Impact of radiofrequency energy on intraoperative outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer in obese patients
- 237 Downloads
Nowadays laparoscopic approach is accepted as a valid alternative to open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Several studies consider this approach to be safe and feasible also in obese patients, even if dissection in these patients may require a longer operative time and involve higher blood loss. To facilitate laparoscopic approach, more difficult in these patients, several energy sources for laparoscopic dissection and sealing, has been adopted recently. The aim of this study is to investigate the possible intraoperative advantages of radiofrequency energy in terms of blood loss and operative time in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for cancer. All patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer from January 2010 to December 2015 were registered in a prospective database. Patients with a body mass index BMI (kg/m2) ≥30 were defined as obese, and patients with a BMI (kg/m2) <30 were defined as non-obese. All 136 obese patients observed were divided retrospectively into 2 groups according to the devices used for dissection: 83 patients (Historical group: B) on whom dissection and coagulation were performed using other energy sources (monopolar electrocautery scissors, bipolar electrical energy, ultrasonic coagulating shears) and 53 patients who were treated with electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing (Caiman group: A). In group A, the Laparoscopic Caiman 5 (Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) was the only instrument employed in the whole procedure. The study examined only three types of operation: right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and anterior resection (AR). Preoperative data were similar for RC, LC, and AR in both groups (A and B). The mean operative time was statistically shorter in the Caiman group than in the Historical group [104 vs 124 min (p 0.004), 116 vs 140 min (p 0.004), and 125 vs 151 min (p 0.003) for RC, LC, and AR between group A and B, respectively]. Also intraoperative blood loss results significantly lower in the Caiman group than in the historical one [52 ml vs 93 for RC (p 0.003); 65 vs 120 ml for LC (p 0.001); 93 vs 145 ml for AR (p 0.002) between group A and B, respectively]. No intraoperative complications were recorded in either group. The mean conversion rate was 4.4% (6 patients). There were no statistical differences in intensive care unit (ICU) stay, functional outcomes, mean hospital stay and overall morbidity rate between the two groups. There was no mortality in either group. The use of the Caiman EBVS instrument shows significant advantages with respect to a small number of intraoperative parameters. We can conclude that use of this radiofrequency device, in the laparoscopic approach, offers advantages in terms of lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter operative time in obese patients with colorectal cancer.
KeywordsLaparoscopic resection Colorectal cancer Obese patients Energy source Radiofrequency energy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All procedures performed in our study on human subject were in accordance with the ethical standards of 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments and comparable standards, with the ethical standards of General Medical Council Good Medical Practice and with the current guidelines and best practice standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this retrospective study.
- 4.Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, Nagayama S, Fujimoto Y, Konishi T, Kuroyanagi H, Yamaguchi T (2011) Effect of body mass index on short-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: a single institution experience in Japan. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(6):409–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Tou S, Malik AI, Wexner SD, Nelson RL (2011) Energy source instruments for laparoscopic colectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev May 11(5):CD007886Google Scholar
- 7.Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Nelson H (2007) Clinical outcomes of surgical therapy study group laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg 246(4):655–662 (discussion 662–4) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R, Blazeby JM, Quirke P, West NP, Dutton SJ (2014) Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL. J Clin Oncol 32(17):1804–1811. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.3694 (ePub 2014 May 5) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF, Gerhards MF, van Wagensveld BA, van der Zaag ES, van Geloven AA, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Bemelman WA (2011) Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). LAFA study group. Ann Surg 254(6):868–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Wallwiener CW, Rajab TK, Zubke W, Isaacson KB, Enderle M, Schäller D, Wallwiener M (2008) Thermal conduction, compression, and electrical current—an evaluation of major parameters of electrosurgical vessel sealing in a porcine in vitro model. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):605–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar