scholarly journals Minimally invasive surgery in the geriatric patient with colon cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 540-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Chi-Yong Ngu ◽  
Li-Jen Kuo ◽  
Nan Zun Teo
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Geriatric Patient

Establishment of a minimally invasive surgery program leads to decreased inpatient cost of care in veterans with colon cancer

2010 ◽  
Vol 200 (5) ◽  
pp. 632-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy L. Marshall ◽  
G. John Chen ◽  
Celia N. Robinson ◽  
Courtney J. Balentine ◽  
Daniel A. Anaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Inpatient Cost

scholarly journals Implementing complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer – mission completed?

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland S. Croner ◽  
Henry Ptok ◽  
Susanne Merkel ◽  
Werner Hohenberger
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Complete Mesocolic Excision ◽  
Oncological Outcome ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Mesocolic Excision ◽  
Related Survival

AbstractThe definition of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon carcinomas revolutionized the way of colon surgery. This technique conquered the world starting from Erlangen. Nevertheless, currently new developments especially in minimally invasive surgery challenge CME to become settled as a standard of care. To understand the evolution of CME, anatomical details occurring during embryogenesis and their variations have to be considered. This knowledge is indispensable to transfer CME from an open to a minimally invasive setting. Conventional surgery for colon cancer (non-CME) has a morbidity of 12.1–28.5% and a 3.7% mortality risk vs. 12–36.4% morbidity and 2.1–3% mortality for open CME. The morbidity of laparoscopic CME is between 4 and 31% with a mortality of 0.5–0.9%. In robotic assisted surgery, morbidity between 10 and 25% with a mortality of 1% was published. The cancer-related survival after 3 and 5 years for open CME is respectively 91.3–95% and 90% vs. 87% and 74% for non-CME. For laparoscopic CME the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 87.8–97% and 79.5–80.2%. In stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 83.9% and 80.8% in the Erlangen data of open technique vs. 75.4% and 65.5–71.7% for laparoscopic surgery. For stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year local tumor recurrence is 3.8%. The published data and the results from Erlangen demonstrate that CME is safe in experienced hands with no increased morbidity. It offers an obvious survival benefit for the patients which can be achieved solely by surgery. Teaching programs are needed for minimally invasive CME to facilitate this technique in the same quality compared to open surgery. Passing these challenges CME will become the standard of care for patients with colon carcinomas offering all benefits of minimally invasive surgery and oncological outcome.

Minimally Invasive Surgery of Rectal Cancer: Current Evidence and Options

2012 ◽  
pp. 214-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atthaphorn Trakarnsanga ◽  
Martin R. Weiser
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Invasive Approach

Overview: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of colorectal cancer has become more popular in the past two decades. Laparoscopic colectomy has been accepted as an alternative standard approach in colon cancer, with comparable oncologic outcomes and several better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery. Unlike the treatment for colon cancer, however, the minimally invasive approach in rectal cancer has not been established. In this article, we summarize the current status of MIS for rectal cancer and explore the various technical options.

Minimally Invasive Surgery Is Underutilized for Colon Cancer

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 1412-1418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celia N. Robinson ◽  
G. John Chen ◽  
Courtney J. Balentine ◽  
Shubhada Sansgiry ◽  
Christy L. Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery

scholarly journals Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Milone ◽  
Maurizio Degiuli ◽  
Nunzio Velotti ◽  
Michele Manigrasso ◽  
Sara Vertaldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leak ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Transverse Colon ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
Transverse Colon Cancer ◽  
Robotic Approach ◽  
Solid Diet

AbstractThe role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document