Laparoscopic-Assisted Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer has been shown to improve postoperative recovery without jeopardizing tumor clearance and survival, but information on low rectal cancer is scarce. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare postoperative recovery between laparoscopic-assisted versus open abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients with low rectal cancer. Recurrence and survival data were also recorded and compared between the two groups.
Between September 1994 and February 2005, 99 patients with low rectal cancer were randomized to receive either laparoscopic-assisted (51 patients) or conventional open (48 patients) APR. The median follow-up time of living patients was about 90 months for both groups. The primary and secondary endpoints of the study were postoperative recovery and survival, respectively. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle.
The demographic data of the two groups were comparable. Postoperative recovery was better after laparoscopic surgery, with earlier return of bowel function (P < .001) and mobilization (P = .005), and less analgesic requirement (P = .007). This was at the expense of longer operative time and higher direct cost. There were no differences in morbidity and operative mortality rates between the two groups. After curative resection, the probabilities of survival at 5 years of the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups were 75.2% and 76.5% respectively (P = .20). The respective probabilities of being disease-free were 78.1% and 73.6% (P = .55).
Laparoscopic-assisted APR improves postoperative recovery and seemingly does not jeopardize survival when compared with open surgery for low rectal cancer. A larger sample size is needed to fully assess oncological outcomes.
- Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: A randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:2224–9. CrossRef
- Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2050–9.
- Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: Short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6:477–84. CrossRef
- Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): Multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365:1718–26. CrossRef
- Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lau WY, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted abdominoperineal resection for low rectal adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc 2000; 14:67–70. CrossRef
- Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13:413–24. CrossRef
- Araujo SE, da Silva eSousa AH Jr, de Campos FG, et al. Conventional approach × laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: Results of a prospective randomized trial. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo 2003; 58:133–40.
- Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE. (1997) AJCC cancer staging manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.
- Robinson R. Economic evaluation and health care. What does it mean? BMJ 1993; 307:670–3. CrossRef
- Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, et al. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: Prospective randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 363:1187–92. CrossRef
- Ng SS, Leung KL, Lee JF, et al. MRC CLASICC trial. Lancet 2005; 366:713. CrossRef
- Christian CK, Kwaan MR, Betensky RA, et al. Risk factors for perineal wound complications following abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48:43–8. CrossRef
- Basse L, Hjort Jakobsen D, Billesbølle P, et al. A clinical pathway to accelerate recovery after colonic resection. Ann Surg 2000; 232:51–7. CrossRef
- King PM, Blazeby JM, Ewings P, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg 2006; 93:300–8. CrossRef
- Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1731–40. CrossRef
- Bujko K, Nowacki MP, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, et al. Sphincter preservation following preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: Report of a randomised trial comparing short-term radiotherapy vs. conventionally fractionated radiochemotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2004; 72:15–24. CrossRef
- Bujko K, Kepka L, Michalski W, et al. Does rectal cancer shrinkage induced by preoperative radio(chemo)therapy increase the likelihood of anterior resection? A systematic review of randomised trials. Radiother Oncol 2006; 80:4–12. CrossRef
- Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3061–8. CrossRef
- Laparoscopic-Assisted Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Volume 15, Issue 9 , pp 2418-2425
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Abdominoperineal resection
- Rectal cancer
- Randomized trial
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong