Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy in patients with colonic carcinoma: a prospective randomized study

Introduction: The second most common cause of cancer-related mortality is colorectal cancer, and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has gained popularity among surgeons as an alternative to the conventional approach, which is open colecrtomy (OC). The differences between LAC and OC in terms of short-term outcomes have not been well documented, and the aim of the present work is to compare the short-term outcomes of both procedures. Materials and Methods: The present prospective study comprised 164 participants submitted to LAC (n = 82) and OC (n = 82) at the Helwan and Zagazig University hospitals between January 2018 and January 2022. We collected and analyzed demographic data, surgical data, and the short-term outcomes. Results: The LAC group had a significantly lower estimated amount of blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lower rates of incisional surgical site infection, and fewer cases of burst abdomen postoperatively, but with a considerably longer operative time (30.3 minutes) than the OC group. Conclusions: Our findings show that LAC is favorable option to OC, with superior outcomes. (AU)

Early Experiences with Laparoscopic- assisted Colectomy: Retrospective Comparison with Open Colectomy (Case-control Study)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LACs), and to evaluate its feasibility and safety for surgical treatment of colorectal diseases, including cancer. Methods: Between September 2002 and September 2005, a LAC was performed in 58 patients. Of these, 6 cases of conversion to open colectomy were excluded from the analysis. Fifty conventional open colectomy (OCs) with clinicopathologic characteristics comparable to those of the LACs were selected and matched as a control group for comparative analysis regarding short-term oncologic and perioperative outcomes. The mean follow-up period was 13.8 (2~37) months. Results: Thirteen complications, involving 11 patients, occurred. The mean operative time of the LAC was longer than that of the OC (215 min vs. 179 min; P<0.0001). However, earlier restoration of bowel function was achieved in the LAC as measured by postoperative first flatus (2.8 days vs. 3.8 days) and intake of a clear liquid diet (4.7 days vs. 5.8 days). There was no significant difference in hospital stay (LAC vs. OC, 10.2 days vs. 11.8 days). In patients with malignancy, the proximal resection margin in the LAC was significantly shorter than that in the OC (9.2 cm vs. 13.3 cm; P<0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the mean numbers of harvested lymph nodes (LAC vs. OC, 16.6 vs. 19.3; P=0.4330) and the mean distal resection margins (LAC vs. OC, 6.9 cm vs. 6.0 cm; P=0.1359). There were 3 distant metastases and one local recurrence during follow-up in the LAC group, but no port-site recurrence. Conclusions: In this study, we could not receive an advantage of shorter hospital stay due to the relatively high complication rate for a LAC, which may reflect a learning curve. Earlier postoperative recovery of bowel function and equal pathologic extent of resection in the LAC suggest that the LAC is an acceptable alternative procedure in the treatment of colorectal diseases, including malignancy. More experience with the LAC is necessary to overcome the learning curve. Affirmative long-term oncologic outcomes of are expected for the LAC.

Laparoscopic Assisted Colectomy Versus Open Colectomy; Retrospective Case-Control Study

PURPOSE: Despite many reports on laparoscopic-assisted colectomies (LAC) over the past decade, the feasibility of their use in both benign and malignant disease of the colon is not clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LAC for the treatment of colonic diseases. METHODS: Between April 2000 and August 2002, we attempted a laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in 95 patients (LAC group). We excluded 3 patients who had converted to open surgery. The surgical outcomes were compared with 92 matched patients who underwent conventional open surgery during the same period (open group), focusing on the results of the surgery, postoperative recovery, complications and oncologic clearance. Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in age, Dukes stage, and type of resection. RESULTS: There were 29 benign and 63 malignant diseases. The mean operating time for the LAC group and the open group were 167.9 and 95.1 minutes, respectively (P<0.00). However, the time taken for passing gas (40.4 hours vs 56.7 hours)(P=0.02) and the length of hospital stay (7.9 days vs 8.6 days) (P=0.07) were significantly shorter in the LAC group than in the open group. Nine patients in the LAC group had complications (9.7%): anastomotic site bleeding (4), chyle leakage (3), urinary retention (1), and ileus (1). All were treated conservatively. There were no differences in complication rates between the groups. The average number of harvested lymph nodes was 20.9 (2~64) in the LAC group and 21.5 (4~60) in the open group (P=0.49). The average distal resection margins were 3.7 (2.0~9.0) cm in the LAC group and 3.3 (1.0~5.0) cm in the open group (P=0.21) for an anterior resection and 3.2 (1.0~7.0) cm in the LAC group and 2.3 (0.7~7.0) cm in the open group for a low anterior resection (P=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that LAC had an advantage over open surgery in terms of earlier recovery. Oncological clearance (the number of lymph nodes removed and the resection margins) did not differ between the two procedures. Thus, LAC is a feasible technique in the treatment of colon disease with acceptable morbidity. However, long-term data from a randomized trial is needed.