Critical appraisal of laparoscopic vs open rectal cancer surgery

被引:10
|
作者
Tan, Winson Jianhong [1 ]
Chew, Min Hoe [1 ]
Dharmawan, Angela Renayanti [1 ]
Singh, Manraj [1 ]
Acharyya, Sanchalika [2 ]
Loi, Carol Tien Tau [1 ]
Tang, Choong Leong [1 ]
机构
[1] Singapore Gen Hosp, Dept Colorectal Surg, 20 Coll Rd, Singapore 169856, Singapore
[2] DUKE NUS Grad Med Sch, Ctr Qualitat Med, Singapore 169857, Singapore
来源
关键词
Rectal cancer; Laparoscopic; Outcomes; Conversion; Prognosis;
D O I
10.4240/wjgs.v8.i6.452
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and the impact of conversion in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: An analysis was performed on a prospective database of 633 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Patients were compared in three groups: Open surgery (OP), laparoscopic surgery, and converted laparoscopic surgery. Short-term outcomes, long-term outcomes, and survival analysis were compared. RESULTS: Among 633 patients studied, 200 patients had successful laparoscopic resections with a conversion rate of 11.1% (25 out of 225). Factors predictive of survival on univariate analysis include the laparoscopic approach (P = 0.016), together with factors such as age, ASA status, stage of disease, tumor grade, presence of perineural invasion and vascular emboli, circumferential resection margin < 2 mm, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery was no longer significant on multivariate analysis (P = 0.148). Neither 5-year overall survival (70.5% vs 61.8%, P = 0.217) nor 5-year cancer free survival (64.3% vs 66.6%, P = 0.854) were significantly different between the laparoscopic group and the converted group. CONCLUSION: LRR has equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes when compared to OP. Laparoscopic conversion does not confer a worse prognosis.
引用
收藏
页码:452 / 460
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer
    Yuan, Tao
    Ma, Qin
    Zhang, Ming-Ming
    [J]. JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2023, 9 (05) : 727 - 728
  • [2] Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery for Low Rectal Cancer - Reply
    Jiang, Wei-Zhong
    Sun, Yan-Wu
    Chi, Pan
    [J]. JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2023, 9 (05) : 728 - 728
  • [3] Laparoscopic vs. Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer.A NSQIP analysis
    Nurkin, S.
    Kakarla, R.
    Ruiz, D.
    Jeganathan, R.
    Turner, J.
    Tiszenkel, H.
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 17 : S84 - S85
  • [4] Intersphincteric Resection for low Rectal Cancer Laparoscopic vs open Surgery Approach
    Fuerst, A.
    [J]. COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2013, 35 (01) : 39 - 40
  • [5] Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: laparoscopic vs open surgery approach
    Laurent, C.
    Paumet, T.
    Leblanc, F.
    Denost, Q.
    Rullier, E.
    [J]. COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2012, 14 (01) : 35 - 41
  • [6] Open vs Laparoscopic vs Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    Chandler, Julia M.
    Conway, Alison A.
    Huckels, Jill
    Pooni, Rajdeep K.
    Zarnett, Lauren J.
    Lee, Kyueun
    Kin, Cindy J.
    Salomon, Joshua A.
    Owens, Douglas K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2019, 229 (04) : S67 - S67
  • [7] Outcomes of Open vs Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Resection
    Roxburgh, Campbell S.
    Guillem, Jose G.
    [J]. JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2017, 3 (01) : 115 - 116
  • [8] Comparative Benefits of Laparoscopic vs Open Hepatic Resection A Critical Appraisal
    Kevin Tri Nguyen
    Marsh, J. Wallis
    Tsung, Allan
    Steel, J. Jennifer L.
    Gamblin, T. Clark
    Geller, David A.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2011, 146 (03) : 348 - 356
  • [9] Laparoscopic vs open Surgery in colorectal Cancer
    Reibetanz, J.
    Germer, C. -T.
    [J]. CHIRURG, 2013, 84 (03): : 234 - 234
  • [10] Comparison of laparoscopic vs. open access surgery in patients with rectal cancer:: A prospective analysis
    Stroehlein, Michael A.
    Gruetzner, Klaus-Uwe
    Jauch, Karl-Walter
    Heiss, Markus M.
    [J]. DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2008, 51 (04) : 385 - 391