BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is unpopular because it is technically challenging. Suitable training systems have not been widely studied or established despite the steep learning curve for this procedure. We developed a systematic training program that enables resident surgeons to perform laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) for rectal cancer and evaluated the safety and feasibility of this training program. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively gathered data on all LLARs for rectal cancer performed at a single center over a 7-year period. Patients were assessed for demographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, operative procedure, operative time, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, complications, time to bowel recovery, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. We compared the early surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of LLARs performed by expert surgeons with those of LLARs performed by resident surgeons for both intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal rectal cancer. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. Of the 75 LLARs for intraperitoneal rectal cancer, 40 were performed by expert surgeons (I-E group) and 35 by resident surgeons (I-R group). Of the 62 LLARs for extraperitoneal rectal cancer, 51 were performed by expert surgeons (E-E group) and 11 by resident surgeons (E-R group). The operative time was longer in the E-R group than in the E-E group. The time to resumption of diet was longer in the I-E group than in the I-R group. The other early outcomes, including blood loss, anastomotic leakage, conversion to open surgery, and number of lymph nodes harvested, were similar in the I-E and I-R groups and in the E-E and E-R groups. CONCLUSION: Our systematic training program on LLAR for rectal cancer enables resident surgeons to perform this procedure safely early during residency, with acceptable short-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is unpopular because it is technically challenging. Suitable training systems have not been widely studied or established despite the steep learning curve for this procedure. We developed a systematic training program that enables resident surgeons to perform laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) for rectal cancer and evaluated the safety and feasibility of this training program. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively gathered data on all LLARs for rectal cancer performed at a single center over a 7-year period. Patients were assessed for demographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, operative procedure, operative time, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, complications, time to bowel recovery, distal margin, and number of lymph nodes harvested. We compared the early surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of LLARs performed by expert surgeons with those of LLARs performed by resident surgeons for both intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal rectal cancer. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. Of the 75 LLARs for intraperitoneal rectal cancer, 40 were performed by expert surgeons (I-E group) and 35 by resident surgeons (I-R group). Of the 62 LLARs for extraperitoneal rectal cancer, 51 were performed by expert surgeons (E-E group) and 11 by resident surgeons (E-R group). The operative time was longer in the E-R group than in the E-E group. The time to resumption of diet was longer in the I-E group than in the I-R group. The other early outcomes, including blood loss, anastomotic leakage, conversion to open surgery, and number of lymph nodes harvested, were similar in the I-E and I-R groups and in the E-E and E-R groups. CONCLUSION: Our systematic training program on LLAR for rectal cancer enables resident surgeons to perform this procedure safely early during residency, with acceptable short-term outcomes.
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321