Objectives: We aimed to determine the most sensitive markers of the learning process for laparoscopic conservative mesorectal excision (LCME) for rectal cancer to (1) generate a relevant training program for junior surgeons and (2) define appropriate settings for prospective trials. Summary Background Data: The learning process for the laparoscopic approach to treating rectal cancer has not yet been clearly described. Methods: Over a 42-month period, 127 patients received LCME at our institution. The procedure was performed or supervised by a single referent surgeon. The operative time, conversion to open procedure postoperative morbidity, microscopic margins, and local recurrence were thought to be the most relevant parameters related to the learning process. To give a comprehensive view of success, a single hybrid variable was generated. Curves were drawn using the moving average method for continuous variables and the CUSUM analysis was used for binary variables. Results: A slow but continuous decrease in operative time was observed over all the study period. The overall and surgical morbidities were the most sensitive markers. The conversion rate and R0-resection rate remained stable at 14.9% and 91%, respectively. The overall local recurrence rate was 4.7% at a median follow-up time of 40 months and was not affected by the learning process. The success rate reached a steady state after 50 patients. Conclusion: Despite surgeons' early command of the conversion rate, the learning process for LCME affects morbidity for the first 50 patients operated on, but does not adversely affect the oncological results. Much emphasis should therefore be placed on technical training.

The laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer is still a controversial procedure. A comparative cohort study was conducted to assess short-term results of laparoscopic restorative mesorectal excision. From January 1998 to December 2000, laparotomy was performed on all primary rectal cancer undergoing radical excision. From January 2002 to September 2004, all cases about to undergo radical excision were considered for laparoscopy. Patients with fixed tumor or T4, indications for synchronous hepatectomy, emergencies, and medical contraindications were not included. The study was based on the intention-to-treat principle. Short-term outcome was compared between the laparoscopy group (n=104) and the laparotomy group (n=68). Demographic, general and tumor data, and rates of preoperative irradiation were comparable, as were surgical procedures and perioperative management. Hospital mortality (1 and 2.9 percent, P=0.33) and three-month overall morbidity (43.3 and 48.5 percent, P=0.49) were comparable between laparoscopy and laparotomy groups. Surgical complication rates were comparable (39.3 and 35.5 percent, P=0.58), but a significantly lower medical complication rate was observed in laparoscopy patients (8.7 and 20.6 percent, P=0.025), mainly because this group had fewer respiratory complications. Hospital stay was shorter in laparoscopy patients (10 and 14 days, P<0.001). Oncologic quality criteria were comparable, in terms of number of lymph nodes, lateral and distal margins, and delivery of postoperative chemotherapy. The laparoscopic approach to restorative mesorectal excision for cancer does not increase postoperative morbidity or reduce oncologic quality. Our results suggest that the short-term outcome is probably improved with this procedure.