BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes for rectal cancer resection by operative approach. Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic (LAP) and LAP converted to open (OPEN) rectal cancer resections have excellent patient and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Review of a prospective database identified curative rectal cancer resections. Patients were stratified by operative approach: LAP, OPEN, or CONVERTED. Oncologic and clinical outcomes data was examined for each operative approach. RESULTS: Overall, 294 patients were analyzed-116 LAP (39.5%), 153 OPEN (52.0%), and 25 (8.5%) CONVERTED. Groups were comparable in demographics. Mean distal margin, circumferential resection margin, and lymph nodes harvested were comparable. The median length of stay was 4 days (range 1-20) LAP, 6 days (range 3-13) CONVERTED, and 8 days (range 1-35) OPEN (p < 0.01). More OPEN had postoperative complications (p < 0.01)-complication rates were 43.8% OPEN, 32.0% CONVERTED, and 21.5 % LAP. Unplanned readmissions and reoperations were similar (21.6% OPEN, 16.0% CONVERTED, 12.1% LAP). Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 98.3%, and local recurrence rate was 2.0%. By approach, DFS was 100% CONVERTED, 93.1% LAP, and 87.6% OPEN (p = 0.31). Overall survival (OS) was 100 % CONVERTED, 99.1% LAP, and 97.4%. OPEN. Local recurrence was 0% CONVERTED, 2% OPEN, and 2.6% LAP. 3-year DFS for LAP and CONVERTED was superior to OPEN (p = 0.05), with comparable local recurrence (p = 0.07) and OS rates (0.43). CONCLUSIONS: LAP and converted procedures have comparable or superior clinical and oncologic outcomes. More procedures should be approached through a LAP approach. If the procedure cannot be completed laparoscopically, outcomes are not compromised for converted patients.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes for rectal cancer resection by operative approach. Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic (LAP) and LAP converted to open (OPEN) rectal cancer resections have excellent patient and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Review of a prospective database identified curative rectal cancer resections. Patients were stratified by operative approach: LAP, OPEN, or CONVERTED. Oncologic and clinical outcomes data was examined for each operative approach. RESULTS: Overall, 294 patients were analyzed-116 LAP (39.5%), 153 OPEN (52.0%), and 25 (8.5%) CONVERTED. Groups were comparable in demographics. Mean distal margin, circumferential resection margin, and lymph nodes harvested were comparable. The median length of stay was 4 days (range 1-20) LAP, 6 days (range 3-13) CONVERTED, and 8 days (range 1-35) OPEN (p < 0.01). More OPEN had postoperative complications (p < 0.01)-complication rates were 43.8% OPEN, 32.0% CONVERTED, and 21.5 % LAP. Unplanned readmissions and reoperations were similar (21.6% OPEN, 16.0% CONVERTED, 12.1% LAP). Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 98.3%, and local recurrence rate was 2.0%. By approach, DFS was 100% CONVERTED, 93.1% LAP, and 87.6% OPEN (p = 0.31). Overall survival (OS) was 100 % CONVERTED, 99.1% LAP, and 97.4%. OPEN. Local recurrence was 0% CONVERTED, 2% OPEN, and 2.6% LAP. 3-year DFS for LAP and CONVERTED was superior to OPEN (p = 0.05), with comparable local recurrence (p = 0.07) and OS rates (0.43). CONCLUSIONS: LAP and converted procedures have comparable or superior clinical and oncologic outcomes. More procedures should be approached through a LAP approach. If the procedure cannot be completed laparoscopically, outcomes are not compromised for converted patients.
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: Seung Hyuk Baik; Mikhail Gincherman; Matthew G Mutch; Elisa H Birnbaum; James W Fleshman Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.585
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: Conor P Delaney; Peter W Marcello; Toyooki Sonoda; Paul Wise; Joel Bauer; Lee Techner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Simon S M Ng; Ka Lau Leung; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Jimmy C M Li; Anthony Y B Teoh; Wing Wa Leung Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-04-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Andrew T Schlussel; Ronald A Gagliano; Susan Seto-Donlon; Faye Eggerding; Timothy Donlon; Jeffrey Berenberg; Henry T Lynch Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2014-10
Authors: George Q Zhang; Rebecca Sahyoun; Miloslawa Stem; Brian D Lo; Ashwani Rajput; Jonathan E Efron; Chady Atallah; Bashar Safar Journal: World J Surg Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Andrew T Schlussel; Michael B Lustik; Nicole B Cherng; Justin A Maykel; Quinton M Hatch; Scott R Steele Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Marco Ettore Allaix; Edgar Furnée; Laura Esposito; Massimiliano Mistrangelo; Fabrizio Rebecchi; Alberto Arezzo; Mario Morino Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.352