Comparison of Outcome of Open and Laparoscopic Resection for Stage II and Stage III Rectal Cancer
Laparoscopic resection for advanced rectal cancer has not been widely accepted, and there are only few studies with survival data. This study aimed to compare the survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic and open resection for stage II and III rectal cancer.
Materials and Methods
Consecutive patients (open resection: n = 310; laparoscopic resection: n = 111) who underwent curative resection for stage II and III rectal cancer from June 2000 to December 2006 were included. The operative details, postoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and survival data were collected prospectively. Comparison was made between patients who had laparoscopic and open surgery.
The age, gender, medical morbidity, types of operation, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status were similar between the two groups. There was also no difference in the mortality, morbidity, and pathological staging. Laparoscopic resection was associated with significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. With the median follow-up of 34 months, there was no difference in local recurrence rates. The 5-year actuarial survivals were 71.1% and 59.3% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (P = .029). In the multivariate analysis, laparoscopic resection was one of the independent significant factors associated with better survival (P = .03, hazards ratio: 0.558, 95% confidence interval: 0.339–0.969). Other independent poor prognostic factors included lymph node metastasis, poor differentiation, perineural invasion, presence of postoperative complications, and no chemotherapy.
Laparoscopic resection for locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with more favorable overall survival when compared with open resection.
KeywordsRectal Cancer Total Mesorectal Excision Oncologic Outcome Local Recurrence Rate Laparoscopic Resection
- 9.COLOR: a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open resection for colon cancer. Dig Surg. 2000;17:617–22.Google Scholar