PURPOSE: The role of minimally invasive colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous resection for synchronous liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open colorectal resection for patients undergoing simultaneous resection for liver metastases. METHODS: This study reviewed 101 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous colorectal resection and R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2008 and December 2012. In the study, 36 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection were matched with 36 patients who had an open approach by propensity scoring. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the two groups had similar clinicopathologic variables. No patient undergoing the minimally invasive procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. In the minimally invasive group, the estimated blood loss (P < 0.007), bowel function return time (P < 0.016), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.011) were significantly lower than those in the open group, although the operating time was significantly longer (P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (51 vs. 55 %; P = 0.794) and disease-free survival rate (38 vs. 27 %; P = 0.860). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to open approach but some short-term advantages.
PURPOSE: The role of minimally invasive colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous resection for synchronous liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open colorectal resection for patients undergoing simultaneous resection for liver metastases. METHODS: This study reviewed 101 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous colorectal resection and R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2008 and December 2012. In the study, 36 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection were matched with 36 patients who had an open approach by propensity scoring. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the two groups had similar clinicopathologic variables. No patient undergoing the minimally invasive procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. In the minimally invasive group, the estimated blood loss (P < 0.007), bowel function return time (P < 0.016), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.011) were significantly lower than those in the open group, although the operating time was significantly longer (P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (51 vs. 55 %; P = 0.794) and disease-free survival rate (38 vs. 27 %; P = 0.860). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to open approach but some short-term advantages.
Authors: Thérèse A Stukel; Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; David A Alter; Daniel J Gottlieb; Marian J Vermeulen Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Skye C Mayo; Carlo Pulitano; Hugo Marques; Jorge Lamelas; Christopher L Wolfgang; Wassila de Saussure; Michael A Choti; Isabelle Gindrat; Luca Aldrighetti; Eduardo Barrosso; Gilles Mentha; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Celia N Robinson; G John Chen; Courtney J Balentine; Shubhada Sansgiry; Christy L Marshall; Daniel A Anaya; Avo Artinyan; Daniel Albo; David H Berger Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Robert C G Martin; Vedra Augenstein; Nathan P Reuter; Charles R Scoggins; Kelly M McMasters Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: David G Jayne; Pierre J Guillou; Helen Thorpe; Philip Quirke; Joanne Copeland; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Najaf N Siddiqi; Mahmoud Abuawwad; Mark Halls; Arab Rawashdeh; Francesco Giovinazzo; Anas Aljaiuossi; Dennis Wicherts; Mathieu D'Hondt; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 4.584