Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for left flexure colon cancer: A propensity score matched analysis from an international cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Surgical treatment of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) still presents some debated issues, including the role of laparoscopic surgery. The literature is based on small single-centre series, while randomized controlled studies comparing open and laparoscopic treatment for colon cancer exclude SFC. This study aimed to determine the role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of SFC, comparing short- and long-term outcomes with open surgery.

Method

This was an international multicentre retrospective cohort study that analysed patients from 10 tertiary referral centres. From a cohort of 641 cases, 484 patients with Stage I-III SFC submitted to elective surgery with curative intent were selected. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 130 patients in the laparoscopic group (LapGroup) were compared with 130 patients in the open surgery group (OpenGroup).

Results

After propensity score matching, the two groups were comparable for demographic and clinical parameters. OpenGroup presented a higher incidence of overall (P = 0.02) and surgery-related complications (P = 0.05) but a similar rate of severe complications (P = 0.75). Length of stay was notably shorter in the LapGroup (P = 0.001). Overall (P = 0.793) as well as cancer-specific survival (P = 0.63) did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusions

Elective laparoscopic surgery for Stage I-III SFC is feasible and associated with improved short-term postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery appears to provide excellent long-term cancer outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Pedrazzani C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299165 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for left flexure colon cancer: A propensity score matched analysis from an international cohort.

Pedrazzani Corrado C Turri Giulia G Park Soo Yeun SY Hida Koya K Fukui Yudai Y Crippa Jacopo J Ferrari Giovanni G Origi Matteo M Spolverato Gaya G Zuin Matteo M Bae Sung Uk SU Baek Seong Kyu SK Costanzi Andrea A Maggioni Dario D Son Gyung Mo GM Scala Andrea A Rockall Timothy T Larson David W DW Guglielmi Alfredo A Choi Gyu Seog GS

Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 20211109 2

<h4>Aim</h4>Surgical treatment of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) still presents some debated issues, including the role of laparoscopic surgery. The literature is based on small single-centre series, while randomized controlled studies comparing open and laparoscopic treatment for colon cancer exclude SFC. This study aimed to determine the role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of SFC, comparing short- and long-term outcomes with open surgery.<h4>Method</h4>This was an international multice ...[more]

PMID: 34706130

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:BackgroundLaparoscopic 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.ObjectiveThe 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 methodsData 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionLaparoscopic 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: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.

Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for left flexure colon cancer: A propensity score matched analysis from an international cohort.

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for left flexure colon cancer: A propensity score matched analysis from an international cohort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets