0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Wound Recurrences Following Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy for Cancer FREE

L. Stocchi, MD; Heidi Nelson, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minn.


Arch Surg. 2000;135(8):948-958. doi:10.1001/archsurg.135.8.948.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives  To determine the incidence and clinical relevance of wound recurrences (WRs) following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for cancer; to analyze the most recent experimental studies examining possible pathogenic mechanisms; and to delineate possible prevention strategies.

Data Sources  A MEDLINE search was conducted using the words "colectomy," "laparoscopy," and "recurrence, local." Additional articles were retrieved by cross-referencing.

Study Selection  All clinical and experimental studies retrieved were reviewed and subjectively selected according to their relevance for clinical practice.

Data Extraction  Clinical data from 1990 to 2000 with series analyzing 50 or more patients were preferentially considered. Experimental data were considered based on the most rigorous study designs and the potential impact of experimental findings on clinical practice.

Data Synthesis  The incidence of WRs in large series and based on current techniques is comparable to what has been reported for WR following open colectomy. While the pathogenesis of early WR occurrences remains unclear, experience and appropriate training in laparoscopic-assisted colectomy are essential to minimize the incidence of WRs. Results from experimental studies are still controversial, and available data from prospective randomized clinical trials are still limited.

Conclusions  Results from prospective randomized trials are needed to provide definitive answers regarding the incidence and survival impact of WRs. Until then, WR may be considered a technical complication following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy.

THE ADVENT of laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a standard of care prompted the application of laparoscopic techniques in several surgical fields. Several series indicate that laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) is safe, technically feasible, and provides several patient-related benefits. Regarding benefits, specific parameters demonstrating advantages include decreased postoperative pain with reduction in narcotic usage, earlier ambulation, faster return to bowel function and oral intake, and earlier hospital dismissal. Potential additional advantages currently under scrutiny include reduction in overall costs and further improvements in the quality of life following hospital discharge.

Most benefits are modest but reproducible and, though not proven in prospective randomized trials, they have incited an increasing application of LAC for benign conditions. Concerns regarding the oncologic adequacy of the procedure, in particular the reported occurrence of wound recurrences (WRs), have prevented a more widespread acceptance of LAC for cancer. Since the pathogenesis of this WR phenomenon remains obscure, the clinical application of the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of colon cancer remains a matter of controversy.

The following review analyzes LAC clinical experiences for cancer. Furthermore, it examines possible pathogenic factors for WR, describing experimental studies investigating possible mechanisms of WR, their implications for past reports of WRs, and more important, prevention strategies for the future.

Several studies of different size and design have described WR after LAC. The anxiety created by earlier reports has been partially tempered by results from larger series, which have suggested a relatively infrequent occurrence of WR. In the meantime, studies on WRs following traditional open colectomy (OC) have indicated that this complication is not exclusive to the laparoscopic approach. However, it is now accepted that only prospective randomized trials can provide definite answers on the incidence and the impact on survival rates of patients with WR and other cancer concerns raised by LAC.

This review is based on articles retrieved through a MEDLINE search using the words "colectomy," "laparoscopy," and "recurrence, local." Additional articles were identified using the references of the original MEDLINE articles. At the completion of the search, all available data on both clinical and experimental studies were reviewed. Only the most significant clinical experiences were considered, and preferentially, series including at least 50 patients were reported. However, important data based on smaller sample sizes were not necessarily discarded; the experimental studies were selected based on sample size, study design, and relevance for clinical practice.

EARLY REPORTS

In the early 1990s, several isolated cases of WR following LAC for cancer were reported.18 Data from these case reports were viewed as support for concerns regarding the adequacy of LAC to accomplish oncologically radical procedures. Perhaps the most alarming data were described in 1994 by Berends et al9 who reported 3 cases of abdominal wall metastases (21%) in a series of 14 LACs for colon carcinoma. Two aspects of these earlier reports on WR created particular anxiety regarding the applicability of LAC. First, WRs were detected in port sites remote from the incision used for tumor extraction5,6,9; second, that WRs occurred following removal of early-stage tumors.5,9,10 It was therefore postulated that these unusual WR patterns could be attributed to pneumoperitoneum. Unfortunately, a sufficiently large denominator providing data on the actual incidence of WR was rarely reported at that time (Table 1).9,1129 Most early studies were anecdotal; finally, as experience increased, incidence studies were conducted. The preliminary report from the Laparoscopic Bowel Surgery Registry30 in 1994 reported 3 cases of WR (1.4%) in patients undergoing 208 LACs in different centers. However, 2 WRs occurred in association with diffuse peritoneal carcinomatosis. Therefore, it was postulated that at least in some cases, WR might occur as a manifestation of a widespread disease rather than being a specific complication derived from the use of laparoscopic technique.30

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Wound Recurrences in Clinical Experiences of Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy*
WR FOLLOWING OC

A reappraisal of the incidence of abdominal wall WRs following OC has followed the surge of interest in LAC. Many authors have looked at these data as a standard against which WR should be compared. The incidence of abdominal WRs after OC ranges from 0.9% to 3.3% as given in Table 2, according to different diagnostic modalities, intensity of follow-up, and stage of disease.3138 Since these WRs are often asymptomatic, it is not surprising that surgical detection and results of autopsy studies reveal an increased rate of WR compared with findings from clinical examination.39 It is therefore presumed that the real incidence of WR following OC is often underestimated. In addition, more rigorous follow-up probably increases the detection rate of WRs when patients are enrolled in clinical trials. Wound recurrences after OC also occur more frequently in patients with advanced primary disease at their first surgery or in association with peritoneal carcinomatosis. However, there is also evidence that WRs can complicate OC for early-stage tumors. In a series of 1603 patients, Hughes et al33 reported 16 cases of WR. In 8 of 11 cases in which pathologic specimens were available, the primary tumor had been classified as Dukes stage B. Although this unusual pattern of WR remains unexplained, obviously no role is played by the pneumoperitoneum. It is therefore accepted that WRs, although rare, are not unique to LAC, and they do occur after OC.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Abdominal Wall Recurrences Following Open Resection of Colorectal Cancer With Curative Intent
THE CLINICAL OUTCOME OF SURGICAL THERAPY STUDY GROUP

A surgical consortium referred to as the Clinical Outcome of Surgical Therapy Study group, the group performing the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md, trial, has undertaken a retrospective study analyzing LAC performed prior to 1994 to evaluate cancer outcomes.14 This study was performed in response to the high WR results reported to provide reassurance that it was appropriate to proceed with a large prospective randomized trial comparing LAC with OC in the treatment of right, left, and sigmoid colon cancer. Since one of the basic ethical requirements for the initiation of such a trial is to assume that the 2 treatments under investigation are similar, it was felt to be of paramount importance to assess the incidence of WR along with the oncologic outcomes for cancer patients already exposed to LAC. It was germane to the ethics of proceeding with the larger trial to assess the past WR incidence in patients of the surgeons embarking on the trial.

For 372 patients, the 3-year survival rates were comparable to those reported by large nationwide databases. In particular, only 4 cases (1.1%) of WR were recorded, 1 of which was associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis. The remaining 3 patients were further treated with WR resection and were apparently free of disease at their last follow-up visit. The retrospective design of the study could not allow a precise determination of the impact of WR on survival, for which prospective randomized trials are needed. However, these data suggest that WRs following LAC would not necessarily portend a dismal prognosis. It was also critical reassurance that it was safe to proceed with the clinical trial.

RECENT SERIES

Results from large series published in recent years are given in Table 1. The overview of recent series prompts considerations regarding the incidence of WR. First, multiple series confirm that the overall number of WRs often includes cases associated with disseminated peritoneal carcinomatosis or advanced metastatic disease. This is in keeping with what has also been demonstrated for other gastrointestinal malignant neoplasms.27,40 The correlation between WR and advanced or disseminated disease is not surprising; hence, the clinical importance of WR in these subsets of patients remains questionable. A second striking result is that the incidence of WR seems to have been variable during the last decade. While earlier, multicenter series typically report WR rates ranging between 1% and 21%, several single-institution experiences described in the last 2 to 3 years suggest that WR probably occurs in fewer than 1% of LAC cases. It is therefore reasonable to presume that the surgeon's experience might contribute to a decrease in the incidence of this complication. A recent multicenter survey conducted in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria on WR after laparoscopy for different neoplasms seems to confirm that limited LAC experience corresponds to an increased risk of WR. Sixteen (3.9%) of 412 patients who underwent laparoscopy for colorectal cancer had documented port-site and scar WRs. Only 10 of these cases occurred following LAC with curative intent. In addition, the operative specimens were retrieved on 5 occasions without using any protective measures, with the specimen opened to expose the tumor in 1 case. The number of surgeons performing LAC or individual surgeon experience in LAC was not reported. However, the overall number of contributors was 607, which suggests that many of the operating surgeons did not have a lot of experience performing LAC.41 The discrepancy in individual surgeon outcomes also suggests that proper training and mentoring are essential to reduce the incidence of WR. It is increasingly acknowledged that only prospective randomized trials can provide accurate information on the risk of port-site WRs in clinical practice.

AVAILABLE RESULTS FROM PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIALS

To our knowledge, there are 3 reported prospective randomized trials examining the incidence of WR following LAC vs OC for cancer. Stage et al42 have followed up, for a median of 14 months, 18 patients who underwent LAC vs 16 who were treated with standard OC and found no incisional wound or port-site recurrences. Similarly, Lacy et al36 reported no incisional wound or port-site recurrences after a mean follow-up period of 21 months in a randomized study on 91 segmental resections, 44 of which were performed laparoscopically. In a third randomized comparison, Milsom et al37 reported 2 cases of abdominal wall WRs associated with widespread disease of 42 patients followed up for a median of 1.7 years after undergoing OC. Conversely, no WRs were found in any of 38 patients treated with LAC after a median follow-up period of 1.5 years. Although the small sample sizes limit the significance of results from these studies, it provides some measure of reassurance that acceptable oncologic results are feasible, and commitments to larger definitive studies should be made.

PATHOGENESIS

The pathogenesis of WR remains unclear. While some authors consider the unique conditions created by the pneumoperitoneum as essential for the promotion of WR, others point out the possible similarities between the pathogenesis of WR and that of abdominal wall WRs following OC.

It has been suggested that tumor cells exfoliated at the time of surgery might serve as the origin of tumor cell implantation on wound sites, perhaps for both OC and LAC. Experimental evidence demonstrates that tumor cells exfoliated from colorectal cancer tumors can be viable43,44; furthermore, their growth is enhanced at sites of wound healing, including colonic anastomoses and incisional wounds.45 It has been repeatedly demonstrated that tumor cells can spill into the peritoneum before and during resection of cancerous bowel tumors. The incidence of positive findings for peritoneal tumor cells ranges between 0% and 42% according to the timing of retrieval during surgery (preresection or postresection), the tumor stage, and the sensitivity of the technique used to detect tumor cells.4654 However, there is no evidence suggesting any correlation between the presence of peritoneal tumor cells and the development of WR. Even if viable intra-abdominal exfoliated tumor cells are the source of tumor cell implantation on wound sites when WRs do occur, this alone does not explain why WRs by tumor cell implantation occur in some cases and not in others.

The pathogenesis of WRs is probably multifactorial. Although the possibility of a lymphatic or hematogenous spreading from the primary tumor has been suggested, no experimental or clinical data have substantiated this hypothesis. Alternatively, it has been postulated that carbon dioxide (CO2) might chemically stimulate tumor growth, regardless of any contribution deriving from the intra-abdominal pressure. However, there are 2 main theories currently discussed: (1) indirect contamination caused by the pneumoperitoneum vs (2) direct wound contamination via the resected specimen or the surgical instruments used during the procedure.

Indirect contamination might derive from tumor cell dispersion as a result of the pneumoperitoneal gas, a phenomenon referred to as aerosolization, or by the formation of tumor droplets. Another possibility is that the pressure effect of the pneumoperitoneum may create a unique distribution of tumor cells. A focused mass of viable tumor cells may be critical to the development of tumors at the sites of cannulas where leaks may occur. No matter the mechanism, it has been emphasized that inadvertent intraoperative desufflation of the pneumoperitoneum or evacuation of the intra-abdominal gas at the completion of the laparoscopic procedure could expose the patient to a particularly increased risk of contamination. These episodes could enhance passage of the pneumoperitoneum gas through the port-site incisions, a mechanism referred to as chimney effect.55 However, it has also been surmised that immunologic alterations caused by the pneumoperitoneum might affect the tumor immune response and create a more favorable environment for tumor growth within trocar wounds.

An alternative explanation might be proposed for tumor cell implantations occurring at the small incision sites used for LAC procedures. Specifically, direct contamination by exfoliated tumor cells might occur during the specimen extraction. Although this mechanism is generally accepted, it does not explain the incidence of port-site WRs in trocar wounds located remote from the extraction site. Alternatively, direct contamination might be caused by tumor cells contaminating the instruments and/or trocars in which tumor cells would be carried to the port-site wounds by tumor manipulation and exchange of the instruments during the laparoscopic procedure. The increased frequency of port-site WRs in the trocars used by the operating surgeon seems to support this theory.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

Several animal studies have been conducted in the attempt to experimentally examine the various theories proposed for the pathogenesis of WR. It is difficult to assess the degree of significance of these studies, since it is unclear how closely the experimental conditions approximate clinical and human conditions. Besides in vitro studies, a variety of animal models have been used. Small animals, such as mice, rats, and hamsters, have been the basis of the models favored by investigators. Less often, large animals such as pigs have been used. While small animals are more readily available to perform larger studies with increased statistical power, large animals more precisely approximate the human setting. A few human experimental studies have also been reported.

Limitations of Experimental Studies

In this field of investigation, study diversity has been the norm. Perhaps this yields a high degree of informative data, but it renders a summary of common themes and recurring study limitations difficult. Studies differ greatly by study design, animal and tumor cell type used, methods of tumor establishment, tumor dose inocula, number of ports used per animal, pressure and duration of pneumoperitoneum, length of the surgical incision(s), methods used to assess tumor growth or tumor cell implantation on wound sites, and the time between tumor inoculation and animal sacrifice. It is therefore not surprising that current study results are still controversial regarding the effects of laparoscopy. While some studies suggest a beneficial effect of pneumoperitoneum in reducing tumor growth (Table 3), others suggest that pneumoperitoneum favors tumor cell implantation and growth (Table 4).5673

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Experimental Studies Demonstrating a Favorable Effect (Less Tumor Growth) Following Laparoscopic Procedures*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Experimental Studies Demonstrating Adverse Effects (Enhanced Tumor Growth) Following Laparoscopic Procedures*

Most of the experimental studies examine the impact of specific factors on tumor growth or tumor cell implantation on wound sites. However, all of the variables mentioned hamper the accurate reproduction of the clinical circumstances in experimental settings. Critical variables such as the tumor load and the biologic behavior of tumor cells remain difficult to analyze. For example, different studies using the same hamster model reveal that decreasing tumor inocula can annul differences in tumor cell implantation rates on wound sites following laparoscopy vs laparotomy.66,71,74 On the other hand, while it is well known that many circulating tumor cells do not metastasize,75 few studies examine the viability of malignant cells dispersed intraperitoneally and the wound environmental conditions favoring tumor attachment and growth.

An accurate pneumoperitoneal pressure is also difficult to reproduce in the experimental models. While different pressures might affect tumor growth,76 excessive pressure may result in a continuous gas leakage through the ports. At least 1 study indicates that the tumor deposit weight at trocar sites where gas leaking was intentionally induced was significantly increased compared with control sites.77

The Role of CO2
In Vitro Studies

In vitro and in vivo studies have examined changes in tumor growth associated with a CO2-rich environment. Although it has been postulated that the CO2 may promote tumor cell growth, in vitro studies demonstrate no such effect and rather suggest that CO2 has a toxic effect on tumor cells,78 at least at 10 mm Hg and 15 mm Hg.76

A second postulate considers that CO2 may promote WR by tumor cell aerosolization. Whelan et al79 examined aerosols of tumor cell cultures in a high-pressure CO2 environment undergoing a subsequent 2-week incubation. Tumor growth could not be demonstrated in 124 test dishes analyzing aerosols from 2 different cell lines. When tumor cells underwent rapid desufflation following insertion into a balloon, tumor cell transport through the desufflation gas could be demonstrated only when the balloon surface had been entirely coated with tumor cells before the desufflation actually occurred.79 Similarly, Thomas et al80 have not identified any malignant cell in CO2 exhaust examined using filter systems, although instruments and ports were contaminated. Therefore, no experimental evidence supports that any chemical characteristics of CO2 might contribute to WR.

In Vivo Models

Several models have been investigated. The intraperitoneal injection of a tumor cell suspension has been reported often and is probably the most easily reproducible. Alternatively, a procedure referred to as tumor laceration technique67 has been used to better approximate the pathophysiology of human colon cancer. In this model, the injection of a tumor cell suspension into the flank of the animal is followed 1 week later by intentional laceration of the resulting tumor from within the abdomen, either via a laparotomy or laparoscopically. More recently, a colon anastomosis carcinoma model has been developed in which transanal injection of tumor cells is followed by colon transection and reanastomosis.62

Human Experimental Studies

The few experimental human studies conducted have mostly focused on the examination of the pneumoperitoneum gas for the presence of cells, either benign or malignant. Only sporadically has tumor cell implantation been encountered on the camera and port-site wounds at the time of LAC for cancer.81 On the other hand, benign cells have been demonstrated as aerosolized particles retrievable in the smoke generated during LAC.82

When CO2 effluent was examined in 35 patients, including 20 benign cases and 5 cases of peritoneal carcinomatosis out of 15 noncolorectal malignant neoplasms, malignant cells were found in only 2 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, and benign mesothelial cells were encountered in 2 patients with no cases of aerosolized tumor cells identified.83 Similarly, a small study strictly focused on 12 patients with pancreatic cancer staged with laparoscopy failed to demonstrate any aerosolized cells. No free-floating tumor cells could be demonstrated in the CO2 despite using several testing techniques. Cells were, however, retrieved on several of the instruments used.84

DIRECT PORT-SITE CONTAMINATION

Although contamination of the wound from specimen extraction is recognized as a possible pathogenic mechanism, most experimental studies have analyzed the effects of tumor manipulation and the contamination of the instruments used during laparoscopic procedures to explain WRs.

