Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 6/2016

01-06-2016

A comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis

Authors: Dae Hee Pyo, Jung Wook Huh, Yoon Ah Park, Yong Beom Cho, Seong Hyeon Yun, Hee Cheol Kim, Woo Yong Lee, Ho-Kyung Chun

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes and perioperative variables following conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for rectal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2008 and December 2012, 2680 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer were analyzed. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for potential baseline confounders between groups including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical T and N categories, pathologic T and N categories, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and the status of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. After matching, we analyzed 278 patients in each group (n = 556).

Results

The median follow-up period was 36.2 and 37.4 months in the HALS group and the conventional LAP group, respectively. Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.531). The 5-year overall survival rate was 88.8 % in the HALS group and 91.2 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.329). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.0 % in the HALS group and 79.7 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.591).

Conclusions

HALS is considered a safe and feasible approach for rectal cancer treatment that enables the preservation of the advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery.
Literature
1.
Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:144–150PubMed
2.
HALS Study Group (2000) Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery vs standard laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 14:896–901CrossRef
3.
Noel JK, Fahrbach K, Estok R, Cella C, Frame D, Linz H, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, Senagore AJ (2007) Minimally invasive colorectal resection outcomes: short-term comparison with open procedures. J Am Coll Surg 204:291–307CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hassan I, You YN, Cima RR, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Barnes SA, Pemberton JH (2008) Hand-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery: practice patterns and clinical outcomes in a minimally-invasive colorectal practice. Surg Endosc 22:739–743CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Ballantyne GH, Leahy PF (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: evolution to a clinically useful technique. Dis Colon Rectum 47:753–765CrossRefPubMed
7.
Huh JW, Kim HC, Lee SJ, Yun SH, Lee WY, Park YA, Cho YB, Chun HK (2014) Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic impact of restaging by magnetic resonance imaging after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 113:24–28CrossRefPubMed
8.
Park JS, Huh JW, Park YA, Cho YB, Yun SH, Kim HC, Lee WY, Chun HK (2014) A circumferential resection margin of 1 mm is a negative prognostic factor in rectal cancer patients with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum 57:933–940CrossRefPubMed
9.
Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM, Visa J (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224–2229CrossRefPubMed
10.
Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study G (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRef
11.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, group MCt (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726CrossRefPubMed
12.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Pahlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy AM, Group COcLoORS (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484CrossRefPubMed
13.
Franks PJ, Bosanquet N, Thorpe H, Brown JM, Copeland J, Smith AM, Quirke P, Guillou PJ, participants Ct (2006) Short-term costs of conventional vs laparoscopic assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial). Br J Cancer 95:6–12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, Group UMCT (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068CrossRefPubMed
15.
Meshikhes AW, El Tair M, Al Ghazal T (2011) Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery: initial experience of a single surgeon. Saudi J Gastroenterol 17:16–19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Yang I, Boushey RP, Marcello PW (2013) Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Tech Coloproctol 17:23–27CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis
Authors
Dae Hee Pyo
Jung Wook Huh
Yoon Ah Park
Yong Beom Cho
Seong Hyeon Yun
Hee Cheol Kim
Woo Yong Lee
Ho-Kyung Chun
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4496-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 6/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

The utility of radiological upper gastrointestinal series and clinical indicators in detecting leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a case-controlled study

OriginalPaper

The relationship between intracranial pressure and obesity: an ultrasonographic evaluation of the optic nerve

OriginalPaper

Efficacy and safety of a resorbable collagen membrane COVA+™ for the prevention of postoperative adhesions in abdominal surgery

OriginalPaper

The use of crural relaxing incisions with biologic mesh reinforcement during laparoscopic repair of complex hiatal hernias

OriginalPaper

Pros and cons of the gasless laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for upper esophageal carcinoma

OriginalPaper

A single-centre experience of relaparoscopy in complications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair-feasibility and outcomes