Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic versus open techniques in rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective analysis of 121 sphincter-saving procedures in a single institution

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There are few reports that show that laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer had similar oncological results based on short-term benefits. The purpose of this study was to analyze our institutional short- and long-term results in laparoscopic rectal surgery and to compare these results with that reported in the literature.

Methods

The records of 121 patients who underwent sphincter-saving procedure for rectal cancer were reviewed. The variables analyzed included possible factors causing morbidity, anastomotic leak, and recurrence rate in the laparoscopic and open techniques. Multivariable analyses were used to determine relationship between variables. Survival curves were determined by using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

Laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision or partial mesorectal excision was performed in 97 patients (group 1). Twenty-four patients had open procedure (group 2). The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open technique was 10.3% (n = 10). The overall postoperative morbidity and anastomotic leak rates were 33.4% and 14.8%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in terms of postoperative morbidity (p = 0.177) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.216) between the two groups. Old age was an independent predictor for postoperative morbidity, and downstaging was an independent predictor for anastomotic leak with a sixfold increased risk. Complete downstaging to stage 0 showed a lower overall 5-year survival rate compared with non-downstaged stage I patients (79% vs. 100%). The overall local recurrence rate was 6%. There was one port site metastasis (0.8%). There were two (1.7%) postoperative deaths in group 1. The overall 5-year patient and disease-free survivals were 64% and 74%, respectively, and there was no difference between groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.801).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resection for rectal cancer shows good long-term results. However, it has no advantage in terms of short-term benefits compared with the open procedure. Further studies are needed to validate the effect of downstaging on anastomotic leaks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

TME:

Total mesorectal excision

TNM:

Tumor-Node-Metastasis

AJCC 6th ed.:

6th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging

BMI:

Body mass index

PME:

Partial mesorectal excision

References

  1. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, Sexton R, MacFarlane JK (1998) Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978–1997. Arch Surg 133:894–899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heald RJ, Karanjia ND (1992) Results of radical surgery for rectal cancer. World J Surg 16:848–857

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McAnena OJ, Heald RJ, Lockhart-Mummery HE (1990) Operative and functional results of total mesorectal excision with ultra-low anterior resection in the management of carcinoma of the lower one-third of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 170:517–521

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kapiteijn E, van De Velde CJ (2000) European trials with total mesorectal excision. Semin Surg Oncol 19:350–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Murty M, Enker WE, Martz J (2000) Current status of total mesorectal excision and autonomic nerve preservation in rectal cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 19:321–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reynolds JV, Joyce WP, Dolan J, Sheahan K, Hyland JM (1983) Pathological evidence in support of total mesorectal excision in the management of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 83:1112–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong RKS, Tandan V, De Silva S, Figueredo A (2007) Cochrane preoperative radiotherapy and curative surgery for the management of localized rectal carcinoma (review). Database Syst Rev 18:CD002102

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:144–150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhou ZG, Hu M, Li Y, Lei WZ, Yu YY, Cheng Z, Li L, Shu Y, Wang TC (2004) Laparoscopic vs open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 18:1211–1215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leung KL, Kwok SPY, Lam SCW (2004) Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet 363:1187–1192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Leung KL, Lai PB, Ho RL, Meng WC, Yiu RY, Lee JF, Lau WY (2000) Systemic cytokine response after laparoscopic-assisted resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 231:506–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, BrownHeath JM, UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group (2007) Randomised trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC trail group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Breukink S, Pierie J, Wiggers T (2006) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD005200

    Google Scholar 

  16. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, MRC CLASICC trial group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leroy J, Jamali F, Forbes L, Smith M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Marescaux J (2003) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery. Surg Endosc 18:281–289

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Laurent C, Leblanc F, Gineste C, Saric J, Rullier E (2007) Laparoscopic approach in surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 94:1555–1561

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thorpe H, Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Copeland J, Brown JM, Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery In Colorectal Cancer Trial Group (2008) Patient factors influencing conversion from laparoscopically assisted to open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 95(2):199–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Curet MJ (2007) Port site metastases. Am J Surg 187:705–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Drs. Hwai-Ding Lam, Mauro Stefano, Tri Tran-Ba, Nicolas Tinton, Emmanuel Cambier, and Benoit Navez have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Abdominal Surgery, St. Joseph Hospital (GHdC), Rue de la Duchère 6, 6060, Charleroi (Gilly), Belgium

    Hwai-Ding Lam, Mauro Stefano, Tri Tran-Ba, Nicolas Tinton, Emmanuel Cambier & Benoit Navez

Authors
  1. Hwai-Ding Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mauro Stefano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tri Tran-Ba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicolas Tinton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emmanuel Cambier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Benoit Navez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benoit Navez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lam, HD., Stefano, M., Tran-Ba, T. et al. Laparoscopic versus open techniques in rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective analysis of 121 sphincter-saving procedures in a single institution. Surg Endosc 25, 454–462 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1191-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1191-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation