Alberto Arezzo1, Roberto Passera2, Marco Migliore1, Roberto Cirocchi3, Giuseppe Galloro4, Raffaele Manta5, Mario Morino1. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. 2. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. 3. Department of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy. 4. Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University Federico II of Napoli, Napoli, Italy. 5. Department of Surgery, Niguarda Ca' Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of laparo-endoscopic local resections for colorectal lesions not suitable for endoscopic resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The combined laparo-endoscopic approach has been proposed for large colorectal lesions unsuitable for endoscopic resection, in order to reduce morbidity of common laparoscopic resection. However, data on the efficacy and safety of laparo-endoscopic local resections are still controversial. METHODS: An Embase search of papers published during the period 1985-2014 was performed. Published studies that evaluated laparo-endoscopic resections for colorectal lesions were assessed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations by two authors. Forest plots on primary (per-lesion rate of further surgery, including surgery for complications and surgery for oncologic radical treatment) and secondary outcomes were produced based on fixed and random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I (2) statistic. Risk for within-study bias was ascertained with QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) system. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies provided data on 707 lesions treated with a combined laparo-endoscopic approach. A variety of techniques were reported. The overall per-lesion rate of further surgery was 9.5%, while per-lesion rate of further surgery for oncologic treatment was 7.9%, per-lesion rate of further surgery for complications treatment was 3.5%, incidence of adenocarcinoma was 10.5%, incidence of overall complications was 7.9%, incidence of conversion to open surgery 4.3% and incidence of recurrence was 5.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite laparo-endoscopic approach ensures limited invasiveness, it is affected by a consistent rate of complications and oncologic inadequacy that often requires further surgical treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of laparo-endoscopic local resections for colorectal lesions not suitable for endoscopic resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The combined laparo-endoscopic approach has been proposed for large colorectal lesions unsuitable for endoscopic resection, in order to reduce morbidity of common laparoscopic resection. However, data on the efficacy and safety of laparo-endoscopic local resections are still controversial. METHODS: An Embase search of papers published during the period 1985-2014 was performed. Published studies that evaluated laparo-endoscopic resections for colorectal lesions were assessed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations by two authors. Forest plots on primary (per-lesion rate of further surgery, including surgery for complications and surgery for oncologic radical treatment) and secondary outcomes were produced based on fixed and random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I (2) statistic. Risk for within-study bias was ascertained with QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) system. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies provided data on 707 lesions treated with a combined laparo-endoscopic approach. A variety of techniques were reported. The overall per-lesion rate of further surgery was 9.5%, while per-lesion rate of further surgery for oncologic treatment was 7.9%, per-lesion rate of further surgery for complications treatment was 3.5%, incidence of adenocarcinoma was 10.5%, incidence of overall complications was 7.9%, incidence of conversion to open surgery 4.3% and incidence of recurrence was 5.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite laparo-endoscopic approach ensures limited invasiveness, it is affected by a consistent rate of complications and oncologic inadequacy that often requires further surgical treatment.
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
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: Mate Knabe; Jürgen Pohl; Christian Gerges; Christian Ell; Horst Neuhaus; Brigitte Schumacher Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Dirk Wilhelm; Stefan von Delius; Lars Weber; Alexander Meining; Armin Schneider; Helmut Friess; Roland M Schmid; Eckart Frimberger; Hubertus Feussner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rokas Račkauskas; Saulius Mikalauskas; Marius Petrulionis; Tomas Poškus; Valdemaras Jotautas; Juozas Stanaitis; Eligijus Poškus; Kęstutis Strupas Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 1.195