectal cancers performed between November 1991 and 1999 was reviewed. Local recurrence was defined as any detectable local disease at follow-up assessment occurring either alone or in conjunction with generalized recurrence. The tumor node metastases (TNM) classification for colorectal cancers and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to determine staging and survival curves. The mesorectal excision technique was used during surgery.ResultsThe median follow-up period was 31 months for patients with stages, I, II, and III cancer, and 15.5 months for patients with stage IV cancer. The overall 5-year survival rate was 65.1% for all cancer stages and 72.1% for stages I, II, and III cancer. No trocar-site recurrence was observed. The overall local recurrence rate was 3.75% (3/80) for all cancer stages, and 4.3% (3/70) for stages I, II, and III cancer.ConclusionsThe survival and local recurrence rate for patients with rectal cancer treated by laparoscopic mesorectal excision do not differ negatively from those in the literature for open mesorectal excision. Further validation is needed.

Predicting conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery Fellowship training may be an advantage

Background: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has clear advantages over open surgery; however, the effectiveness of the approach depends on the conversion rate. The objective of this work was to prospectively validate a model that would predict conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods: A simple clinical model for predicting conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery was previously developed based on a multivariable logistic regression analysis of 367 procedures. This model was applied prospectively to a follow-up group of 248 procedures by the same team, including 54 procedures performed by one new fellowship-trained surgeon. Results: Patients in the follow-up group were more likely to have cancer (56% vs 44%, p = 0.007) and were more obese (median, 71.0 vs 66.0 kg; p < 0.001). The rate of conversion in the follow-up group was unchanged (8.9% vs 9.0%, p > 0.05). Despite expected trends toward increasing risk of conversion with weight level (<60 kg, 6.8%; 60–<90 kg, 9.0%; >90 kg, 12.1%; p > 0.05) and malignancy (10.1% vs 7.3%, p > 0.05), the model did not distinguish well between groups at risk for conversion. Contrary to the model, however, the fellowship-trained surgeon had a conversion rate that was not higher than that of the other, more experienced surgeons (7.3% vs 9.3%, p > 0.05) even though he was less experienced, and operating on patients who were more obese (median, 75.0 vs 70 kg; p = 0.02) and more likely to have cancer (59% vs 55%, p > 0.05). Recalculated conversion scores that excluded the inexperience point for the fellowship-trained surgeon showed a good fit for the model. Considering the original and follow-up experience together (615 cases), the model clearly stratifies patients into low (0 points), medium (1–2 points), and high risk (3–4 points) for conversion, with respective rates of 2.9%, 8.1%, and 20% (p = 0.001). Conclusion: This model appears to be a valid predictor of conversion to open surgery. Fellowship training may provide sufficient experience so that learning curve issues are redundant in early practice. This model now requires validation by other centers.

Laparoscopic emergency surgery for diverticular disease that failed medical treatment: a valuable option? Results of a retrospective comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of treatment for elective management of diverticular disease. However, its use in the acute setting remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery in the acute management of complicated diverticular disease that failed initial medical treatment. SETTINGS: This is a single-center comparative retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing surgery for complicated diverticular disease after an attempt at medical treatment from 2000 to 2011 were selected. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic versus open surgery was compared. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were overall 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, time to resume diet, and need for a permanent stoma. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were identified by using medical records: 24 laparoscopic surgery and 18 open surgery. Baseline demographics, ASA classification, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores, Hinchey classification, and Charlson Comorbidity Index did not differ between groups. The mean operative time was 36 minutes longer (p = 0.05) and blood loss was 460 mL less (p < 0.001) for laparoscopic surgery. Two patients (8.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group required conversion to open surgery. There was no mortality. Overall morbidity was lower favoring laparoscopic surgery (16.7% vs 55.6%; p = 0.01). Two patients in the laparoscopic surgery group experienced an anastomotic leak compared with none in the open surgery group. Mean time to resume diet (3 vs 6.5 days; p < 0.01) and length of stay (5 vs 8 days; p = 0.04) were shorter for the laparoscopic surgery group. Rate of permanent stoma at last follow-up (median, 332 days) did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for patients in whom medical treatment for complicated diverticular disease failed is associated with favorable outcomes, including a reduced rate of morbidity and a shorter length of stay. When applied to selected patients, this approach appears to be a safe procedure with a low rate of conversion.

Laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for complicated diverticular disease in the emergency setting: a safe choice? A retrospective comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic colon resection (LCR) with open colon resection (OCR) for complicated diverticular disease (CDD) during emergent hospital admission. METHODS Charts from all patients undergoing colon resection for CDD during emergent hospital admission at a single academic institution were reviewed. The primary outcomes were overall 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS From 2000 to 2010, 125 cases were retrieved (49 LCR and 86 OCR). Conversion rate was 5.1%. Overall morbidity significantly decreased with laparoscopic surgery compared with OCR. No mortality occurred with LCR. Prolonged ileus was less frequent (12.8% vs. 32.6%; P = .02), time to oral intake shorter (3 vs. 6 days; P < .01), and LOS shorter (5 vs. 8 days; P = .05) for LCR. CONCLUSIONS In our series, in the patients selected, LCR for CDD during emergent hospital admission appears to be a safe procedure associated with decreased morbidity, time to oral intake, and LOS compared with OCR.

Transanal drainage to treat anastomotic leaks after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a valuable option.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leaks after low anterior resection for rectal cancer remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Few studies have focused on their management, particularly on the technique of transanal drainage. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes according to the initial management of clinical leaks. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This study is a retrospective review of a single institution experience. PATIENTS: All patients treated for a symptomatic anastomotic leak after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2000 and March 2011 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were mortality attributed to the leak, sepsis control, stoma closure rate, and functional results. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients (35 men/2 women) developed a symptomatic leak. Leaks were initially managed by transanal drainage in 16 patients, abdominal reintervention in 12 patients, and medical treatment in 9 patients. The only death attributed to the leak occurred in the abdominal reintervention group. In the transanal drainage group, antibiotics were administered for a median length of 9 days, and the drain was left in place for a median length of 30 days. One patient underwent percutaneous drainage of a collection in addition to transanal drainage, but no patient required abdominal reintervention. Of the treatment modalities applied, transanal drainage was associated with the highest stoma closure rate (93%), after a median postoperative time of 7 months. Complications observed after transanal drainage were anastomotic strictures in 33% and the creation of a permanent stoma due to poor function in 13%. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its nonrandomized retrospective design and the presence of selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: For the management of low anastomotic leaks, transanal drainage allows preservation of the anastomosis and sepsis control with a high rate of ileostomy closure. It is a valuable option in patients with a diverting ileostomy.

Palliative Laparoscopic Resections for Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

PurposeIssues surrounding the safety and efficacy of palliative laparoscopic resections for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer have not been explicitly examined in the literature. This article describes our experience with laparoscopic procedures for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer and compares their perioperative outcomes to a contemporaneous group of patients with clinically curable (Stages I–III) disease.MethodsA prospective database of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer performed between 1991 and 2002 was reviewed. Data regarding patient demographics, perioperative morbidity and mortality, operative times, conversion rates, and length of stay were extracted. Statistical analysis included chi-squared and Students t-tests as required and P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsA total of 375 cases were identified, of these 49 (13 percent) underwent laparoscopic palliative resections while 326 (87 percent) patients had resections for cure. When comparing palliative to curative procedures, there were no differences in intraoperative (4 percent vs. 9 percent) or postoperative complications (14 percent vs. 12 percent), perioperative mortality (8 percent vs. 4 percent), or length of hospital stay. Patients with Stage IV disease had largertumors (5.4 ± 2.3 cm vs. 4.6 ± 2.6 cm, P = 0.04) which contributed to an increased rate of conversion (22 percent vs. 11 percent, P = 0.05) with most conversions secondary to tumor fixation or bulk (64 percent) preventing determination of resectability.ConclusionsA palliative laparoscopic resection is a safe and feasible option and presents acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer. Importantly, in this difficult group ofpatients, our results compare favorably with those from previously published series of open procedures.

The integration of minimally invasive surgery in surgical practice in a Canadian setting: results from 2 consecutive province-wide practice surveys of general surgeons over a 5-year period.

BACKGROUND Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been quickly embraced, the introduction of advanced procedures appears more complex. We assessed the evolution of MIS in the province of Quebec over a 5-year period to identify areas for improvement in the modern surgical era. METHODS We developed, test-piloted and conducted a self-administered questionnaire among Quebec general surgeons in 2007 and 2012 to examine stated MIS practice, MIS training and barriers and facilitators to the use of MIS. RESULTS Response rates were 51.3% (251 of 489) in 2007 and 31.3% (153 of 491) in 2012. A significant increase was observed for performance of most advanced MIS procedures, especially for colectomy for benign (66.0% v. 84.3%, p < 0,001) and malignant diseases (43.3% v. 77.8%, p < 0,001) and for rectal surgery for malignancy (21.0% v. 54.6%, p < 0.001). More surgeons practised 3 or more advanced MIS procedures in 2012 than in 2007 (82.3% v. 64.3%, p < 0,001). At multivariate analysis, the 2007 survey administration was associated with fewer surgeons practising advanced MIS (odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.29). In 2012, more respondents stated they gained their skills during residency (p = 0.028). CONCLUSION From 2007 to 2012 there was a significant increase in advanced MIS procedures practised by general surgeons in Québec. This technique appears well established in current surgical practice. The growing place of MIS in residency training seems to be a paramount part of this development. Results from this study could be used as a baseline for studies focusing on ways to further improve the MIS practice.