Dataset Information

Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: A Large, Multicenter, Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study in Japan.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is widely performed all over the world and several randomized controlled trials have been reported. However, the usefulness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery has not been demonstrated sufficiently, especially for the low rectal area. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that laparoscopic primary tumor resection is safe and effective when compared with the open approach for locally advanced low rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Data from patients with clinical stage II to III low rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection were collected and analyzed. The operations were performed from 2010 to 2011. Short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis were analyzed with propensity score matching. RESULTS:Of 1608 cases collated from 69 institutes, 1500 cases were eligible for analysis. The cases were matched into 482 laparoscopic and 482 open cases. The mean height of the tumor from the anal verge was 4.6?cm. Preoperative treatment was performed in 35% of the patients. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 5.2%. Estimated blood loss during laparoscopic surgery was significantly less than that during open surgery (90 vs 625?mL, P < 0.001). Overall, the occurrence of complications after laparoscopic surgeries was less than that after open surgeries (30.3% vs 39.2%, P = 0.005). Three-year overall survival rates were 89.9% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 86.7-92.4] and 90.4% (95% CI 87.4-92.8) in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively, and no significant difference was seen between the 2 groups. No significant difference was observed in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the 2 groups (3-year RFS: 70.9%, 68.4 to 74.2 vs 71.8%, 67.5 to 75.7). CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic surgery could be considered as a treatment option for advanced, low rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection, based on the short-term and long-term results of this large cohort study (UMIN-ID: UMIN000013919).

SUBMITTER: Hida K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6092102 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: A Large, Multicenter, Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study in Japan.

Hida Koya K Okamura Ryosuke R Sakai Yoshiharu Y Konishi Tsuyoshi T Akagi Tomonori T Yamaguchi Tomohiro T Akiyoshi Takashi T Fukuda Meiki M Yamamoto Seiichiro S Yamamoto Michio M Nishigori Tatsuto T Kawada Kenji K Hasegawa Suguru S Morita Satoshi S Watanabe Masahiko M

Annals of surgery 20180801 2

<h4>Background</h4>Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is widely performed all over the world and several randomized controlled trials have been reported. However, the usefulness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery has not been demonstrated sufficiently, especially for the low rectal area.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that laparoscopic primary tumor resection is safe and effective when compared with the open approach for locally advan ...[more]

PMID: 28628565

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).MethodsAn international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS.ResultsOverall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy.ConclusionThis international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.

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:BackgroundShort-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (LHCL) compared with traditional open hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (OHCL) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LHCL.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 262 patients who underwent hepatectomies involving resections of liver segment II, IV or VIII from January 2015 to June 2021 in two institutions. Patients in the LHCL group were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients in the OHCL group.ResultsAfter propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, 61 patients remained in the LHCL group and 122 patients were in the OHCL group. What needs to be mentioned is that although not significant, patients in the OHCL group had increased lesion size (4.3 vs. 3.6 cm, p = 0.052), number (single/multiple, 84.8%/15.2% vs. 93.4%/6.6%, p = 0.097), and number of liver segments involved (one/two/three, 47.3%/42.0%/10.7% vs. 57.4%36.1%/10.7%, p = 0.393). To ensure surgical safety, fewer patients in the LHCL group underwent vascular exclusion than those in the OHCL group (p = 0.004). In addition, LHCL was associated with lower blood loss (p = 0.001) and transfusion requirement (p = 0.004). In terms of short-term outcomes, the LHCL group had significantly lower levels of peak ALT (p < 0.001), peak DBIL (p = 0.042), peak PT (p = 0.012), and higher levels of bottom ALB (p = 0.049). Moreover, the LHCL group demonstrated quicker postoperative recovery, which was represented by shorter time to first flatus, time to oral intake, time to drain off, and hospital stay (all p < 0.001). Importantly, the LHCL group had a significantly reduced occurrence of postoperative complications (p < 0.001) and similar R0 resection rates (p = 0.678) when compared to the OHCL group.ConclusionLHCL is associated with increased safety and better perioperative outcomes and thus could be recommended for patients with central space-occupying liver lesions when appropriately selecting the surgical procedure according to the total tumor burden and carefully handled by experienced surgeons. From the experience of our center, LHCL could be performed to solitary lesion involving liver segment IV/V/VIII, <5 cm, with good safety and feasibility.

Project description:Background:Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer. Methods:Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs. Results:Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs. Conclusion:Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.

Dataset Information

Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: A Large, Multicenter, Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study in Japan.

Publications

Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: A Large, Multicenter, Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study in Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets