Prospective randomized study of laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for adenocarcinoma

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic techniques have been evaluated for many operations, but retrospective and prospective studies have failed to show these techniques to be superior to open operations in all patients with colorectal disease. This study compares laparoscopic and open colonic resection in a randomized fashion with special reference to outcome, complications and immunomodulation.

Methods: The clinical course, assessment of convalescence parameters, immunofunction and pathological evaluation of the operative specimen were compared in 34 patients with colonic adenocarcinoma. The patients were randomized to either laparoscopic surgery (group 1, n = 18) or open surgery (group 2, n = 16). As five patients were excluded the number of patients was 15 in group 1 and 14 in group 2.

Results: Patients in group 1 were discharged earlier (P < 0.05) and suffered less pain (P < 0.01 at rest, P < 0.05 during coughing and mobilization). Surgery was equally radical in the two groups. Intraoperative bleeding, postoperative reduction in pulmonary function, and level of fatigue were identical in the two groups. The immunodepression was more pronounced in patients in group 1 (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Laparoscopic colonic resection is an acceptable and safe alternative to open procedures; the differences between the two techniques are not marked.