Literature DB >> 29110087

Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer.

José M Quintana1,2, Ane Anton-Ladislao3,4, Santiago Lázaro4,5, Nerea Gonzalez3,4, Marisa Bare4,6, Nerea Fernandez de Larrea7,8, Maximino Redondo4,9, Eduardo Briones10, Antonio Escobar4,11, Cristina Sarasqueta4,12, Susana Garcia-Gutierrez3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic with that of open surgery up to 2 years after intervention in patients with rectal cancer.
METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgery (laparoscopic or open) between June 2010 and December 2012 in 22 acute hospitals. Main outcomes were mortality, complications, reoperation, readmission, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), as measured using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-Q30 and Q29, the Barthel Index (BI), and the Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression and generalized linear models were used in the analyses after adjusting for specific propensity scores developed for each outcome and time point.
RESULTS: In the multivariable analysis, rates of some medical complications after surgery during admission (renal failure and paralytic ileus) and infectious (urinary tract infection, septic shock, and localized intra-abdominal infection) and at 1 year (renal and heart failure) were higher among patients who underwent open surgery than among those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences between the two surgical approaches in all other parameters assessed at the different time points or in all PROMs evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery and open surgery provide quite similar results in patients with rectal cancer up to 2 years after intervention in most outcomes, though the rates of certain medical and infectious complications at admission and up to 1 year after the intervention were higher in open surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopy; Open surgery; Outcomes; Prospective cohort; Rectal cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29110087     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2925-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  11 in total

1.  The EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) Quality of Life questionnaire: validation study for Spain with head and neck cancer patients.

Authors:  J I Arraras; F Arias; M Tejedor; E Pruja; M Marcos; E Martínez; J Valerdi
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX.

Authors:  F I MAHONEY; D W BARTHEL
Journal:  Md State Med J       Date:  1965-02

Review 3.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

Authors:  R Brooks
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  The EORTC Quality of Life questionnaire for patients with colorectal cancer: EORTC QLQ-CR29 validation study for Spanish patients.

Authors:  Juan Ignacio Arraras; Javier Suárez; Fernando Arias de la Vega; Ruth Vera; Gemma Asín; Virginia Arrazubi; Mikel Rico; Lucía Teijeira; Jaione Azparren
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  A framework for understanding cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs.

Authors:  William R Carpenter; Anne-Marie Meyer; Amy P Abernethy; Til Stürmer; Michael R Kosorok
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores.

Authors:  Melissa M Garrido; Amy S Kelley; Julia Paris; Katherine Roza; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison; Melissa D Aldridge
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

Authors:  A S Zigmond; R P Snaith
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 6.392

8.  The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Measurement of social support in family medicine patients.

Authors:  W E Broadhead; S H Gehlbach; F V de Gruy; B H Kaplan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Colorectal cancer health services research study protocol: the CCR-CARESS observational prospective cohort project.

Authors:  José M Quintana; Nerea Gonzalez; Ane Anton-Ladislao; Maximino Redondo; Marisa Bare; Nerea Fernandez de Larrea; Eduardo Briones; Antonio Escobar; Cristina Sarasqueta; Susana Garcia-Gutierrez; Urko Aguirre
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 3-year follow-up outcomes.

Authors:  Dachuan Zhao; Yibin Li; Senming Wang; Zonghai Huang
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  3 in total

1.  Stage- and age-adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Javier Mar; Ane Anton-Ladislao; Oliver Ibarrondo; Arantzazu Arrospide; Santiago Lázaro-Aramburu; Nerea Gonzalez; Marisa Bare; Antonio Escobar; Maximino Redondo; José M Quintana
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  LARS is Associated with Lower Anastomoses, but not with the Transanal Approach in Patients Undergoing Rectal Cancer Resection.

Authors:  Alexandra Filips; Tobias Haltmeier; Lukas Brügger; Peter Studer; Andreas Kohler; Daniel Candinas
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Renal outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Jin Hyuk Paek; Sung Il Kang; Jiwon Ryu; Sung Yoon Lim; Ji Young Ryu; Hyung Eun Son; Jong Cheol Jeong; Ho Jun Chin; Ki Young Na; Dong-Wan Chae; Sung-Bum Kang; Sejoong Kim
Journal:  Kidney Res Clin Pract       Date:  2021-09-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.