An artificial intelligence-designed predictive calculator of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy in colon cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery is safe and effective in colorectal cancer. Conversion to open surgery may be associated with adverse effects on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess risk factors of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy for colon cancer and impact of conversion on short-term and survival outcomes. This case-control study included colon cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine independent predictors of conversion from laparoscopic and robotic colectomy to open surgery. 26,546 patients (mean age: 66.9 ± 13.1 years) were included. Laparoscopic and robotic colectomies were performed in 79.1% and 20.9% of patients, respectively, with a 10.6% conversion rate. Independent predictors of conversion were male sex (OR: 1.19, p = 0.014), left-sided cancer (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), tumor size (OR: 1, p = 0.047), stage II (OR: 1.25, p = 0.007) and stage III (OR: 1.47, p < 0.001) disease, undifferentiated carcinomas (OR: 1.93, p = 0.002), subtotal (OR: 1.25, p = 0.011) and total (OR: 2.06, p < 0.001) colectomy, resection of contiguous organs (OR: 1.9, p < 0.001), and robotic colectomy (OR: 0.501, p < 0.001). Conversion was associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality and unplanned readmission, longer hospital stay, and shorter overall survival (59.8 vs 65.3 months, p < 0.001). Male patients, patients with bulky, high-grade, advanced-stage, and left-sided colon cancers, and patients undergoing extended resections are at increased risk of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy. The robotic platform was associated with reduced odds of conversion. However, surgeons' technical skills and criteria for conversion could not be assessed.

Effect of screening colonoscopy frequency on colorectal cancer mortality in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a common malignant tumor in China, and its incidence in the elderly is increasing annually. Inflammatory bowel disease is a group of chronic non-specific intestinal inflammatory diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. AIM: To assess the effect of screening colonoscopy frequency on colorectal cancer mortality. METHODS: We included the clinicopathological and follow-up data of patients with colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic colectomy or open colectomy at our Gastrointestinal Department between January 2019 and December 2022. Surgical indicators, oncological indicators, and survival rates were compared between the groups. The results of 104 patients who met the above criteria were extracted from the database (laparoscopic colectomy group = 63, open colectomy group = 41), and there were no statistically significant differences in the baseline data or follow-up time between the two groups. RESULTS: Intraoperative blood loss, time to first ambulation, and time to first fluid intake were significantly lower in the laparoscopic colectomy group than in the open colectomy group. The differences in overall mortality, tumor-related mortality, and recurrence rates between the two groups were not statistically significant, and survival analysis showed that the differences in the cumulative overall survival, tumor-related survival, and cumulative recurrence-free rates between the two groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with colorectal cancer, laparoscopic colectomy has better short-term outcomes than open colectomy, and laparoscopic colectomy has superior long-term survival outcomes compared with open colectomy.

Emergent colectomy for colorectal cancer: A comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive approach.

INTRODUCTION: Emergent surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality and outcomes differ by surgical approach. METHODS: Our study compares short-term surgical outcomes of patients undergoing emergent colectomy for CRC using the open vs minimally invasive (MIS) approach. We performed a four-year review (2012-2015) of the ACS-NSQIP Colectomy dataset and included all adult patients with CRC who underwent emergent surgical intervention. Patients were stratified into groups based on surgical approach: Open and MIS (including laparoscopic and robotic). RESULTS: A total of 1855 (MIS: 279, Open: 1576) patients were included. Outcome measures were operative time, 30-day complications, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. Multivariate Regression analysis was performed. Patients in the open group were more likely to be older (70y vs. 61y, p < 0.01), have higher ASA class, and were less likely to have received mechanical bowel preparation. On univariate analysis, patients in the MIS group had longer operative time (189 ± 41 min vs. 161 ± 69 min, p < 0.01). Patients in the open group had higher rates of mortality (6.7% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.01) and 30-day complications (28.1% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.01). On regression analysis, the open approach was independently associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality and 30-day complications. CONCLUSION: Given the lower overall mortality and complications, MIS colectomy may be a safer approach in the emergent treatment of patients with colorectal cancer.

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)

Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy for T4 colon cancer: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies.

Background: To evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) vs. open colectomy (OC) in patients with T4 colon cancer. Methods: Three authors independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles before June 3, 2022 to compare the clinical outcomes of T4 colon cancer patients undergoing LC or OC. Results: This meta-analysis included 7 articles with 1,635 cases. Compared with OC, LC had lesser blood loss, lesser perioperative transfusion, lesser complications, lesser wound infection, and shorter length of hospital stay. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 5-year overall survival (5y OS), and 5-year disease-free survival (5y DFS), R0 resection rate, positive resection margin, lymph nodes harvested ≥12, and recurrence. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) results suggested that the potential advantages of LC on perioperative transfusion and the comparable oncological outcomes in terms of 5y OS, 5y DFS, lymph nodes harvested ≥12, and R0 resection rate was reliable and no need of further study. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible in T4 colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. TSA results suggested that future studies were not required to evaluate the 5y OS, 5y DFS, R0 resection rate, positive resection margin status, lymph nodes harvested ≥12 and perioperative transfusion differences between LC and OC.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022297792.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine-Assisted Intravenous Anesthesia on Gastrointestinal Motility in Colon Cancer Patients After Open Colectomy.

Background: To explore the effect of dexmedetomidine (Dex)-assisted intravenous anesthesia on gastrointestinal motility in patients with colon cancer (CC) after open colectomy. Methods: A total of 102 patients with CC, undergoing open colectomy in our hospital from January 2018 to January 2020, were selected and randomly divided into an observation group (n = 51) and a control group (n = 51). The patients in the control group received a routine combination of intravenous and inhalation anesthesia (CIIA), while those in the observation group received a Dex-assisted CIIA. The systolic blood pressure (SBP), the diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and the mean arterial pressure (MAP) were compared at different time points between the two groups. In addition, the intraoperative general conditions, the dosage of anesthetics, and the recovery of gastrointestinal functions were also compared between the two groups. Moreover, before operation and at 24 h after operation, the levels of serum gastrin (GAS) and plasma motilin (MTL) were detected by radioimmunoassay, and the level of plasma cholecystokinin (CCK) was detected by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The incidence of gastrointestinal complications was recorded in both groups. Results: At T1-T3, the HR, SBP, DBP, and MAP levels were lower in both groups than those at T0. In addition, they were also lower in the observation group than those in the control group, showing significant differences (p < 0.05). The dosage of propofol and remifentanil in the observation group was lower than that in the control group, and there was a significant difference (p < 0.05). In the observation group, the postoperative first exhaust time, first defecation time, first ambulation time, and first feeding time were all earlier than those in the control group with significant differences (p < 0.05). After the operation, the observation group had higher levels of GAS and MTL but a lower level of CCK than the control group, and the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The incidence rate of gastrointestinal complications in the observation group (7.04%) was lower than that in the control group (19.61%), and there was a significant difference (χ2 = 4.346, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Dex-assisted intravenous anesthesia can facilitate the recovery of gastrointestinal motility, can regulate the levels of gastrointestinal hormones, and can stabilize the levels of hemodynamic indexes in patients with CC after open colectomy.

Open versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of diverticular colovesical fistulas: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the evidence regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of diverticular colovesical fistula (CVF) in terms of perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for studies comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for CVF. We pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) using random or fixed effects models. RESULTS: Five non-randomized studies with 227 patients met the inclusion criteria. All were retrospective studies, published between 2014 and 2020. For laparoscopic surgery, the pooled rate for conversion to laparotomy was 36%. Laparoscopic and open procedures required similar operative time (MD: -11.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -51.41 to 28.16). No difference was found in terms of stoma rates between laparoscopic and open surgery (OR: 1.12; 95% CI 0.44-2.86). Overall, the rate of total postoperative complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30-0.99). The pooled analysis showed equivalent rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.15-2.45), surgical site infections (OR: 0.44; 95% CI 0.19-1.01), and mortality (OR: 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.15). The length of stay was significantly reduced with laparoscopic surgery (MD: -2.89; 95% CI -4.20 to -1.58). CONCLUSION: Among patients with CVF, the laparoscopic approach appears to have shorter hospital length of stay, with no differences in anastomotic leaks, surgical site infections, stoma rates, and mortality, when compared with open surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open complete mesocolic excision: a systematic review by updated meta-analysis.

Recent evidence has proven the non-inferiority of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) to open complete mesocolic excision (OCME) with regard to feasibility and oncological safety. However, the differences in survival benefits between the 2 procedures have not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether or not one procedure was superior to the other using updated meta-analysis. A systematic search for relevant literature was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library and Google scholar databases. This meta-analysis included retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial comparing LCME to OSCME. LCME to OCME was evaluated using updated meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodologic quality of the studies. Fixed- and random-effects models were used, and survival outcomes were assessed using the inverse variance hazard ratio (HR) method. Operative time was significantly shorter in the OCME cohort than in the LCME cohort. Blood loss, wound infections, time to flatus, time to oral feeding, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survivals were better in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.37 (0.22, 0.65); p = 0.004], [HR = 0.48 (0.31, 0.74); p = 0.008], and [HR = 0.64 (0.45, 0.93); p = 0.02], respectively). No difference in the 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the 2 procedures was observed ([HR = 0.68 (0.44, 1.03); p = 0.07]). In contrast, the LCME cohort had better 3- and 5-year DFS rates than those of the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.63 (0.42, 0.97), p = 0.03] and [HR = 0.68 (0.56, 0.83), p = 0.001], respectively). The results of the present study must be interpreted cautiously because the included studies were retrospective from single centres. Therefore, selection, institutional and national bias may have influenced the results. LCME is associated with the faster postoperative recovery and some better potential survival benefits than OCME.

Use of laparoscopic colectomy increasing in trauma: comparison of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy.

Laparoscopy accounts for > 70% of general surgical cases. Given the increased use of laparoscopy in emergent colorectal disease, we hypothesized that there would be an increased use of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in trauma patients. In addition, we hypothesized increased length of stay (LOS) and mortality in trauma patients undergoing open colectomy (OC) vs. LC. This was a retrospective analysis using the National Trauma Data Bank (2008-2015). We included adult patients undergoing LC or OC. A multivariable logistic regression model was used for determining risk of LOS and mortality. We identified 19,788 (96.8%) patients undergoing OC and 644 (3.2%) who underwent LC. There was a 21-fold increased number of patients that underwent LC over the study period (p < 0.05), with approximately 119 per 10,000 trauma patients undergoing LC. The most common operation was a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (27.5%). LC patients had a lower median injury severity score (ISS) (16 vs. 17, p < 0.001). There was no difference in LOS (p = 0.14) or mortality (p = 0.44) between the two groups. This remained true in patients with isolated colorectal injury. The use of LC has increased 21-fold from 2008 to 2015, with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy being the most common procedure performed. There was no difference in LOS, in-hospital complications, or mortality between the two groups. We suggest that LC should be considered in stable adult trauma patients undergoing colectomy. However, future prospective research is needed to help determine which trauma patients may benefit from LC.

Receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine optimal fluid management during open colorectal surgery.

AIM: The present study aimed to analyse fluid management and to define optimal fluid-related thresholds for elective open colorectal surgery. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was made of all consecutive elective open colorectal resections performed in our tertiary centre between May 2011 and May 2017. The main outcomes were postoperative complications [overall (I-V) and severe (IIIB-V) according to the Clavien classification], respiratory complications and postoperative ileus (POI). Critical thresholds regarding perioperative fluid management and postoperative weight gain were identified by using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Independent risk factors for overall complications were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 121 patients who had open operations, 84 (69%) had some complication and 26 (21%) had severe complications. Respiratory complications and POI occurred in 15 (12%) and 46 patients (38%), respectively. The thresholds for intravenous fluids were 3.5 l at postoperative day (POD) 0 [area under ROC curve (AUROC) 0.7 for any 0.69 for respiratory complications] and 3.5 kg weight gain at POD 2 (AUROC 0.82 for respiratory complications). Multivariable analysis revealed weight gain of > 3.5 kg at POD 2 (OR 5.9; 95% CI 1.3-16.6) as a significant risk factor for overall complications. Acute kidney injury was observed in five patients (4%), three (5%) in the group with > 3.5 l at POD 0 and two (3%) in the group with < 3.5 l at POD 0 (P = 0.64). Creatinine increase was transitory and all patients regained baseline levels before discharge. CONCLUSION: A weight gain of > 3.5 kg at POD 2 has been identified as the critical threshold for overall and respiratory complications and prolonged length of stay after open elective colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopic Colectomy Versus Open Colectomy for Treatment of Transverse Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The surgical management of transverse colon cancer (TCC) is still not standardized. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) for treatment of TCC in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes compared with open colectomy. METHOD: A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed and Embase. The last search was performed on September 15, 2016. The short-term outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and oncological surgical quality. The long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Thirteen articles and one conference abstract published between 2010 and 2016 with a total of 1728 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. LC was associated with significant less estimated blood loss, fewer total postoperative complications, and shorter time to first flatus, time to liquid diet, length of hospital stay, and length of postoperative hospital stay. However, longer operative time was needed in LC. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups concerning the intraoperative complications, mortality, ileus, anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, abdominal infection, lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, distal resection margin, OS, or DFS. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that LC is a safe and feasible technique for TCC associated with less estimated blood loss, fewer total postoperative complications, quicker recovery of intestinal function, shorter length of hospital stay, and equivalent long-term outcomes. Furthermore, a large-scaled, prospective randomized controlled study is warranted to verify those results.

Cost comparison of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy in colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to be safe, oncologically comparable, and clinically beneficial over open colectomy for colon cancer, but utilization remains low. Objectives To evaluate the cost of laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective claims data analysis using the 2012 and 2013 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounter Database. The denominator population consisted of individuals who had commercial insurance coverage in all months of 2012 and >1 month in 2013 and pharmacy coverage throughout eligibility. The study population included individuals aged 18-64 years who were identified with colon cancer in 2013 and underwent an elective inpatient open colectomy or laparoscopic colectomy between January and November 2013. The cost and re-admission rate of open vs laparoscopic colectomy were compared after risk, adjusting for comorbidities, demographics, and geographic region. RESULTS: During the study period, 1299 elective inpatient colon cancer colectomies were performed (open, n = 558; laparoscopic, n = 741). After risk adjustment, the laparoscopic vs open group was shown to have lower re-admission rates (6.61 and 10.93 per 100 cases, respectively, p = .0165), lower average re-admission costs ($1676 and $3151, respectively, p = .0309), and lower 30-day post-discharge healthcare utilization costs ($4842 and $7121, respectively, p = .0047). Average allowed cost for the combined inpatient and 30-day post-discharge period was lower for laparoscopic vs open colectomy cases ($36,395 and $44,226, respectively, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The cost of laparoscopic colectomy was found to be statistically significantly less than that of open colectomy in patients undergoing elective surgery for colon cancer.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy is increasingly being adopted for the treatment of colon cancer; however, the long-term effectiveness of this approach in a real-world clinical setting has yet to be verified. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and costs associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy from the perspective of the National Health Insurance (NHI) system in Taiwan. METHODS: A nationwide population-based colon cancer cohort was observed by linking the Taiwan Cancer Registry, claims data from NHI system, and the National Death Registry. Adult patients with Stage I to Stage III colon cancer who underwent primary cancer resection using either laparoscopy or open colectomy between 2009 and 2011 were included. A propensity score-matched cohort (1745 pairs) was applied to examine three clinical endpoints: overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival within 2 years after the operation. To comply with the perspective as well as the analytic horizon of the study, we limited the research to NHI claims from the study population for the corresponding time period. The health outcomes and net monetary benefits were verified by multivariate mixed-effect models. RESULTS: This analysis revealed that laparoscopy resulted in longer overall survival (adjusted difference 16.8 days, 95 % CI 7.3-26.2), recurrence-free survival (16.8 days, 5.0-28.6) and disease-free survival (26.4 days, 7.4-45.4), compared to open colectomy at 2 years post-op. Laparoscopy also led to a significantly shorter length of stay (3.2 days, 2.4-3.9) and lower index hospitalization costs (US$ 455, 181-729) than open colectomy; however, no differences in costs were observed over the long term. Overall, laparoscopy was more cost-effective than open colectomy under various willingness-to-pay thresholds in the setting of the Taiwan NHI. CONCLUSIONS: The continued adoption of laparoscopy in primary curable colon cancer resection is expected to reduce health care costs over the short term while providing considerable health benefits over the long term.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for T4 colon cancer: A propensity score analysis.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare, using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses, the short- and long-term results of laparoscopic colectomy (LC) versus open colectomy (OC) in a bicentric cohort of patients with T4 colon cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective PSM analysis of consecutive patients undergoing elective LC or OC for pT4 colon cancer (TNM stage II/III) between 2005 and 2014. RESULTS: Overall, 237 patients were selected. After PSM, 106 LC-and 106 OC-matched patients were compared. LC was associated with longer operative time and lower blood loss than OC (220 vs. 190 min, p < 0.0001; 116 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.002, respectively). LC patients showed a faster recovery, which translated into a shorter hospital stay compared to OC (10.5 vs. 15.3 days, p < 0.0001). Conversion was required in 13 (12.2 %) LC patients. No group difference was observed for 30- and 90-day mortality. R0 resection was achieved in the majority of LC and OC patients (93.9 %). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival was 99, 76.8, and 58.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 98, 70.1, and 59.9 %, respectively, for the OC group (p = 0.864). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival was 86.3, 66, 57.6 %, respectively, for the LC group and 79.1, 55.1, and 50.2 % for the OC group (p = 0.261). CONCLUSION: With an acceptable conversion rate, laparoscopy can achieve complete oncologic resections of T4 colon cancer similar to open surgery and can be considered a safe and feasible alternative approach that confers the advantage of a faster recovery.

Anesthesia type and perioperative outcome: open colectomies in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Adding neuraxial to general anesthesia (GA) has been associated with improved perioperative outcome after orthopedic surgery. Presuming a similar effect in major abdominal surgery we studied its effect on perioperative outcome in open colectomy patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study using the Premier Perspective database (n = 98,290 elective open colectomies, 2006-2012). Multilevel multivariable logistic regression models measured the association between anesthesia type (GA or general and neuraxial anesthesia combined [GNA]) and perioperative outcome with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Outcomes were thromboembolism, acute myocardial infarction, postoperative infection, postoperative ileus, cerebrovascular events, blood transfusion, admission to an intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: GA was used in 93.9%, GNA in 6.1%, with a similar Charlson comorbidity index between the groups (2.66 versus 2.72, respectively; P = 0.121). The multivariable analyses showed GNA (versus GA) to be associated with a significantly decreased risk for thromboembolism (OR 0.74; CI 0.58-0.93) and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.67; CI 0.51-0.88), whereas the association was nonsignificant for wound infections, pneumonia, and mechanical ventilation. However, GNA use was significantly associated with increased risk for acute myocardial infarction (OR 2.74; CI 2.19-3.43), urinary tract infection (OR 1.35; CI 1.21-1.50), postoperative ileus (OR 1.17; CI 1.09-1.26), blood transfusion (OR 1.12; CI 1.01-1.24), and admission to intensive care unit (OR 1.32; CI 1.22-1.43). CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear pattern of consistent favorable results for patients undergoing their open colectomy under GNA. Further prospective research is needed to help identify those who are more likely to benefit from GNA use and its mechanism of actions.

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.