BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopic colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous operation for liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the outcomes between laparoscopic and open colorectal resections for patients undergoing simultaneous surgery for liver metastases. METHODS: This study reviewed 40 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2003 and August 2008. In the study, 20 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection were matched with 20 patients who had an open approach. All available clinicopathologic variables possibly associated with outcome were compared. RESULTS: The laparoscopic and open groups had similar demographics. No patient undergoing the laparoscopic procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Although the operating time in the laparoscopic group was significantly longer (358 vs. 278 min; p = 0.004), the patients in this group had bowel function return 1 day sooner on the average than those in the open group. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The overall survival was 58.7% at 3 years and 49.2% at 5 years. The 3-year overall survival rate in the laparoscopic group was not significantly different from that in the open group (52.8 vs. 61.0%; p = 0.713). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to that for an open approach but some short-term advantages.
BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopic colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous operation for liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the outcomes between laparoscopic and open colorectal resections for patients undergoing simultaneous surgery for liver metastases. METHODS: This study reviewed 40 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2003 and August 2008. In the study, 20 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection were matched with 20 patients who had an open approach. All available clinicopathologic variables possibly associated with outcome were compared. RESULTS: The laparoscopic and open groups had similar demographics. No patient undergoing the laparoscopic procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Although the operating time in the laparoscopic group was significantly longer (358 vs. 278 min; p = 0.004), the patients in this group had bowel function return 1 day sooner on the average than those in the open group. No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The overall survival was 58.7% at 3 years and 49.2% at 5 years. The 3-year overall survival rate in the laparoscopic group was not significantly different from that in the open group (52.8 vs. 61.0%; p = 0.713). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to that for an open approach but some short-term advantages.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: K C M J Peeters; R A E M Tollenaar; C A M Marijnen; E Klein Kranenbarg; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jung Wook Huh; Hyeong Rok Kim; Sang Hyuk Cho; Choong Young Kim; Hoon Jin Kim; Jae Kyoon Joo; Young Jin Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: James Fleshman; Daniel J Sargent; Erin Green; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; Heidi Nelson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert Martin; Philip Paty; Yuman Fong; Andrew Grace; Alfred Cohen; Ronald DeMatteo; William Jarnagin; Leslie Blumgart Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Joel W Lewin; Nicholas A O'Rourke; Adrian K H Chiow; Richard Bryant; Ian Martin; Leslie K Nathanson; David J Cavallucci Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Stefano Ferretti; Hadrien Tranchart; Joseph F Buell; Constantino Eretta; Alberto Patriti; Marcello Giuseppe Spampinato; Jung Wook Huh; Luca Vigano; Ho Seong Han; Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Elio Jovine; Thomas Clark Gamblin; Giulio Belli; Go Wakabayashi; Brice Gayet; Ibrahim Dagher Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Hun Jin Kim; Jung Wook Huh; Wu Seong Kang; Chang Hyun Kim; Sang Woo Lim; Young Eun Joo; Hyeong Rok Kim; Young Jin Kim Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francesco M Polignano; Aaron J Quyn; Pandanaboyana Sanjay; Nikola A Henderson; Iain S Tait Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Osama H Hamed; Neil H Bhayani; Gail Ortenzi; Jussuf T Kaifi; Eric T Kimchi; Kevin F Staveley-O'Carroll; Niraj J Gusani Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 3.647