W.W.C. Tsang

Endolaparoscopic Approach vs Conventional Open Surgery in the Treatment of Obstructing Left-Sided Colon Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE To compare self-expanding metal stents with emergency open surgery in the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer. DESIGN A randomized controlled trial. SETTING An acute care hospital. PATIENTS Adult patients with an obstructing tumor between the splenic flexure and rectosigmoid junction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Successful 1-stage operation, cumulative operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, pain score, and postoperative complications. RESULTS Forty-eight patients were analyzed. Twenty-four underwent endoluminal stenting followed by laparoscopic resection and 24 underwent emergency open surgery. The 2 groups were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and disease staging. Patients in the endolaparoscopic group had significantly less cumulative blood loss and lower pain, incidence of anastomotic leak, and wound infection. Significantly more patients in the endolaparoscopic group had a successful 1-stage operation performed (16 vs 9, P = .04). None of the patients in the endolaparoscopic group had a permanent stoma compared with 6 patients in the emergency open surgery group (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS Self-expanding metal stents serve as a safe and effective bridge to subsequent laparoscopic surgery in patients with obstructing left-sided colon cancer. This endolaparoscopic approach makes a 1-stage operation more feasible, is associated with reduced incidence of stoma creation, and allows patients with malignant large-bowel obstruction to enjoy the full benefit of minimally invasive surgery. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00654212.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Objective:Laparoscopic colectomy has been proved to be both technically and oncologically feasible. However, the approach has been criticized for its procedural complexity and long operative time as a result of the loss of tactile feedback and absence of depth perception. The advent of hand-access devices offered a potential solution to these problems. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with open colectomy (OC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer. Methods:Adult patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma of cancer or ascending colon were recruited. Patients were excluded if they presented with surgical emergencies, had synchronous tumors on work-up, or when the tumor was larger than 6.5 cm in any dimension or preoperative imaging. Recruited patients were randomized to undergo either HALC or OC by the same surgical team. Outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, as well as disease recurrence and patient survival. Results:Eighty-one patients (HALC = 41, OC = 40) were successfully recruited. The 2 groups were matched for age, gender distribution, body mass index, and comorbidities. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the distribution of tumors and the final histopathological staging. HALC took significantly longer than OC (110 min vs. 97.5 minutes, P = 0.003) but resulted in significantly less blood loss (35 mL vs. 50 mL, P = 0.005). Patients after HALC experienced significantly less pain, required significantly less parenteral and enteral analgesia, recovered faster, and was associated with a shorter length of stay (7 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.004). With median follow-up of 28 to 30 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83% vs. 74%, P = 0.90). Conclusion:HALC retained the same short-term benefits of the pure laparoscopic approach. The technique is associated with a slightly increased but acceptable operative time. Aside as a useful adjunct in complex laparoscopic procedures, the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is also a useful, if not more effective, alternative for patients with right-sided colonic cancer.

Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with colonic J-pouch reconstruction for mid and low rectal cancers

Results of laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving total mesorectal excision and colonic J‐pouch reconstruction are few. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes after this procedure.

Laparoscopy and its current role in the management of colorectal disease.

Objective  To evaluate the current place of laparoscopy in the management of colorectal disease.

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection revisited: are there any health–related benefits? A comparative study

BackgroundLaparoscopic colectomy is associated with less overall morbidity and improved survival for patients with colonic cancers. There are unfortunately limited clinical reports on laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. We therefore designed this study to compare laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection with conventional open surgery, with emphasis on health–related issues from the patients’ perspective in order to justify its role in the management of low rectal or anal canal tumours.MethodsWe carried out a non–randomized, prospective comparative study on a cohort of patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open abdominoperineal resection between March 1994 and December 2003. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative morbidity and mortality, as well as overall survival were considered. The standard endpoints of last follow–up date and deaths were used. Data was analyzed according to intention–to–treat principle.ResultsA total of 102 patients were recruited: 31 patients underwent conventional open abdominoperineal resection (OAPR) and 71 patients were treated laparoscopically. Patient demographics, median follow–up period, as well as tumour characteristics were similar between groups. The median operating time was similar among groups (145 min in laparoscopic group vs. 156 min in open group; p=0.62). Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly less blood loss (p=0.01) and fewer requirements for blood transfusion (p=0.01). Despite similar overall morbidity, the laparoscopic group had a reduced incidence of abdominal wound infections (p=0.01) and chest infections (p=0.01). Overall survival was significantly better in the laparoscopic group (p=0.01).ConclusionsLaparoscopic abdominoperineal resection confers definite health–related benefits the over open approach in terms of reduced septic complications and fewer requirements for blood transfusion. It should be considered the procedure of choice for patients with low rectal or anal canal tumour in whom sphincter excision proved inevitable.