Surgery for colorectal cancer

Authors:

Details:

  1. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.

Abstract

Surgery is the mainstay in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Considerable progress has been made in the past eight years since the publication of the most recent clinical practice guidelines for colorectal cancer by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The most notable changes in surgery are the result of trials in minimally invasive approaches, including laparoscopic cancer resection, new advances yet to be tested such as robotic assisted cancer resection and the use of self-expanding metallic stents in patients with curable malignant obstruction. This paper provides an overview of these minimally invasive techniques and summarises the recommendations that could be considered for inclusion or update in the next edition of the guidelines.


Surgery is the mainstay treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC). With the exception of medically contraindicated patients or patients who decline surgery, most patients, including those with locally advanced or metastatic disease, will require some form of surgical intervention, which may be preceded by or followed by adjuvant therapy.

Although progress continues to be made on all fronts in the treatment of CRC, from a surgical standpoint, minimally invasive and maximally invasive resection techniques have made the most progress over the past eight years, since publication of the most recent clinical practice guidelines by the National Health and Medical Research Council.1 Table 1 summarises the existing practice guidelines and areas where updates could be considered based on the available literature.

CF March 2014 -Summary-of-2005-Guidelines-and-Updated-Recommendations

Laparoscopic colon resection

Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is a safe alternative to open surgery, provided the same surgical and oncological principles are adhered to. Short-term surgical outcomes such as intra-operative blood loss, post-operative pain, return of gastro-intestinal function and length of hospital stay, have all been consistently shown to improve, although only marginally, with laparoscopic surgery.2-5 However, the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic CRC resection remained a concern until more recently, when the long-term follow-up data from several large multi-centre randomised control trials (RCT), such as the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study (ALCCaS trial), Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST), Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection I (COLOR I), Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (CLASIC) and Barcelona trials became available. All confirmed the equivalence of laparoscopic assisted resections to open procedures in terms of long-term oncological outcomes, with no confirmation of initial suggestions that laparoscopic colectomy may be associated with increased risk of port site metastases.6-9 These results have re-affirmed the previous guidelines that laparoscopic colon resection can be considered now with Level 1 evidence to be safe, however laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery should remain in the confines of prospective RCTs (see later).

The ALCCaS, COST and CLASSIC trials have published short-term data with only marginal improvements in subjective outcomes in the laparoscopic groups consistent with previous meta-analyses, however the longer term oncological outcomes are all equivalent. In 2008, Lacy et al published the long-term follow-up results from the Barcelona trial at a median follow-up of 95 months where recurrence rates, overall mortality and cancer related mortality were 18% vs 28% (p>0.05), 36% vs 49% (p>0.05) and 16% vs 27% (p>0.05) respectively for laparoscopic and open arms.9 Although local recurrence rates and survival favoured the laparoscopic group, these did not reach statistical significance.9 Jayne et al reported the long-term follow-up data from the CLASSIC trial in 2007.10 Although comparable oncological outcomes have been demonstrated, early reports from the CLASSIC trial were somewhat alarming because of the high conversion rate (29%) and increased mortality, as well as morbidity, with open conversion.3 Much debate has stemmed from these and other trial results suggesting that if the conversion rates are lowered, then the benefit of the laparoscopic procedure will be increased. However, maintaining the intention to treat analyses and inherent bias of this post-hoc analysis cannot support this, widespread assumption. Several meta-analyses pooling data from the large Barcelona, COST, COLOR I, CLASSIC I and ALCCaS RCTs have confirmed that laparoscopic colectomy is at least oncologically equivalent to open surgery and can be reasonably offered as an alternative to the open procedure, and that this choice is based on surgeon and patient preferences.2,11,12

Laparoscopic rectal resection

More recently, laparoscopy has also been extended to treat rectal cancer. To date, multiple large case series, uncontrolled comparative studies and non-randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that laparoscopic rectal resection confers the same short-term surgical benefits as laparoscopic colectomy, and that laparoscopic proctectomy is associated with less blood loss, reduced post-operative pain, earlier return of gastrointestinal function and shorter duration of inpatient stay.13-16 As randomised trial confirmation of the long-term oncological data are currently lacking for laparoscopic proctectomy, there are concerns about its oncological safety just as there were initial concerns about the oncologic safety, of laparoscopic colectomy.

Rectal cancer outcomes are directly related to the quality of surgery, where local recurrence rates have been shown to halve after the surgeons are trained to perform high quality total mesorectal excision (TME).17 However, although local recurrence is a useful marker of surgical quality, it is at best an indirect marker of quality of surgery. Further, as local recurrence requires large numbers of patients with long-term follow-up, it limits its usefulness for immediate feedback or early recognition and implementation of strategies to improve surgical quality. The completeness of excision and integrity of the mesorectum of the resected rectal specimen is not only a surrogate for quality surgery, it has also been shown to correlate with oncological outcomes such as local recurrence.18,19 In a sub-study of the Dutch TME trial, Nagtegaal et al reported that an incomplete mesorectum is associated with an increased risk of overall recurrence (35.6% vs 21.5%) and local recurrence (15.0% vs 8.7%).19 Using the grading system described by Nagtegaal et al, Maleskar et al demonstrated stepwise incremental risk of local recurrence with progressive deterioration in the quality of TME, where the risks of local recurrence were 1.6%, 5.7% and 41% with a complete, near complete and incomplete mesorectum respectively. The importance of an intact mesorectum is currently being further assessed in the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (A La CaRT) trial, which is an Australasian multi-centre trial comparing laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer.20

A number of prospective randomised trials have either been completed or are currently ongoing to assess laparoscopic rectal resection.10,20-25 In the CLASSIC trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection were twice as likely to have an involved circumferential margin as patients undergoing open rectal surgery, although interestingly, this did not translate to a local recurrence or survival difference at three years follow-up.3,10 Ng and Leung et al have published several studies comparing laparoscopic and open rectal resection, including a 10 year follow-up study which showed that there was no difference in survival between the two groups (overall survival 83.5% vs 78% p>0.05, disease free survival 82.9% vs 80.4% p>0.05).21,22 Ongoing trials include the Comparison of Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low REctal cancer After Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN) trial from South Korea, COLOR II trial from Europe, the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (A La Cart) trial from Australia, and the Laparoscopic-Assisted or open resection rectal cancer trial from the United States.20,23-25 The first two trials have completed recruitment and are due to complete their three year follow-up by the end of 2013, while the latter two trials are still currently recruiting.23,24 Interim reports from the former two trials found no differences in lymph node yield, macroscopic quality of the TME or involvement of circumferential resection margin between laparoscopic and open surgery, thereby providing some evidence that laparoscopic surgery may be oncologically equivalent to open surgery.23,24 However, long-term follow up data are still required before definite conclusions can be drawn.

Robotic colorectal surgery

Laparoscopic TME is a technically challenging procedure which can be made even more challenging in the setting of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, a narrow male pelvis or obesity. Improving surgical access within the confines of a bony pelvis may therefore improve the quality of TME while minimising inadvertent pelvic nerve injury, thus improving cancer outcomes as well as urinary and sexual function.26 Robotic assisted surgery has the potential to mitigate some of the limitations of laparoscopy through its stable operating platform, improved depth perception and enhanced dexterity, while offering improved ergonomics for the surgeon to minimise fatigue. However, availability and costs hamper widespread dissemination of the technique.

Although robotic surgery is increasingly utilised in pelvic surgery, the collective international experience remains in its infancy. As far as the authors are aware, only one small RCT has been published to date comparing outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision, although a number of multi-centre randomised trials are currently underway to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic surgery for rectal cancer.27,28 Several large series and at least two systematic reviews have been published which suggest that robotic surgery is safe and that it is associated with less open conversion, with no differences in surgical morbidity, length of hospital stay and rates of involved margin.29-31 Promising as it is, until more data becomes available, there is insufficient evidence from a functional or oncological outcome perspective to justify the additional costs of robotic surgery.

Self-expanding metallic stents for CRC

The use of self-expanding metallic stents for obstructing CRC as definitive treatment in a palliative setting is well established.32,33 As experience with self-expanding metallic stents grows, its indications have also expanded to include curable obstructing CRC as a bridge to elective surgery. This approach is attractive because not only does it reduce the morbidity associated with an emergency resection, it also permits bowel preparation and pre-operative colonoscopic assessment of the proximal colon, the use of laparoscopic resection while minimising the likelihood of requiring a stoma. However, the use of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery is also contentious because of the potential for tumour dissemination from stent related perforation, which may convert a curable CRC into an incurable cancer. 

Although self-expanding metallic stents have been assessed in numerous studies, few of these studies are prospective randomised trials.34,35 Further, while the short-term safety of self-expanding metallic stents has been established, the same cannot be said about the oncological safety of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery, because most studies do not report long-term outcomes.35 Studies by Saida et al, Dastur et al and Kavanagh et al did not reveal any differences in survival, but alarmingly, in a recent publication by Sabbagh et al, five year overall survival and cancer related mortality were both worse in the self-expanding metallic stents group compared to the group that underwent surgical decompression.36-39 Further, five year disease free survival and time to recurrence also tended to favour the surgical decompression group. Although this was not statistically significant, it might have been related to the small sample size in that study.37 More long-term follow-up data are required to determine the safety of self-expanding metallic stents as a bridge to surgery in patients with curable CRC.

Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Since the last guidelines, numerous international and national publications have confirmed the safety and survival advantage of pelvic exenteration for recurrent rectal cancer.40-42 Provided a clear microscopic resection margin can be achieved, five year overall survivals of 30-50% have been reported.40 With improved surgical techniques and experience with extra-anatomical dissection, local recurrences in challenging anatomical locations such as the pelvic side wall, recurrences involving proximal sacral segments or pubic bone are increasingly being offered curative surgery.43,44 Specialised units with an interest in maximally invasive surgery have also pushed the boundary of resectability further by offering pelvic exenteration in patients with isolated resectable metastasis of the liver or lung. Although morbidity of pelvic exenteration remains high, long-term oncological benefit of pelvic exenteration coupled with good quality of life outcomes have cemented the role of pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer.45

Role of local excision for rectal cancer

Transanal excision of rectal cancers has traditionally been reserved for old and medically frail patients who are unable to tolerate a major resection. However, in selected rectal cancers, namely early rectal cancers (T1 cancers) with no adverse features on histology, patients may be spared the morbidity of a major resection or a permanent colostomy without compromising oncological outcomes.46,47 The major disadvantage with the conventional local excision technique though, is the quality and completeness of resection, as well as access difficulties which limit the applicability of the technique to the low rectum. With the advent of transanal endoscopic microsurgery, the incidence of surgical site recurrence has reduced and the quality of the specimen improved.48 Although the risk of loco-regional recurrence from unrecognised nodal involvement remains, the risk of this is low provided case selection is appropriate.49 Unfortunately, because of the limitations of existing staging modalities and our understanding of tumour biology, some cancers will recur despite seemingly appropriate case selection. Outcome of surgical salvage in the event of local recurrence is variable and further highlights the importance of accurate staging of the primary and appropriate case selection. To minimise the risk of local recurrence, selected centres are offering neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as an adjunct to local excision.50,51 However, the safety and morbidity of this approach remains under studied and needs further evaluation before it can be recommended.     

Care of the post-operative patient

The principle of enhanced recovery after surgery, also known as fast track surgery, is to minimise surgical trauma thereby reducing ileus and post-operative pain.52 In doing so, time to resumption of diet, surgical morbidity and length of stay in hospital have all been proven to reduce.53-55 Although initially described for elective open colectomy, the principles of enhanced recovery programs are also increasingly applied to laparoscopic procedures and rectal surgery with similar benefits.56,57

Notwithstanding the compelling evidence from existing literature about enhanced recovery programs, there remains reticence among many colorectal surgeons about the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery protocols. Separate surveys conducted in New Zealand, the UK and Europe have indicated that less than 50% of respondents have adopted enhanced recovery programs.58-60

Conclusions

Considerable progress has been made in the surgical treatment of CRC. Notable changes relate to minimally and maximally invasive approaches to cancer resection, as well as care of the post-operative surgical patient. Inclusion of these developments in the next edition of CRC practice guidelines should be considered.

References

  1. Australian Cancer Network Colorectal Cancer Guidelines Revision Committee. Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal Cancer. 2005. Accessed 23rd October 2013. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/piblications/cp106
  2. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K. A Meta-Analysis of the Short- And Long-Term Results of Randomized Controlled Trials That Compared Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer. J Cancer. 2012;3:49-57.
  3. Guillou P, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AMH et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718-1726.
  4. Lacy A, García-Valdecasas J, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9325):2224-2229.
  5. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N England J Med. 2004;350(20):2050-2059.
  6. Nduka C, Monson J, Menzies-Gow N, Darzi A. Abdominal wall metastases following laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 1994;81:648-652.
  7. Walsh D, Wattchow D, Wilson T. Subcutaneous metastases after laparoscopic resection of malignancy. ANZ J Surg. 1993;63:563-565.
  8. Jacquet P, Averbach A, Jacquet N. Abdominal wall metastasis and peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colon cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1995;21:568-570.
  9. Lacy A, Delgado S, Castells A, Prins HA, Arroyo V, Ibarzabal A et al. The long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248(1):1-7.
  10. Jayne D, Guillou P, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AMH et al. Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection of Colorectal Carcinoma: 3-Year Results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3061-3068.
  11. Kuhry E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R, Romild U, Bonjer H. Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;16(2).
  12. Kahnamoui K, Cadeddu M, Farrokhyar F, Anvari M. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: a systematic review. Can J Surg. 2007;50(1):48-57.
  13. Bärlehner E, Benhidjeb T, Anders S, Schicke B. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: outcomes in 194 patients and review of the literature. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(6):757-766.
  14. Leroy J, Jamali F, Forbes L, Smith M, Rubino F, Mutter D et al. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(2):281-289.
  15. Boutros M, Hippalgaonkar N, Silva E, Allende D, Wexner S, Berho M. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer results in higher lymph node yield and better short-term outcomes than open surgery: a large single-center comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(6):679-688.
  16. Veenhofm AA, Engel AF, Craanenm ME, Meijer S, de Lange-de Klerk ES, van der Peet DL et al. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a comparative study on short-term outcomes. A single-institution experience regarding anterior resections and abdominoperineal resections. Dig Dis. 2007;24(5):367-374.
  17. Martling A, Holm T, Rutqvist L, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Cedemark B. Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet. 2000;356:93-96.
  18. Maslekar S, Sharma A, Macdonald A, Gunn J, Monson J, Hartley J. Mesorectal grades predict recurrences after curative resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(2):168-175.
  19. Nagtegaal I, van de Velde C, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JHJM et al. Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(7):1729-1734.
  20. Australian Cancer Trials. A phase III prospective randomised trial comparing laparoscopic-assisted resection versus open resection for rectal cancer. A La CaRT. Australian Cancer Trials 2010; Availble from: http://www.australiancancertrials.gov.au/search-clinical-trials/search-results/clinical-trials-details.aspx?TrialID=308213&ds=1. Accessed 23rd Oct 2013.
  21. Ng S, Leung K, Lee J, Yiu R, Li J, Hon S. Long-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for upper rectal cancer: ten-year results of a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(4):558-566.
  22. Leung K, Kwok S, Lam S. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet 2004;363:1187-1192.
  23. Kang S, Park J, Jeong S, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(7):637-645.
  24. van der Pas M, Haglind E, Cuesta M, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):210-218.
  25. National Cancer Institute. Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection or Open Resection in Treating Patients With Stage IIA, Stage IIIA, or Stage IIIB Rectal Cancer. Clinical Trials 2008; Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00726622?term=laparoscopic+rectal+surgery&rank=22. Accessed 23rd Oct 2013.
  26. Kim J, Kim N, Lee K, Hur H, Min B, Kim J. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(8):2485-2493.
  27. Baik S, Ko Y, Kang C, Lee WJ, Kim NK, Sohn SK et al. Robotic tumor-speci?c mesorectal excison of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(7):1601-1608.
  28. Clinical Trials Research Unit. Robotic versus Laparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer. 2013; Available from: http://ctru.leeds.ac.uk/rolarr. Accessed 29th October 2013, 2013.
  29. Memon S, Heriot A, Murphy D, Bressel M, Lynch A. Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(7):2095-2101.
  30. Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, Cavaliere D, Avenia N, Scianido F et al. Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(4):134-156.
  31. Kang J, Yoon K, Min B, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK et al. The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison–open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;257(1):95-101.
  32. Karoui M, Charachon A, Delbaldo C. Stents for palliation of obstructive metastatic colon cancer: impact on management and chemotherapy administration. Arch Surg. 2007;142:619-623.
  33. Law W, Choi H, Chu K. Comparison of stenting with emergency surgery as palliative treatment for obstructing primary left sided colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2003;91:1429-1433.
  34. Sagar J. Colorectal stents for the management of malignant colonic obstructions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(11):Art. No.: CD007378.
  35. Zhang Y, Shi J, Shi B, Song C, Xie W, Chen Y. Self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:110-119.
  36. Saida Y, Sumiyama Y, Nagao J, Uramatsu M. Long-term prognosis of preoperative “bridge to surgery” expandable metallic stent insertion for obstructive colorectal cancer: comparison with emergency operation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;40(Suppl 10):S44-49.
  37. Sabbagh C, Browet F, Diouf M, Cosse C, Brehant O, Bartoli E et al. Is stenting as “a bridge to surgery” an oncologically safe strategy for the management of acute, left-sided, malignant, colonic obstruction? A comparative study with a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):107-115.
  38. Dastur J, Forshaw M, Modarai B, Solkar M, Raymond T, Parker M. Comparison of short-and long-term outcomes following either insertion of self-expanding metallic stents or emergency surgery in malignant large bowel obstruction. Tech Coloproctol. 2008;12(1):51-55.
  39. Kavanagh D, Nolan B, Judge C, Hyland JMP, Mulcahy HE, O’Connell PR et al. A Comparative Study of Short- and Medium-term Outcomes Comparing Emergent Surgery and Stenting as a Bridge to Surgery in Patients With Acute Malignant Colonic Obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:433-440.
  40. Heriot A, Byrne C, Lee P, Dobbs B, Tilney H, Solomon MJ et al. Extended radical resection: the choice for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(3):284-291.
  41. Yamada K, Ishizawa T, Niwa K, Chuman Y, Aikou T. Pelvic exenteration and sacral resection for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(8):1078-1084.
  42. Ferenschild F, Vermaas M, Verhoef C, Ansink AC, Kirkels WJ, Eggermont AM et al. Total pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent malignancies. World J Surg. 2009;33(7):1502-1508.
  43. Austin K, Solomon M. Pelvic exenteration with en bloc iliac vessel resection for lateral pelvic wall involvement. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(7):1223-1233.
  44. Milne T, Solomon M, Lee P, Young J, Stalley, P, Harrison J. Assessing the impact of a sacral resection on morbidity and survival after extended radical surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013.
  45. Beyond TME Collaborative. Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):E1-33.
  46. Johnston C, Tomlinson G, Temple L, Baxter N. The management of patients with T1 adenocarcinoma of the low rectum: a decision analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(4):400-407.
  47. De Graaf E, Doornebosch P, Tollenaar R, Meershoek-Klein KE, de Boer AC, Bekkering FC et al. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus total mesorectal excision of T1 rectal adenocarcinomas with curative intention. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35(12):1280-1285.
  48. Christiforidis D, Cho H, Dixon M, Mellgren A, Madoff R, Finne C. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus conventional transanal excision for patients with rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;249(5):776-782.
  49. Amann M, Modabber A, Burghardt J, Stratz C, Falch C, Buess GF et al. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in treatment of rectal adenomas and T1 low risk carcinomas. World J Surg Oncol. 2012.
  50. Lezoche E, Baldarelli M, Lezoche G, Paganini A, SGesuita R, Guerrieri M. Randomised clinical trial of endoluminal loclregional resection versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for T2 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(9):1211-1218.
  51. Pucciarelli S, De Paoli A, Guerrieri M, La Torre G, Maretto I, De Marchi F et al. Local excision after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: results of a multicenter phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(12):1349-1356.
  52. Fearon K, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M, Revhaug A, Dejong CH, Lassen K et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutrition. 2005;24(3):466-477.
  53. Zhuang C, Ye X, Zhang X, Chen B, Yu Z. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. 56. 2013;5(667-78).
  54. Spanjersberg W, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven C. Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. 2011;16(2).
  55. Nygren J, Soop M, Thorell A, Hausel J, Ljungqvist O, ERAS Group. An enhanced recovery protocol improves outcome after colorectal resection already during the first year: a single center experience in 168 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(5):978-985.
  56. Teeuwen P, Bleichrodt R, de Jong P, van Goor H, Bremers A. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Versus Conventional Perioperative Care in Rectal Surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:833-839.
  57. Lee T, Kang S, Kim D, Hong S, Heo S, Park K. Comparison of early mobilisation and diet rehabilitation program with conventional care after laparoscopic colon surgery: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:21-28.
  58. Kahokehr A, Robertson P, Sammour T, Soop M, Hill A. Peri-operative care: a survey of New Zealand and Australian colorectal surgeons. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(11):1308-1313.
  59. Arsalani-Zadeh R, Ullah S, Khan S, Macfie J. Current pattern of perioperative practice in elective colorectal surgery: a questionnaire survey of ACPGBI members. Int J Surg. 2010;8(4):294-298.
  60. Hasenberg T, Keese M, Langle F, Reibenwein B, Schinder K, Herold A et al. ‘Fast-track’ colonic surgery in Austria and Germany – results from the survey on pattenrs in current perioperative practice. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(2):162-167.
  61. Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, Papadopoulos T, Merkel S. Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation–technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(4):354-364.
  62. Mezhir J, Shia J, Riedel E, Temple LK, Nash GM, Weiser MR et al. Whole-mount pathologic analysis of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy: implications of margin status on long-term oncologic outcome. Ann Surg. 2012;256(2):274-279.
  63. Moore H, Riedel E, Minsky B, Saltz L, Paty P, Wong D et al. Adequacy of 1-cm distal margin after restorative rectal cancer resection with sharp mesorectal excision and preoperative combined-modality therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(1):80-85.

Be the first to know when a new issue is online. Subscribe today.