Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open colorectal resections for cancer in 235 patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Lezoche, E., Guerrieri, M., De Sanctis, A. et al. Surg Endosc (2006) 20: 546. doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0338-8
- 136 Downloads
Laparoscopic resection for cure of colorectal cancer is controversial. More investigations on long-term results are required. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcome with a minimum follow-up of 5 years between laparoscopic or open approach for the treatment of colo-rectal cancer.
The treatment modality (laparoscopic or open) was related to the patients (pts) choice. The following parameters between the two groups (laparoscopic and open) were assessed: wound recurrences rate, local recurrences rate, incidence of distant metastases and survival probability analysis.
We report the long term outcome of 149 pts with colon cancer of which 85 treated by Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) and 64 by Open Surgery (OS) and of 86 patients with rectal cancer of which 52 treated by LS and 34 by OS. In the pts with colonic cancer, mean follow-up was 82.8 months. No Statistically Significant Difference (SSD) was observed in the local recurrences rate (3.5% after LS and 6.2% after OS) and in the incidence of distant metastases (10.5% after LS and 10.9% after OS). Cumulative survival probability in LS was 0.882 as compared to 0.859 after OS. In the pts with rectal cancer, mean follow-up was 78.5 months. No SSD was observed in the local recurrences rate (19.2% after LS and 17.6% after OS) and in the incidence of distant metastases (15.3% after LS and 20.5% after OS). Cumulative survival probability in LS was 0.711 as compared to 0.617 after OS. We report an interesting data about the time of recurrences between LS and OS: the recurrences were delayed after LS, both after colonic (22.6 months vs 6.5) and rectal (25.7 months vs 13.0) resections, respectively.
We suppose that laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colo-rectal cancer is quite safe. However, further investigation is needed.