28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Laparoscopic vs. open approach for colorectal cancer: evolution over time of minimal invasive surgery

      research-article
      1 , , 2 , 3 ,   3 , 1 , 4 , 1 , 1
      BMC Surgery
      BioMed Central
      26th National Congress of the Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery
      19-22 June 2013

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In the late '80s the successes of the laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder disease laid the foundations on the modern use of this surgical technique in a variety of diseases. In the last 20 years, laparoscopic colorectal surgery had become a popular treatment option for colorectal cancer patients.

          Discussion

          Many studies emphasized on the benefits stating the significant advantages of the laparoscopic approach compared with the open surgery of reduced blood loss, early return of intestinal motility, lower overall morbidity, and shorter duration of hospital stay, leading to a general agreement on laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to conventional open surgery for colon cancer. The reduced hospital stay may also decrease the cost of the laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, despite th higher operative spending compared with open surgery. The average reduction in total direct costs is difficult to define due to the increasing cost over time, making challenging the comparisons between studies conducted during a time range of more than 10 years. However, despite the theoretical advantages of laparoscopic surgery, it is still not considered the standard treatment for colorectal cancer patients due to technical limitations or the characteristics of the patients that may affect short and long term outcomes.

          Conclusions

          The laparoscopic approach to colectomy is slowly gaining acceptance for the management of colorectal pathology. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer demonstrates better short-term outcome, oncologic safety, and equivalent long-term outcome of open surgery. For rectal cancer, laparoscopic technique can be more complex depending on the tumor location. The advantages of minimally invasive surgery may translate better care quality for oncological patients and lead to increased cost saving through the introduction of active enhanced recovery programs which are likely cost-effective from the perspective of the hospital health-care providers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Colorectal cancer epidemiology: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors.

          In this article, the incidence, mortality, and survival rates for colorectal cancer are reviewed, with attention paid to regional variations and changes over time. A concise overview of known risk factors associated with colorectal cancer is provided, including familial and hereditary factors, as well as environmental lifestyle-related risk factors such as physical inactivity, obesity, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

            Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without data from large-scale randomised trials to support its use. We compared short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer to predict long-term outcomes. Between July, 1996, and July, 2002, we undertook a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 794 patients with colorectal cancer from 27 UK centres. Patients were allocated to receive laparoscopic-assisted (n=526) or open surgery (n=268). Primary short-term endpoints were positivity rates of circumferential and longitudinal resection margins, proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours, and in-hospital mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN74883561. Six patients (two [open], four [laparoscopic]) had no surgery, and 23 had missing surgical data (nine, 14). 253 and 484 patients actually received open and laparoscopic-assisted treatment, respectively. 143 (29%) patients underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours did not differ between treatments (18 [7%] patients, open vs 34 [6%], laparoscopic; difference -0.3%, 95% CI -3.9 to 3.4%, p=0.89), and neither did in-hospital mortality (13 [5%] vs 21 [4%]; -0.9%, -3.9 to 2.2%, p=0.57). Apart from patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer, rates of positive resection margins were similar between treatment groups. Patients with converted treatment had raised complication rates. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cancer of the colon is as effective as open surgery in the short term and is likely to produce similar long-term outcomes. However, impaired short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum do not yet justify its routine use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial.

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Conference
                BMC Surg
                BMC Surg
                BMC Surgery
                BioMed Central
                1471-2482
                2013
                8 October 2013
                : 13
                : Suppl 2
                : S12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Surgery, Section of General Surgery and Oncology, University Medical School of Catania, Italy
                [2 ]Department of Drug Sciences, Section of Biochemistry, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
                [3 ]Department "G. F. Ingrassia" Section of Hygiene and Public Health, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
                [4 ]Department of Clinical and Molecular Biomedicine, Section of Pharmacology and Biochemistry, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
                Article
                1471-2482-13-S2-S12
                10.1186/1471-2482-13-S2-S12
                3851244
                24267544
                c7a315ed-1d32-4cb5-8781-87943d5fe58a
                Copyright © 2013 Biondi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                26th National Congress of the Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery
                Naples, Italy
                19-22 June 2013
                History
                Categories
                Research Article

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article