Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer is a burgeoning field of general surgery. Randomized controlled trials have assessed short-term patient-oriented and long-term oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic resection. These trials have demonstrated that the laparoscopic approach is equivalent to open surgery with a shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic resection also may result in improved short-term patient-oriented outcomes and equivalent oncologic resections versus the open approach. Transanal excision of select rectal cancer using endoscopic microsurgery is promising and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is an emerging modality. The efficacy of minimally invasive treatment for rectal cancer compared with conventional approaches will be clarified further in randomized controlled trials.
"Minimally invasive techniques have revolutionized general surgery, especially in the field of gastrointestinal surgery. Many authors argue that the era of laparoscopic technique had begun in 1987, when Mouret performed the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Koopmann et al., 2008; Law et al., 2007). Since that point, laparoscopic technique has become the first choice for a multitude of surgical procedures: cholecystectomy, gastric bypass, fundoplication and its variants are some examples of procedures which are currently performed laparoscopically (Stage et al., 1997; Lacy et al., 2002). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Robotic surgery has many features that make it superior to traditional laparoscopic surgery. However, the use of the robot is limited by the need to reposition the robot during colon and rectal operations encompassing more than one abdominal quadrant. A "hybrid" technique has been developed which combines traditional laparoscopy with a robotic pelvic dissection. With this combined approach, the benefits of the 2 techniques can be maximized, while minimizing their limitations.
Seminars in Colon [amp ] Rectal Surgery 12/2009; 20(4):181-184. DOI:10.1053/j.scrs.2009.08.007
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare the short- and medium-term results obtained by totally laparoscopic right colectomy (TL) with those obtained by laparoscopically assisted right colectomy (LAC) for the treatment of right colon cancer.
A retrospective study compared two nonstatistically different groups (50 TL and 50 LAC cases) managed for nonmetastatic malignant tumors. The study outcomes included operative time, length of minilaparotomy, intraoperative complications, postoperative pain, time to resumption of the gastrointestinal functions, permanence of abdominal drain, analgesic therapy duration, postoperative complications, hospitalization time, number of harvested lymph nodes, and distant metastases onset.
The mean operative times were 78 ± 25 min (TL group) and 92 ± 22 min (LAC group) (p < 0.05). The findings showed a lower postoperative pain level associated with a reduction in analgesic consumption (p > 0.05) and earlier restoration of digestive function in the TL group than in the LAC group. The mean hospital stays were approximately 5 days (TL) and 7 days (LAC) (p < 0.05). No complications occurred either intra- or postoperatively, and similarly, the TL group experienced no mortality. In comparison, the LAC group had a 30% complication rate (p < 0.05). The complications included one case of intraoperative small bowel lesion, three cases of postoperative respiratory infections, three cases of anastomotic leakage, two cases of intestinal occlusion, three cases of minilaparotomy infection, one case of postoperative femoral neurosis, one case of postoperative heart attack, and one case of postoperative pancreatitis. The mortality rate was 0%. Neither group had a recurrence of the neoplastic disease during a 4-year follow-up period.
The findings seem to demonstrate that TL right colectomy is feasible and safe, yielding results comparable with those of the open approach but offering improved postoperative patient comfort. The limits of this retrospective comparative study do not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn despite the encouraging data for the next prospective randomized studies.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.