Tumor Manipulation

Studies suggesting a beneficial immune effect of pneumoperitoneum in reducing tumor growth have also attempted to substantiate the direct tumor cell implantation theory as the most important pathogenic mechanism for port-site WRs. Allendorf et al85 studied a murine model in which tumor cells were inoculated intradermally in the dorsal skin. In this model, the use of pneumoperitoneum decreased tumor establishment and growth compared with laparotomy using different cell lines.57,61 A rat model in which animals received a single-site intrapancreatic inoculation of tumor cells confirmed the reduction in tumor growth when tumor manipulation was accomplished during laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum vs laparotomy. Conversely, no difference was demonstrated between the 2 techniques when the tumor was not manipulated.65 The same group of investigators performed a series of studies evaluating a murine model consisting of intrasplenic tumor injection via a left flank incision followed by splenectomy. Abdominal tumor cell implantation was significantly more likely to occur when the established tumor was intentionally crushed with a clamp at the time of splenectomy, regardless of the use of a 20-minute CO2 pneumoperitoneum following the procedure.86 When laparoscopic procedures were tested in a subsequent study, splenectomy following laparoscopic mobilization with CO2 pneumoperitoneum was significantly more likely to result in tumor cell implantation on wound sites than laparotomy.87 However, using the same model, the incidence of WR after open surgery remained constant, and the incidence of port-site tumor cell implantation decreased significantly in the laparoscopy group as a result of experience and eventually became comparable to the open technique.88 Overall, results from studies performed using these models suggest that WRs are more likely a consequence of tumor manipulation rather than of CO2 pneumoperitoneum; furthermore, this difference can be substantially reduced with experience.

Instrument Contamination–Large Animal Studies

The number of large animal studies has been limited, and to our knowledge, only porcine models have been tested. Porcine models are less practical and provide a smaller sample size compared with rodent models. However, it has been argued that the animal's larger size simulates experimental conditions more similar to humans. Most studies are based on intraperitoneal tumor injection, and no model in which tumor attachment was induced prior to the experimental study has been investigated. Unlike smaller animal models, data from large animal studies more consistently suggest that the use of pneumoperitoneum is not associated with an increased rate of tumor cell implantation on wound sites.

Allardyce et al89,90 used a porcine model in which laparoscopic vs OC procedures were performed after the intraperitoneal introduction of suspended 51chromium-labeled tumor cells. Preferential contamination of the instruments and ports used by the operating surgeon was noted, regardless of the use of pneumoperitoneum or gasless abdominal lifting. When LAC was compared with OC in the same model, more tumor cells were found deposited in open wounds than trocar sites.91

Porcine models have also examined the intraperitoneal movement of malignant cells following intraperitoneal injection, analyzing the CO2 expelled from the peritoneal cavity with a polycarbonate filter system80,92 or detecting radio-labeled tumor cell movement with a gamma camera.93 Using both techniques, there was only 1 occurrence of malignant cells identified in 1 filter examining exhaust CO2. Conversely, tumor cells were frequently found in washings from laparoscopic ports or on laparoscopic instruments, especially after an extended contact of the trocars with the peritoneum. Importantly, the presence of intraperitoneal blood affected tumor contamination of the trocars and trocar sites.

IMPACT OF LAPAROSCOPY ON IMMUNE FUNCTION

Experimental studies on immune function and laparoscopy have been conducted to investigate potential alterations in tumor responses that could affect cancer outcomes. As such, observations on experimental tumor cell implantation on wound sites and tumor growth remote from wounds have been examined as a testing of a generalized immune response to tumors rather than focusing specifically on WR.

While some studies reveal a depressed local inflammatory response following laparoscopy,94,95 others have suggested a direct correlation between the enhanced preservation of immune response and reduction in tumor growth and/or tumor cell implantation following laparoscopy.9698 Several investigations demonstrate a better preservation of the delayed-type hypersensitivity response following laparoscopy, suggesting a mediator role for the cell-mediated immune response.96,99 This result is in accordance with other study results that confirm the effects of laparotomy on creating relative T-cell immune suppression: laparoscopic approaches better preserve T-cell function.63 Thus, although laparoscopy tends not to generate as much immunosuppression as laparotomy, results from experimental studies examining the contribution of the immune response to WR are still inconclusive.

PREVENTION

One perceived advantage of using animal models and studies to complement human investigations is the possibility of testing preventive measures. Combining observations from the human experience with those gleaned from animal studies has allowed opportunities to consider corrective actions.

Experimental Studies on Preventive Measures

Some experimental studies on laparoscopic surgery have examined the effect of a modified physical environment in reducing tumor growth. The use of heated and humidified CO2 has significantly reduced trocar contamination in an experimental model.100 However, there is no further evidence that these modifications might affect tumor cell aerosolization compared with dry CO2 in humans. Alternative pneumoperitoneal gases have also been tested without any proven advantages. While some experimental models indicate less tumor growth using helium and room air,101 others demonstrate no difference,72 and some reveal a decrease in tumor growth using CO2 rather than air or nitrogen dioxide.102

Similarly, some studies demonstrate a reduction in tumor cell implantation on wound sites following gasless laparoscopic technique vs CO2 pneumoperitoneum,58,103 while others have offered opposite results.104 This discrepancy and the proven occurrence of WR following thoracoscopy, which does not require establishment of pneumoperitoneum,105 have prevented a widespread acceptance of gasless laparoscopy in humans, despite its technical feasibility.106

A different approach to reduce tumor cell implantation consists in the use of tumoricidal agents, chemotherapeutics, and disinfectants. Heparin and taurolidine cause maximum inhibition of tumor growth and tumor cell implantation when used simultaneously compared with using single agents in an experimental study.107 The use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy at the time of LAC or in the early postoperative period has also been suggested.108 The rationale for this therapeutic approach is that isolated intraperitoneal-spilled tumor cells would be the ideal targets for locoregional chemotherapy, which would be directed at a minimal, local tumor burden prior to the onset of postoperative adhesions.109 Both modalities are still investigational and not accepted in the clinical setting.

Conversely, investigations on disinfectants more closely reflect daily laparoscopic practices. The intraperitoneal instillation of a povidone-iodine solution in a rat model prevents WR compared with instillation of isotonic sodium chloride solution, methotrexate, aqueous chlorhexidine acetate, and intramuscular injection of methotrexate. Based on their experimental results, Neuhaus et al110 have recommended routine peritoneal washings with diluted povidone-iodine solution during LAC for cancer. A similar study reveals greater efficacy with 5-fluorouracil vs water, isotonic sodium chloride solution, and heparin.111 Intraperitoneal sodium hypochlorite also is a poor cytotoxic agent.72 Other studies have focused on the local treatment of trocar wounds such as the application of povidone-iodine solution or silver sulfadiazine prior to pneumoperitoneum with moderate reduction of the tumor cell implantation rate in a hamster model.112 In another study, the more drastic excision of laparoscopic abdominal wound sites significantly reduced the incidence of tumor cell implantation on wound sites.113 However, the clinical use of the latter measure is impractical and remains unproved.

More importantly, the effect of technical precautions to reduce WR has been recently examined in a porcine model. Nine pigs received an intraperitoneal injection of tumor cells followed by a laparoscopic sigmoid resection with protective measures and were compared with 9 pigs undergoing surgery without any precautions. The systematic adoption of trocar fixation, prevention of gas leak, instrument rinsing, wound protection, and irrigation with betadine prior to closure significantly reduced the incidence of WR.114 Although several specific modalities deserve further study before clinical use is warranted, experimental studies offer support to several practical measures useful to prevent WR in clinical practice.

Preventive Measures in Clinical Practice

While experimental studies might herald technical innovations in LAC or disclose the unclear role of the pneumoperitoneum in promoting port-site WRs, it is probably best at present to focus on surgical techniques. Most of the principles are directly derived from the tenets of a correct traditional open colonic resection as they are aimed at preventing tumor rupture and spillage. Every effort should be made to avoid tumor manipulation. The mobilization of the segment to be resected should be accomplished along anatomical bloodless planes when feasible, limiting the potential for the blood to function as a tumor cell reservoir. Meticulous care should be taken when delivering the specimen through the minilaparotomy to avoid any direct contact between the tumor and the wound. The use of wound protection is appropriate in this setting. Although it is still not established whether a gas leakage actually increases the risk of port-site WRs, pneumoperitoneal leaks should be minimized by the appropriate fixation of ports to the abdominal wall. Gas leaks during the procedure should be immediately corrected, and massive leaks should be avoided whenever possible. At the end of the procedure, cannulas should be removed after the pneumoperitoneum has been evacuated through the ports. Some authors also recommend irrigation of instruments and ports before removal and frequent irrigation and suctioning of the peritoneal cavity.115 At a minimum, trocar and minilaparotomy wounds should be generously irrigated prior to closure. Although we use physiologic saline, others have proposed diluted betadine.116 The actual impact of these specific measures in the reduction of WR is uncertain. Although there is not uniform agreement on which specific recommendations should be adopted, there is unanimous consensus that oncologic principles must be rigidly followed. Furthermore, experience with benign cases should precede attempts at resection for cancer cases, preferably after a credentialing process, and should be limited to controlled trial evaluations.

FUTURE ISSUES

It is important to approach LAC for cancer only when adequate clinical experience has been obtained, treating benign cases or cancer cases with palliative intent. Stoma construction or laparoscopic procedures of a lesser magnitude should be approached first, followed by more complex operations. Ideally, one should start LAC under the mentorship of a more experienced surgeon. The ongoing National Institutes of Health–sponsored clinical trial on LAC vs OC requires participating surgeons to submit a video-recorded procedure with demonstration of oncologic techniques and evidence documenting experience with at least 20 LACs (typically benign).

The ongoing National Cancer Institute–sponsored US trial on LAC vs OC for cancer will accrue and follow 1200 patients randomized to either technique.117 Similar prospective randomized trials are underway in Europe, Australia, and South America.118 The Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Trial, currently under way in Europe, is also examining the impact of LAC on several immunologic parameters. All of these trials should provide a definitive answer to concerns regarding port-site WRs as well as overall survival data.

Wound recurrences are a known complication of laparoscopic surgery for cancer, including colonic resection. Alarming reports in the early 1990s prompted concern over the feasibility of LAC for cancer, alluding that the incidence might be unacceptably high, contraindicating the acceptance of laparoscopic techniques into routine practice. Results from experimental studies are still controversial and do not effectively address concerns regarding the adequacy of laparoscopic colonic resection. Although recent clinical series suggest that the incidence of WR in clinical practice may be minimal, only large prospective randomized clinical trials can provide definitive answers regarding the actual incidence of WRs and their impact on cancer outcomes. Until such trials are completed, this procedure for cancer must be considered controversial.

KEY POINTS
Animal Studies

• Several variables hamper comparisons among experimental studies.

• Small animals are more readily available and allow a larger sample size for study.

• Large animals are less practical but probably better approximate the human setting.

• Results on the contributions of the pneumoperitoneum to wound recurrence are controversial.

• Several studies have supported the role of tumor manipulation and instrument contamination.

• Human experimental studies do no suggest a role for pneumoperitoneum.

• Studies on the relationship between immunologic alterations and wound recurrence are inconclusive.

• Current experimental studies do not resolve concerns regarding wound recurrence.

Human Studies

• Initial anecdotal case reports created anxiety regarding the oncologic safety of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy.

• Early series suggested an incidence of wound recurrence following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy of 1% to 3% and up to 21% in one series.

• Recent retrospective laparoscopic-assisted colectomy series have generally indicated an incidence of wound recurrence of 0% to 1%.

• The wound recurrence incidence in multicenter studies tends to be higher, probably owing to a learning curve.

• The incidence of clinically detected wound recurrence after open colectomy is approximately 1%.

• Only prospective randomized trials truly provide answers on the incidence and impact of wound recurrence.

• Large prospective randomized trials are under way in several countries.

This study was supported in part by Ethicon, Endo-Surgery Inc, Cincinnati, Ohio (Dr Stocchi).

Corresponding author: Heidi Nelson, MD, Mayo Clinic, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: nelsonh@mayo.edu).

Nduka  CCMonson  JRMenzies-Gow  NDarzi  A Abdominal wall metastases following laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 1994;81648- 652
Link to Article
Alexander  RJJaques  BCMitchell  KG Laparoscopically assisted colectomy and wound recurrence [letter]. Lancet. 1993;341249- 250
Link to Article
Walsh  DCWattchow  DAWilson  TG Subcutaneous metastases after laparoscopic resection of malignancy. Aust N Z J Surg. 1993;63563- 565
Link to Article
Cirocco  WCSchwartzman  AGolub  RW Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. Surgery. 1994;116842- 846
O'Rourke  NPrice  PMKelly  SSikora  K Tumour inoculation during laparoscopy [letter]. Lancet. 1993;342368
Link to Article
Fusco  MAPaluzzi  MW Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for adenocarcinoma of the colon: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36858- 861
Link to Article
Jacquet  PAverbach  AMJacquet  N Abdominal wall metastasis and peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colon cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1995;21568- 570
Link to Article
Montorsi  MFumagalli  URosati  R  et al.  Early parietal recurrence of adenocarcinoma of the colon after laparoscopic colectomy. Br J Surg. 1995;821036- 1037
Link to Article
Berends  FJKazemier  GBonjer  HJLange  JF Subcutaneous metastases after laparoscopic colectomy [letter]. Lancet. 1994;34458
Link to Article
Jacquet  PAverbach  AMStephens  ADSugarbaker  PH Cancer recurrence following laparoscopic colectomy: report of two patients treated with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;381110- 1114
Link to Article
Guillou  PJDarzi  AMonson  JR Experience with laparoscopic colorectal surgery for malignant disease. Surg Oncol. 1993;2 ((suppl 1)) 43- 49
Link to Article
Drouard  FPassone-Szerzyna  N Les greffes neoplasiques parietales en chirurgie laparoscopique colo-rectale. Paper presented at Communication III Symposium Société Française d'Endoscopie Chirurgicale1995; Bordeaux, France.
Boulez  J Chirurgie du cancer colo-rectal par voie coelioscopique. Ann Chir. 1996;50219- 230
Fleshman  JWNelson  HPeters  WR  et al.  Early results of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of 372 patients treated by Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S53- S58
Link to Article
Franklin  ME  JrRosenthal  DAbrego-Medina  D  et al.  Prospective comparison of open vs laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma: five-year results. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S35- S46
Link to Article
Gellman  LSalky  BEdye  M Laparoscopic assisted colectomy. Surg Endosc. 1996;101041- 1044
Link to Article
Hoffman  GCBaker  JWDoxey  JB  et al.  Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: initial follow-up. Ann Surg. 1996;223790- 796
Link to Article
Lacy  AMGarcia-Valdecasas  JCDelgado  S  et al.  Postoperative complications of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Surg Endosc. 1997;11119- 122
Link to Article
Larach  SWPatankar  SKFerrara  A  et al.  Complications of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: analysis and comparison of early vs later experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40592- 596
Link to Article
Vukasin  POrtega  AEGreene  FL  et al.  Wound recurrence following laparoscopic colon cancer resection: results of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Laparoscopic Registry. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S20- S23
Link to Article
Fielding  GALumley  JNathanson  L  et al.  Laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc. 1997;11745- 749
Link to Article
Bouvet  MMansfield  PFSkibber  JM  et al.  Clinical, pathologic, and economic parameters of laparoscopic colon resection for cancer. Am J Surg. 1998;176554- 558
Link to Article
Khalili  TMFleshner  PRHiatt  JR  et al.  Colorectal cancer: comparison of laparoscopic with open approaches. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41832- 838
Link to Article
Bohm  BSchwenk  WMuller  JM Long-term results after laparoscopic resection of colorectal carcinoma [in German]. Chirurg. 1999;70453- 455
Link to Article
Leung  KLYiu  RYLai  PB  et al.  Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: five-year audit. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42327- 332
Link to Article
Melotti  GTamborrino  ELazzaretti  MG  et al.  Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1999;16332- 336
Link to Article
Pearlstone  DBMansfield  PFCurley  SA  et al.  Laparoscopy in 533 patients with abdominal malignancy. Surgery. 1999;12567- 72
Link to Article
Poulin  ECMamazza  JSchlachta  CMGregoire  RRoy  N Laparoscopic resection does not adversely affect early survival curves in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 1999;229487- 492
Link to Article
Schiedeck  THKSchwandner  OBaca  I  et al.  Laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;431- 8
Link to Article
Ramos  JMGupta  SAnthone  GJOrtega  AESimons  AJBeart  RW  Jr Laparoscopy and colon cancer: is the port site at risk? a preliminary report. Arch Surg. 1994;129897- 900
Link to Article
Gunderson  LLSosin  H Areas of failure found at reoperation (second or symptomatic look) following "curative surgery" for adenocarcinoma of the rectum: clinicopathologic correlation and implications for adjuvant therapy. Cancer. 1974;341278- 1292
Link to Article
Cass  AWMillion  RRPfaff  WW Patterns of recurrence following surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1976;372861- 2865
Link to Article
Hughes  ESMcDermott  FTPolglase  ALJohnson  WR Tumor recurrence in the abdominal wall scar tissue after large-bowel cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983;26571- 572
Link to Article
Gunderson  LLSosin  HLevitt  S Extrapelvic colon—areas of failure in a reoperation series: implications for adjuvant therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985;11731- 741
Link to Article
Reilly  WTNelson  HSchroeder  G  et al.  Wound recurrence following conventional treatment of colorectal cancer: a rare but perhaps underestimated problem. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39200- 207
Link to Article
Lacy  AMDelgado  SGarcia-Valdecasas  JC  et al.  Port site metastases and recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy: a randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 1998;121039- 1042
Link to Article
Milsom  JWBohm  BHammerhofer  KA  et al.  A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;18746- 54
Link to Article
Santoro  ECarlini  MCarboni  FFeroce  A Colorectal carcinoma: laparoscopic versus traditional open surgery: a clinical trial. Hepatogastroenterology. 1999;46900- 904
Welch  JPDonaldson  GA The clinical correlation of an autopsy study of recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 1979;189496- 502
Link to Article
Champault  GAlmagro  RMPanchana  GBarrat  CCatheline  JM Port-site metastases: a prospective study of 131 cases [in French]. J Chir (Paris). 1997;134423- 428
Paolucci  VSchaeff  BSchneider  MGutt  C Tumor seeding following laparoscopy: international survey. World J Surg. 1999;23989- 995
Link to Article
Stage  JGSchulze  SMoller  P  et al.  Prospective randomized study of laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 1997;84391- 396
Link to Article
Fermor  BUmpleby  HCLever  JVSymes  MOWilliamson  RC Proliferative and metastatic potential of exfoliated colorectal cancer cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76347- 349
Skipper  DCooper  AJMarston  JETaylor  I Exfoliated cells and in vitro growth in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1987;741049- 1052
Link to Article
Skipper  DJeffrey  MJCooper  AJAlexander  PTaylor  I Enhanced growth of tumour cells in healing colonic anastomoses and laparotomy wounds. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1989;4172- 177
Link to Article
Kim  SHMilsom  JWGramlich  TL  et al.  Does laparoscopic vs conventional surgery increase exfoliated cancer cells in the peritoneal cavity during resection of colorectal cancer? Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41971- 978
Link to Article
Martin  JK  JrGoellner  JR Abdominal fluid cytology in patients with gastrointestinal malignant lesions. Mayo Clin Proc. 1986;61467- 471
Link to Article
Murphy  PDWadhera  VGriffin  SM  et al.  Free peritoneal tumour cell identification in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1993;3828- 32
Ambrose  NSMacDonald  FYoung  J  et al.  Monoclonal antibody and cytological detection of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity during resection of colorectal cancer: can monoclonal antibodies do better? Eur J Surg Oncol. 1989;1599- 102
Solomon  MJEgan  MRoberts  RAPhilips  JRussell  P Incidence of free colorectal cancer cells on the peritoneal surface. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;401294- 1298
Link to Article
Horattas  MCEvasovich  MRTopham  N Colorectal carcinoma and the relationship of peritoneal cytology. Am J Surg. 1997;174334- 337
Link to Article
Schott  AVogel  IKrueger  U  et al.  Isolated tumor cells are frequently detectable in the peritoneal cavity of gastric and colorectal cancer patients and serve as a new prognostic marker. Ann Surg. 1998;227372- 379
Link to Article
Leather  AJKocjan  GSavage  F  et al.  Detection of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity before and after resection of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37814- 819
Link to Article
Wong  LSMorris  AGFraser  IA The exfoliation of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity during resection of colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol. 1996;5115- 121
Link to Article
Kazemier  GBonjer  HJBerends  FJLange  JF Port site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy [letter]. Br J Surg. 1995;821141- 1142
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MKayton  ML  et al.  Tumor growth after laparotomy or laparoscopy: a preliminary study. Surg Endosc. 1995;949- 52
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MKayton  ML  et al.  Increased tumor establishment and growth after laparotomy vs laparoscopy in a murine model. Arch Surg. 1995;130649- 653
Link to Article
Bouvy  NDMarquet  RLJeekel  HBonjer  HJ Impact of gas(less) laparoscopy and laparotomy on peritoneal tumor growth and abdominal wall metastases. Ann Surg. 1996;224694- 700
Link to Article
Bouvy  NDMarquet  RLHamming  JFJeekel  JBonjer  HJ Laparoscopic surgery in the rat: beneficial effect on body weight and tumor take. Surg Endosc. 1996;10490- 494
Link to Article
Bouvy  NDMarquet  RLJeekel  JBonjer  HJ Laparoscopic surgery is associated with less tumour growth stimulation than conventional surgery: an experimental study. Br J Surg. 1997;84358- 361
Link to Article
Southall  JCLee  SWAllendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL Colon adenocarcinoma and B-16 melanoma grow larger following laparotomy vs pneumoperitoneum in a murine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41564- 569
Link to Article
Pauwels  MLauwers  PHendriks  J  et al.  The effect of CO2 pneumoperitoneum on the growth of a solid colon carcinoma in rats. Surg Endosc. 1999;13998- 1000
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MHorvath  KD  et al.  Increased tumor establishment and growth after open vs laparoscopic surgery in mice may be related to differences in postoperative T-cell function. Surg Endosc. 1999;13233- 235
Link to Article
Gutt  CNRiemer  VKim  ZG  et al.  Impact of laparoscopic colonic resection on tumour growth and spread in an experimental model. Br J Surg. 1999;861180- 1184
Link to Article
Mutter  DHajri  ATassetti  V  et al.  Increased tumor growth and spread after laparoscopy vs laparotomy: influence of tumor manipulation in a rat model. Surg Endosc. 1999;13365- 370
Link to Article
Jones  DBGuo  LWReinhard  MK  et al.  Impact of pneumoperitoneum on trocar site implantation of colon cancer in hamster model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;381182- 1188
Link to Article
Mathew  GWatson  DIRofe  AM  et al.  Wound metastases following laparoscopic and open surgery for abdominal cancer in a rat model. Br J Surg. 1996;831087- 1090
Link to Article
Mathew  GWatson  DIRofe  AMEllis  TJamieson  GG Adverse impact of pneumoperitoneum on intraperitoneal implantation and growth of tumour cell suspension in an experimental model. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67289- 292
Link to Article
Jacobi  CASabat  RBohm  B  et al.  Pneumoperitoneum with carbon dioxide stimulates growth of malignant colonic cells. Surgery. 1997;12172- 78
Link to Article
Jacobi  CAOrdemann  JBohm  B  et al.  The influence of laparotomy and laparoscopy on tumor growth in a rat model. Surg Endosc. 1997;11618- 621
Link to Article
Wu  JSBrasfield  EBGuo  LW  et al.  Implantation of colon cancer at trocar sites is increased by low pressure pneumoperitoneum. Surgery. 1997;1221- 7
Link to Article
Dorrance  HROien  KO'Dwyer  PJ Effects of laparoscopy on intraperitoneal tumor growth and distant metastases in an animal model. Surgery. 1999;12635- 40
Link to Article
Volz  JKoster  SSpacek  ZPaweletz  N The influence of pneumoperitoneum used in laparoscopic surgery on an intraabdominal tumor growth. Cancer. 1999;86770- 774
Link to Article
Wu  JSJones  DBGuo  LW  et al.  Effects of pneumoperitoneum on tumor implantation with decreasing tumor inoculum. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41141- 146
Link to Article
Weitz  JKienle  PMagener  A  et al.  Detection of disseminated colorectal cancer cells in lymph nodes, blood and bone marrow. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;51830- 1836
Jacobi  CAWenger  FAOrdemann  J  et al.  Experimental study of the effect of intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy on tumour growth and port site metastasis. Br J Surg. 1998;851419- 1422
Link to Article
Tseng  LNBerends  FJWittich  P  et al.  Port-site metastases: impact of local tissue trauma and gas leakage. Surg Endosc. 1998;121377- 1380
Link to Article
Takiguchi  SMatsuura  NHamada  Y  et al.  Influence of CO2 pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery on cancer cell growth. Surg Endosc. 2000;1441- 44
Link to Article
Whelan  RLSellers  GJAllendorf  JD  et al.  Trocar site recurrence is unlikely to result from aerosolization of tumor cells. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S7- S13
Link to Article
Thomas  WMEaton  MCHewett  PJ A proposed model for the movement of cells within the abdominal cavity during CO2 insufflation and laparoscopy. Aust N Z J Surg. 1996;66105- 106
Link to Article
Ng  WTYeung  HCKoh  GHNg  WF Mechanism for port-site metastasis after laparoscopic cancer surgery [letter]. Br J Surg. 1996;831478
Link to Article
Champault  GTaffinder  NZiol  M  et al.  Cells are present in the smoke created during laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 1997;84993- 995
Link to Article
Ikramuddin  SLucus  JEllison  ECSchirmer  WJMelvin  WS Detection of aerosolized cells during carbon dioxide laparoscopy. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2580- 583
Link to Article
Reymond  MAWittekind  CJung  A  et al.  The incidence of port-site metastases might be reduced. Surg Endosc. 1997;11902- 906
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL A murine model of laparoscopic-assisted intervention. Surg Endosc. 1997;11622- 624
Link to Article
Lee  SWSouthall  JAllendorf  JBessler  MWhelan  RL Traumatic handling of the tumor independent of pneumoperitoneum increases port site implantation rate of colon cancer in a murine model. Surg Endosc. 1998;12828- 834
Link to Article
Lee  SWWhelan  RLSouthall  JCBessler  M Abdominal wound tumor recurrence after open and laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy in a murine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41824- 831
Link to Article
Lee  SWBessler  MWhelan  RL Port-site tumor recurrence rates in a murine laparoscopic splenectomy model decreased with increased experience [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1998;12514
Link to Article
Allardyce  RMorreau  PBagshaw  P Tumor cell distribution following laparoscopic colectomy in a porcine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S47- S52
Link to Article
Allardyce  RAMorreau  PBagshaw  PF Operative factors affecting tumor cell distribution following laparoscopic colectomy in a porcine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40939- 945
Link to Article
Allardyce  RAMorreau  PNFrizelle  FABagshaw  PF Tumour cell wound distribution after colectomy in a porcine model. Aust N Z J Surg. 1998;68363- 366
Link to Article
Hewett  PJThomas  WMKing  GEaton  M Intraperitoneal cell movement during abdominal carbon dioxide insufflation and laparoscopy: an in vivo model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S62- S66
Link to Article
Hewett  PJTexler  MLAnderson  DKing  GChatterton  BE In vivo real-time analysis of intraperitoneal radiolabeled tumor cell movement during laparoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42868- 875
Link to Article
Gutt  CNHeinz  PKaps  WPaolucci  V The phagocytosis activity during conventional and laparoscopic operations in the rat: a preliminary study. Surg Endosc. 1997;11899- 901
Link to Article
West  MAHackam  DJBaker  J  et al.  Mechanism of decreased in vitro murine macrophage cytokine release after exposure to carbon dioxide: relevance to laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 1997;226179- 190
Link to Article
Trokel  MJBessler  MTreat  MRWhelan  RLNowygrod  R Preservation of immune response after laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 1994;81385- 1387
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL  et al.  Better preservation of immune function after laparoscopic-assisted vs open bowel resection in a murine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S67- S72
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL  et al.  Postoperative immune function varies inversely with the degree of surgical trauma in a murine model. Surg Endosc. 1997;11427- 430
Link to Article
Gleason  NRBlanco  IAllendorf  JD  et al.  Delayed-type hypersensitivity response is better preserved in mice following insufflation than after laparotomy. Surg Endosc. 1999;131032- 1034
Link to Article
Texler  MLKing  GHewett  PJ Tumour cell movement during heating and humidification of insufflating CO2: an in vitro model. Aust N Z J Surg. 1998;68740- 742
Link to Article
Neuhaus  SJWatson  DIEllis  T  et al.  Wound metastasis after laparoscopy with different insufflation gases. Surgery. 1998;123579- 583
Link to Article
Farrell  TMJohnson  ABMetreveli  RESmith  CDHunter  JG Choice of insufflating gas influence wound metastasis [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S33
Watson  DIMathew  GEllis  T  et al.  Gasless laparoscopy may reduce the risk of port-site metastases following laparoscopic tumor surgery. Arch Surg. 1997;132166- 168
Link to Article
Gutt  CNRiemer  VLinker  RPaolucci  V The impact of laparoscopic colon resection on tumor growth and tumor spreading in a rat model [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S40
Link to Article
Downey  RJMcCormack  PLoCicero  J  IIIand the Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Study Group, Dissemination of malignant tumors after video-assisted thoracic surgery: a report of twenty-one cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111954- 960
Link to Article
Kawamura  YJSawada  TSunami  E  et al.  Gasless laparoscopically assisted colonic surgery. Am J Surg. 1999;177515- 517
Link to Article
Jacobi  CAOrdemann  JBohm  B  et al.  Inhibition of peritoneal tumor cell growth and implantation in laparoscopic surgery in a rat model. Am J Surg. 1997;174359- 363
Link to Article
Jacquet  PSugarbaker  PH Wound recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: new rationale for intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy [editorial]. Surg Endosc. 1996;10295- 296
Link to Article
Jacquet  PStuart  OADalton  RChang  DSugarbaker  PH Effect of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and fibrinolytic therapy on tumor implantation in wound sites. J Surg Oncol. 1996;62128- 134
Link to Article
Neuhaus  SJWatson  DIEllis  TDodd  TRofe  AMJamieson  GG Efficacy of cytotoxic agents for the prevention of laparoscopic port-site metastases. Arch Surg. 1998;133762- 766
Link to Article
Eshraghi  NSwanstrom  LLBax  T  et al.  Topical treatments of laparoscopic port sites can decrease the incidence of incision metastasis. Surg Endosc. 1999;131121- 1124
Link to Article
Wu  JSPfister  SMRuiz  MBConnett  JMFleshman  JW Local treatment of abdominal wound reduces tumor implantation. J Surg Oncol. 1998;699- 13
Link to Article
Wu  JSGuo  LWRuiz  MB  et al.  Excision of trocar sites reduces tumor implantation in an animal model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;411107- 1111
Link to Article
Schneider  CReymond  MATannapfel  A  et al.  The surgeon is a major risk factor in the incidence of port-site recurrences [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S5
Whelan  RLLee  SW Review of investigations regarding the etiology of port site tumor recurrence. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999;91- 16
Link to Article
Balli  JEFranklin  MEAlmeida  JA  et al.  How to prevent port-site metastasis in laparoscopic colorectal surgery [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S4
Stocchi  LNelson  H Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: trial update. J Surg Oncol. 1998;68255- 267
Link to Article
Nelson  HStocchi  L Summary of current trials: study aims and designs. Wexner  SDed.Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Baltimore, Md Williams & Wilkins1999;251- 273

