Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Myrseth E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10550871 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Myrseth Elisabeth E Gjessing Petter Fosse PF Nymo Linn Såve LS Kørner Hartwig H Kvaløy Jan Terje JT Norderval Stig S

International journal of colorectal disease 20231004 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>Data from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry were retrieved from January 2014 to December ...[more]

PMID: 37792088

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.ResultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.

Project description:Objective: To evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery using natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared with conventional laparoscopic (CL) colorectal surgery in patients with colorectal diseases. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective non-randomized trials and retrospective trials up to September 1, 2018, and used 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), lymph node harvest, surgical site infection (SSI), anastomotic leakage, and intra-abdominal abscess as the main endpoints. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the different study types [RCT and NRCT (non-randomized controlled trial)]. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the reliability of the outcomes. RevMan5.3 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: Fourteen studies were included (two RCTs, seven retrospective trials and five prospective non-randomized trials) involving a total of 1,435 patients. Compared with CL surgery, the NOSE technique resulted in a shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first flatus, less post-operative pain, and fewer SSIs and total perioperative complications. Anastomotic leakage, blood loss, and intra-abdominal abscess did not differ between the two groups, while operation time was longer in the NOSE group. Oncological outcomes such as proximal margin [weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.49 to 1.42; P = 0.34], distal margin (WMD= -0.11; 95% CI -0.66 to 0.45; P = 0.70), lymph node harvest (WMD = -0.97; 95% CI -1.97 to 0.03; P = 0.06) and 5-year DFS (hazard ratio = 0.84; 95% CI 0.54-1.31; P = 0.45) were not different between the NOSE and CL surgery groups. Conclusions: Compared with CL surgery, NOSE may be a safe procedure, and can achieve similar oncological outcomes. Large multicenter RCTs are needed to provide high-level, evidence-based results in NOSE-treated patients and to determine the risk of local recurrence.

Project description:Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision, survival has improved substantially. Consequently, more patients have to deal with side effects of treatment. The most recently introduced surgical technique is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) which seems equally effective in terms of oncological control compared to laparoscopy. However, RAS enables further advantages which maximize the precision of surgery, thus providing better functional outcomes such as sexual function or contience without compromising oncological results. This review was done according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-II guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104519). The search was planned with PICO criteria and conducted on Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL. All screening steps were performed by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were original, comparative studies for laparoscopy vs. RAS for rectal cancer and reporting of functional outcomes. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The search retrieved 9703 hits, of which 51 studies with 24,319 patients were included. There was a lower rate of urinary retention (non-RCTs: Odds ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92]; RCTs: OR[CI] 1.29[0.08, 21.47]), ileus (non-RCTs: OR[CI] 0.86[0.75, 0.98]; RCTs: OR[CI] 0.80[0.33, 1.93]), less urinary symptoms (non-RCTs mean difference (MD) [CI] - 0.60 [- 1.17, - 0.03]; RCTs: - 1.37 [- 4.18, 1.44]), and higher quality of life for RAS (only non-RCTs: MD[CI]: 2.99 [2.02, 3.95]). No significant differences were found for sexual function (non-RCTs: standardized MD[CI]: 0.46[- 0.13, 1.04]; RCTs: SMD[CI]: 0.09[- 0.14, 0.31]). The current meta-analysis suggests potential benefits for RAS over laparoscopy in terms of functional outcomes after rectal cancer resection. The current evidence is limited due to non-randomized controlled trials and reporting of functional outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Dataset Information

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

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets