Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Controversy continues to surround laparoscopic rectal resection for malignancy. A longer follow-up period is required to evaluate the long-term efficacy of the procedure and its impact on survival. Furthermore, no data from ongoing randomized controlled trials are yet available. The aims of this study were to compare long-term outcomes for unselected patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open rectal resection for cancer. Methods: A series of 124 unselected consecutive patients with rectal cancer, who underwent surgery by the same surgical team, have been included in this study. Patients with T1N0 tumors underwent local excision, and emergency cases were excluded from the study. Written consent was submitted by each patient, and inclusion in either group (laparoscopic or open) was left to the patient’s choice. The laparoscopic approach was chosen by 81 patients, and 43 patients chose open surgery. All the patients underwent preoperative radiotherapy (5,040 cGy), performed in selected cases with chemotherapy (for patients younger than 70 years). The following parameters were compared between the two groups: length of the surgical specimen, clearance of the margins of the specimen, number of lymph nodes identified, local recurrence rate, incidence of distant metastases, and survival probability analysis. The mean follow-up period for both groups was 43.8 months (range, l–9 years). Results: We performed 60 laparoscopic and 27 open anterior resections, as well as 21 laparoscopic and 16 open abdomino perineal resections, respectively. No mortality occurred in either group. The mean length of the resected specimens was 24.3 cm in the laparoscopic group and 23.8 cm in the open group (p = 0.47). The mean tumor-free margin was 3.0 cm in the laparoscopic group and 2.8 cm in the open group (p = 0.57), and the mean number of lymph nodes identified was 10.3 in the laparoscopic group and 9.8 in the open group (p = 0.63). Of the 124 patients, 86 (52 laparoscopic and 34 open) were included in out study. We excluded patients who underwent a palliative resection (6 laparoscopic and 6 open patients) or conversion to open surgery (n = 10) and patients who had undergone surgery in the past year (n = 16). One laparoscopic patient was lost to follow-up evaluation, whereas three laparoscopic patients and one open patient died of causes not related to cancer. No wound recurrence was observed. The local recurrence rate after laparoscopic resection was 20.8%, as compared with 16.6% after open resection (p = 0.687). Distant metastases occurred in 18.2% of the patients in the laparoscopic group, as compared with 21.2% in the open group (p = 0.528). Cumulative survival probability was 0.709 after laparoscopic resection after LR and 0.606 after open resection (p = 0.162), whereas for Dukes’ stages A, B, and C in the laparoscopic group versus the open group, it was 0.875 vs 0.889 (p = 0.392), 0.722 vs 0.584 (p = 0.199), and 0.500 vs 0.417 (p = 0.320), respectively. At this writing 20 laparoscopic patients (62.5%) and 20 open patients (60.6%) are disease free (p = 0.623). Conclusions: Oncologic surgical principles were respected. Long-term outcome after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer was comparable with that after conventional resection. We should wait to draw conclusive scientific statements until the completion of ongoing international radomized controlled trials.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. E Barlehner T Decker S Anders B Heukrodt (2001) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic surgery of rectal carcinoma: radical oncology and late results. Zentralbl Chir 126 302–306 Occurrence Handle10.1055/s-2001-14745 Occurrence Handle11370393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. M Bressler RL Whelan A Holversan MR Treat R Nwygrod (1994) ArticleTitleIs immune function better preserved after laparoscopic vs open colon resections? Surg Endosc 8 881–883

    Google Scholar 

  3. HJ Chang JJ Jian SH Cheng MC Liu SY Leu FM Wang SY Tsai MH Tsao HH Lin AT Huang JL Sung (1998) ArticleTitlePreoperative concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients. J Formos Med Assoc 97 32–37 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c7kt1Slsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9481062

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. ME Franklin GB Kazantsev D Abrego-Medina A Diaz J Balli JL Glass (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic surgery for stage III colon cancer. Surg Endosc 14 612–616 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004640000169 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7gvFWmsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10948295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. ME Franklin D Rosenthal D Abrego-Medina JP Dorman JL Glass R Norem A Diaz (1996) ArticleTitleProspective comparison of open vs laparoscopic colon surgery for carcinoma: five years results. Dis Colon Rectum 10 S35–S46

    Google Scholar 

  6. JE Hartley BJ Mehigan AW Mac Donald AW Lee JR Monson (2000) ArticleTitlePatterns of recurrence and survival after laparoscopic and conventional resections for colorectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 2 181–186 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-200008000-00005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. JE Hartley BJ Mehigan AE Qureshi GS Duthie AW Lee JR Monson (2001) ArticleTitleTotal mesorectal excision: assessment of the laparoscopic approach. Dis Colon Rectum 44 315–321 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7pvFyktw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11289275

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. RJ Heald (1995) ArticleTitleTotal mesorectal excision is optimal surgery for rectal cancer: a Scandinavian consensus. Br J Surg 82 1297–1299 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymD1MjotVw%3D Occurrence Handle7489148

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. T Ichihara Y Nagahata H Nomura S Fukumoto T Urakawa N Aoyama Y Kuroda (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic lower anterior resection is equivalent to laparotomy for lower rectal cancer at the distal line of resection. Am J Surg 179 97–98 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00273-7 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvhs1CktA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10773141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. E Kapiteijn CA Marijnen ID Nagtegaal H Putter WH Steup T Wiggers HJ Rutten L Pahlman B Glimelius JH Van Krieken JW Leer CJ Van De Velde (2001) ArticleTitlePreoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 30 638–646 Occurrence Handle10.1056/NEJMoa010580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. TM Khalili PR Fleshner JR Hiatt TP Sokol M Manookian G Tsushima EH Phillips (1998) ArticleTitleColorectal cancer: comparison of laparoscopic with open approach. Dis Colon Rectum 41 832–838 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1czktFGjtQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9678367

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. F Kockerling (1998) ArticleTitleProspective multicenter study of the quality of oncologic resections in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer. Col Rect 8 963–970

    Google Scholar 

  13. C Kuntz F Wunsch J Windeler F Glaser C Herfarth (1998) ArticleTitleProspective randomized study of stress and immune response after laparoscopy vs conventional colonic resections. Surg Endosc 7 963–967 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. D Lanvin A Elhage B Henry E Leblanc D Querleu A Delobelle-Deraide (1997) ArticleTitleAccuracy and safety of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy: an experimental prospective randomised study. Gynecol Oncol 1 83–87 Occurrence Handle10.1006/gyno.1997.4823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. KL Leung Pb Lai RL Ho WC Meng RY Yiu JF Lee WY Lau (2000) ArticleTitleSystemic cytokine response after laparoscopic-assisted resection of rectosigmoidocarcinoma: a prospective randomised trial. Ann Surg 231 506–511 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-200004000-00008 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3htlaitg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10749610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. E Lezoche F Feliciotti AM Paganini M Guerrieri R Campagnacci A De Sanctis (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic colonic resections versus open surgery: a prospectivenonrandomized study on 310 unselected cases. Hepatogastroenterology 47 697–708

    Google Scholar 

  17. SA Lord SW Larach A Ferrara PR Williamson CP Lago MW Lube (1996) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic resection for colorectal carcinoma: a three-years experience. Dis Colon Rectum 39 148–154 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymB38znt1I%3D Occurrence Handle8620780

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. D Medich J McGinty D Parda S Karlovits C David P Caushaj B Lembersky (2001) ArticleTitlePreoperative chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery for locally advanced distal rectal adenocarcinoma: pathologic findings and clinical implications. Dis Colon Rectum 44 1123–1128 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvptFOjug%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11535851

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. JW Milsom B Bohm KA Hammerhofer V Fazio E Steiger P Elson (1998) ArticleTitleA prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 187 46–57 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1czitFClsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9660024

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. J Ordemann CA Jacobi W Schwenk R Stosslein JM Muller (2001) ArticleTitleCellular and humoral inflammatory response after laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resections. Surg Endosc 15 600–608

    Google Scholar 

  21. AJ Pikarsky R Rosenthal EG Weiss SD Wexner (2002) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic total mesorectal excision. Surg Endosc 16 558–562 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-001-8250-3 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD383jsVeksA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11972187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. EC Puolin J Mamazza CM Schlachta R Gregoire N Roy (1999) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic resection does not adversely affect early survival curves in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 4 487–492 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-199904000-00006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. EC Puolin CM Schlachta PA Seshadri MO Cadeddu R Gregoire J Mamazza (2001) ArticleTitleSeptic complications of elective laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 15 203–208 Occurrence Handle11285969

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. H Scheidbach C Schneider J Konradt E Barlehner L Kohler Ch Wittekind F Kockerling (2002) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection with curative intent for carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Endosc 16 7–13

    Google Scholar 

  25. KW Scott RH Grace (1989) ArticleTitleDetection of lymph node metastases on colorectal carcinoma before and after fat clearance. Br J Surg 76 1165–1167 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BD1cbpsFc%3D Occurrence Handle2688803

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. H Tomita PW Marcello JW Milsom (1999) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. World Surg 4 397–405

    Google Scholar 

  27. MR Weiser JW Milsom (2000) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation. Semin Surg Oncol 19 396–403 Occurrence Handle10.1002/ssu.10 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzitlGjsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11241922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. SD Wexner (2000) Trocar-site recurrences: myth or real concern? Postgraduate course: laparoscopy in the management of malignancy. SAGES 2000, Atlanta Georgia, USA Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2Fkt1Ghtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11089603

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. SD Wexner JF Latulippe (1998) ArticleTitleLaparoscopic colorectal surgery and cancer. Dig Surg 15 117–123 Occurrence Handle10.1159/000018604 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2Fmt1Wisg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9845573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, University of Ancona, “Umberto I” Hospital, Via Conca, 60020 Ancona, Italy

    F. Feliciotti, M. Guerrieri, A. M. Paganini, A. De Sanctis, R. Campagnacci & S. Perretta

  2. Department of Surgery “Paride Stefanini,”, II Clinica Chirurgica, University “La Sapienza”, Viale del Policlinico, 00161 Rome, Italy

    G. D’Ambrosio & E. Lezoche

Authors
  1. F. Feliciotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Guerrieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. M. Paganini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. De Sanctis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Campagnacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Perretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. D’Ambrosio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. Lezoche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feliciotti, F., Guerrieri, M., Paganini, A. et al. Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients . Surg Endosc 17, 1530–1535 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8874-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8874-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation