Cargando…

Short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic vs open ileocolic resection in patients with Crohn's disease: Propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ileocolic resection (LICR) is the preferred surgical approach for primary ileocolic Crohn’s disease (CD) because it has greater recovery benefits than open ICR (OICR). AIM: To compare short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent LICR and OICR. METHODS: Patients wh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pak, Shin Jeong, Kim, Young Il, Yoon, Yong Sik, Lee, Jong Lyul, Lee, Jung Bok, Yu, Chang Sik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8613650/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34887635
http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v27.i41.7159
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ileocolic resection (LICR) is the preferred surgical approach for primary ileocolic Crohn’s disease (CD) because it has greater recovery benefits than open ICR (OICR). AIM: To compare short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent LICR and OICR. METHODS: Patients who underwent ICR for primary CD from 2006 to 2017 at a single tertiary center specializing in CD were included. Patients who underwent LICR and OICR were subjected to propensity-score matching analysis. Patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 by factors potentially associated with 30-d perioperative morbidity. These included demographic characteristics and disease- and treatment-related variables. Factors were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses. Long-term surgical recurrence-free survival (SRFS) in the two groups was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. RESULTS: During the study period, 348 patients underwent ICR, 211 by the open approach and 137 laparoscopically. Propensity-score matching yielded 102 pairs of patients. The rate of postoperative complication was significantly lower (14% versus 32%, P = 0.003), postoperative hospital stay significantly shorter (8 d versus 13 d, P = 0.003), and postoperative pain on day 7 significantly lower (1.4 versus 2.3, P < 0.001) in propensity-score matched patients who underwent LICR than in those who underwent OICR. Multivariate analysis showed that postoperative complications were significantly associated with preoperative treatment with biologics [odds ratio (OR): 3.14, P = 0.01] and an open approach to surgery (OR: 2.86, P = 0.005). The 5- and 10-year SRFS rates in the matched pairs were 92.9% and 83.3%, respectively, with SRFS rates not differing significantly between the OICR and LICR groups. The performance of additional procedures was an independent risk factor for surgical recurrence [hazard ratio (HR): 3.28, P = 0.02]. CONCLUSION: LICR yielded better short-term outcomes and postoperative recovery than OICR, with no differences in long-term outcomes. LICR may provide greater benefits in selected patients with primary CD.