Literature DB >> 17384514

Lymph node clearance after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus open approach.

George Pechlivanides1, Nikolaos Gouvas, John Tsiaoussis, Anastasios Tzortzinis, Maria Tzardi, M Moutafidis, Christos Dervenis, Evaghelos Xynos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection of the rectum is still under scrutiny for its adequacy of oncological clearance. AIM: To assess lymph node yield after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer as compared to the open approach.
METHODS: 74 patients with middle and low rectal cancer were prospectively randomized in two groups. Group A included 39 patients who had an open TME (35 with low anterior resection of the rectum (LARR) and 4 with abdominoperineal resection of the rectum (APR)). In group B, there were 34 patients who had a laparoscopic TME (27 with LARR and 7 with APR). 10 of the LARR patients in group A and 14 of the LARR patients in group B had a defunctioning ileostomy. All operations were performed by one surgeon or under his supervision.
RESULTS: Gender and age distribution were similar for both groups (group A: 23 males; mean age 69 (41-85); group B: 20 males; mean age 72 (31-84)). The mean distance of the tumor from the dentate line was 7.6 cm (1-12 cm) for group A and 6.1 cm (1-12 cm) for group B. Anastomosis was formed at a mean distance of 5.5 cm (1.5-8.5 cm) from the dentate line in group A and 3.5 cm (1-4.5 cm) in group B. At histology, in group A there were 5 T4 tumors, 9 T3, 10 T3+ (<1 mm distance from the circumferential resection margin), 13 T2 and 2 T1. In group B, there were 3 T4 tumors, 14 T3, 8 T3+, 7 T2 and 2 T1. Differences between groups were not significant. The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in group A specimens was 19.2 (5-45) and in group B 19.2 (8-41) (p = 0.2). In group A, 3.9 (1-9) regional, 13.9 (3-34) intermediate and 1.5 (1-3) apical lymph nodes were retrieved. The respective values in group B were 3.7 (3-7), 14.4 (4-33) and 1.3 (1-3). Differences between groups were not significant. Also, the incidence of lymph node involvement by the tumor was not significantly different between groups (group A: 23; group B: 19).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection of the rectum can achieve similar lymph node clearance to the open approach. Also, distribution of the lymph nodes along the resected specimens is similar between the two approaches. Copyright 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17384514     DOI: 10.1159/000099176

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis        ISSN: 0257-2753            Impact factor:   2.404


  23 in total

1.  Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a case-matched study.

Authors:  Andre da Luz Moreira; Isabella Mor; Daniel P Geisler; Feza H Remzi; Ravi P Kiran
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on oncologic adequacy of resection and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Authors:  Mei-Jin Huang; Jing-Lin Liang; Hui Wang; Liang Kang; Yan-Hong Deng; Jian-Ping Wang
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum.

Authors:  Stavros A Antoniou; George A Antoniou; Oliver O Koch; Rudolf Pointner; Frank A Granderath
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-08-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer: a review.

Authors:  Ido Mizrahi; Haggi Mazeh
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Improving the outcomes in oncological colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Jeroen L A van Vugt; Kostan W Reisinger; Joep P M Derikx; Djamila Boerma; Jan H M B Stoot
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Intersphincteric resection and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes in the Indian setting.

Authors:  Vishwas D Pai; Ashwin De Souza; Prachi Patil; Reena Engineer; Supreeta Arya; Avanish Saklani
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-01-14

7.  Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus open resection for middle and lower rectal cancer: an NTCLES study.

Authors:  Shaotang Li; Pan Chi; Huiming Lin; Xingrong Lu; Ying Huang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Ultrasonically activated scalpel versus monopolar electrocautery shovel in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Bao-Jun Zhou; Wei-Qing Song; Qing-Hui Yan; Jian-Hui Cai; Feng-An Wang; Jin Liu; Guo-Jian Zhang; Guo-Qiang Duan; Zhan-Xue Zhang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Laparoscopic radical resection of low rectal carcinoma integrating transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a case report.

Authors:  Ju-Peng Yang; Wei-Hua Tong; Quan Wang; Jian Suo; Dong-Hui Sun
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 0.656

10.  Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Middle and Lower Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Shaotang Li; Feizhao Jiang; Jingfu Tu; Xiaofeng Zheng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.