BACKGROUND: In surgical treatment of elderly patients, securing the safety of surgery and radical cure must be balanced. Our purpose was to verify the safety and validity of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer in elderly patients. METHODS:Patients with cTis–T4a colorectal cancer who were 75 years or older were randomized to receive open or laparoscopic surgery. Exclusion criteria were patients who had a bulky tumor, rectal cancer that required pelvic side wall lymphadenectomy, and history of colon resection. Patients were divided according to tumor location (right colon, left colon, and rectum). The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:One hundred patients (right 43, left 28, and rectum 29) were registered in each group from August 2008 to August 2012. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. Three patients were converted from laparoscopic to open, because of bleeding, excision of peritoneum metastasis, and patient’s desire, respectively. In the short-term results (open:laparoscopic), there were significant differences in the rates of complications (36:23 %) and ileus (12:4 %), amount of blood loss (157:63 mL), and duration of surgery (150:172 min). There were no significant differences in the pathological margins, and the number of dissected lymph nodes. In the subgroup analysis according to the tumor location, there were significant differences in the rate of complications (39.4:22.5 %), amount of blood loss (135:42 mL), duration of surgery (139:160 min), and length of postoperative stay (13.0:10.0 days) in the colon cancer. There were no significant differences in short-term results in the rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic surgery in elderly colorectal cancer patients did not result in a difference in radical cure compared with open surgery, and the short-term results except the duration of surgery were excellent. It is an effective procedure for elderly patients with colorectal cancer, especially colon cancer.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In surgical treatment of elderly patients, securing the safety of surgery and radical cure must be balanced. Our purpose was to verify the safety and validity of laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer in elderly patients. METHODS:Patients with cTis–T4a colorectal cancer who were 75 years or older were randomized to receive open or laparoscopic surgery. Exclusion criteria were patients who had a bulky tumor, rectal cancer that required pelvic side wall lymphadenectomy, and history of colon resection. Patients were divided according to tumor location (right colon, left colon, and rectum). The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: One hundred patients (right 43, left 28, and rectum 29) were registered in each group from August 2008 to August 2012. There were no differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. Three patients were converted from laparoscopic to open, because of bleeding, excision of peritoneum metastasis, and patient’s desire, respectively. In the short-term results (open:laparoscopic), there were significant differences in the rates of complications (36:23 %) and ileus (12:4 %), amount of blood loss (157:63 mL), and duration of surgery (150:172 min). There were no significant differences in the pathological margins, and the number of dissected lymph nodes. In the subgroup analysis according to the tumor location, there were significant differences in the rate of complications (39.4:22.5 %), amount of blood loss (135:42 mL), duration of surgery (139:160 min), and length of postoperative stay (13.0:10.0 days) in the colon cancer. There were no significant differences in short-term results in the rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery in elderly colorectal cancerpatients did not result in a difference in radical cure compared with open surgery, and the short-term results except the duration of surgery were excellent. It is an effective procedure for elderly patients with colorectal cancer, especially colon cancer.
Authors: Celia N Robinson; Courtney J Balentine; Christy L Marshall; Jonathan A Wilks; Daniel Anaya; Avo Artinyan; David H Berger; Daniel Albo Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2010-12-10 Impact factor: 2.192
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: 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: 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: 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: Andre da Luz Moreira; Ravi P Kiran; Hasan T Kirat; Feza H Remzi; Daniel P Geisler; James M Church; Thomas Garofalo; Victor W Fazio Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jeroen L A van Vugt; Kostan W Reisinger; Joep P M Derikx; Djamila Boerma; Jan H M B Stoot Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-21 Impact factor: 5.742