There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes

Background Until recently there has been little data available about long-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. But new randomized controlled trials regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery for rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant RCTs. Methods A systematic review of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library from January 1966 to October 2016 with a subsequent meta-analysis was performed. Only randomized controlled trials with data on circumferential resection margins were included. The primary outcome was the status of circumferential resection margins. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, distal resection margins, disease-free and overall survival rates for 3 and 5 years and local recurrence rates. Results Eleven studies were evaluated, involving a total of 2018 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1526 patients in the open group. The presence of involved circumferential margins was reported in all studies. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of positive circumferential margins between the laparoscopic group and open group, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89–1.50 and no significant differences in involvement of distal margins (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.35–3.66), completeness of mesorectal excision (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82–1.82) or number of harvested lymph nodes (mean difference = −0.01, 95% CI −0.89 to 0.87). Disease-free survival rates at 3 and 5 years were not different (p = 0.26 and p = 0.71 respectively), and neither were overall survival rates (p = 0.19 and p = 0.64 respectively), nor local recurrence rates (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63–1.23). Conclusions Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with similar short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery. The oncologic quality of extracted specimens seems comparable regardless of the approach used

Is ERAS in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer changing risk factors for delayed recovery?

There is evidence that implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols into colorectal surgery reduces complication rate and improves postoperative recovery. However, most published papers on ERAS outcomes and length of stay in hospital (LOS) include patients undergoing open resections. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the factors affecting recovery and LOS in patients after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer combined with ERAS protocol. One hundred and forty-three consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic resection were prospectively evaluated. They were divided into two subgroups depending on their reaching the targeted length of stay—LOS (75 patients in group 1—≤4 days, 68 patients in group 2—>4 days). A univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess for factors (demographics, perioperative parameters, complications and compliance with the ERAS protocol) independently associated with LOS of 4 days or longer. The median LOS in the entire group was 4 days. The postoperative complication rate was higher (18.7 vs. 36.7 %), and the compliance with ERAS protocol was lower (91.2 vs. 76.7 %) in group 2. There was an association between the pre- and postoperative compliance and the subsequent complications. In uni- and multivariate analysis, the lack of balanced fluid therapy (OR 3.87), lack of early mobilization (OR 20.74), prolonged urinary catheterization (OR 4.58) and use of drainage (OR 2.86) were significantly associated with prolonged LOS. Neither traditional patient risk factors nor the stage of the cancer was predictive of the duration of hospital stay. Instead, compliance with the ERAS protocol seems to influence recovery and LOS when applied to laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

Can the Obesity Surgery Mortality Risk Score predict postoperative complications other than mortality?

Introduction : Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are bariatric procedures with acceptable risk of postoperative morbidities and mortalities, but identification of high-risk patients is an ongoing issue. DeMaria et al. introduced the Obesity Surgery Mortality Risk Score (OS-MRS), which was designed for mortality risk assessment but not perioperative morbidity risk. Aim : To assess the possibility to use the OS-MRS to predict the risk of perioperative complications related to LSG and LRYGB. Material and methods: Retrospective analysis of patients operated on for morbid obesity was performed. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery. We included 408 patients (233 LSG, 175 LRYGB). Perioperative complications were defined as adverse effects in the 30-day period. The Clavien-Dindo scale was used for description of complications. Patients were assigned to five grades and three classes according to the OS-MRS results, then risk of morbidity was analyzed. Results: Complications were observed in 30 (7.35%) patients. Similar morbidity was related to both procedures (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.53–2.44, p = 0.744). The reoperation and mortality rates were 1.23% and 0.49% respectively. There were no significant differences in median OS-MRS value between the group without and the group with perioperative complications. There were no significant differences in OS-MRS between groups (p = 0.091). Obesity Surgery Mortality Risk Score was not related to Clavien-Dindo grades (p = 0.800). Conclusions : It appears that OS-MRS is not useful in predicting risk of perioperative morbidity after bariatric procedures