Atsushi Ogura1, Takashi Akiyoshi2, Tsuyoshi Konishi1, Yoshiya Fujimoto1, Satoshi Nagayama1, Yosuke Fukunaga1, Masashi Ueno1. 1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, The Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. 2. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, The Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31, Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan. takashi.akiyoshi@jfcr.or.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been demonstrated, the safety of laparoscopic pelvic exenteration (PE) with urinary diversion for colorectal malignancies remains poorly studied. The present study aimed to examine the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic PE in patients with colorectal malignancies. METHODS: Thirty-one consecutive patients who underwent anterior or total PE with urinary diversion for colorectal malignancies between July 2004 and April 2015 at our institution were included in the study. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 13) and open (n = 18) PE. RESULTS: There were no conversions to open surgery. The estimated blood loss (930 vs. 3003 ml; P = 0.001) and total volume of blood transfusion (0 vs. 1990 ml; P = 0.002) were significantly lower in patients undergoing laparoscopic compared with open PE. R0 resection was performed in all patients. The operation time (laparoscopic, 829 min vs. open, 875 min; P = 0.660), complication rate (laparoscopic, 61.5 % vs. open, 83.3 %; P = 0.171), and postoperative hospital days (laparoscopic, 29 days vs. open, 33 days; P = 0.356) were similar in both groups. Three patients undergoing laparoscopic PE readmitted within 30 days due to ileus, although the rate of readmission did not differ significantly (laparoscopic, 23.1 % vs. open, 5.6 %; P = 0.284). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic PE performed by experienced laparoscopic pelvic surgeons should be considered as a safe and preferred option in selected patients with colorectal malignancies, with a significant advantage in terms of reduced blood loss compared with open surgery.
BACKGROUND: Although the feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been demonstrated, the safety of laparoscopic pelvic exenteration (PE) with urinary diversion for colorectal malignancies remains poorly studied. The present study aimed to examine the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic PE in patients with colorectal malignancies. METHODS: Thirty-one consecutive patients who underwent anterior or total PE with urinary diversion for colorectal malignancies between July 2004 and April 2015 at our institution were included in the study. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic (n = 13) and open (n = 18) PE. RESULTS: There were no conversions to open surgery. The estimated blood loss (930 vs. 3003 ml; P = 0.001) and total volume of blood transfusion (0 vs. 1990 ml; P = 0.002) were significantly lower in patients undergoing laparoscopic compared with open PE. R0 resection was performed in all patients. The operation time (laparoscopic, 829 min vs. open, 875 min; P = 0.660), complication rate (laparoscopic, 61.5 % vs. open, 83.3 %; P = 0.171), and postoperative hospital days (laparoscopic, 29 days vs. open, 33 days; P = 0.356) were similar in both groups. Three patients undergoing laparoscopic PE readmitted within 30 days due to ileus, although the rate of readmission did not differ significantly (laparoscopic, 23.1 % vs. open, 5.6 %; P = 0.284). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic PE performed by experienced laparoscopic pelvic surgeons should be considered as a safe and preferred option in selected patients with colorectal malignancies, with a significant advantage in terms of reduced blood loss compared with open surgery.
Authors: T Akiyoshi; J Nagata; T Nagasaki; T Konishi; Y Fujimoto; S Nagayama; Y Fukunaga; M Ueno Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David G Jayne; Pierre J Guillou; Helen Thorpe; Philip Quirke; Joanne Copeland; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544