Walter Zuliani

Laparoscopic vs. Open Colectomy in Cancer Patients: Long-Term Complications, Quality of Life, and Survival

PURPOSEThis study was designed to evaluate long-term complications, quality of life, and survival rate in a series of colorectal cancer patients randomized to laparoscopic or open surgery.METHODSA total of 391 patients with colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 190) or open (n = 201) resection. Long-term follow-up was performed every six months by office visits. Quality of life was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 months after surgery by a modified version of Short Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.RESULTSEight (4.2 percent) laparoscopic group patients needed conversion to open surgery. Overall long-term morbidity rate was 6.8 percent (13/190) in the laparoscopic vs. 14.9 percent (30/201) in the open group (P = 0.018). Overall quality of life was significantly better in the laparoscopic group in the first 12 months after surgery, whereas at 24 months, patients of the laparoscopic group reported a significant advantage only in social functioning. No difference was found in both overall and disease-free survival rates by comparing laparoscopic vs. open group.CONCLUSIONSLaparoscopic colorectal resection was associated with a lower incidence of long-term complications and a better quality of life in the first 12 months after surgery compared with open surgery. No difference between groups was found in overall and disease-free survival rates.

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial.

Summary Background Data:Studies comparing the costs of colorectal resection by laparoscopic (LPS) and open approaches are small sized or not randomized. The main purpose of this study is to compare the hospital costs of LPS and open colorectal surgery in a large series of randomized patients. Methods:A total of 517 patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 258) or open (n = 259) resection. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room (OR) occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Follow-up for postoperative morbidity was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge. Results:Operative time was 37 minutes longer in the LPS group. Overall morbidity rate was 18.2% (47 of 258) in the LPS versus 34.7% (90 of 259) in the open group (P = 0.0005). The mean LOS was 9.9 (2.6) days in the LPS group and 12.4 (3.9) days in the open group (P < 0.0001). The additional OR charge in the LPS group was &U20AC;1171 per patient randomized (&U20AC;864 due to surgical instruments and &U20AC;307 due to longer time). The saving in the LPS group was &U20AC;1046 per patient randomized (&U20AC;401 due to shorter LOS and &U20AC;645 due to the lower cost of postoperative complications). The net balance resulted in &U20AC;125 extra cost per patient allocated to the LPS group. Conclusions:The present cost-benefit analysis showed a slight additional cost in the LPS group. The better postoperative short-term outcome in patients receiving LPS had a key role to nearly balance the operative room charges due to laparoscopy.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open left colonic resection

The main aim of this study was to compare short‐term results and long‐term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open left colonic resection.

Open right colectomy is still effective compared to laparoscopy: results of a randomized trial.

Objective:The primary goal of this study was to clarify whether a laparoscopic (LPS) approach could be considered the dominant strategy in patients undergoing right colectomy. Summary Background Data:Because few nonrandomized or small sized studies have been carried out so far, definitive conclusions about the role of LPS right colectomy cannot be drawn. Methods:Two hundred twenty-six patients, candidates for right colectomy, were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 113) or open (n = 113) resection. The postoperative care protocol was the same for both groups. Trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative morbidity. Follow-up was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and hospitalization. Results:Conversion rate in the LPS group was 2.6% (3 of 113). Operative time (in minutes) was longer in the LPS group (131 vs. 112, P = 0.01). Postoperative morbidity rate was 18.6% in the open group and 13.3% in the LPS group (P = 0.31). Postoperative stay was one day longer in the open group (P = 0.002). No difference was found in postoperative quality of life. The additional operative charge in the LPS group was &U20AC;980 per patient randomized (&U20AC;821 for surgical instruments and &U20AC;159 for longer operative time). The savings in the LPS group was &U20AC;390 per patient randomized (&U20AC;144 for shorter length of hospital stay and &U20AC;246 for the lower cost of postoperative morbidity). The net balance resulted in a &U20AC;590 extra charge per patient randomly allocated to the LPS group. Conclusion:LPS slightly improved postoperative recovery. This translated into a savings that covered only 40% of the extra operative charge. Therefore, open right colectomy could be still considered an effective procedure.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Modifies Risk Factors for Postoperative Morbidity

PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic colorectal surgery can modify the risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative morbidity.METHODSA total of 384 consecutive patients with colorectal disease were randomized to laparoscopic resection (n = 190) or open resection (n = 194). On admission, demographics, comorbidity, and nutritional status were recorded. Operative variables, patient outcome, and length of stay were also recorded. Postoperative complications were registered by four members of staff not involved in the study.RESULTSThe overall morbidity rate was 27.1 percent, with the rate in the laparoscopic group (18.7 percent) being less than that in the open group (31.5 percent; P = 0.003). Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection had a faster recovery of bowel function (P = 0.0001) and a shorter length of stay (P = 0.0001). In the whole cohort of patients, multivariate analysis identified open surgery (P = 0.003), duration of surgery (P = 0.01), and homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01) as risk factors for postoperative morbidity. In the open group, blood loss (P = 0.01), homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01), duration of surgery (P = 0.009), weight loss (P = 0.06), and age (P = 0.08) were related to postoperative morbidity. In the laparoscopic group the only risk factor identified was duration of surgery (P = 0.005).CONCLUSIONIn the laparoscopic group, both postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly reduced and most risk factors for postoperative morbidity disappeared.

