Explore the vast range of titles available.

Mesorectal excision is the international standard surgical procedure for lower rectal cancer. However, lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis occasionally occurs in patients with clinical stage II or stage III rectal cancer, and therefore mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection is the standard procedure in Japan. We did a randomised controlled trial to confirm that the results of mesorectal excision alone are not inferior to those of mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection. This study was undertaken at 33 major hospitals in Japan. Eligibility criteria included histologically proven rectal cancer of clinical stage II or stage III, with the main lesion located in the rectum with the lower margin below the peritoneal reflection, and no lateral pelvic lymph node enlargement. After surgeons had confirmed macroscopic R0 resection by mesorectal excision, patients were intraoperatively randomised to mesorectal excision alone or with lateral lymph node dissection. The groups were balanced by a minimisation method according to clinical N staging (N0 or N1, 2), sex, and institution. Allocated procedure was not masked to investigators or patients. This study is now in the follow-up stage. The primary endpoint is relapse-free survival and will be reported after the primary analysis planned for 2015. Here, we compare operation time, blood loss, postoperative morbidity (grade 3 or 4), and hospital mortality between the two groups. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00190541. 351 patients were randomly assigned to mesoretcal excision with lateral lymph node dissection and 350 to mesorectal excision alone, between June 11, 2003, and Aug 6, 2010. One patient in the mesorectal excision alone group underwent lateral lymph node dissection, but was analysed in their assigned group. Operation time was significantly longer in the mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection group (median 360 min, IQR 296–429) than in the mesorectal excision alone group (254 min, 210–307, p<0·0001). Blood loss was significantly higher in the mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection group (576 mL, IQR 352–900) than in the mesorectal excision alone group (337 mL, 170–566; p<0·0001). 26 (7%) patients in the mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection group had lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis. Grade 3–4 postoperative complications occurred in 76 (22%) patients in the mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection group and 56 (16%) patients in the mesorectal excision alone group. The most common grade 3 or 4 postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage (18 [6%] patients in the mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection group vs 13 [5%] in the mesorectal excision alone group; p=0·46). One patient in the mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection group died of anastomotic leakage followed by sepsis. Mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection required a significantly longer operation time and resulted in significantly greater blood loss than mesorectal excision alone. The primary analysis will help to show whether or not mesorectal excision alone is non-inferior to mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection. National Cancer Center, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Background Several techniques are described in the literature about laparoscopic treatment of the right colon. Among them, laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) with creation of an extracorporeal ileocolonic anastomosis remains the favourite approach in most centers. So far, total laparoscopic colectomy (TLC) with intracorporeal anastomosis is not widely performed, because it requires adequate skills and competence in the use of mechanical linear staplers and laparoscopic manual sutures. The purpose of this study was to determine prospectively if TLC offers some advantages in short-term outcomes over LAC. Methods A prospective comparative study was designed for 80 consecutive patients who were alternatively treated with TLC and LAC for right colon neoplasms. The following data were collected: operative time, intra- and postoperative complication rate, time to bowel movement, hospitalization time, length of minilaparotomy, number of harvested lymph nodes, and specimen length. Results Operative time in TLC resulted significantly longer than in LAC (230 vs. 203 min), complication rate was similar in both groups, with no case of anastomotic dehiscence, two anastomotic bleedings in TLC vs. three in LAC and one case of postoperative ileus for each group. One case of death occurred in LAC patient developing a postoperative severe cardiopulmonary syndrome. Time to first flatus was in favour of TLC (2.2 vs. 2.6 days), whereas hospitalization was comparable. As regards to the oncological parameters of radicality, the specimen length was superior in TLC group, but the number of lymph nodes excised was equivalent. The length of the minilaparotomy was clearly shorter in TLC group (5.5 vs. 7.2 cm). Conclusions No evidence of relevant differences in terms of functional and safety outcomes between the two laparoscopic procedures. TLC determines less abdominal manipulation and shorter incision length, but clear advantages must be still demonstrated. Larger series are necessary to test the superiority of totally laparoscopic procedures for right colectomy.

Standard laparoscopic colectomy (SLC) for cancer is a safe, feasible, and oncologically effective procedure with better short-term and similar long-term results of open colectomy. Conversely, owing to technical difficulties in colonic resection and full mesenteric dissection, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) has been considered unsuitable for oncologic purposes. We compared the technical feasibility and early clinical outcomes of SLC and SILC for cancer. In this prospective randomized clinical trial, 16 (50%) patients underwent SLC (10 left and 6 right) and 16 (50%) patients underwent SILC (8 left and 8 right). Demographics, preoperative data, and characteristics of the tumor were similar. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 16 ± 5 in the SLC and 18 ± 6 in the SILC group (P = NS). Surgical time was 124 ± 8 minutes and 147 ± 5 minutes, respectively (P = NS). Surgical mortality was nil and the major morbidity rate was 6.3% in both groups. SILC for cancer is a technically feasible and safe oncologic procedure with short-term results similar to those obtained with a traditional laparoscopic approach.

Purpose To assess the effect of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction on laparoscopic colectomy in patients with colon cancer. Methods Patients with colon cancer who were treated at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital between August 2020 and December 2022 were included in this pilot, randomized controlled trial. The participants were randomly assigned to either the CTA group, in which patients underwent preoperative CTA and 3D reconstruction, or the control group, in which patients underwent preoperative enhanced abdominal and pelvic CT examinations. The primary outcome was the duration of the operation. The secondary outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, number of lymph node dissections, fasting duration, duration of tube drainage, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). To minimize statistical bias, patients were stratified into subgroups on the basis of tumor location (left colon or right colon). Additionally, variations in the middle colonic artery (MCA), inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), and colonic branches of superior mesenteric artery (cbSMA) classifications were documented. Results A total of 82 patients (41 in each group) were included in the analysis. The CTA group had significantly shorter operation durations (123.68 ± 26.09 vs. 154.12 ± 33.15 min, P  < 0.001) and fasting durations (median 4.00 vs. 5.00 days, P  < 0.001) as well as reduced intraoperative blood loss (median 50.00 vs. 100.00 mL, P  = 0.001) compared to the control group; these differences were observed in the overall colon cancer cohort and in the left and right colon subgroups. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of lymph node dissection, tube drainage duration, hospitalization duration, OS or PFS. In the CTA group, the proportions of patients with different IMA types were as follows: Type A (60.97%), Type B (9.76%), Type C (17.07%), and Type D (12.20%); the proportions of patients with different MCA types were as follows: Type A (78.05%), Type B (12.20%), Type C (7.31%), and Type D (2.44%); and the proportions of patients with different cbSMA types were as follows: Type A (65.85%), Type B (7.32%), Type C (17.07%), and Type D (9.76%). Patients with a tumor size ≥ 5 cm, preoperative intestinal obstruction, postoperative pathological serosal invasion, lymph node metastasis, and stage III disease had significantly worse OS and PFS than those with a tumor size < 5 cm ( P  = 0.007, P  = 0.026), no preoperative intestinal obstruction ( P  = 0.015, P  = 0.019), no serosal invasion ( P  = 0.001, P  = 0.001), no lymph node metastasis ( P  = 0.016, P  = 0.001), and stage I–II disease ( P  = 0.013, P  = 0.001). However, no significant differences in OS or PFS were observed between patients who underwent preoperative CTA examination and the control group ( P  = 0.551, P  = 0.591), between male and female patients ( P  = 0.402, P  = 0.361), or between patients with and without postoperative complications ( P  = 0.561, P  = 0.520). Finally, multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that serosal invasion ( P  = 0.013; P  = 0.009), lymph node metastasis ( P  = 0.029; P  = 0.043), and tumor stage ( P  = 0.002; P  = 0.001) were independent prognostic factors that affected the OS and PFS of patients with colon cancer. Conclusion Preoperative CTA and 3D reconstruction provide essential information for laparoscopic surgery, facilitate the optimization of surgical procedures, and support improved postoperative recovery for patients with colon cancer, suggesting promising clinical applications.

ObjectiveThe objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.BackgroundAt present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.Methods and patientsBetween April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.ConclusionOur findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

ᅟ Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC). Methods The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017. Results CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann’s procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted. With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value. Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required. Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation. Conclusions The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

The diffusion of robotic surgery is rapidly and constantly growing in different surgical specialties. Recently, novel robotic platforms have entered into the market. To date, however, most of the reports on their clinical use have specifically focused on gynecological and urological surgery. In this study, we present the first three robotic-assisted colectomies performed with the new Hugo RAS system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The surgical team had previous robotic experience and completed simulation training and an official 2-day cadaver laboratory session. Operating room setting and trocar layout were planned and two full cadaver procedures were carried out (right and left colectomy). Onsite dry-run sessions were performed before tackling clinical cases. Three patients underwent robotic-assisted colectomies: one left colectomy, two right colectomies with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and high vascular ligation (HVL) at our Institution. Preoperative diagnosis was colonic adenocarcinoma in all cases. A description of the operative room setup, robotic arm configuration and docking angles is provided. Mean docking time and console time were 8 and 259 min, respectively. All the surgical steps were completed without critical surgical errors or high-priority alarms. Neither intraoperative complications nor conversions to open surgery were recorded. Postoperative courses were uneventful with a mean length of stay of 5 days. Further clinical data and experience are required for procedural standardization and potential integration of the system into robotic general surgery and colorectal programs.

