Laparoscopic versus open surgery for left flexure colon cancer: A propensity score matched analysis from an international cohort.
Ontology highlight
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 |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8523385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundControversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database.MethodsAn international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade.ResultsBefore the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009).ConclusionBoth techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay.
| S-EPMC9649869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopy has been widely adopted in elective abdominal surgery but is still sparsely used in emergency settings. The study investigated the effect of laparoscopic emergency surgery using a population database.MethodsData for all patients from December 2013 to November 2018 were retrieved from the NELA national database of emergency laparotomy for England and Wales. Laparoscopically attempted cases were matched 2 : 1 with open cases for propensity score derived from a logistic regression model for surgical approach; included co-variates were age, gender, predicted mortality risk, and diagnostic, procedural and surgeon variables. Groups were compared for mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss and duration of hospital stay.ResultsOf 116 920 patients considered, 17 040 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The most common procedures were colectomy, adhesiolysis, washout and perforated ulcer repair. Of these, 11 753 were matched exactly to 23 506 patients who had open surgery. Laparoscopically attempted surgery was associated with lower mortality (6.0 versus 9.1 per cent, P < 0.001), blood loss (less than 100 ml, 64.4 versus 52.0 per cent, P < 0.001), and duration of hospital stay (median 8 (i.q.r. 5-14) versus 10 (7-18) days, P < 0.001). Similar trends were seen when comparing only successful laparoscopic cases with open surgery, and also when comparing cases converted to open surgery with open surgery.ConclusionIn appropriately selected patients, laparoscopy is associated with superior outcomes compared with open emergency surgery.
| S-EPMC10364898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).MethodsAn international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.ResultsThree-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).ConclusionR-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.
| S-EPMC8743054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBecause methods of performing laparoscopic left hemicolectomy differ between surgeons, standardizing the procedure is crucial to reduce complications and secure good oncologic outcomes.Materials and methodsThis is a retrospective hospital-based cohort study using a propensity score-weighted method. This study was conducted at the department of colorectal surgery in a tertiary teaching hospital between October 2007 and December 2017. The short-term and long-term outcomes of open and laparoscopic left hemicolectomy from 10 years of experience using a standardized 4-step laparoscopic procedure at one institution were compared. Short-term outcomes were postoperative morbidity and mortality. Long-term outcomes were disease-free survival and overall survival.ResultsWe enrolled 564 patients who underwent open or laparoscopic left hemicolectomy for primary colon adenocarcinoma. The open surgery and laparoscopy groups had 357 and 207 patients, respectively. Compared with the open surgery group, the laparoscopy group had significantly shorter hospital stays (open vs. laparoscopy, 10 vs. 7 d, P<0.001), less postoperative morbidity (open vs. laparoscopy, 16.5% vs. 9.2%, P<0.001), and lower risks of superficial surgical site infections, lung complications, and gastrointestinal complications. No differences were observed between the groups in postoperative mortality (open vs. laparoscopy, 0.6% vs. 0.0%, P=0.23), disease-free survival curves (P=0.69), or overall survival curves (P=0.85).ConclusionsOur standardized 4-step technique of laparoscopic left hemicolectomy is more efficient, has fewer surgical complications, and yields better short-term and similar long-term oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery.
| S-EPMC8132887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis can be characterised by high morbidity and mortality rates. While the scientific community focuses on laparoscopic lavage as an alternative for laparotomy, the option of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy seems overlooked. We compared morbidity and hospital stay following acute laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) and open sigmoidectomy (OS) for perforated diverticulitis.MethodsThis retrospective cohort parallel to the Ladies trial included patients from 28 Dutch academic or teaching hospitals between July 2010 and July 2014. Patients with LS were matched 1:2 to OS using the propensity score for age, gender, previous laparotomy, CRP level, gastrointestinal surgeon, and Hinchey classification.ResultsThe propensity-matched cohort consisted of 39 patients with LS and 78 patients with OS, selected from a sample of 307 consecutive patients with purulent or faecal perforated diverticulitis. In both groups, 66 % of the patients had Hartmann's procedure and 34 % had primary anastomosis. The hospital stay was shorter following LS (LS 7 vs OS 9 days; P = 0.016), and the postoperative morbidity rate was lower following LS (LS 44 % vs OS 66 %; P = 0.016). Mortality was low in both groups (LS 3 % vs OS 4 %; P = 0.685). The stoma reversal rate after Hartmann's procedure was higher following laparoscopy, with a probability of being stoma-free at 12 months of 88 and 62 % in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (P = 0.019). After primary anastomosis, the probability of reversal was 100 % in both groups.ConclusionsIn this propensity score-matched cohort, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy is superior to open sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with regard to postoperative morbidity and hospital stay.
| S-EPMC4992031 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC6092102 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7938843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors. Patients and Methods: A propensity score-matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.79 to -0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19-0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups. Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.
| S-EPMC8100033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInternational guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs.MethodsWe performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use.ResultsImprovement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0-16.64) vs 10 (2.0-24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55-0.85]; p = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0-4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0-4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46-85]; p = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19-0.35]; p < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06-0.35]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers.
| S-EPMC9931785 | biostudies-literature