Since the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, nearly every
surgical specialty and procedure has incorporated the laparoscope.
The theoretical benefits of reduced postoperative pain, length of
hospital stay, and early return to work, as well as other benefits,
however, have not been universally borne out in laparoscopic
Also, laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with some major
problems: (1) laparoscopic colorectal surgery typically involves
multiple quadrants and, therefore, is more technically challenging.
Personnel, instruments, monitors, and even the patient are often
moved to facilitate access to these quadrants; (2) bowel surgery
requires rapid and safe manipulation of numerous, large, often
calcified vessels, which are always encased in fat; (3) colonic
surgery involves fashioning a well-vascularized, tension-free,
circumferentially intact anastomosis, without intraperitoneal
contamination; and (4) a major indication for laparoscopic colorectal
surgery would be malignancy, and the safety and effectiveness of
laparoscopy for this indication are currently unknown.
As technology has improved and the skills of surgeons have become
more advanced, laparoscopy has been used by some for diagnosis,
palliation, and attempted cure of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors.
Laparoscopy for curative resection of malignancy is the most
controversial indication for laparoscopic surgery today, because true
recurrence and overall cure rates remain unknown.
Laparoscopic ultrasonography in patients with GI malignancy presents
a unique opportunity for precise tissue sampling. Moreover, the
patient can be offered minimally invasive palliative laparoscopic
bypass and diversionary procedures.
In a series by Anderson et al, laparoscopic ultrasonography was
significantly more accurate than either conventional computed
tomography (CT) or ultrasonography in detecting both primary GI
tumors (91% vs 64%; P < .01) and nodal status
(91% vs 62%; P < .05). A study by Cuschieri revealed a
diagnostic yield of 90%, staging accuracy of 30%, and understaging in
4% of patients.
A recent study by Hünerbein et al revealed that laparoscopy
and laparoscopic ultrasound improved the accuracy of staging in 41%
of patients with GI cancer, as compared with conventional imaging
methods; the accuracy of staging laparoscopy in the detection of
distant metastases (68%) was significantly higher (P < .01)
than that of ultrasound (63%) or CT scan (58%). The findings during
staging laparoscopy changed the treatment strategy in 45% of
The exact role of laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasonography in the
evaluation of specific intra-abdominal malignancies continues to be
evaluated. Its clinical effect depends on the surgeons
definition of resectability or operability, and also on the
availability of and expertise with other imaging modalities at each hospital.
Second-look laparoscopy in colorectal and other GI cancers is still
controversial. Hemming et al reported success in proving
peritoneal recurrence of colorectal cancer in two of three
laparoscopies in patients with rising tumor markers and normal
Salky et al also attempted second-look laparoscopy in seven
patients with suspected recurrent colon cancer, leading to a positive
yield in one with liver metastases and avoidance of surgery in all
but two. However, these are small numbers of patients, and further
investigation in this area is required before such an approach can be recommended.
Laparoscopic Fecal Diversion
Patients with advanced malignancies may undergo fecal diversion to
relieve obstruction, incontinence, complicated fistulas, and severe
perianal sepsis. Hashizume and colleagues reported a successful
laparoscopic-assisted colostomy for complete obstruction of the
sigmoid colon associated with end-stage ovarian cancer.
Laparoscopic fecal diversion obviates the need for a major abdominal
incision but does not limit intra-abdominal exploration when a
trephine stoma is performed. Laparoscopic fecal diversion is
technically simple to perform and requires minimal equipment while
allowing excellent visualization and all possible methods of dissection.
Some investigators have advocated that laparoscopic fecal diversion
procedures be performed by surgeons with limited experience in
laparoscopic intestinal surgery. Laparoscopic colostomy may be
associated with a decreased incidence of wound complications,
evisceration, and incisional hernia, as compared with laparotomy.
Furthermore, the traditional merits of laparoscopy, such as earlier
return to bowel function, decreased pain, and, theoretically, reduced
adhesion formation, are advantages of laparoscopic fecal
diversion.[8, 9] However, in patients with an acute obstruction and
massive bowel dilatation or with free intraperitoneal perforation, a
laparotomy may be preferable.
Major colorectal resections may be accomplished in two ways: either
by right hemicolectomy for ileocolic resections or by total abdominal
colectomy. For the latter, if laparoscopy is utilized, the
laparoscopic-assisted technique is preferred. After laparoscopic
mobilization, the bowel is exteriorized through a small incision for
extracorporeal vascular ligation, resection, and anastomosis.
Although these maneuvers can all be performed within the abdomen, the
length of operative time and expense limit their attractiveness.
Moreover, since an incision needs to be made for specimen retrieval,
it seems logical to also perform the ligation, resection, and
anastomosis through that incision.
For left-sided procedures, a completely laparoscopic technique is
more logical. In such cases, colonic mobilization, resection, and
anastomosis are accomplished in an intracorporeal manner.
Length of the Procedure
Laparoscopic colorectal surgery involves a learning curve, during
which operative times of over 2 hours can be expected. Operative time
decreases with increasing experience. This improvement seems to
be the result of both better surgical technique and better patient
selection. The use of the ultrasonic scalpel (Harmonic Scapel,
Ethicon Endosurgy Inc, Cincinnati, Ohio) offers a definite advantage
for mesenteric dissection and vascular control by potentially
allowing adequate hemostasis, decreased operative time, and decreased
cost because fewer surgical clips are utilized.
Interference With Tactile Sensation
One of the disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery is that it impairs
the surgeons tactile sensation and the ability to palpate the
bowel. Several reports have described the resection of a segment of
bowel thought to contain a tumor or polyp, but the suspected lesion
was later discovered in an unresected segment of bowel.
Similarly, cases have been reported in which postoperative bowel
obstruction requiring laparotomy was caused by an unrecognized
synchronous proximal tumor.
This problem can be overcome in a number of ways, including
preoperative colonoscopic marking, preoperative air contrast barium
enema, or intraoperative colonoscopy. Intraoperative laparoscopic
ultrasonography offers the surgeon the ability to palpate the liver
and other organs, which is lost during the laparoscopic surgery.
This interference with tactile sensation also makes identification of
certain anatomic structures more difficult. Accordingly, ureteric
catheters are sometimes used to assist in the identification of the ureters.
It has been hypothesized that laparoscopy, given its minimally
invasive nature, inherently decreases postoperative adhesion
formation. Bessler et al reported a porcine model comparing
the incidence of adhesion formation after laparotomy compared with
laparoscopic-assisted colon resections. Adhesions were identified 14
days after the initial procedure in only one (9%) of the animals that
had laparoscopic-assisted resections, as opposed to 82% of the
animals that had a laparotomy.
Recently, as part of a multi-institutional, prospectively randomized,
surgeon-blinded trial, we assessed postoperative adhesion formation
using a hyaluronate-based membrane. The number and severity of
adhesions were significantly decreased when the hyaluronate-based
membrane was applied, as compared with the control group, both of
which underwent laparotomy. The same advantages may be conferred by
using the product during laparoscopic-assisted procedures.
Accordingly, we routinely place Seprafilm (Gemzyme Surgical Products,
Cambridge, Mass) during all laparoscopic-assisted colectomies.
1. Anderson DN, Campbell S, Park KG: Accuracy of laparoscopic
ultrasonography in staging of upper gastrointestinal malignancy. Br J
Surg 83:1424-1428, 1996.
2. Cuschieri A: Diagnosis and staging of tumors by laparoscopy. Semin
Laparosc Surg 1:3-12, 1994.
3. Hünerbein M, Rau B, Hobenberger P, et al: The role of staging
laparoscopy for multimodal therapy of gastrointestinal cancer. Surg
Endosc 12:921-925, 1998.
4. John TG, Madhaven KK, Garden OJ: Role of laparoscopic diagnosis
and staging of intra-abdominal malignancy, in Geraghty JG, Sackier
JM, Young HL (eds):Minimal Access Surgery in Oncology, pp 23-43.
London, Oxford, 1998.
5. Hemming AW, Nagy AG, Scudamore CH, et al: Laparoscopic staging of
intra-abdominal malignancy. Surg Endosc 9:325-328, 1995.
6. Salky R, Bauer J, Gelernt I, et al: Laparoscopy for
gastrointestinal diseases. Mt Sinai J Med 52:228-232,1985.
7. Hashizume M, Haraguchi Y, Ikeda Y, et al: Laparoscopy-assisted
colostomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4:1, 70-72, 1994.
8. Oliveira L, Reissman P, Nogueras J, et al: Laparoscopic creation
of stomas. Surg Endosc 11(1):19-23, 1997.
9. Reissman P, Teoh TA, Skinner K, et al: Adhesion formation after
laparoscopic anterior resection in a porcine model: A pilot study.
Surg Laparosc Endosc 6(2):136-139, 1996.
10. Thompson DM, Tetik C, Arregui ME: Laparoscopy and other minimally
invasive techniques in patients with advanced intraperitoneal
malignant disease, in Geraghty JG, Sackier JM, Young HL (eds):
Minimal Access Surgery in Oncology, pp 107-120. London, Oxford, 1998.
11. Agachan F, Joo JS, Weiss EG, et al. Intraoperative laparoscopic
complications. Are we getting better? Dis Colon Rectum 39:514-519, 1996.
12. Larach SW, Salomon MC, Williamson PR, et al: Laparoscopic
assisted colectomy: Experience during the learning curve.
Coloproctology 1:38-41, 1993.
13. McDermott J, Devereaux D, Caushaj P: Pitfall of laparoscopic
colectomy: An unrecognized synchronous cancer. Dis Colon Rectum
14. Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Ulrich A, et al: Laparoscopic colorectal
surgery: Are we being honest with our patients? Dis Colon Rectum
15. Bessler M, Whelan RL, Halverson A, et al: Controlled trial of
laparoscopic-assisted vs open colon resection in a porcine model.
Surg Endosc 10:732-735, 1996.
16. Becker JM, Dayton MT, Fazio VW, et al: Prevention of
postoperative postoperative abdominal adhesions by a sodium
hyaluronate-based bioresorbable membrane: A prospective randomized
double-blind multicenter study. J Am Coll Surg 183(4):297-306, 1996.
17. Tate JJT, Kwok S, Dawson JW, et al: Prospective comparison of
laparoscopic and conventional anterior resection. Br J Surg
18. Barrat C, Turner R, Risk N, et al: Prospective comparison of
laparoscopic and conventional colorectal surgery for cancer: Lymph
nodes and margins. Br J Surg 83:23, 1996.
19. Franklin ME, Rosenthal D, Abrego-Madina D, et al: Prospective
comparison of open vs laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma:
5-Year results. Dis Colon Rectum 39(suppl):35-46, 1995.
20. Dodson RW, Cullado M, Tangen LE, et al: Laparoscopic assisted
abdominal resection. Contemp Surg 42:42-44, 1993.
21. Guillou PJ, Darzi A, Monson JRT: Experience with laparoscopic
colorectal surgery for malignant disease. Surg Endosc 2(suppl
22. Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Johnansen OB, et al: Laparoscopic colorectal
surgery: A prospective assessment and current perspective. Br J Surg
23. Peters WR, Bartels TL: Minimally invasive colectomy: Are the
potential benefits realized? Dis Colon Rectum 36:751-756, 1993.
24. Chindasub S, Chamtaracharmnong C, Nimitvamit C, et al:
Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection. J Laparoendosc Surg 4:17-21, 1994.
25. Musser DJ, Boorse RC, Madera F, et al: Laparoscopic colectomy: At
what cost? Surg Laparosc Endosc 4:1-5, 1994.
26. Puente I, Sosa JL, Sleeman D, et al: Laparoscopic-assisted
colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Surg 4:1-7, 1994.
27. Van Ye TM, Cattery RP, Henry LG: Laparoscopic assisted colon
resections compare favorably with open technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc
28. Vara-Thorbeck C, Garcia-Cabellero Salvi M, Gutstein D: Indication
and advantages of laparoscopy-assisted colon resection for carcinoma
in elderly patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc 4:110-118, 1994.
29. Hoffman GC, Baker JW, Fitchett CW, et al: Laparoscopic assisted
colectomy: Initial experience. Ann Surg 219:732-743, 1994.
30. Zucker KA, Pitcher DE, Ford RS: Laparoscopic-assisted colon
resection. Surg Endosc 8:12-18, 1994.
31. Darzi A, Lewis C, Menzies-Gow N, et al: Laparoscopic
abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Surg Endosc 9:414-417, 1995.
32. Fine AP, Lanasa S, Gannon MP, et al: Laparoscopic colon surgery:
Report of a series. Am Surg 61:412-416, 1995.
33. Tucker JG, Ambroze WL, Orangio GR, et al: Laparoscopic assisted
bowel surgery. Surg Endosc 9:297-300, 1995.
34. Lord SA, Larach SW, Ferrara A, et al: Laparoscopic resections for
colorectal carcinoma: A 3-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum
35. Kockerling F, Reymond MA, Schneider C, et al: Prospective
multicenter study of the quality of oncologic resection in patients
undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: The
Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group. Dis Colon Rectum
36. Scott KW, Grace RH: Detection of lymph node metastases in
colorectal carcinoma before and after fat clearance. Br J Surg
37. Toyota S, Ohta H, Anazua S: Rationale for extent of lymph node
dissection for right colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 38(7):705-711, 1995.
38. Heald RJ, Ryall RDH: Recurrence and survival after total
mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1(8496):1479-1482, 1986.
39. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF: Local recurrence of rectal
adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection:
Histopathological study of lateral tumor spread and surgical
excision. Lancet 1:996-998, 1986.
40. Pollett WG, Nicholls RJ: The relationship of the extent of distal
clearance and survival and recurrence rates after curative anterior
resection for carcinoma of the rectum. Ann Surg 70:159-163, 1983.
41. Lumley JW, Fielding GA, Rhodes M, et al: Laparoscopic assisted
colorectal surgery: Lessons learned from 240 consecutive patients.
Dis Colon Rectum 39:155-159, 1996.
42. de Haas-Kock DFM, Baeten CGMI, Jager JJ, et al: Prognostic
significance of radial margins of clearance in rectal cancer. Br J
Surg 83:781-785, 1996.
43. Jakeways MS, Nitchell V, Hashim IA, et al: Metabolic and
inflammatory responses after open or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br
J Surg 81(1):127-131, 1994.
44. Kloosterman T, von Bloomberg BE, Borgstein PJ, et al: Unimpaired
immune functions after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgery
45. Harmon GD, Senagore AJ, Killbride MJ, et al: Interleukin-6
response to laparoscopic and open colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum
46. Cho JM, LaPorta AJ, Clark JR, et al: Response of serum cytokines
in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc
47. Fukushima R, Kawamura YJ, Saito H, et al: Interleukin-6 and
stress hormone response after uncomplicated gasless
laparoscopic-assisted and open sigmoid colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum
48. Hewitt PM, Ip SM, Kwok SP, et al: Laparoscopic-assisted vs open
surgery for colorectal cancer: Comparative study of immune effects.
Dis Colon Rectum 41(7):901-909, 1998.
49. Kuntz C, Wunsch A, Bay F, et al: Prospective randomized study of
stress and immune response after laparoscopic vs conventional colonic
resection. Surg Endosc 12(7):963-967, 1998.
50. Alledorf JD, Bessler M, Kayton M, et al: Tumor growth after
laparoscopy and laparotomy in a murine model. Arch Surg 130:649-653, 1995.
51. Bouvy ND, Marquet RL, Jeekel H, et al: Gasless laparoscopy vs CO2
pneumoperitoneum in relation to the development of abdominal wall
metastases (abstract). Surg Endosc 10:186, 1996.
52. Southall JC, Lee SW, Bessler M, et al: The effect of peritoneal
air exposure on postoperative tumor growth. Surg Endosc
53. Dorrance HR, Oein K, ODwyer PJ: Laparoscopy promotes tumor
growth in an animal study (abstract). Surg Endosc 5:559, 1996.
54. Wexner SD, Weiss EG: Laparoscopic colectomy: The concerns and the
benefits, in Geraghty JG, Sackier JM, Young HL (eds): Minimal Surgery
in Oncology, pp71-82. London, Oxford, 1998.
55. Ugarte F: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy port seeding from a colon
carcinoma. Am Surg 61:820-821, 1995.
56. Montorsi M, Fumagalli U, Rosati R, et al: Early partial
recurrence of adenocarcinoma of the colon after laparoscopic
colectomy. Br J Surg 82:1036-1037, 1995.
57. Jones DB, Guo LW, Reinhard MK, et al: Impact of pneumoperitoneum
on trocar site implantation of colon cancer in a hamster model. Dis
Colon Rectum 38:1182-1188, 1995.
58. Jacobi CA, Ordermann J, Bohm B, et al: Increased tumor growth
after laparoscopy with air vs CO2 (abstract). Surg Endosc 33:551, 1996.
59. Hewett PJ, Thomas WM, King G, et al: Intraperitoneal cell
movement during abdominal carbon dioxide insufflation and
laparoscopy: An in vivo model. Dis Colon Rectum 39(suppl):62-66, 1996.
60. Thomas WM, Eaton MC, Hewett PJ: A proposed model for the movement
of cells within the abdominal cavity during CO2 insufflation and
laparoscopy. Aust NZ J Surg 66:105-106, 1996.
61. Whelan RL, Sellers GJ, Allendorf JD, et al: Trocar site
recurrence is unlikely to result from aerosolization of tumor cells.
Dis Colon Rectum 39(suppl):7-13, 1996.
62. Southhall J, Allendorf DF, Whelan RL, et al: Colon adenocarcinoma
and B-16 melanoma grow larger after laparotomy vs laparoscopy in a
murine model (abstract). Surg Endosc 11:214, 1997.
63. Allardyce R, Morreau P, Bagshaw P: Tumor cell distribution
following laparoscopic colectomy in a porcine models. Dis Colon
Rectum 39(suppl):47-52, 1996.
64. Hubens G, Pauwels M, Hubens A, et al: Laparoscopic insufflation
on the abdomen does not increase peritoneal implantation of free
intraperitoneal colon cancer cells (abstract). Surg Endosc 10:181, 1996.
65. Iwanaka T, Arya G, Ziegler MM: Mechanism and prevention of
port-site tumor recurrence after laparoscopy in a murine model. J
Pediatr Surg 33(3):457-461, 1998.
66. Bonjer JH, VanDam JH, Romijin M, et al. Port site metastases:
Role of aerosolization of tumor cells (abstract). Surg Endosc 11:192, 1997.
67. Lee SW, Whelan R, Southall J, et al: Pneumoperitoneum does not
increase port site implantation rate of colon cancer in a murine
model (abstract). Surg Endosc 11:174, 1997.
68. Cavina E, Goletti O, Molea N, et al: Trocar site tumor
recurrences: May pneumoperitoneum be responsible? Surg Endosc
69. Hase K, Ueno H, Kuranaga N, et al: Intraperitoneal exfoliated
cells in patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum
70. Wexner SD, Cohen SM: Port site metastases after laparoscopic
colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy. Br J Surg 82:295-298, 1995.
