Dataset Information

Renal outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A laparoscopic approach is widely used in abdominal surgery. Although several studies have compared surgical and oncological outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) in rectal cancer patients, there have been few studies on postoperative renal outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 1,633 patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between 2003 and 2017. Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) was diagnosed according to the serum creatinine criteria of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes classification.

Results

Among the 1,633 patients, 1,072 (65.6%) underwent LS. After matching propensity scores, 395 patients were included in each group. The incidence of postoperative AKI in the LS group was significantly lower than in the OS group (9.9% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.01). Operation time, estimated blood loss, and incidence of transfusion in the LS group were significantly lower than those in the OS group. Cox proportional hazard models revealed that LS was associated with decreased risk of postoperative AKI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.599; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.402-0.893; p = 0.01) and postoperative transfusion was associated with increased risk of AKI (HR, 2.495; 95% CI, 1.529-4.072; p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the incidence of postoperative AKI in patients with middle or high rectal cancer who underwent LS was much lower than in those who underwent OS (HR, 0.373; 95% CI, 0.197-0.705; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

This study showed that LS may have a favorable effect on the development of postoperative AKI in patients with rectal cancer.

SUBMITTER: Paek JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685360 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description: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).

Project description:Background: Minimally invasive surgery in obese patients is still challenging, so exploring one more item in this research field ranks among the main goals of this research. We aimed to compare short-term postoperative outcomes of open and video-laparoscopic (VL) approaches in CRC obese patients undergoing colorectal resection. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a surgical database including 138 patients diagnosed with CRC, undergoing VL (n = 87, 63%) and open (n = 51, 37%) colorectal surgery. As a first step, propensity score matching was performed to balance the comparison between the two intervention groups (VL and open) in order to avoid selection bias. The matched sample (N = 98) was used to run further regression models in order to analyze the observed VL surgery advantages in terms of postoperative outcome, focusing on hospitalization and severity of postoperative complications, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: The study sample was predominantly male (N = 86, 62.3%), and VL was more frequent than open surgery (63% versus 37%). The two subgroup results obtained before and after the propensity score matching showed comparable findings for age, gender, BMI, and tumor staging. The specimen length and postoperative time before discharge were longer in open surgery (OS) patients; the number of harvested lymph nodes was higher than in VL patients as well (p < 0.01). Linear regression models applied separately on the outcomes of interest showed that VL-treated patients had a shorter hospital stay by almost two days and about one point less Clavien-Dindo severity than OS patients on average, given the same exposure to confounding variables. Tumor staging was not found to have a significant role in influencing the short-term outcomes investigated. Conclusion: Comparing open and VL surgery, improved postoperative outcomes were observed for VL surgery in obese patients after surgical resection for CRC. Both postoperative recovery time and Clavien-Dindo severity were better with VL surgery.

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.