Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: five-year audit

Abstract

Introduction: The place of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colorectal carcinoma is controversial. This study reviewed a consecutive series of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma in the past five years.

Methods: Two hundred seventeen laparoscopic-assisted resections of colorectal carcinoma were attempted starting in April 1992. Initially, we only selected patients with metastatic disease or patients who were older than 65 years. Subsequently, both palliative and curative resections were attempted in patients with a suitable tumor, with no age limitation. Thus, all suitable patients were randomly assigned to received either laparoscopic-assisted or conventional open surgery.

Results: Data collection was completed in 201 patients. In 22 patients open surgery was performed after a diagnostic laparoscopy. In the remaining 179 patients (90 males) in whom laparoscopic dissection was actually performed, the mean follow-up was 19.8 months, and the mean age was 66.3 years. The procedures performed included right hemicolectomy or extended right hemicolectomy (30 patients), transverse colectomy (2 patients), left hemicolectomy (3 patients), sigmoidectomy (48 patients), anterior resection (59 patients), and abdominoperineal resection (37 patients). Thirty-two (17.7 percent) procedures were converted to open surgery. The mean operation time was 203 minutes. The median blood loss was negligible, and the median requirement of transfusion was zero. The median number of postoperative parenteral analgesic injections was three. The median time to resume diet and hospital discharge were four and six days, respectively. The operative mortality was 1.7 percent. The survival rates at four years were 100, 88.3, and 64.5 percent for patients with Dukes A, B, and C disease, respectively. There was only one (0.65 percent) port-site recurrence.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma was technically feasible and safe. It allowed early postoperative recovery with satisfactory long-term survival. This is at the expense of a long operation. Its benefits over the conventional open technique await the results of the randomized trials.