BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been seldom studied apart from low anterior resections, and deserves to be separately analyzed. This study aims to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and conventional APRs performed for the treatment of mid and low rectal adenocarcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients operated for primary mid or low rectal adenocarcinoma between 2001 and 2009 in our institution were retrospectively investigated. These data were abstracted and compared within conventional and laparoscopic resection groups: demographics, tumor and procedure-related parameters, perioperative results, early oncological outcomes, and survival. RESULTS: Demographics and tumor and procedure-related parameters were similar within the laparoscopic (n=31) and conventional (n=36) groups, except intraoperative bleeding and requirement for transfusion, which were significantly lower after laparoscopic APRs. Perioperative results including complication, reoperation, and 30-day mortality rates were identical. Early oncological results and 3-year survival rates were alike. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative results and oncological outcomes are similar after laparoscopic and conventional APRs. As current data include limited number of patients in a retrospective design, further studies comparing laparoscopic and conventional APR techniques are required.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) has been seldom studied apart from low anterior resections, and deserves to be separately analyzed. This study aims to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and conventional APRs performed for the treatment of mid and low rectal adenocarcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients operated for primary mid or low rectal adenocarcinoma between 2001 and 2009 in our institution were retrospectively investigated. These data were abstracted and compared within conventional and laparoscopic resection groups: demographics, tumor and procedure-related parameters, perioperative results, early oncological outcomes, and survival. RESULTS: Demographics and tumor and procedure-related parameters were similar within the laparoscopic (n=31) and conventional (n=36) groups, except intraoperative bleeding and requirement for transfusion, which were significantly lower after laparoscopic APRs. Perioperative results including complication, reoperation, and 30-day mortality rates were identical. Early oncological results and 3-year survival rates were alike. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative results and oncological outcomes are similar after laparoscopic and conventional APRs. As current data include limited number of patients in a retrospective design, further studies comparing laparoscopic and conventional APR techniques are required.