Results of laparoscopic vs open resections for colon cancer in patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer is still a controversial procedure, the major cause of concern being the lack of long-term results. The aims of this study was to compare long-term outcome in unselected patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LH) or open hemicolectomy (OH) for colonic cancer. METHODS: From March 1992 to August 1997, 197 elective patients were included in this prospective nonrandomized study. The patients were operated on by the same surgical team following the same type of surgical technique for both right and left hemicolectomy, excluding segmental resections; the only difference was the type of access, which was either laparoscopic or open. Each patient gave a written consent, and the allocation to each group (laparoscopic or open) was done on the basis of the patient's choice. The long-term outcomes of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for both groups ranged from 36 to 96 months (mean, 48.9). RESULTS: In all, 149 (74 LH, 75 OH) of 197 patients were studied, excluding palliative resections, conversions to open surgery, perioperative deaths, and deaths not related to cancer. Only two patients in the laparoscopic group were lost to follow-up. The local recurrence after LH was 1.3% vs 2.7% after OH (p = 0.105). Metachronous metastases rates were similar for the two groups (10.8% for LH and 10.7% for OH). Cumulative survival probability (CSP) in the LH group vs the OH group was 0.892 vs 0.867 (p = 0.513), respectively. CSP for Duke's stage B and C in the LH group vs the OH group was 0.910 vs 0.895 (p = 0.506) and 0.800 vs 0.734 (p = 0.544) respectively. Sixty-four LH patients (86.5%) and 65 OH patients (86.7%) are disease-free. CONCLUSION: In our series of patients, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of long-term survival rate.