H Ptok1, I Gastinger, C Bruns, H Lippert. 1. An-Institut für Qualitätssicherung in der operativen Medizin gGmbH, Otto-von-Guericke Universität Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, ZENIT II - Gebäude, 39120, Magdeburg, Deutschland, henryptok@aol.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer is equivalent to open resection with respect to the oncological results and has short-term advantages in the early postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether laparoscopic colonic resection has become established as the standard in routine treatment. METHODS: Data from the multicenter observational study "Quality assurance colonic cancer (primary tumor)" from the time period from 1 January 2009 to 21 December 2011 were evaluated with respect to the total proportion of laparoscopic colonic cancer resections and tumor localization and specifically for laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer resections. A comparison between low and high volume clinics (< 30 versus ≥ 30 colonic cancer resections/year) was carried out. RESULTS: Laparoscopic colonic cancer resections were carried out in 12 % versus 21.4 % of low and high volume clinics, respectively (p < 0.001) with a significant increase for low volume clinics (from 8.0 % to 15.6 %, p < 0.001) and a constant proportion in high volume clinics (from 21.7 % to 21.1 %, p = 0.905). For sigmoid colon cancer laparoscopic resection was carried out in 49.7 % versus 47.6 % (p = 0.584). Differences were found between low volume and high volume clinics in the conversion rates (17.3 % versus 6.6 %, p < 0.001), the length of the resected portion (Ø 23.6 cm versus 36.0 cm, p < 0.001) and the lymph node yield (Ø n = 15.7 versus 18.2, p = 0.008). There were no differences between the two groups of clinics regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality. The postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly lower for laparoscopic sigmoid resection than for conventional sigmoid resection. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic access route for colonic cancer resection is not the standard approach in the participating clinics. The laparoscopic access route has the highest proportion for sigmoid colon resection. The differences in the conversion rates, length of the resected portion and the number of lymph nodes investigated between the low volume and high volume clinics must be viewed critically and must be interpreted in connection with the long-term oncological results.
BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer is equivalent to open resection with respect to the oncological results and has short-term advantages in the early postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether laparoscopic colonic resection has become established as the standard in routine treatment. METHODS: Data from the multicenter observational study "Quality assurance colonic cancer (primary tumor)" from the time period from 1 January 2009 to 21 December 2011 were evaluated with respect to the total proportion of laparoscopic colonic cancer resections and tumor localization and specifically for laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer resections. A comparison between low and high volume clinics (< 30 versus ≥ 30 colonic cancer resections/year) was carried out. RESULTS: Laparoscopic colonic cancer resections were carried out in 12 % versus 21.4 % of low and high volume clinics, respectively (p < 0.001) with a significant increase for low volume clinics (from 8.0 % to 15.6 %, p < 0.001) and a constant proportion in high volume clinics (from 21.7 % to 21.1 %, p = 0.905). For sigmoid colon cancer laparoscopic resection was carried out in 49.7 % versus 47.6 % (p = 0.584). Differences were found between low volume and high volume clinics in the conversion rates (17.3 % versus 6.6 %, p < 0.001), the length of the resected portion (Ø 23.6 cm versus 36.0 cm, p < 0.001) and the lymph node yield (Ø n = 15.7 versus 18.2, p = 0.008). There were no differences between the two groups of clinics regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality. The postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly lower for laparoscopic sigmoid resection than for conventional sigmoid resection. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic access route for colonic cancer resection is not the standard approach in the participating clinics. The laparoscopic access route has the highest proportion for sigmoid colon resection. The differences in the conversion rates, length of the resected portion and the number of lymph nodes investigated between the low volume and high volume clinics must be viewed critically and must be interpreted in connection with the long-term oncological results.
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: E Kuhry; H J Bonjer; E Haglind; W C J Hop; R Veldkamp; M A Cuesta; J Jeekel; L Påhlman; M Morino; A Lacy; S Delgado Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-03-30 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Ka Lau Leung; Samuel P Y Kwok; Steve C W Lam; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Simon S M Ng; Paul B S Lai; Wan Yee Lau Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-04-10 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: Laura Lorenzon; Marco La Torre; Vincenzo Ziparo; Francesco Montebelli; Paolo Mercantini; Genoveffa Balducci; Mario Ferri Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 5.742