Laparoscopic vs. open total mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer remains controversial. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). However, few prospective randomized studies have been performed. OBJECTIVES: The main purpose was to evaluate whether there are relevant differences in safety and efficacy after elective LTME for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with OTME in a tertiary academic medical center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This comparative non-randomized prospective study analyzes data of 20 patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection (LAR) or abdomino perineal resection (APR) from November 2005 to April 2006. Follow-up was determined through office charts or direct patient contact. Statistical analysis was performed using chi2 test and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent LTME and 10 patients underwent OTME. No conversion was required in the LTME group. Mean operating time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (LTME) (186.7 vs. 204.4 min, p < 0.007). Less intraoperative blood loss and fewer postoperative complications were seen in the LTME group. An earlier return of bowel motility was achieved after laparoscopic surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and the overall morbidity was 20% in the LTME group vs. 40% in the OTME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in OTME group (10.2 +/- 2.5 vs. 8.3 +/- 3). Mean follow-up time was 12 months (range 9-15 months). No local recurrence was found. CONCLUSION: LTME is a feasible procedure with acceptable postoperative morbidity and low mortality, however it is technically demanding. This series confirms its safety, while oncologic results are at present comparable to the OTME published series, with limitation of a short follow-up period though. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.

[Mortality-associated factors in major surgery: retrospective analysis in a referral center]. / Factores asociados a mortalidad en cirugia mayor: análisis retrospectivo en un centro de referencia.

BACKGROUND: There are very few studies that analyze surgical morbidity and mortality in the general population and the factors associated with those events. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated to mortality in surgical procedures performed in a tertiary referral center in Mexico City. METHODS: We retrospectively analyze surgical mortality in 4,157 consecutive surgical procedures performed in a one-year period from 1/1/2000 through 12/31/2000. Categorical variables were analyzed with the chi-square test and continuous variables with the t-Student test. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: During the study period there were 76 postoperative deaths, representing a mortality rate of 1.82%. Mean patient's age in the entire cohort was 48.7 +/- 17.6 years and for the patients who died in the postoperative period 57.8 +/- 17.8 years (p < 0.05). Sixty-six percent of deaths were attributed to the primary or surgical disease. In 33.8% of postoperative deaths an adverse event was identified as responsible for the outcome. In 23% of cases there was a potentially preventable event, representing 0.3% of surgical procedures. Most patients (96.9%) had at least one comorbid condition and 61.5% had two or more. Almost 80% of surgical deaths occurred in patients with ASA score III of IV and albumin levels below 3.5 g/dL. Most common cause of death was sepsis, reported in 35% of patients who died in the postoperative period. CONCLUSION: Surgical mortality in our series is low. In 0.3% of procedures it was detected a potentially preventable event. Postoperative deaths occurred in older patients with low albumin levels.