W Schwenk1, J Neudecker, O Haase. 1. Abteilung für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie - Zentrum für minimalinvasive und onkologische Chirurgie, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 1, 22763, Hamburg, Deutschland, w.schwenk@asklepios.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of modern videoendoscopy enables surgeons to perform laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer. AIM: This manuscript evaluated the literature concerning clinically relevant differences in the short and long-term course after laparoscopic or conventional resection of colonic cancer. METHODS: An investigation of meta-analyses from randomized controlled clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and conventional surgery for colonic cancer was carried out. RESULTS: The incidence of intraoperative complications was higher during laparoscopic surgery, the duration of surgery was increased and blood loss was less when compared to open surgery. Overall morbidity and the incidence of surgical complications were decreased after laparoscopic surgery. General morbidity and mortality were not different after laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer. Duration of hospital stay was shorter but was also associated with the type of perioperative care (i.e. traditional or enhanced recovery). Following minimally invasive or conventional resection, the incidence of tumor recurrence (local and distant) and the duration of survival (overall and disease-free) showed no differences. Wound implantations were rare after both operative techniques but with a tendency to occur more often after laparoscopic than open resection. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer has clinically relevant short-term benefits for the patients and long-term results are not different from open colectomy. However, most of the patients included in randomized controlled trials underwent right or left colectomy and sigmoid or rectosigmoid resections. Data with a high level of evidence concerning carcinomas of the flexures or the transverse colon do not exist. Suitable patients with colonic cancer should undergo laparoscopic resection by experienced surgeons.
BACKGROUND: The development of modern videoendoscopy enables surgeons to perform laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer. AIM: This manuscript evaluated the literature concerning clinically relevant differences in the short and long-term course after laparoscopic or conventional resection of colonic cancer. METHODS: An investigation of meta-analyses from randomized controlled clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and conventional surgery for colonic cancer was carried out. RESULTS: The incidence of intraoperative complications was higher during laparoscopic surgery, the duration of surgery was increased and blood loss was less when compared to open surgery. Overall morbidity and the incidence of surgical complications were decreased after laparoscopic surgery. General morbidity and mortality were not different after laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer. Duration of hospital stay was shorter but was also associated with the type of perioperative care (i.e. traditional or enhanced recovery). Following minimally invasive or conventional resection, the incidence of tumor recurrence (local and distant) and the duration of survival (overall and disease-free) showed no differences. Wound implantations were rare after both operative techniques but with a tendency to occur more often after laparoscopic than open resection. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer has clinically relevant short-term benefits for the patients and long-term results are not different from open colectomy. However, most of the patients included in randomized controlled trials underwent right or left colectomy and sigmoid or rectosigmoid resections. Data with a high level of evidence concerning carcinomas of the flexures or the transverse colon do not exist. Suitable patients with colonic cancer should undergo laparoscopic resection by experienced surgeons.
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: Giorgio Danelli; Marco Berti; Valeria Perotti; Andrea Albertin; Paolo Baccari; Francesco Deni; Guido Fanelli; Andrea Casati Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.108
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: Andrea Vignali; Saverio Di Palo; Elena Orsenigo; Luca Ghirardelli; Giovanni Radaelli; Carlo Staudacher Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.585
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: Christoph Werner Strey; Christoph Wullstein; Michel Adamina; Ayman Agha; Heiko Aselmann; Thomas Becker; Robert Grützmann; Werner Kneist; Matthias Maak; Benno Mann; Kurt Thomas Moesta; Norbert Runkel; Clemens Schafmayer; Andreas Türler; Thilo Wedel; Stefan Benz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Tarik Ghadban; Matthias Reeh; Maximilian Bockhorn; Rainer Grotelueschen; Kai Bachmann; Katharina Grupp; Faik G Uzunoglu; Jakob R Izbicki; Daniel R Perez Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 3.989