Purpose Minimally invasive surgery benefits patients but poor operating ergonomics causes musculoskeletal injuries in surgeons. This randomised controlled trial aims to assess whether robotic-assisted surgery with the open-console Versius® system can reduce surgeons’ ergonomic risks during major colorectal resections. Methods Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05262296) in March 2022. Adult patients requiring a minimally invasive colorectal resection were potentially eligible. Photographs taken at 2-min intervals were analysed using the objective Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) posture analysis scale to calculate intraoperative surgeon ergonomic risk. Secondary outcomes included team communication (Oxford NOTECHS II), surgeon cognitive strain (modified NASA-TLX scale), and clinical outcomes. Results Sixty patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio (40 robot, 20 laparoscopic). Mean age was 65yrs and 34 (57%) were male. Body Mass Index did not differ between the 2 groups (overall mean 29.0 ± 5) and there were equal proportions of left and right-colonic resections. REBA was significantly lower in the robotic arm (median robot REBA score 3 vs lap REBA 5 [p < 0.001]), equating to an injury risk category drop from “medium” to “low risk”. There were no significant differences in team communication, operative duration, or patient outcomes. Surgeon cognitive strain was lower in robotic cases (mean robot 32.4 ± 10.3 vs lap 45.6 ± 14.3 [p < 0.001]). Conclusions This trial demonstrates that robotic surgery with an open-console system reduces ergonomic risk scores and cognitive strain during colorectal resections, with no apparent detriment to team communication. This may therefore be a safe & feasible solution to the increasing problem of work-related musculoskeletal injuries in surgeons.

Objective It has been demonstrated that colon operation combined with fast-track (FT) surgery and laparoscopic technique can shorten the length of hospital stay, accelerate recovery of intestinal function, and reduce the occurrence of post-operative complications. However, there are no reports regarding the combined effects of FT colon operation and laparoscopic technique on humoral inflammatory cellular immunity. Methods This was a prospective, controlled study. One hundred sixty-three colon cancer patients underwent the traditional protocol and open operation (traditional open group, n  = 42), the traditional protocol and laparoscopic operation (traditional laparoscopic group, n  = 40), the FT protocol and open operation (FT open group, n  = 41), or the FT protocol and laparoscopic operation (FT laparoscopic group, n  = 40). Blood samples were taken prior to operation as well as on days 1, 3, and 5 after operation. The number of lymphocyte subpopulations was determined by flow cytometry, and serum interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels were measured. Post-operative hospital stay, post-operative morbidity, readmission rate, and in-hospital mortality were recorded. Results Compared with open operation, laparoscopic colon operation effectively inhibited the release of post-operative inflammatory factors and yielded good protection via post-operative cell immunity. FT surgery had a better protective role with respect to the post-operative immune system compared with traditional peri-operative care. Inflammatory reactions, based on interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels, were less intense following FT laparoscopic operation compared to FT open operation; however, there were no differences in specific immunity (CD3+ and CD4+ counts, and the CD4+/CD8+ ratio) during these two types of surgical procedures. Post-operative hospital stay in patients randomized to the FT laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than in the other three treatment groups ( P  < 0.01). Post-operative complications in patients who underwent FT laparoscopic treatment were less than in the other three treatment groups ( P  < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the four treatment groups regarding readmission rate and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions The laparoscopic technique and FT surgery rehabilitation program effectively inhibited release of post-operative inflammatory factors with a reduction in peri-operative trauma and stress, which together played a protective role on the post-operative immune system. Combining two treatment measures during colon operation produced better protective effects via the immune system. The beneficial clinical effects support that the better-preserved post-operative immune system may also contribute to the improvement of post-operative results in FT laparoscopic patients.

Background Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) is a newly developed procedure with the benefit of better cosmetic outcome and potentially reduced wound pain compared with conventionally laparoscopic colectomy (CLC). However, the application of SILC requires careful evaluation to prove its benefit and safety. This randomized, controlled study compared the operative outcome of patients who underwent SILC and CLC. Methods Patients who had small cancer (<4 cm) or adenomatous polyp requiring colectomy were randomized to have SILC or CLC. The patients were blinded to the procedures and the postoperative pain was used as the primary outcome measure. All patients had patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine after the operation and the nominal rating score on days 1–3 and day 14 were recorded by research staff, who did not known the types of operations. Other operative outcomes of the two groups of patients also were recorded prospectively and compared. Results There were 25 patients in each group. The patients’ demographics, tumor characteristics, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, number of lymph nodes harvested, and resection margin have no statistically significant difference between the two groups. There was no operative mortality in both groups. The SILC group had consistently lower median pain score than CLC group in the whole postoperative course and the difference was statistically significant on day 1 (0 (0–5) vs. day 3 (0–6) respectively; p  = 0.002) and day 2 (0 (0–3) vs. 2 (0–8) respectively; p  = 0.014). The median hospital stay in the SILC group also was shorter the CLC group. Conclusions In a selected group of patients with small tumor and good operative risk, SILC is a safe alternative to CLC. Single-port laparoscopic colectomy also is associated with the benefits of less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay than CLC.