Training period in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background: Thorough training is essential to the success of colorectal laparoscopic surgery (LPS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of a 3-month training period in LPS. Methods: Before beginning the study, the surgical team attended several courses of LPS and spent a long time working at a large animal facility to perfect laparoscopic techniques. Twenty-six consecutive patients underwent LPS in a 3-month training period. Controls (n = 26) who underwent open colorectal surgery (LPT) were selected to match the LPS patients for age, gender, primary disease, type of surgery, comorbidity, and nutritional status. Results: Conversion to open surgery was necessary in one patient (3.8%). The operative time was 1 h longer for LPS than LPT (p < 0.001). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 17 in LPS and 18 in LPT (p = 0.76). The first flatus (p < 0.02) and bowel movement (p < 0.002) occurred earlier in the LPS group. The postoperative infection rate was 11.5% for LPS and 19.2% for LPT (p = 0.33). Two anastomotic leaks occurred in each group. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.6 days (standard deviation [SD], 2.6) for LPS and 11.0 days (SD, 5.2) for LPT (p = 0.68). Recovery of postoperative physical performance and social life occurred earlier in the LPS than the LPT group (p < 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, no difference was found in terms of cancer recurrence or long-term complications. Conclusion: Oncologic results and postoperative morbidity were comparable for LPS and LPT. LPS allows a faster postoperative recovery.

Long-term outcomes after laparoscopic colectomy

AIM To evaluate long-term outcomes in a large series of patients who randomly received laparoscopic or open colorectal resection. METHODS From February 2000 to December 2004, six hundred sixty-two patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (LPS, n = 330) or open (n = 332) colorectal resection. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Long-term follow-up was carried out every 6 mo by office visits. In 526 cancer patients five-year overall and disease-free survival were evaluated. Median oncologic follow-up was 96 mo. RESULTS Eight (4.2%) LPS group patients needed conversion to open surgery. Overall long-term morbidity rate was 7.6% (25/330) in the LPS vs 11.1% (37/332) in the open group (P = 0.17). In cancer patients, five-year overall survival was 68.6% in the LPS group and 64.0% in the Open group (P = 0.27). Excluding stage IV patients, five-year local and distant recurrence rates were 32.5% in the LPS group and 36.8% in the Open group (P = 0.36). Further, no difference in recurrence rate was found when patients were stratified according to cancer stage. CONCLUSION LPS colorectal resection was associated with a slightly lower incidence of long-term complications than open surgery. No difference between groups was found in overall and disease-free survival rates.

Management and Outcomes of Pancreatic Resections Performed in High-Volume Referral and Low-Volume Community Hospitals Lead by Surgeons Who Shared the Same Mentor: The Importance of Training

Background: High hospital volume improves outcomes after pancreatic resection. The aim of this study was to assess if practice and outcomes differed between high- and low-volume centers across which chief surgeons shared a similar training and mentoring. Methods: Data on patients undergoing standard pancreatic resections (2010-2013) at 7 Italian hospitals were collected. Chiefs of pancreatic surgery at each hospital had received the same training, with the same mentor. Two centers were high-volume referral hospitals for pancreatic disease, while 5 were low-volume hospitals. Results: A total of 856 patients were included, with median annual volume of resections 82 at high-volume referral hospitals and 11 at low-volume hospitals. Patients at low-volume hospitals were older, had more comorbidities, and were more often referred from the emergency room. Intraoperative techniques and reconstruction methods were similar. Comparable rates of major postoperative complications (18 vs. 22%; p = 0.236) and pancreatic fistula (29 vs. 32%; p = 0.287) were achieved in both groups, with no significant increases in failure to rescue from grade B-C fistula (6.2 vs. 15.0%; p = 0.108) and mortality (2.4 vs. 4.1%; p = 0.233) in low-volume hospitals. Postoperative length of stay was shorter in high-volume referral hospitals (10 vs. 15 days; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Similar postoperative outcomes can be achieved across high- and low-volume centers where chief surgeons shared a similar training and mentoring. However, multidisciplinary postoperative provision more often associated with high-volume centers may also affect outcomes.