Laparoscopic colorectal surgery

European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Volumn 9, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 766-772

  Guillou, Pierre J ^a   Murchan, Peter M ^a  

^a ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Open surgery; Port site recurrence

Indexed keywords

ABSENTEEISM; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CANCER SURGERY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COLORECTAL SURGERY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0030749956     PISSN: 0954691X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00042737-199708000-00006     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Guillou PJ: Laparoscopic surgery for diseases of the colon and rectum - quo vadis? Surg Endosc 1994, 8:669-671.
2. Guillou PJ, Darzi A, Monson JRT: Experience with laparoscopic surgery for malignant disease. Surg Oncol 1993, 2(suppl 1):43-49.
3. Elftmann TD, Nelson H, Ota DM, et al.: Laparoscopic-assisted segmental colectomy: surgical techniques. Mayo Clin Proc 1994, 69:825-833.
4. Phillips EH, Franklin M, Carroll BJ, et al.: Laparoscopic colectomy. Ann Surg 1992, 216:703-707.
5. Monson JRT, Darzi A, Carey PD, et al.: Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in an unselected group of patients. Lancet 1992, 340:831-833. An important 'first report' of the technique and results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in an unselected and consecutive series of 4C patients in whom the laparoscopic approach to colorectal resection was undertaken. Little has changed since this initial report and this article concludes with a statement that long-term studies are required to determine the safety and efficacy of this procedure: a statement which is reiterated in publications up to and including 1996!
6. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Pique JM, et al.: Short-term outcome of a randomised study comparing laparoscopic vs, open colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 1995, 9:1101-1105. This paper is important because it remains the only published randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However there were only 25 and 26 patients in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively and follow-up was short. The usual short term benefits of the laparoscopic approach weve observed.
7. Jakeways MR, Mitchell V, Hashim IA, et al.: Metabolic and inflammatory response after open or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 1994, 81:127-131.
8. McMahon AJ, Russel IT, Ramsey G, et al.: Laparoscopic and minilaparotomy cholecystectomy. A randomised trial comparing postoperative pain and pulmonary function. Surgery 1994, 115:533-539.
9. Glaser F, Saunwald GA, Buhr HJ, et al.: General stress response to conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 1995, 221:372-380.
10. Carey PD, Thayeb A, Wakefield CH, et al.: The effects of minimally invasive surgery on neutrophil hypochlorous acid production. Br J Surg 1994, 81:557-560.
11. Klava A, Windsor A, Boylston AW, et al.: Monocyte activation after open and laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 1997, in press.
12. Senegore AJ, Kilbride MJ, Luchtefeld MA, et al.: Superior nitrogen balance after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Ann Surg 1995, 221:171-175. Unequivocal evidence of unimpaired nitrogen balance after laparoscopic colorectal surgery compared with open surgery, confirming other data on diminished stress responses during laparoscopic surgery of similar magnitude.
13. Moiniche S, Bulow S, Hesselfeldt P, et al.: Convalescence and hospital stay after colonic surgery during balanced anaesthesia, enforced oral feeding and mobilisation. Eur J Surg 1995, 8:431-436.
14. Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Crawford ME, et al.: Recovery after laparoscopic colonic surgery with epidural anaesthesia and early oral nutrition and mobilisation. Lancet 1995, 345:763-764. An astonishing report of hospital stay of two days in a series of elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery with balanced anaesthesia and forced early feeding and oral nutrition. This paper underscores the importance of factors beyond surgical ones in evaluating the short term results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
15. Vara-Thorbeck C, Garcia-Caballero M, Salvi M: Indications and advantages of laparoscopic-assisted colon resection for carcinoma in elderly patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1994, 4:110-118. Underscores the potential importance of laparoscopic colorectal resections in the elderly.
16. Fingerhut A, Elhadad A, Hay JM, et al.: Intraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: hand-sewn versus circular staples. A controlled clinical trial. Surgery 1994, 116:484-490.
17. Jatzko G, Lisborg P, Wetter V: Improving survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1992, 79:588-591.
18. McArdle CS, Hole D, Hansell D, et al.: Prospective study of colorectal cancer in the West of Scotland: 10-year follow up. Br J Surg 1990, 77:280-282.
