BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic salvage surgery for colorectal cancer is a novel but technically challenging option for surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery in patients with recurrent or metachronous colorectal cancer in comparison with an open approach. METHODS: The data used in this study were obtained from databases, the data of which were collected prospectively from January 1996 to February 2010. Data pertaining to patients, operations, and short-term outcomes were analyzed and compared between open and laparoscopic salvage groups. RESULTS: Among the 3,425 patients studied, colorectal cancer recurred in 565 patients (16.5%) and 41 patients had colorectal salvage operations. Twenty-six patients with recurrence underwent open surgery and 15 cases underwent laparoscopic surgery. The short-term outcomes of the laparoscopic group were comparable with those of the open surgery group or were partly favorable. The five-year disease-free interval and overall survival of recurrent cancer patients were not significantly different from those of the open patients. Metachronous colorectal cancer occurred in 13 patients (0.38%), 5 of whom had open surgery and 6 had laparoscopic salvage. The only significant difference between the groups was a shorter operating time for the laparoscopic group. Late in the study, four patients in the laparoscopic recurrent group and one patient in the metachronous group were converted to open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery yielded short-term outcomes that were comparable to those of conventional open surgery, in both recurrent and metachronous colorectal cancer patients. Thus, minimally invasive salvage approaches should be considered as a treatment option for the recurrent and the metachronous colorectal cancer patient.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic salvage surgery for colorectal cancer is a novel but technically challenging option for surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery in patients with recurrent or metachronous colorectal cancer in comparison with an open approach. METHODS: The data used in this study were obtained from databases, the data of which were collected prospectively from January 1996 to February 2010. Data pertaining to patients, operations, and short-term outcomes were analyzed and compared between open and laparoscopic salvage groups. RESULTS: Among the 3,425 patients studied, colorectal cancer recurred in 565 patients (16.5%) and 41 patients had colorectal salvage operations. Twenty-six patients with recurrence underwent open surgery and 15 cases underwent laparoscopic surgery. The short-term outcomes of the laparoscopic group were comparable with those of the open surgery group or were partly favorable. The five-year disease-free interval and overall survival of recurrent cancerpatients were not significantly different from those of the open patients. Metachronous colorectal cancer occurred in 13 patients (0.38%), 5 of whom had open surgery and 6 had laparoscopic salvage. The only significant difference between the groups was a shorter operating time for the laparoscopic group. Late in the study, four patients in the laparoscopic recurrent group and one patient in the metachronous group were converted to open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery yielded short-term outcomes that were comparable to those of conventional open surgery, in both recurrent and metachronous colorectal cancerpatients. Thus, minimally invasive salvage approaches should be considered as a treatment option for the recurrent and the metachronous colorectal cancerpatient.
Authors: Alexander G Heriot; Christopher M Byrne; Peter Lee; Bruce Dobbs; Henry Tilney; Michael J Solomon; John Mackay; Frank Frizelle Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2008-01-19 Impact factor: 4.585
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: Leonard R Henry; Elin Sigurdson; Eric A Ross; John S Lee; James C Watson; Jonathan D Cheng; Gary M Freedman; Andre Konski; John P Hoffman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas E Read; Matthew G Mutch; Benjamin W Chang; Michael S McNevin; James W Fleshman; Elisa H Birnbaum; Robert D Fry; Philip F Caushaj; Ira J Kodner Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David G Jayne; Pierre J Guillou; Helen Thorpe; Philip Quirke; Joanne Copeland; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544