Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection is increasingly being performed for rectal cancer. However, few data are available to compare long-term outcomes after open versus laparoscopic surgery for early-stage rectal cancer. METHODS: Included in this retrospective study were 160 patients who underwent surgery for stage I rectal cancer between 2001 and 2008. Perioperative outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared for open versus laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Altogether, 85 patients were treated using open surgery and 80 with laparoscopic surgery. Postoperative mortality (0 vs. 1.3%; p = 1.00), morbidity (31.3 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.38), and harvested lymph nodes (22.5 vs. 20.0; p = 0.84) were similar for the two groups. However, operating time was longer (183.8 vs. 221.0 min; p = 0.008), volume of intraoperative bleeding was less (200.0 vs. 150.0 ml; p = 0.03), time to first bowel movement was shorter (3.54 vs. 2.44 days; p < 0.001), rate of superficial surgical-site infection was lower (7.5 vs. 0%; p = 0.03), and postoperative hospital stay was shorter (11.0 vs. 8.0 days; p < 0.001) in the laparoscopy group than in the open surgery group. At 5 years, there was no difference in OS (98.6 vs. 97.1%; p = 0.41) or DFS (98.2 vs. 96.4%; p = 0.30) between the open and laparoscopy groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for stage I rectal cancer were comparable to those of open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery, however, produced more favourable short-term outcomes than open surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: