P M King1, J M Blazeby, P Ewings, R H Kennedy. 1. Department of Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital, Yeovil, Somerset, BA21 4AT, UK. pmking@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evidence demonstrating improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for colorectal cancer is accumulating. In addition, programmes optimising peri-operative care for major abdominal surgery are becoming widespread. Evaluating laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery programmes usually focuses on short-term recovery. The aim of this study was to compare recovery after laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer up to 1 year post-operatively, using a combination of self-report and observer data. PATIENTS/ METHODS:From January 2002 to March 2004, 62 patients were randomised (2:1) to receive laparoscopic (n=43) or open surgery (n=19) within an enhanced recovery programme. Functional outcomes up to 1 year were assessed using interview-administered questionnaires. RESULTS/ FINDINGS:Questionnaire and health-related quality of life data were obtained in over 85% of patients. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery felt fully recovered and resumed driving more quickly than those having open surgery (p=0.016 and p=0.048 respectively). Fifty-eight percent of patients having open surgery felt fully recovered by 12 months versus 88% of laparoscopic patients. INTERPRETATION/ CONCLUSION: Within an enhanced recovery programme, patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery recovered more quickly than after open resection. Both approaches however, were associated with slow recovery despite a relatively short hospital stay.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evidence demonstrating improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for colorectal cancer is accumulating. In addition, programmes optimising peri-operative care for major abdominal surgery are becoming widespread. Evaluating laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery programmes usually focuses on short-term recovery. The aim of this study was to compare recovery after laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer up to 1 year post-operatively, using a combination of self-report and observer data. PATIENTS/ METHODS: From January 2002 to March 2004, 62 patients were randomised (2:1) to receive laparoscopic (n=43) or open surgery (n=19) within an enhanced recovery programme. Functional outcomes up to 1 year were assessed using interview-administered questionnaires. RESULTS/ FINDINGS: Questionnaire and health-related quality of life data were obtained in over 85% of patients. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery felt fully recovered and resumed driving more quickly than those having open surgery (p=0.016 and p=0.048 respectively). Fifty-eight percent of patients having open surgery felt fully recovered by 12 months versus 88% of laparoscopic patients. INTERPRETATION/ CONCLUSION: Within an enhanced recovery programme, patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery recovered more quickly than after open resection. Both approaches however, were associated with slow recovery despite a relatively short hospital stay.
Authors: P M King; J M Blazeby; P Ewings; P J Franks; R J Longman; A H Kendrick; R M Kipling; R H Kennedy Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Valerie A Lawrence; Helen P Hazuda; John E Cornell; Thomas Pederson; Patrick T Bradshaw; Cynthia D Mulrow; Carey P Page Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David E Messenger; Nathan J Curtis; Adam Jones; Emma L Jones; Neil J Smart; Nader K Francis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ester Miralpeix; Alpa M Nick; Larissa A Meyer; Juan Cata; Javier Lasala; Gabriel E Mena; Vijaya Gottumukkala; Maria Iniesta-Donate; Gloria Salvo; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Angela M Stover; Daniel F Storfer; Rebecca M Saracino; Thomas A D'Agostino; Denise Pergolizzi; Konstantina Matsoukas; Yuelin Li; Ethan Basch Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Lawrence Lee; Nathalie Wong-Chong; Justin J Kelly; George J Nassif; Matthew R Albert; John R T Monson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Guillaume Martel; Alyson Crawford; Jeffrey S Barkun; Robin P Boushey; Craig R Ramsay; Dean A Fergusson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240