Virgilio V. George

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Evidence about the efficacy of laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is incomplete, particularly for patients with more advanced-stage disease. OBJECTIVE To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open resection, as determined by gross pathologic and histologic evaluation of the resected proctectomy specimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, balanced, noninferiority, randomized trial enrolled patients between October 2008 and September 2013. The trial was conducted by credentialed surgeons from 35 institutions in the United States and Canada. A total of 486 patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were randomized after completion of neoadjuvant therapy to laparoscopic or open resection. INTERVENTIONS Standard laparoscopic and open approaches were performed by the credentialed surgeons. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome assessing efficacy was a composite of circumferential radial margin greater than 1 mm, distal margin without tumor, and completeness of total mesorectal excision. A 6% noninferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. RESULTS Two hundred forty patients with laparoscopic resection and 222 with open resection were evaluable for analysis of the 486 enrolled. Successful resection occurred in 81.7% of laparoscopic resection cases (95% CI, 76.8%-86.6%) and 86.9% of open resection cases (95% CI, 82.5%-91.4%) and did not support noninferiority (difference, -5.3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10.8% to ∞; P for noninferiority = .41). Patients underwent low anterior resection (76.7%) or abdominoperineal resection (23.3%). Conversion to open resection occurred in 11.3% of patients. Operative time was significantly longer for laparoscopic resection (mean, 266.2 vs 220.6 minutes; mean difference, 45.5 minutes; 95% CI, 27.7-63.4; P < .001). Length of stay (7.3 vs 7.0 days; mean difference, 0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1), readmission within 30 days (3.3% vs 4.1%; difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%), and severe complications (22.5% vs 22.1%; difference, 0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 2.7%) did not differ significantly. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen in 462 operated and analyzed surgeries was complete (77%) and nearly complete (16.5%) in 93.5% of the cases. Negative circumferential radial margin was observed in 90% of the overall group (87.9% laparoscopic resection and 92.3% open resection; P = .11). Distal margin result was negative in more than 98% of patients irrespective of type of surgery (P = .91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for pathologic outcomes. Pending clinical oncologic outcomes, the findings do not support the use of laparoscopic resection in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00726622.

Single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy.

PURPOSE: Single-port laparoscopic surgery has evolved from an effort to minimize tissue trauma, limit morbidity, and maximize cosmesis. Limited data exist comparing single-port with conventional laparoscopy for right colectomy. Our aim is to compare single-port with laparoscopic colectomy with regard to safety and feasibility. We assert that this approach can be adopted in a safe and efficacious manner while using standard laparoscopic instrumentation. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data regarding 16 single-port and 27 conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomies performed by a single surgeon between January 2008 and February 2009. Demographics, operative outcomes, and morbidity were included and analyzed using either Student t test or Fisher exact probability test. RESULTS: Single-port and conventional laparoscopic groups were similar with regard to age, gender, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and co-morbidity. Seventy-five percent and 70% of the operations were performed for malignancy in the single-port and the conventional laparoscopy group, respectively (P = .69). Operative duration was 106 minutes in the single-port group vs 100 minutes in the conventional group (P = .64). Blood loss was 54 mL and 90 mL, respectively (P = .07). No conversions or additions of ports occurred. Hospital stay was 5.3 days in the single-port group vs 6 days in the conventional group (P = .53). Margins were negative in both groups. Mean lymph node number was 18 and 16 nodes (P = .92). There was one death in the conventional group (P = .44). Morbidity including wound infection was 18.8% and 14.9%, respectively (P = .73). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support single-port right colectomy as a safe and efficacious approach to right colon resections in patients eligible for laparoscopy with minimal additional equipment or learning curve for experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons. The single port was undertaken without an increase in morbidity or mortality. There was no increase in operative time with use of the single-port approach. Finally, adequate lymph node harvest and margin clearance was maintained.

Laparoscopic Versus Open 2-Stage Ileal Pouch: Laparoscopic Approach Allows for Faster Restoration of Intestinal Continuity

BACKGROUND Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the treatment of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous. This study examined the impact of the surgical approach (laparoscopic versus open) to IPAA on short-term outcomes and time to ileostomy closure in 2-stage restorative proctocolectomies. STUDY DESIGN A retrospective review was performed on a prospectively maintained database at Washington University School of Medicine for patients undergoing elective 2-stage restorative proctocolectomy and IPAA from April of 1999 through July of 2008. Outcomes for patients were analyzed according to laparoscopic versus open technique. RESULTS A total of 124 patients (55 laparoscopy, 69 open) were included in this study. Laparoscopic IPAA took, on average, 79.2 minutes longer to complete than open IPAA (p < 0.0001) and required significantly more intravenous fluid administration (p = 0.0004). There was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open IPAA with respect to estimated blood loss, blood transfusions, postoperative narcotic usage, return of bowel function, length of stay, and hospital readmission rates. Total complications were not statistically significant between the 2 groups. Patients in the laparoscopic IPAA group underwent ileostomy closure an average of 24.1 days sooner than patients in the open group (p = 0.045). Multivariate analysis revealed that surgical approach (p = 0.018) and length of stay (p = 0.004) were associated with faster time to closure of loop ileostomy. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic IPAA is safe, with postoperative morbidity comparable with open IPAA. Laparoscopic IPAA can lead to faster recovery and result in faster progression to restoration of intestinal continuity in patients undergoing 2-stage restorative proctocolectomy.

Single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the first 100 resections

BACKGROUND: Single-port laparoscopy remains a novel technique in the field of colorectal surgery. Several small series have examined its safety for colon resection. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to analyze our entire experience and short-term outcomes with single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy since its introduction at our institution. We assert that this approach is feasible and safe for the wide array of patients and indications encountered by a colorectal surgeon. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data for all patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with the use of standard laparoscopic instrumentation, for malignant or benign disease, between July 2009 and November 2010 in a high-volume, academic, colorectal surgery practice. MAIN OUTOME MEASURES: Demographic, clinical, operative, and pathologic factors were reviewed and analyzed. All conversions to conventional laparoscopic or open operations were considered in this analysis. RESULTS: One hundred patients underwent single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy during the study period. Mean age was 63 years, and 61% of the patients were men. Forty-three percent had undergone previous abdominal surgery, and the median body mass index was 26 (range, 18–46). Median ASA classification was 3 (range, 1–4). Five percent of the operations were performed urgently, and 56% were performed for carcinoma, of which half were T3 or T4 tumor stage. Median operative duration was 105 (range, 64–270) minutes. Mean and median blood loss was 106 and 50 mL. Two percent required conversion to multiport laparoscopy, and 4% converted to the open approach. Median postoperative stay was 4 (range, 2–48) days. Median lymph node number was 18 (range, 11–42). There was one mortality in this series. Morbidity, including wound infection, was 13%. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the largest experience with single-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy to date. This technique was used with acceptable morbidity and mortality and without compromise of conventional oncologic parameters by colorectal surgeons experienced in minimally invasive technique. These findings support the use of a single-port approach for patients requiring right hemicolectomy.

Influence of bactibilia after preoperative biliary stenting on postoperative infectious complications

The aim of this study was to correlate the bactibilia found after preoperative biliary stenting with that of the bacteriology of postoperative infectious complications in patients with obstructive jaundice. One hundred thirty-eight patients (83% malignant and 17% benign etiologies) with obstructive jaundice had both their bile and all postoperative infectious complications cultured. Eighty-six (62%) had preoperative biliary stents (stent group) and 52 (38%) did not (no-stent group). There were no differences for age, sex, incidence of malignancy, type of operation, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay, morbidity, or mortality rates between the two groups. Of 31 infectious complications, 23 were in the stent group and eight were in the no-stent group (P > 0.05), but only 13 (42%) infectious complications had bacteria that were also cultured from the bile. Only wound infection (P = 0.03) and bacteremia (P = 0.04) were more likely to occur in stented patients. Taken together, these data show that preoperative biliary stenting increases the incidence of bactibilia, bacteremia, and wound infection rates but does not increase morbidity, mortality, or hospital length of stay. Jaundiced patients can undergo preoperative biliary stenting while maintaining an acceptable postoperative morbidity rate.

Laparoscopic colectomy: does the learning curve extend beyond colorectal surgery fellowship?

Colorectal fellowship training adequately surpasses the learning curve with regard to safety and outcome; however, the surgeon continues to increase operative efficiency during the first year of practice.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Approaches to Colorectal Disease

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy may decrease parietal trauma and may offer cosmetic advantages when compared with standard laparoscopic approaches. Among the potential advantages, cosmetic is an important factor. Currently, there are no prospective randomized trials comparing single-incision laparoscopy with conventional laparoscopy, and there is little data about post-hospitalization outcomes and benefits over existing techniques. Considering this, it’s difficult to recommend widespread implementation of this technology. However, despite these limitations, we have to remember that in the beginning of conventional laparoscopic surgery, cosmetic result was the only benefit conferred. As experience grows and technology advances, this approach may become the preferred technique for surgeons in select cases.