Laparoscopically assisted colon resection for colon carcinoma: perioperative results and long-term outcome. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. Laparoscopic-assisted approach in rectal cancer patients: lessons learned from >200 patients. The usefulness of restorative laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy for ulcerative colitis. A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection of the colon and rectum for cancer. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Laparoscopic versus conventional open resection of rectal carcinoma: A clinical comparative study.
The role of laparoscopic colon resection in the management of colon cancer is unclear. The aims of this study were to compare perioperative results and long-term outcomes in patients randomized to either open (O) or laparoscopically assisted (LA) colon resection for colon cancer.
                A prospective randomized trial comparing O to LA colon resection was conducted from January 1993 to November 1995. Preoperative workup, intraoperative results, complications, length of stay, pathologic findings, and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed with t-test. Follow-up periods ranged from 3.5 to 6.3 years (mean, 4.9 years).
                No port-site or abdominal wall recurrences were noted in any patients. [table: see text]
                These results suggest that laparoscopically assisted colon resection for malignant disease can be performed safely, with morbidity, mortality, and en bloc resections comparable with those of open laparotomy. Long-term (5-year) follow-up assessment shows similar outcomes in both groups of patients, demonstrating definite perioperative advantages with LA surgery and no perioperative or long-term disadvantages. The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required.
                The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis.
                Seven hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (526 laparoscopic and 268 open). Overall, there were no differences in the long-term outcomes. The differences in survival rates were OS of 1.8% (95% CI, -5.2% to 8.8%; P = .55), DFS of -1.4% (95% CI, -9.5% to 6.7%; P = .70), local recurrence of -0.8% (95% CI, -5.7% to 4.2%; P = .76), and QoL (P > .01 for all scales). Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterior resection (AR), but it did not translate into an increased incidence of local recurrence.
                Successful laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preservation of QoL. Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients. The applicability of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colorectal diseases is still controversial. Early reports on laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in patients with colon cancer suggested that it minimizes surgical trauma, decreases perioperative complications, and leads to a more rapid recovery. To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared the laparoscopic vs the open approach in rectal cancer. The aim of this paper was to assess the results of laparoscopic techniques in patients with rectal cancer.
                From March 1998 to February 2003, all patients admitted to our unit with adenocarcinoma of the rectum were evaluated for surgery by the laparoscopic approach.
                A total of 220 patients with a mean age of 67.3 years were included in the study. One hundred thirty patients (59%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In >75% of the patients, a surgical procedure with sphincter preservation was performed. The rate of conversion to the open approach was 20%. Ten patients had intraoperative complications. Fifty-eight patients (26.3%) developed postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was 6.8 days. The distribution of tumor stages was as follows: stage I, 16.81%; stage II, 33.6%; stage III, 26.36%; stage IV, 19.09%. The mean number of lymph nodes was 13.8. The incidence of local relapse was 5.3%, with a follow-up of 18 months.
                Laparoscopic surgery can be safely performed in patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum with good short-term results. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis in comparison with that of conventional open total colectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. From 1990 until 1999, 11 patients underwent open total colectomy, while 21 patients had laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy. Patients characteristics, perioperative course, and recovery were compared. Differences between the groups were tested using Student's t-test for independent groups and chi-square tests when appropriate. Nasogastric tube could be removed after POD 1.1 vs. 4.8 (p < 0.05), the mean time to passage of stool was 1.7 (range, 1 to 3) vs. 5.4 (range, 3 to 7) days (p < 0.05), and in the laparoscopic group watery stool was soon made solid after POD 24.3 vs. 87.3 (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the mean operating time and mean estimated operating blood loss between two groups. Postoperative morbidity did not differ significantly between the patients treated conventionally (45.5%) and laparoscopically (33.3%). The findings of this study indicate that laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy improved cosmetic results and to be a safe and effective treatment for the elective surgery of ulcerative colitis. Uncontrolled studies using laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery have not demonstrated clear advantages to these procedures compared with conventional ones, and surgeons are concerned about unusual early recurrences reported after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic (LAP) and conventional (CON) techniques in 109 patients undergoing bowel resection for colorectal cancers or polyps. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulmonary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care.
                Of the 55 patients assigned to LAP and 54 to the CON group, there were 42 and 38 with cancer, respectively (the other patients had large adenomas). Overall recovery of 80% of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity was a median of 3 days for LAP and 6.0 days for CON (p = 0.01). LAP patients used significantly less morphine than CON patients up to the second day after surgery (0.78 +/- 0.32 versus 0.92 +/- 0.34 mg/kg per day, p = 0.02). Flatus returned a median of 3.0 days after LAP versus 4.0 days after CON surgery (p = 0.006). Tumor margins were clear in all patients. After a median followup of 1.5 years (LAP) and 1.7 years (CON), there were no port site recurrences in the LAP group. Seven cancer-related deaths have occurred (three in the LAP group, four in the CON group).
                Within this prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques were as safe as conventional surgical techniques and offered a faster recovery of pulmonary and gastrointestinal function compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing large bowel resection for cancer or polyps. There were no apparent shortterm oncologic disadvantages. Longer followup is needed to fully assess oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive, laparoscopically assisted surgery was first considered in 1990 for patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Concern that this approach would compromise survival by failing to achieve a proper oncologic resection or adequate staging or by altering patterns of recurrence (based on frequent reports of tumor recurrences within surgical wounds) prompted a controlled trial evaluation.
                We conducted a noninferiority trial at 48 institutions and randomly assigned 872 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon to undergo open or laparoscopically assisted colectomy performed by credentialed surgeons. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The primary end point was the time to tumor recurrence.
                At three years, the rates of recurrence were similar in the two groups--16 percent among patients in the group that underwent laparoscopically assisted surgery and 18 percent among patients in the open-colectomy group (two-sided P=0.32; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.17). Recurrence rates in surgical wounds were less than 1 percent in both groups (P=0.50). The overall survival rate at three years was also very similar in the two groups (86 percent in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 85 percent in the open-colectomy group; P=0.51; hazard ratio for death in the laparoscopic-surgery group, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.21), with no significant difference between groups in the time to recurrence or overall survival for patients with any stage of cancer. Perioperative recovery was faster in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-colectomy group, as reflected by a shorter median hospital stay (five days vs. six days, P<0.001) and briefer use of parenteral narcotics (three days vs. four days, P<0.001) and oral analgesics (one day vs. two days, P=0.02). The rates of intraoperative complications, 30-day postoperative mortality, complications at discharge and 60 days, hospital readmission, and reoperation were very similar between groups.
                In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society Laparoscopically-assisted resection for large bowel cancer is technically feasible. Sixty-six patients who had resection of the colon or rectum for cancer have been audited prospectively.
                Clinical and pathological data were collected prospectively as part of the ongoing Concord Hospital colorectal cancer project. Patients were followed up for a median of 29 months.
                In 57 of 66 patients in whom laparoscopic resection was attempted the operation was completed laparoscopically. Three patients died from perioperative myocardial infarction. The median postoperative stay was 14 days. There was a high incidence of postoperative respiratory and cardiac complications. One patient developed a port-site metastasis.
                There was no obvious benefit from laparoscopically-assisted resection of large bowel cancer in these patients. Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival.
                From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
                219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively).
                LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival. To evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of rectal carcinoma and to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic procedure with conventional open surgery for rectal cancer.
                Thirty-eight patients with rectal cancer were included in a prospective non-randomized study. The patients were assigned to laparoscopic (n=18) or open (n=18) colorectal resection. Case selection, surgical technique, and clinical and pathological results were reviewed.
                The operative time was longer in laparoscopic resection group (LAP) than in open resection group (189+/-18 min vs 146+/-22 min, P<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were less in LAP resection group than in open resection group. An earlier return of bowel motility was observed after laparoscopic surgery. The overall postoperative morbidity was 5.6% in the LAP resection group and 27.8% in open resection group (P<0.05). No anastomotic leakage was found in both groups. The pathologic examination showed that the length of the resected specimen, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes in laparoscopic resection group were comparable to those in open resection group.
                Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is a feasible but technically demanding procedure. The present study demonstrates the safety of the procedure, while oncologic results are comparable to the open surgery, with a favorable short-term outcome.
Under traditional perioperative treatment, lapararoscopic colonic resections show clinically relevant advantages in selected patients. If the long-term oncological results of laparoscopic and conventional resection of colonic carcinoma show equivalent results, the laparoscopic approach should be preferred in patients suitable for this approach to colectomy.