Background and aim Rectal cancer management has evolved significantly with the introduction of laparoscopic surgery. However, the debate continues regarding the oncological adequacy and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) compared to open low anterior resection (OLAR). This research aimed to compare early results after the operation and oncological adequacy between LLAR and OLAR for rectal cancer. Patients and methods Prospective comparative research has been carried out on forty cases diagnosed with mid or low rectal cancer between January 2023 and January 2025. Cases were equally separated into two groups: LLAR ( n =20) and OLAR ( n =20). Preoperative preparation, surgical technique, and postoperative care were standardized. Short-term outcomes, including operative time, gastrointestinal recovery, pain, hospital stay, morbidity, and complications, were assessed. Oncological outcomes included margin status, lymph node yield, and recurrence rate. Results LLAR showed a statistically significant advantage in earlier postoperative flatus passage ( P =0.02) and a significantly reduced wound infection rate ( P =0.006). There was a statistically insignificant variance between the groups with regard to operative time, blood loss during the operation, hospital stay, bowel motion following the operation, or most complications. Oncological outcomes, including circumferential and distal resection margins, number of harvested lymph nodes, overall survival, and disease-free survival, showed insignificant variances among groups. Conclusion LLAR demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes with comparable oncological adequacy to OLAR. These findings support the effectiveness and safety of the laparoscopic approach in rectal cancer surgery, though larger research is recommended to confirm long-term benefits.
Hasan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: