Cargando…

Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection yields comparable clinical and oncological results with shorter hospital stay compared to open access: a 5-year national cohort

PURPOSE: Although widely applied, the results following laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) compared to open rectal resection (ORR) are still debated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical short- and long-term results as well as oncological resection quality following LRR or ORR for cancer in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Myrseth, Elisabeth, Gjessing, Petter Fosse, Nymo, Linn Såve, Kørner, Hartwig, Kvaløy, Jan Terje, Norderval, Stig
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10550871/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37792088
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-023-04529-z
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Although widely applied, the results following laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) compared to open rectal resection (ORR) are still debated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical short- and long-term results as well as oncological resection quality following LRR or ORR for cancer in a 5-year national cohort. METHODS: Data from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry were retrieved from January 2014 to December 2018 for patients who underwent elective resection for rectal cancer. Primary end point was 5-year overall survival. Secondary end points were local recurrence rates within 5 years, oncological resection quality, and short-term outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 1796 patients were included, of whom 1284 had undergone LRR and 512 ORR. There was no difference in 5-year survival rates between the groups after adjusting for relevant covariates with Cox regression analyses. Crude 5-year survival was 77.1% following LRR compared to 74.8% following ORR (p = 0.015). The 5-year local recurrence rates were 3.1% following LRR and 4.1% following ORR (p = 0.249). Length of hospital stay was median 8.0 days (quartiles 7.0–13.0) after ORR compared to 6.0 (quartiles 4.0–8.0) days after LRR. After adjusting for relevant covariates, estimated additional length of stay after ORR was 3.1 days (p < 0.001, 95% CI 2.3–3.9). Rates of positive resection margins and number of harvested lymph nodes were similar. There were no other significant differences in short-term outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSION: LRR was performed with clinical and oncological outcomes similar to ORR, but with shorter hospital stay. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-023-04529-z.