Laparoscopically assisted colon resection for colon carcinoma: perioperative results and long-term outcome. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. Laparoscopic-assisted approach in rectal cancer patients: lessons learned from >200 patients. The usefulness of restorative laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy for ulcerative colitis. A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection of the colon and rectum for cancer. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Laparoscopic versus conventional open resection of rectal carcinoma: A clinical comparative study. Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open colectomy for colon cancer: a prospective randomized trial. A case-control-study comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectosigmoidal and rectal cancer. Laparascope-assisted versus conventional restorative proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy. Prospective comparison of laparoscopic and conventional anterior resection. Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoidal and rectal carcinoma. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: outcomes in 194 patients and review of the literature. Prospective randomized study of laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for adenocarcinoma. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer. Prospective evaluation of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus laparotomy with resection for management of complex polyps of the sigmoid colon. Oncologic results of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgery for stage II or III left-sided colon cancers: a randomized controlled trial.
The role of laparoscopic colon resection in the management of colon cancer is unclear. The aims of this study were to compare perioperative results and long-term outcomes in patients randomized to either open (O) or laparoscopically assisted (LA) colon resection for colon cancer.
                A prospective randomized trial comparing O to LA colon resection was conducted from January 1993 to November 1995. Preoperative workup, intraoperative results, complications, length of stay, pathologic findings, and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed with t-test. Follow-up periods ranged from 3.5 to 6.3 years (mean, 4.9 years).
                No port-site or abdominal wall recurrences were noted in any patients. [table: see text]
                These results suggest that laparoscopically assisted colon resection for malignant disease can be performed safely, with morbidity, mortality, and en bloc resections comparable with those of open laparotomy. Long-term (5-year) follow-up assessment shows similar outcomes in both groups of patients, demonstrating definite perioperative advantages with LA surgery and no perioperative or long-term disadvantages. The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required.
                The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis.
                Seven hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (526 laparoscopic and 268 open). Overall, there were no differences in the long-term outcomes. The differences in survival rates were OS of 1.8% (95% CI, -5.2% to 8.8%; P = .55), DFS of -1.4% (95% CI, -9.5% to 6.7%; P = .70), local recurrence of -0.8% (95% CI, -5.7% to 4.2%; P = .76), and QoL (P > .01 for all scales). Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterior resection (AR), but it did not translate into an increased incidence of local recurrence.
                Successful laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preservation of QoL. Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients. The applicability of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colorectal diseases is still controversial. Early reports on laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in patients with colon cancer suggested that it minimizes surgical trauma, decreases perioperative complications, and leads to a more rapid recovery. To our knowledge, no previous studies have compared the laparoscopic vs the open approach in rectal cancer. The aim of this paper was to assess the results of laparoscopic techniques in patients with rectal cancer.
                From March 1998 to February 2003, all patients admitted to our unit with adenocarcinoma of the rectum were evaluated for surgery by the laparoscopic approach.
                A total of 220 patients with a mean age of 67.3 years were included in the study. One hundred thirty patients (59%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In >75% of the patients, a surgical procedure with sphincter preservation was performed. The rate of conversion to the open approach was 20%. Ten patients had intraoperative complications. Fifty-eight patients (26.3%) developed postoperative complications. The length of hospital stay was 6.8 days. The distribution of tumor stages was as follows: stage I, 16.81%; stage II, 33.6%; stage III, 26.36%; stage IV, 19.09%. The mean number of lymph nodes was 13.8. The incidence of local relapse was 5.3%, with a follow-up of 18 months.
