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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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