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Wound Recurrences in Clinical Experiences of Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Abdominal Wall Recurrences Following Open Resection of Colorectal Cancer With Curative Intent
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Experimental Studies Demonstrating a Favorable Effect (Less Tumor Growth) Following Laparoscopic Procedures*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Experimental Studies Demonstrating Adverse Effects (Enhanced Tumor Growth) Following Laparoscopic Procedures*

References

Nduka  CCMonson  JRMenzies-Gow  NDarzi  A Abdominal wall metastases following laparoscopy. Br J Surg. 1994;81648- 652
Link to Article
Alexander  RJJaques  BCMitchell  KG Laparoscopically assisted colectomy and wound recurrence [letter]. Lancet. 1993;341249- 250
Link to Article
Walsh  DCWattchow  DAWilson  TG Subcutaneous metastases after laparoscopic resection of malignancy. Aust N Z J Surg. 1993;63563- 565
Link to Article
Cirocco  WCSchwartzman  AGolub  RW Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. Surgery. 1994;116842- 846
O'Rourke  NPrice  PMKelly  SSikora  K Tumour inoculation during laparoscopy [letter]. Lancet. 1993;342368
Link to Article
Fusco  MAPaluzzi  MW Abdominal wall recurrence after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for adenocarcinoma of the colon: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36858- 861
Link to Article
Jacquet  PAverbach  AMJacquet  N Abdominal wall metastasis and peritoneal carcinomatosis after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colon cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1995;21568- 570
Link to Article
Montorsi  MFumagalli  URosati  R  et al.  Early parietal recurrence of adenocarcinoma of the colon after laparoscopic colectomy. Br J Surg. 1995;821036- 1037
Link to Article
Berends  FJKazemier  GBonjer  HJLange  JF Subcutaneous metastases after laparoscopic colectomy [letter]. Lancet. 1994;34458
Link to Article
Jacquet  PAverbach  AMStephens  ADSugarbaker  PH Cancer recurrence following laparoscopic colectomy: report of two patients treated with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;381110- 1114
Link to Article
Guillou  PJDarzi  AMonson  JR Experience with laparoscopic colorectal surgery for malignant disease. Surg Oncol. 1993;2 ((suppl 1)) 43- 49
Link to Article
Drouard  FPassone-Szerzyna  N Les greffes neoplasiques parietales en chirurgie laparoscopique colo-rectale. Paper presented at Communication III Symposium Société Française d'Endoscopie Chirurgicale1995; Bordeaux, France.
Boulez  J Chirurgie du cancer colo-rectal par voie coelioscopique. Ann Chir. 1996;50219- 230
Fleshman  JWNelson  HPeters  WR  et al.  Early results of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of 372 patients treated by Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S53- S58
Link to Article
Franklin  ME  JrRosenthal  DAbrego-Medina  D  et al.  Prospective comparison of open vs laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma: five-year results. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S35- S46
Link to Article
Gellman  LSalky  BEdye  M Laparoscopic assisted colectomy. Surg Endosc. 1996;101041- 1044
Link to Article
Hoffman  GCBaker  JWDoxey  JB  et al.  Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: initial follow-up. Ann Surg. 1996;223790- 796
Link to Article
Lacy  AMGarcia-Valdecasas  JCDelgado  S  et al.  Postoperative complications of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Surg Endosc. 1997;11119- 122
Link to Article
Larach  SWPatankar  SKFerrara  A  et al.  Complications of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: analysis and comparison of early vs later experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40592- 596
Link to Article
Vukasin  POrtega  AEGreene  FL  et al.  Wound recurrence following laparoscopic colon cancer resection: results of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Laparoscopic Registry. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S20- S23
Link to Article
Fielding  GALumley  JNathanson  L  et al.  Laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc. 1997;11745- 749
Link to Article
Bouvet  MMansfield  PFSkibber  JM  et al.  Clinical, pathologic, and economic parameters of laparoscopic colon resection for cancer. Am J Surg. 1998;176554- 558
Link to Article
Khalili  TMFleshner  PRHiatt  JR  et al.  Colorectal cancer: comparison of laparoscopic with open approaches. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41832- 838
Link to Article
Bohm  BSchwenk  WMuller  JM Long-term results after laparoscopic resection of colorectal carcinoma [in German]. Chirurg. 1999;70453- 455
Link to Article
Leung  KLYiu  RYLai  PB  et al.  Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: five-year audit. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42327- 332
Link to Article
Melotti  GTamborrino  ELazzaretti  MG  et al.  Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1999;16332- 336
Link to Article
Pearlstone  DBMansfield  PFCurley  SA  et al.  Laparoscopy in 533 patients with abdominal malignancy. Surgery. 1999;12567- 72
Link to Article
Poulin  ECMamazza  JSchlachta  CMGregoire  RRoy  N Laparoscopic resection does not adversely affect early survival curves in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 1999;229487- 492
Link to Article
Schiedeck  THKSchwandner  OBaca  I  et al.  Laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;431- 8
Link to Article
Ramos  JMGupta  SAnthone  GJOrtega  AESimons  AJBeart  RW  Jr Laparoscopy and colon cancer: is the port site at risk? a preliminary report. Arch Surg. 1994;129897- 900
Link to Article
Gunderson  LLSosin  H Areas of failure found at reoperation (second or symptomatic look) following "curative surgery" for adenocarcinoma of the rectum: clinicopathologic correlation and implications for adjuvant therapy. Cancer. 1974;341278- 1292
Link to Article
Cass  AWMillion  RRPfaff  WW Patterns of recurrence following surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1976;372861- 2865
Link to Article
Hughes  ESMcDermott  FTPolglase  ALJohnson  WR Tumor recurrence in the abdominal wall scar tissue after large-bowel cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983;26571- 572
Link to Article
Gunderson  LLSosin  HLevitt  S Extrapelvic colon—areas of failure in a reoperation series: implications for adjuvant therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985;11731- 741
Link to Article
Reilly  WTNelson  HSchroeder  G  et al.  Wound recurrence following conventional treatment of colorectal cancer: a rare but perhaps underestimated problem. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39200- 207
Link to Article
Lacy  AMDelgado  SGarcia-Valdecasas  JC  et al.  Port site metastases and recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy: a randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 1998;121039- 1042
Link to Article
Milsom  JWBohm  BHammerhofer  KA  et al.  A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;18746- 54
Link to Article
Santoro  ECarlini  MCarboni  FFeroce  A Colorectal carcinoma: laparoscopic versus traditional open surgery: a clinical trial. Hepatogastroenterology. 1999;46900- 904
Welch  JPDonaldson  GA The clinical correlation of an autopsy study of recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 1979;189496- 502
Link to Article
Champault  GAlmagro  RMPanchana  GBarrat  CCatheline  JM Port-site metastases: a prospective study of 131 cases [in French]. J Chir (Paris). 1997;134423- 428
Paolucci  VSchaeff  BSchneider  MGutt  C Tumor seeding following laparoscopy: international survey. World J Surg. 1999;23989- 995
Link to Article
Stage  JGSchulze  SMoller  P  et al.  Prospective randomized study of laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 1997;84391- 396
Link to Article
Fermor  BUmpleby  HCLever  JVSymes  MOWilliamson  RC Proliferative and metastatic potential of exfoliated colorectal cancer cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76347- 349
Skipper  DCooper  AJMarston  JETaylor  I Exfoliated cells and in vitro growth in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1987;741049- 1052
Link to Article
Skipper  DJeffrey  MJCooper  AJAlexander  PTaylor  I Enhanced growth of tumour cells in healing colonic anastomoses and laparotomy wounds. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1989;4172- 177
Link to Article
Kim  SHMilsom  JWGramlich  TL  et al.  Does laparoscopic vs conventional surgery increase exfoliated cancer cells in the peritoneal cavity during resection of colorectal cancer? Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41971- 978
Link to Article
Martin  JK  JrGoellner  JR Abdominal fluid cytology in patients with gastrointestinal malignant lesions. Mayo Clin Proc. 1986;61467- 471
Link to Article
Murphy  PDWadhera  VGriffin  SM  et al.  Free peritoneal tumour cell identification in patients with gastric and colorectal cancer. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1993;3828- 32
Ambrose  NSMacDonald  FYoung  J  et al.  Monoclonal antibody and cytological detection of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity during resection of colorectal cancer: can monoclonal antibodies do better? Eur J Surg Oncol. 1989;1599- 102
Solomon  MJEgan  MRoberts  RAPhilips  JRussell  P Incidence of free colorectal cancer cells on the peritoneal surface. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;401294- 1298
Link to Article
Horattas  MCEvasovich  MRTopham  N Colorectal carcinoma and the relationship of peritoneal cytology. Am J Surg. 1997;174334- 337
Link to Article
Schott  AVogel  IKrueger  U  et al.  Isolated tumor cells are frequently detectable in the peritoneal cavity of gastric and colorectal cancer patients and serve as a new prognostic marker. Ann Surg. 1998;227372- 379
Link to Article
Leather  AJKocjan  GSavage  F  et al.  Detection of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity before and after resection of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37814- 819
Link to Article
Wong  LSMorris  AGFraser  IA The exfoliation of free malignant cells in the peritoneal cavity during resection of colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol. 1996;5115- 121
Link to Article
Kazemier  GBonjer  HJBerends  FJLange  JF Port site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy [letter]. Br J Surg. 1995;821141- 1142
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MKayton  ML  et al.  Tumor growth after laparotomy or laparoscopy: a preliminary study. Surg Endosc. 1995;949- 52
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MKayton  ML  et al.  Increased tumor establishment and growth after laparotomy vs laparoscopy in a murine model. Arch Surg. 1995;130649- 653
Link to Article
Bouvy  NDMarquet  RLJeekel  HBonjer  HJ Impact of gas(less) laparoscopy and laparotomy on peritoneal tumor growth and abdominal wall metastases. Ann Surg. 1996;224694- 700
Link to Article
Bouvy  NDMarquet  RLHamming  JFJeekel  JBonjer  HJ Laparoscopic surgery in the rat: beneficial effect on body weight and tumor take. Surg Endosc. 1996;10490- 494
Link to Article
Bouvy  NDMarquet  RLJeekel  JBonjer  HJ Laparoscopic surgery is associated with less tumour growth stimulation than conventional surgery: an experimental study. Br J Surg. 1997;84358- 361
Link to Article
Southall  JCLee  SWAllendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL Colon adenocarcinoma and B-16 melanoma grow larger following laparotomy vs pneumoperitoneum in a murine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41564- 569
Link to Article
Pauwels  MLauwers  PHendriks  J  et al.  The effect of CO2 pneumoperitoneum on the growth of a solid colon carcinoma in rats. Surg Endosc. 1999;13998- 1000
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MHorvath  KD  et al.  Increased tumor establishment and growth after open vs laparoscopic surgery in mice may be related to differences in postoperative T-cell function. Surg Endosc. 1999;13233- 235
Link to Article
Gutt  CNRiemer  VKim  ZG  et al.  Impact of laparoscopic colonic resection on tumour growth and spread in an experimental model. Br J Surg. 1999;861180- 1184
Link to Article
Mutter  DHajri  ATassetti  V  et al.  Increased tumor growth and spread after laparoscopy vs laparotomy: influence of tumor manipulation in a rat model. Surg Endosc. 1999;13365- 370
Link to Article
Jones  DBGuo  LWReinhard  MK  et al.  Impact of pneumoperitoneum on trocar site implantation of colon cancer in hamster model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;381182- 1188
Link to Article
Mathew  GWatson  DIRofe  AM  et al.  Wound metastases following laparoscopic and open surgery for abdominal cancer in a rat model. Br J Surg. 1996;831087- 1090
Link to Article
Mathew  GWatson  DIRofe  AMEllis  TJamieson  GG Adverse impact of pneumoperitoneum on intraperitoneal implantation and growth of tumour cell suspension in an experimental model. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67289- 292
Link to Article
Jacobi  CASabat  RBohm  B  et al.  Pneumoperitoneum with carbon dioxide stimulates growth of malignant colonic cells. Surgery. 1997;12172- 78
Link to Article
Jacobi  CAOrdemann  JBohm  B  et al.  The influence of laparotomy and laparoscopy on tumor growth in a rat model. Surg Endosc. 1997;11618- 621
Link to Article
Wu  JSBrasfield  EBGuo  LW  et al.  Implantation of colon cancer at trocar sites is increased by low pressure pneumoperitoneum. Surgery. 1997;1221- 7
Link to Article
Dorrance  HROien  KO'Dwyer  PJ Effects of laparoscopy on intraperitoneal tumor growth and distant metastases in an animal model. Surgery. 1999;12635- 40
Link to Article
Volz  JKoster  SSpacek  ZPaweletz  N The influence of pneumoperitoneum used in laparoscopic surgery on an intraabdominal tumor growth. Cancer. 1999;86770- 774
Link to Article
Wu  JSJones  DBGuo  LW  et al.  Effects of pneumoperitoneum on tumor implantation with decreasing tumor inoculum. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41141- 146
Link to Article
Weitz  JKienle  PMagener  A  et al.  Detection of disseminated colorectal cancer cells in lymph nodes, blood and bone marrow. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;51830- 1836
Jacobi  CAWenger  FAOrdemann  J  et al.  Experimental study of the effect of intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy on tumour growth and port site metastasis. Br J Surg. 1998;851419- 1422
Link to Article
Tseng  LNBerends  FJWittich  P  et al.  Port-site metastases: impact of local tissue trauma and gas leakage. Surg Endosc. 1998;121377- 1380
Link to Article
Takiguchi  SMatsuura  NHamada  Y  et al.  Influence of CO2 pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery on cancer cell growth. Surg Endosc. 2000;1441- 44
Link to Article
Whelan  RLSellers  GJAllendorf  JD  et al.  Trocar site recurrence is unlikely to result from aerosolization of tumor cells. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S7- S13
Link to Article
Thomas  WMEaton  MCHewett  PJ A proposed model for the movement of cells within the abdominal cavity during CO2 insufflation and laparoscopy. Aust N Z J Surg. 1996;66105- 106
Link to Article
Ng  WTYeung  HCKoh  GHNg  WF Mechanism for port-site metastasis after laparoscopic cancer surgery [letter]. Br J Surg. 1996;831478
Link to Article
Champault  GTaffinder  NZiol  M  et al.  Cells are present in the smoke created during laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 1997;84993- 995
Link to Article
Ikramuddin  SLucus  JEllison  ECSchirmer  WJMelvin  WS Detection of aerosolized cells during carbon dioxide laparoscopy. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2580- 583
Link to Article
Reymond  MAWittekind  CJung  A  et al.  The incidence of port-site metastases might be reduced. Surg Endosc. 1997;11902- 906
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL A murine model of laparoscopic-assisted intervention. Surg Endosc. 1997;11622- 624
Link to Article
Lee  SWSouthall  JAllendorf  JBessler  MWhelan  RL Traumatic handling of the tumor independent of pneumoperitoneum increases port site implantation rate of colon cancer in a murine model. Surg Endosc. 1998;12828- 834
Link to Article
Lee  SWWhelan  RLSouthall  JCBessler  M Abdominal wound tumor recurrence after open and laparoscopic-assisted splenectomy in a murine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41824- 831
Link to Article
Lee  SWBessler  MWhelan  RL Port-site tumor recurrence rates in a murine laparoscopic splenectomy model decreased with increased experience [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1998;12514
Link to Article
Allardyce  RMorreau  PBagshaw  P Tumor cell distribution following laparoscopic colectomy in a porcine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S47- S52
Link to Article
Allardyce  RAMorreau  PBagshaw  PF Operative factors affecting tumor cell distribution following laparoscopic colectomy in a porcine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40939- 945
Link to Article
Allardyce  RAMorreau  PNFrizelle  FABagshaw  PF Tumour cell wound distribution after colectomy in a porcine model. Aust N Z J Surg. 1998;68363- 366
Link to Article
Hewett  PJThomas  WMKing  GEaton  M Intraperitoneal cell movement during abdominal carbon dioxide insufflation and laparoscopy: an in vivo model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S62- S66
Link to Article
Hewett  PJTexler  MLAnderson  DKing  GChatterton  BE In vivo real-time analysis of intraperitoneal radiolabeled tumor cell movement during laparoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42868- 875
Link to Article
Gutt  CNHeinz  PKaps  WPaolucci  V The phagocytosis activity during conventional and laparoscopic operations in the rat: a preliminary study. Surg Endosc. 1997;11899- 901
Link to Article
West  MAHackam  DJBaker  J  et al.  Mechanism of decreased in vitro murine macrophage cytokine release after exposure to carbon dioxide: relevance to laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 1997;226179- 190
Link to Article
Trokel  MJBessler  MTreat  MRWhelan  RLNowygrod  R Preservation of immune response after laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 1994;81385- 1387
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL  et al.  Better preservation of immune function after laparoscopic-assisted vs open bowel resection in a murine model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39 ((suppl)) S67- S72
Link to Article
Allendorf  JDBessler  MWhelan  RL  et al.  Postoperative immune function varies inversely with the degree of surgical trauma in a murine model. Surg Endosc. 1997;11427- 430
Link to Article
Gleason  NRBlanco  IAllendorf  JD  et al.  Delayed-type hypersensitivity response is better preserved in mice following insufflation than after laparotomy. Surg Endosc. 1999;131032- 1034
Link to Article
Texler  MLKing  GHewett  PJ Tumour cell movement during heating and humidification of insufflating CO2: an in vitro model. Aust N Z J Surg. 1998;68740- 742
Link to Article
Neuhaus  SJWatson  DIEllis  T  et al.  Wound metastasis after laparoscopy with different insufflation gases. Surgery. 1998;123579- 583
Link to Article
Farrell  TMJohnson  ABMetreveli  RESmith  CDHunter  JG Choice of insufflating gas influence wound metastasis [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S33
Watson  DIMathew  GEllis  T  et al.  Gasless laparoscopy may reduce the risk of port-site metastases following laparoscopic tumor surgery. Arch Surg. 1997;132166- 168
Link to Article
Gutt  CNRiemer  VLinker  RPaolucci  V The impact of laparoscopic colon resection on tumor growth and tumor spreading in a rat model [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S40
Link to Article
Downey  RJMcCormack  PLoCicero  J  IIIand the Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Study Group, Dissemination of malignant tumors after video-assisted thoracic surgery: a report of twenty-one cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111954- 960
Link to Article
Kawamura  YJSawada  TSunami  E  et al.  Gasless laparoscopically assisted colonic surgery. Am J Surg. 1999;177515- 517
Link to Article
Jacobi  CAOrdemann  JBohm  B  et al.  Inhibition of peritoneal tumor cell growth and implantation in laparoscopic surgery in a rat model. Am J Surg. 1997;174359- 363
Link to Article
Jacquet  PSugarbaker  PH Wound recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: new rationale for intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy [editorial]. Surg Endosc. 1996;10295- 296
Link to Article
Jacquet  PStuart  OADalton  RChang  DSugarbaker  PH Effect of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and fibrinolytic therapy on tumor implantation in wound sites. J Surg Oncol. 1996;62128- 134
Link to Article
Neuhaus  SJWatson  DIEllis  TDodd  TRofe  AMJamieson  GG Efficacy of cytotoxic agents for the prevention of laparoscopic port-site metastases. Arch Surg. 1998;133762- 766
Link to Article
Eshraghi  NSwanstrom  LLBax  T  et al.  Topical treatments of laparoscopic port sites can decrease the incidence of incision metastasis. Surg Endosc. 1999;131121- 1124
Link to Article
Wu  JSPfister  SMRuiz  MBConnett  JMFleshman  JW Local treatment of abdominal wound reduces tumor implantation. J Surg Oncol. 1998;699- 13
Link to Article
Wu  JSGuo  LWRuiz  MB  et al.  Excision of trocar sites reduces tumor implantation in an animal model. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;411107- 1111
Link to Article
Schneider  CReymond  MATannapfel  A  et al.  The surgeon is a major risk factor in the incidence of port-site recurrences [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S5
Whelan  RLLee  SW Review of investigations regarding the etiology of port site tumor recurrence. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999;91- 16
Link to Article
Balli  JEFranklin  MEAlmeida  JA  et al.  How to prevent port-site metastasis in laparoscopic colorectal surgery [abstract]. Surg Endosc. 1999;13 ((suppl)) S4
Stocchi  LNelson  H Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: trial update. J Surg Oncol. 1998;68255- 267
Link to Article
Nelson  HStocchi  L Summary of current trials: study aims and designs. Wexner  SDed.Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Baltimore, Md Williams & Wilkins1999;251- 273

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 46

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Make the Diagnosis: Cancer, Family History

The Rational Clinical Examination
Original Article: Does This Patient Have a Family History of Cancer?