Cargando…
Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes
AIM: Whether a laparoscopic procedure can contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes in obese patients with stage II/III rectal cancer compared to an open procedure remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery versus open surge...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9831897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36643354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12599 |
_version_ | 1784867946902847488 |
---|---|
author | Akagi, Tomonori Nakajima, Kentaro Hirano, Yasumitsu Abe, Tomoya Inada, Ryo Kono, Yohei Shiroshita, Hidefumi Ohyama, Tetsuji Inomata, Masafumi Yamamoto, Seiichiro Naitoh, Takeshi Sakai, Yoshiharu Watanabe, Masahiko |
author_facet | Akagi, Tomonori Nakajima, Kentaro Hirano, Yasumitsu Abe, Tomoya Inada, Ryo Kono, Yohei Shiroshita, Hidefumi Ohyama, Tetsuji Inomata, Masafumi Yamamoto, Seiichiro Naitoh, Takeshi Sakai, Yoshiharu Watanabe, Masahiko |
author_sort | Akagi, Tomonori |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Whether a laparoscopic procedure can contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes in obese patients with stage II/III rectal cancer compared to an open procedure remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m(2)) with rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from patients with pathological stage II/III rectal cancer and analyzed. Operations were performed via laparoscopic or open surgery from 2009 to 2013. A comparative analysis was performed after applying propensity score matching to the two cohorts (laparoscopic group and open group). The primary endpoint was 3‐y relapse‐free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Overall, 524 eligible cases were collected from 51 institutions. Equal numbers of propensity score‐matched patients were included in the laparoscopic (n = 193) group and open (n = 193) group. Although the rate of D3 lymph node dissection did not differ between the laparoscopic group (87.0%) and the open group (88.6%), the median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group versus open group (17.5 vs 21, P = 0.0047). The median postoperative hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (14 d) vs the open group (17 d) (P = 0.0014). Three‐y RFS was not significantly different between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.2454, 95% confidence interval 0.9201–1.6884, P = 0.4689). CONCLUSION: The short‐ and long‐term results of this large cohort study (UMIN ID: UMIN000033529) indicated that laparoscopic surgery in obese rectal cancer patients has advantageous short‐term outcomes and no disadvantageous long‐term outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9831897 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98318972023-01-12 Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes Akagi, Tomonori Nakajima, Kentaro Hirano, Yasumitsu Abe, Tomoya Inada, Ryo Kono, Yohei Shiroshita, Hidefumi Ohyama, Tetsuji Inomata, Masafumi Yamamoto, Seiichiro Naitoh, Takeshi Sakai, Yoshiharu Watanabe, Masahiko Ann Gastroenterol Surg Original Articles AIM: Whether a laparoscopic procedure can contribute to the improvement of clinical outcomes in obese patients with stage II/III rectal cancer compared to an open procedure remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m(2)) with rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from patients with pathological stage II/III rectal cancer and analyzed. Operations were performed via laparoscopic or open surgery from 2009 to 2013. A comparative analysis was performed after applying propensity score matching to the two cohorts (laparoscopic group and open group). The primary endpoint was 3‐y relapse‐free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Overall, 524 eligible cases were collected from 51 institutions. Equal numbers of propensity score‐matched patients were included in the laparoscopic (n = 193) group and open (n = 193) group. Although the rate of D3 lymph node dissection did not differ between the laparoscopic group (87.0%) and the open group (88.6%), the median number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group versus open group (17.5 vs 21, P = 0.0047). The median postoperative hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (14 d) vs the open group (17 d) (P = 0.0014). Three‐y RFS was not significantly different between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.2454, 95% confidence interval 0.9201–1.6884, P = 0.4689). CONCLUSION: The short‐ and long‐term results of this large cohort study (UMIN ID: UMIN000033529) indicated that laparoscopic surgery in obese rectal cancer patients has advantageous short‐term outcomes and no disadvantageous long‐term outcomes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9831897/ /pubmed/36643354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12599 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Akagi, Tomonori Nakajima, Kentaro Hirano, Yasumitsu Abe, Tomoya Inada, Ryo Kono, Yohei Shiroshita, Hidefumi Ohyama, Tetsuji Inomata, Masafumi Yamamoto, Seiichiro Naitoh, Takeshi Sakai, Yoshiharu Watanabe, Masahiko Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes |
title | Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes |
title_full | Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes |
title_fullStr | Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes |
title_full_unstemmed | Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes |
title_short | Laparoscopic versus open resection for stage II/III rectal cancer in obese patients: A multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes |
title_sort | laparoscopic versus open resection for stage ii/iii rectal cancer in obese patients: a multicenter propensity score‐based analysis of short‐ and long‐term outcomes |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9831897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36643354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12599 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT akagitomonori laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT nakajimakentaro laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT hiranoyasumitsu laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT abetomoya laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT inadaryo laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT konoyohei laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT shiroshitahidefumi laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT ohyamatetsuji laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT inomatamasafumi laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT yamamotoseiichiro laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT naitohtakeshi laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT sakaiyoshiharu laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT watanabemasahiko laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes AT laparoscopicversusopenresectionforstageiiiiirectalcancerinobesepatientsamulticenterpropensityscorebasedanalysisofshortandlongtermoutcomes |