71. Fleshman JW, Nelson H, Peters WR, et al: Early results of
laparoscopic surgery of 372 patients treated by Clinical Outcome of
Surgical Therapy (COST) study group. Dis Colon Rectum
72. Alexander RJT, Jacques BC, Mitchell et al:
Laparoscopically-assisted colectomy and wound recurrence (letter).
Lancet 341:249-250, 1993.
73. Walsh DC, Wattchow DA, Wilson TG, et al: Subcutaneous metastases
after laparoscopic resection of malignancy. Aust NZ J Surg
74. Fusco MA, Paluzzi MW: Abdominal wall recurrence after
laproscopic-assisted colectomy for adenocarcinoma of the colon:
Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 36:858-861, 1993.
75. ORourke NA, Priq PM, Kelly S, et al: Tumor inoculation
during laparoscopy (letter). Lancet 342:368, 1993.
76. Cirocco WC, Schwartman A, Golub RW, et al: Abdominal wall
recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. Surgery
77. Nduka CC, Monson JRT, Menzies-Gow N, et al: Abdominal wall
metastases following laparoscopy. Br J Surg 81:648-652, 1994.
78. Prasad A, Avery C, Foley RJE: Abdominal wall metastases following
laparoscopy (letter). Br J Surg 81(suppl):31, 1994.
79. Berends FJ, Kazemier G, Bonjer I-U, et al: Subcutaneous
metastases after laparoscopic colectomy. Lancet 344:58, 1994.
80. Lauroy J, Champault G, Risk N, et al: Metastatic recurrence at
the cannula site: Should digestive carcinoma still be managed by
laparoscopy? (abstract). Br J Surg 81(suppl):31, 1994.
81. Boulez J: Multicentric analysis of laparoscopic colorectal
surgery in FDCL group: 274 Cases. Br J Surg 81(suppl):27, 1994.
82. Ramos JM, Gupta S, Anthone GJ, et al: Laparoscopy and colon
cancer: Is the port-site a risk? A preliminary report. Arch Surg
83. Fingerhut A: Laparoscopic colectomy. The French experience, in
Jager R, Wexner SD (eds): Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, pp
253-257. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1996.
84. Jacquet P, Auerbach AM, Stephens AD, et al: Cancer recurrence
following laparoscopic colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 38:1110-1114, 1995.
85. Kwok SP, Lau WY, Carey PD, et al: Prospective evaluation of
laparoscopic-assisted large bowel excision for cancer. Ann Surg
86. Molenaar CB, Bijnen AB, de Ruiter P: Indications for laparoscopic
colorectal surgery: Results from the Medical Centre Alkmaar, The
Netherlands. Surg Endosc 12(1):42-45, 1998.
87. Schaeff B, Paolucci V, Thomopoulos J: Port site recurrences after
laparoscopic surgery: A review. Dis Surg 15:124-134, 1998.
88. Cook TA, Dehn TCB: Port site metastases in patients undergoing
laparoscopy for gastrointestinal malignancy. Br J Surg 83:1419-1420, 1996.
89. Jacobi CA, Wenger F, Sabat R, et al: The impact of laparoscopy
with carbon dioxide vs helium on immunologic function and tumor
growth in a rat model. Dis Surg 15:110-116, 1998.
90. Neuhaus SJ, Ellis T, Rofe AM, et al: Tumor implantation following
laparoscopy using different insufflation gases. Surg Endosc
91. Jacobi CA, Ordemann J, Bohm B, et al: The influence of laparotomy
and laparoscopy on tumor growth in a rat model. Surg Endosc
92. Mavrantonis C, Potenti F, Wexner SD. Laparoscopic colorectal
surgery: Have attitudes changed? Dis Colon Rectum 41:A47, 1998.