National trends in the uptake of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer, 2000-2008

Objective: To examine the trends in the uptake of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Design and setting: Retrospective analysis of Australia-wide data on elective resections for colorectal cancer over the 8 financial years 2000-01 to 2007-08, obtained from the National Hospital Morbidity Database. Main outcome measures: National trends in annual percentage of colorectal resections for cancer that were conducted laparoscopically for each year, stratified by hospitals conducting a high volume of elective resections (40 or more/year) versus a low volume, and by public versus private hospitals. Results: For all Australian hospitals combined, the percentage of resections for colon cancer conducted laparoscopically increased from 2.4% in 2000-01 to 27.5% in 2007-08. For rectal cancer, this increase was from 1.1% to 21.5%. The largest increases were seen in high-volume private hospitals (colon cancer, 2.7% to 34.1%; rectal cancer, 1.5% to 26.2%), but increases also occurred in high-volume public hospitals (colon cancer, 2.7% to 32.2%; rectal cancer, 0.5% to 20.3%), low-volume private (colon cancer, 3.8% to 27.1%; rectal cancer, 2.4% to 25.5%) and low-volume public (colon cancer, 1.1% to 17.0%; rectal cancer, 0.5% to 13.8%) hospitals. Conclusions: The use of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer has increased throughout Australian hospitals. Our findings provide the data necessary to ensure adequate resource allocation by the appropriate medical bodies to achieve optimal success in the uptake of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in Australia

Systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of methods used to establish pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery

Copyright © 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The definitive version may be found at www.wiley.comBACKGROUND:A systematic review was conducted to determine which of the methods of obtaining peritoneal access and establishing pneumoperitoneum is the safest and most effective. METHODS:Studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified from six bibliographic databases up to May 2002, the internet, hand-searches and reference lists. They were critically appraised using a validated checklist and data were extracted using standardized protocols. RESULTS:Meta-analysis of prospective, non-randomized studies of open versus closed (needle/trocar) access indicated a trend during open access towards a reduced risk of major complications (pooled relative risk (RR(p)) 0.30, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.09 to 1.03). Open access was also associated with a trend towards a reduced risk of access-site herniation (RR(p) 0.21, 95 per cent c.i. 0.04 to 1.03) and, in non-obese patients, a 57 per cent reduced risk of minor complications (RR(p) 0.43, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.92) and a trend for fewer conversions to laparotomy (RR(p) 0.21, 95 per cent c.i. 0.04 to 1.17). Data on major complications in studies of direct trocar versus needle/trocar access were inconclusive. Minor complications in randomized controlled trials were fewer with direct trocar access (RR(p) 0.19, 95 per cent c.i. 0.09 to 0.40), predominantly owing to a reduction in extraperitoneal insufflation. CONCLUSION:The evidence on the comparative safety and effectiveness of the different access methods was not definitive, but there were trends in the data that merit further exploration.T.L. Merlin, J.E. Hiller, G.J. Maddern, G.G. Jamieson, A.R. Brown and A. Kolb