19. Tartter PI, Quintero S, Barron DM: Perioperative blood transfusions associated with infective complications after colorectal cancer operations. Am J Surg 1986, 152:479-482.
20. Heiss MM, Mempel W, Delanoff C, et al.: Blood-transfusion-modulated tumour recurrence: first results of a randomized study of autologous versus allogeneic blood transfusion in colorectal cancer surgery. J Clin Oncol 1994, 12:1859-1867.
21. Falk PM, Beart RW Jr, Wexner SD, et al.: Laparoscopic colectomy: a critical appraisal. Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:28-34.
22. Lumley JW, Feilding GA, Rhodes M, et al.: Laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery: lessons learned from 240 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1996, 39:155-159.
23. Cirocco WC, Swartzmann A, Golub RW: Abdominal wall recurrences after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Surgery 1994, 116:842-846. Suggests that the issue of port site recurrence is significant enough to cast doubt on the oncological safety of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
24. Ramos JM, Gupta S, Anthone GJ, et al.: Laparoscopic surgery and colon cancer: is the port site at risk? A preliminary report. Arch Surg 1994, 129:897-899. Reports three cases of port site recurrence in 208 laparoscopic colectomies for cancer, all being Dukes 'C' pathologically, two of whom had peritoneal carcinomatosis at the time of the original surgery. Takes the opposite view to Cirocco et al. and suggests that the port site is not at greater risk than any other abdominal wound.
25. Gunderson LL, Sosin H: Areas of failure found at reoperation (second or symptomatic look) following 'curative surgery' for adenocarcinoma of the rectum: clinico-pathologic correlation and implications for adjuvant therapy. Cancer 1994, 34:1278-1292.
26. Huscher C, Silecchia G, Croce E, et al.: Laparoscopic colorectal resection. A multicenter Italian study. Surg Endosc 1996, 10:875-879.
27. Allendorf JDF, Bessler M, Kayton ML, et al.: Increased tumour establishment and growth after laparotomy vs. laparoscopy in a murine model. Arch Surg 1995, 130:649-653. An experimental study suggesting that laparoscopy is less permissive of tumour growth than is laparotomy, thus supporting contentions that there is no adverse biological effect of laparoscopy on tumour growth.
28. Lord SA, Larach SW, Ferrara A, et al.: Laparoscopic resection for colorectal carcinoma - a three year experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1996, 39:148-154. A single centre series of laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer without a port site recurrence.
29. Ortega AE, Beart RW Jr, Steele CD, et al.: Laparoscopic bowel surgery registry; preliminary results. Dis Colon Rectum 1995, 38:681-686.
30. Guillou PJ: Design and assessment of clinical trials in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Edited by Monson JRT, Darzi A, Oxford: Isis Academic Media; 1995:250-263. This article addresses some of the major problems facing those responsible for the design of any laparoscopic clinical trial, particularly those involved in the assessment of techniques utilized for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. Some solutions are proposed for obtaining more rapid answers to those questions of oncological safety in laparoscopic surgery for cancer.
31. Guillou PJ, Windsor AJ, Nejim A: The health-care economic considerations of minimal access gastrointestinal surgery. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1996, 10:707-713.
32. Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Johansen OB, et al.: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective assessment and current perspective. Br J Surg 1993, 80:1602-1605. A rather more pessimistic view of the role of laparoscopic surgery in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Complications in these authors' hands are greater than with open surgery but appear to be higher than those of other groups exploiting the same techniques.
33. Musser SD, Boorse RC, Madera F, et al.: Laparoscopic colectomy: at what cost? Surg Laparosc Endosc 1994, 4:1-5.
34. Peters WR, Bartel TL: Minimally invasive colectomy: are the potential benefits realized? Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:751-756.
35. Scoggin SD, Frazee RC, Snyder SK, et al.: Laparoscopic-assisted bowel surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:747-750.
36. Dean PA, Beart RW Jr, Nelson H, et al.: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy: early Mayo Clinic experience. Mayo Clin Proc 1994, 69:334-840.
37. Ramos JM, Beart RW Jr, Goes R, et al.: Role of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. A prospective evaluation of 200 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1995, 38:494-501.
38. Kwok SP, Lau WY, Carey PD, et al.: Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted large bowel excision for cancer. Ann Surg 1996, 223:170-176.