Improved short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open resection for colon and rectal cancer in an area health service: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence demonstrates short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. The situation for rectal cancer is less clear. OBJECTIVES: This review assessed the use and short-term outcomes of elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resections within an area health service. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, retrospective review of a prospective database. SETTINGS: All elective colon and rectal cancer resections in the western zone of Sydney South West Area Health Service from 2001 until 2008 were included. PATIENTS: Included were 1721 patients who underwent either a laparoscopic colon (n = 434) or rectal (n = 157) resection or an open colon (n = 742) or rectal (n = 388) resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Outcome measures included operating time, blood loss, adequacy of resection, conversion rate, intensive care unit admission, length of stay, and 26 acute postoperative complications. RESULTS: Patients were matched for age, sex, ASA, BMI, and tumor stage. Laparoscopic surgery increased in frequency. Fewer patients experienced a complication in both the laparoscopic colon (28.8 vs 54.4%; p < 0.0001) and rectal (41.4 vs 60.3%; p < 0.0001) group irrespective of age. Laparoscopic operating time for colon and rectal cancer was 24.1 minutes (p < 0.0001) and 25.8 minutes (p < 0.0001) longer, with a low conversion-to-open rate (6.5% and 8.3%; p = 0.44). Laparoscopic surgery resulted in fewer transfusions (0.4 vs 0.7 units; p = 0.0028) and length of stay (7 vs 10 days; p = 0.0011) for colon cancers, and reduced intraoperative hemoglobin drop (20.5 vs 24.8; p = 0.029) and intensive care unit admissions (26.8 vs 36.3%; p = 0.032) for rectal cancers. LIMITATIONS: : This was a nonrandomized study with rectal cancers more often resected with the open technique (71.2 vs 28.8%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within an area health service, elective laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer had improved short-term outcomes in comparison with open surgery.

Tumor pathology and long-term survival in emergency colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients who have an emergency operation for colorectal cancer have poorer long-term survival outcomes compared with elective patients. This study was designed to define the role of tumor pathology as a basis for the differences in survival outcomes. METHODS: There were 1,537 elective and 286 emergency patients who had an operation for bowel cancer from 1997 to 2003. Tumor pathology and survival data collected prospectively for these patients were compared by modes of presentation. RESULTS: Excluding 30-day mortality, emergency patients as a whole had a five-year all-cause survival rate of 39.2 percent compared with 64.7 percent for elective patients P<0.0001 they also had more advanced Dukes C and D tumors (P<0.0001). The rates of early T1 and T2 cancers were 4.7 percent for the emergency and 25 percent for the elective group. Emergency cases had more lymph node-positive patients and N2 patients (57.1 vs. 41.8 percent and 26.6 vs. 15.9 percent, respectively; P<0.0001). Curatively resected emergency colon patients again had more advanced Dukes staged tumors (P<0.0001) with a five-year survival rate of 51.6 percent compared with 75.6 percent for elective patients P<0.0001. On stage-for-stage analysis, the survival rates for curatively resected Dukes B and C colon cancers remained worse for emergency patients (P=0.003 and P=0.0002, respectively). Both emergency Dukes B and C groups had more T4 cases (21.5 vs. 10.6 percent; P=0.017 and 26.4 vs. 15 percent; P=0.016, respectively). CONCLUSION: Advanced tumor pathology is a basis for poor long-term survival in emergency colorectal cancers.