Matteo Rottoli1, Luca Stocchi, Dan P Geisler, Ravi P Kiran. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. matteo_rottoli@yahoo.it
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer on long-term oncologic outcomes still are unclear. METHODS: All 450 laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer performed at a single center between 1994 and 2008 and included in a prospectively maintained database were considered. Patients who required conversion to open surgery (CONV) were matched 1:2 with laparoscopically completed cases (LAP) and 1:5 with open surgery cases (OPEN) for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, year of surgery, tumor location, and tumor stage. Fisher's exact, chi-square, and Wilcoxon tests were used as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. RESULTS: In this study, 31 CONV cases were independently compared with 62 LAP and 155 OPEN cases. Compared with the LAP and OPEN patients, the CONV patients were characterized by a numerically higher rate of preoperative comorbidity (61.3% vs LAP, 51.6; P = 0.4 and OPEN, 48.4%; P = 0.2), male gender (77.4% vs LAP, 59.7%; P = 0.09 and OPEN, 58.1%; P = 0.05), and a significantly higher mean body mass index (29.6 vs LAP, 26.8; P = 0.012 and OPEN, 28.8; P = 0.3). The pathologic tumor stage, location, and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates were comparable among the groups. After a median follow-up period of 4.1, 4.2, and 4.6 years, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was significantly lower for the CONV patients (40.2%) than for the LAP (70.7%, P = 0.01) or the OPEN (63.3%, P = 0.04) patients. However, the 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were similar among the CONV (94.4%), LAP (86.1%, P = 0.36), and OPEN (84.9%, P = 0.14) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion to open surgery does not affect oncologic outcomes, although CONV patients have increased comorbidity rates affecting long-term mortality.
BACKGROUND: The effects of conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer on long-term oncologic outcomes still are unclear. METHODS: All 450 laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer performed at a single center between 1994 and 2008 and included in a prospectively maintained database were considered. Patients who required conversion to open surgery (CONV) were matched 1:2 with laparoscopically completed cases (LAP) and 1:5 with open surgery cases (OPEN) for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, year of surgery, tumor location, and tumor stage. Fisher's exact, chi-square, and Wilcoxon tests were used as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. RESULTS: In this study, 31 CONV cases were independently compared with 62 LAP and 155 OPEN cases. Compared with the LAP and OPEN patients, the CONV patients were characterized by a numerically higher rate of preoperative comorbidity (61.3% vs LAP, 51.6; P = 0.4 and OPEN, 48.4%; P = 0.2), male gender (77.4% vs LAP, 59.7%; P = 0.09 and OPEN, 58.1%; P = 0.05), and a significantly higher mean body mass index (29.6 vs LAP, 26.8; P = 0.012 and OPEN, 28.8; P = 0.3). The pathologic tumor stage, location, and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates were comparable among the groups. After a median follow-up period of 4.1, 4.2, and 4.6 years, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was significantly lower for the CONV patients (40.2%) than for the LAP (70.7%, P = 0.01) or the OPEN (63.3%, P = 0.04) patients. However, the 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were similar among the CONV (94.4%), LAP (86.1%, P = 0.36), and OPEN (84.9%, P = 0.14) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion to open surgery does not affect oncologic outcomes, although CONV patients have increased comorbidity rates affecting long-term mortality.
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: 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: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H Moloo; J Mamazza; E C Poulin; S E Burpee; Y Bendavid; L Klein; R Gregoire; C M Schlachta Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: A Agha; A Fürst; I Iesalnieks; S Fichtner-Feigl; N Ghali; D Krenz; M Anthuber; K W Jauch; P Piso; H J Schlitt Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Alvaro Figueredo; R Bryan Rumble; Jean Maroun; Craig C Earle; Bernard Cummings; Robin McLeod; Lisa Zuraw; Caroline Zwaal Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2003-10-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Deborah S Keller; Zhamak Khorgami; Brian Swendseid; Bradley J Champagne; Harry L Reynolds; Sharon L Stein; Conor P Delaney Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marco E Allaix; Edgar J B Furnée; Massimiliano Mistrangelo; Alberto Arezzo; Mario Morino Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 5.742