Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal carcinoma: a prospective clinical trial involving 157 cases with a mean follow-up of 5 years.

The role of laparoscopic resection in the management of colorectal cancer is still unclear. It has been shown that laparoscopic colectomies can be accomplished with acceptable morbidity. Major concerns are port-site recurrences and neoplastic dissemination. The aims of this study were to compare perioperative results and long-term outcomes in a prospective, nonrandomized study of patients treated by laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection for cancer. In particular, the effects of an initial laparoscopic approach on survival and recurrence were examined. One hundred fifty-seven patients with colorectal carcinoma were included in the prospective trial: 74 underwent laparoscopic resection and 83 underwent conventional open surgery. The two groups were comparable in terms of characteristics, demographic data, stage of disease, and use of adjuvant or palliative chemoradiotherapy. All patients were observed at 1.3- and 6-month intervals. The median duration of follow-up was 60 months (range, 10-125 months). The mean operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group. Six conversions (8.1%) were necessary. The passage of flatus and the restarting of oral intake (P = 0.0001) occurred earlier in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open conventional surgery group. The mean postoperative stay was significantly shorter in the former group (P = 0.005), as was the length of the scar (P = 0.001). There were no deaths in either group. The overall morbidity was significantly lower (13% versus 33.7%; P = 0.001) in patients treated laparoscopically. No significant differences were observed between the groups in the length of specimens, the size of the tumor, or the number of nodes removed. Late complications were more frequent after open resection (12% versus 5.4%; P = 0.01). Two port-site metastases (2.6%) were seen in stage III and IV locally advanced carcinoma. There was no significant difference in recurrent disease between the groups (24.3% versus 25%) during the 60-month follow-up. Stage-for-stage comparisons showed that disease recurrence rates and crude death rates were comparable.