                Laparoscopic surgery can be safely performed in patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum with good short-term results. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis in comparison with that of conventional open total colectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. From 1990 until 1999, 11 patients underwent open total colectomy, while 21 patients had laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy. Patients characteristics, perioperative course, and recovery were compared. Differences between the groups were tested using Student's t-test for independent groups and chi-square tests when appropriate. Nasogastric tube could be removed after POD 1.1 vs. 4.8 (p < 0.05), the mean time to passage of stool was 1.7 (range, 1 to 3) vs. 5.4 (range, 3 to 7) days (p < 0.05), and in the laparoscopic group watery stool was soon made solid after POD 24.3 vs. 87.3 (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the mean operating time and mean estimated operating blood loss between two groups. Postoperative morbidity did not differ significantly between the patients treated conventionally (45.5%) and laparoscopically (33.3%). The findings of this study indicate that laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy improved cosmetic results and to be a safe and effective treatment for the elective surgery of ulcerative colitis. Uncontrolled studies using laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery have not demonstrated clear advantages to these procedures compared with conventional ones, and surgeons are concerned about unusual early recurrences reported after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic (LAP) and conventional (CON) techniques in 109 patients undergoing bowel resection for colorectal cancers or polyps. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulmonary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care.
                Of the 55 patients assigned to LAP and 54 to the CON group, there were 42 and 38 with cancer, respectively (the other patients had large adenomas). Overall recovery of 80% of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity was a median of 3 days for LAP and 6.0 days for CON (p = 0.01). LAP patients used significantly less morphine than CON patients up to the second day after surgery (0.78 +/- 0.32 versus 0.92 +/- 0.34 mg/kg per day, p = 0.02). Flatus returned a median of 3.0 days after LAP versus 4.0 days after CON surgery (p = 0.006). Tumor margins were clear in all patients. After a median followup of 1.5 years (LAP) and 1.7 years (CON), there were no port site recurrences in the LAP group. Seven cancer-related deaths have occurred (three in the LAP group, four in the CON group).
                Within this prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques were as safe as conventional surgical techniques and offered a faster recovery of pulmonary and gastrointestinal function compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing large bowel resection for cancer or polyps. There were no apparent shortterm oncologic disadvantages. Longer followup is needed to fully assess oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive, laparoscopically assisted surgery was first considered in 1990 for patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Concern that this approach would compromise survival by failing to achieve a proper oncologic resection or adequate staging or by altering patterns of recurrence (based on frequent reports of tumor recurrences within surgical wounds) prompted a controlled trial evaluation.
                We conducted a noninferiority trial at 48 institutions and randomly assigned 872 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon to undergo open or laparoscopically assisted colectomy performed by credentialed surgeons. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The primary end point was the time to tumor recurrence.
                At three years, the rates of recurrence were similar in the two groups--16 percent among patients in the group that underwent laparoscopically assisted surgery and 18 percent among patients in the open-colectomy group (two-sided P=0.32; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.17). Recurrence rates in surgical wounds were less than 1 percent in both groups (P=0.50). The overall survival rate at three years was also very similar in the two groups (86 percent in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 85 percent in the open-colectomy group; P=0.51; hazard ratio for death in the laparoscopic-surgery group, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.21), with no significant difference between groups in the time to recurrence or overall survival for patients with any stage of cancer. Perioperative recovery was faster in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-colectomy group, as reflected by a shorter median hospital stay (five days vs. six days, P<0.001) and briefer use of parenteral narcotics (three days vs. four days, P<0.001) and oral analgesics (one day vs. two days, P=0.02). The rates of intraoperative complications, 30-day postoperative mortality, complications at discharge and 60 days, hospital readmission, and reoperation were very similar between groups.
                In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society Laparoscopically-assisted resection for large bowel cancer is technically feasible. Sixty-six patients who had resection of the colon or rectum for cancer have been audited prospectively.
                Clinical and pathological data were collected prospectively as part of the ongoing Concord Hospital colorectal cancer project. Patients were followed up for a median of 29 months.
                In 57 of 66 patients in whom laparoscopic resection was attempted the operation was completed laparoscopically. Three patients died from perioperative myocardial infarction. The median postoperative stay was 14 days. There was a high incidence of postoperative respiratory and cardiac complications. One patient developed a port-site metastasis.
                There was no obvious benefit from laparoscopically-assisted resection of large bowel cancer in these patients. Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival.
                From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
                219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively).
                LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival. To evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of rectal carcinoma and to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic procedure with conventional open surgery for rectal cancer.
                Thirty-eight patients with rectal cancer were included in a prospective non-randomized study. The patients were assigned to laparoscopic (n=18) or open (n=18) colorectal resection. Case selection, surgical technique, and clinical and pathological results were reviewed.
                The operative time was longer in laparoscopic resection group (LAP) than in open resection group (189+/-18 min vs 146+/-22 min, P<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications were less in LAP resection group than in open resection group. An earlier return of bowel motility was observed after laparoscopic surgery. The overall postoperative morbidity was 5.6% in the LAP resection group and 27.8% in open resection group (P<0.05). No anastomotic leakage was found in both groups. The pathologic examination showed that the length of the resected specimen, the mean number of harvested lymph nodes in laparoscopic resection group were comparable to those in open resection group.
                Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is a feasible but technically demanding procedure. The present study demonstrates the safety of the procedure, while oncologic results are comparable to the open surgery, with a favorable short-term outcome. Although laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has evolved as a technical option in the treatment of benign colonic diseases, its role in the treatment of malignancies remains controversial. The purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to compare perioperative parameters and outcomes between LAC vs. open colectomy (OC) in patients with stage I-III colon cancer.
                Eligible patients with colon cancer who were scheduled for an elective colon resection from January 1995 to February 2001 were randomized to either the LAC or the OC treatment group. The two groups were compared with regard to operative time, blood loss, complications, pathologic findings and lymph node yield, length of postoperative hospital stay, gastrointestinal function, use of analgesic drugs, recurrence, and survival rates. The median follow-up was 35 months (range, 3-69 months).
                A total of 49 patients were enrolled in the study: 20 were randomized to OC and 29 to LAC, one of whom was lost to follow-up. Thirteen patients in the LAC group had to be converted to OC (COC), and were analyzed in a separate group. The three patient groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, tumor site, lymph node harvest, operative procedure, anastomotic type, perioperative complication, recurrence, and survival rates. Tumor margins were clear in all patients. No incidence of port-site recurrence in the LAC group, or wound recurrence in the OC and COC groups, was found. Three patients died of cancer-related causes, one in each patient group. The LAC patients had significantly shorter hospital stay, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and less use of intravenous analgesia.
                Short-term outcomes revealed that LAC could be performed safely and has therapeutic results similar to OC for colon cancer. Conversion of LAC to an open procedure was frequent but was not associated with a negative outcome. This study compared laparoscopic with open surgery for the cure of cancer of the rectosigmoid and rectum. Results of surgery, postoperative recovery, and oncological follow-up were compared between 32 laparoscopic curative procedures (19 laparoscopic-assisted anterior resections for cancer of the rectosigmoid or upper rectum and 13 laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancer) and 32 controls matched for age, UICC stage, tumor site, and type of resection who underwent open surgery during the same observation period. Morbidity was identical after laparoscopic and open resection (31.3%). Surgery was equally radical in the two groups regarding yield of lymph nodes and lateral and distal margins. Survival, recurrence, and cancer-related mortality showed no statistical differences. There was no port-site recurrence. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery were shown with a reduction in perioperative blood transfusion and earlier return of bowel function. However, the operative time was significantly increased in the laparoscopic group. This study shows that laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer is technically feasible, and that oncological short-term outcome does not differ from the results achieved by open techniques. However, prospective randomized trials are mandatory to evaluate the definite role of laparoscopic surgery for malignancy. To assess the advantages of a laparoscope-assisted proctocolectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis compared with conventional procedures, we retrospectively analyzed the results of the two procedures as follows: Eleven patients including five patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and six with ulcerative colitis (UC) underwent a laparoscope-assisted proctocolectomy and hand-sewn ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis at our department from June 1997 to November 1999. This laparoscope-assisted colectomy (LAC) group was then compared with a group of 13 patients who had undergone conventional ileal pouch anal anastomosis using a standard laparotomy from 1986 to 1997. The median operative time of the LAC group was 8h 23min, which was 81 min longer than that of the standard colectomy (SC) group. The number of days during which eating was prohibited were similar in the two groups but the median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LAC group (24.1 days). In the LAC group, the small incisions showed better cosmetic results and there was also a remarkable reduction in the degree of postoperative pain. In conclusion, a laparoscope-assisted proctocolectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis can be employed widely in patients with FAP and also in selected patients with UC. A prospective comparison of laparoscopically assisted (n = 11) and conventional (n = 14) anterior resection in patients with sigmoid colon or upper rectal cancer was carried out. Patients were not randomized; age and the presence of metastases determined the type of surgery. Laparoscopic assistance was used to mobilize the tumour and minimize the abdominal incision. This was achieved in all patients and six of the 11 required only a muscle-splitting incision. The mean(s.d.) operating time was longer for laparoscopic than conventional surgery (205(31) versus 123(26) min, P = 0.01). The mean(s.d.) time to reintroduction of normal diet (2.5(0.2) versus 3.6(0.3) days, P = 0.01), postoperative analgesia requirement (2.6(0.4) versus 7.4(2.1) doses of pethidine, P = 0.01) and length of hospital stay (12.3(3) versus 14.3(6) days, P = 0.08) were less in the laparoscopic group. Histopathological examination of the resection specimens showed similar results for the two procedures. Major complications were few and occurred in a similar proportion of patients treated laparoscopically or conventionally. Laparoscopically assisted anterior resection is technically feasible, adequate tumour excision can be achieved and recovery after operation is enhanced. This study was designed to examine the short-term results of laparoscopy in the treatment of curative cases of rectosigmoidal and rectal carcinoma.
                A review was performed of a prospective registry of 70 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic resection for rectosigmoidal and rectal carcinoma between July 1993 and April 2001. Before 1997, only patients with early (Tis or T1) cancers located in the rectosigmoid and upper rectum that required bowel resection were candidates for laparoscopy. In 1997, we expanded the application of laparoscopy to include T2 cancers located anywhere in the rectum. Mesorectal transection was performed at least 5 cm below the tumor for rectosigmoidal and upper rectal lesions, and total mesorectal excision was performed for lower tumors. Primary anastomosis was performed by a double-stapling technique, or a handsewn coloanal anastomosis was performed. Patient demographics and outcomes were recorded prospectively.
                The median follow-up was 23 months. An anastomosis was performed in 92.9 percent of the operations. Oral intake was started on median postoperative Day 1, and the median length of hospitalization was 8 days. Two patients needed conversion to conventional open surgery. A total of 15 postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients (18.6 percent), including anastomotic leakage in 6 (8.6 percent) and bowel obstruction in 3 (4.3 percent). Reoperation was required in six patients. Two patients developed recurrence of cancer at the anastomotic site. The expected 5-year survival and disease-free survival rates were 100 and 92.1 percent, respectively.
                The findings of the present study demonstrate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for selected patients with rectal carcinoma. Morbidity and mortality rates and oncologic outcome appear to be comparable with conventional surgery. Although laparoscopic resection of colorectal carcinoma improves post-operative recovery, long-term survival and disease control are the determining factors for its application. We aimed to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in survival after laparoscopic and open resection for rectosigmoid cancer.
                From Sept 21, 1993, to Oct 21, 2002, 403 patients with rectosigmoid carcinoma were randomised to receive either laparoscopic assisted (n=203) or conventional open (n=200) resection of the tumour. Survival and disease-free interval were the main endpoints. Patients were last followed-up in March, 2003. Perioperative data were recorded and direct cost of operation estimated. Data were analysed by intention to treat.
                The demographic data of the two groups were similar. After curative resection, the probabilities of survival at 5 years of the laparoscopic and open resection groups were 76.1% (SE 3.7%) and 72.9% (4.0%) respectively. The probabilities of being disease free at 5 years were 75.3% (3.7%) and 78.3% (3.7%), respectively. The operative time of the laparoscopic group was significantly longer, whereas postoperative recovery was significantly better than for the open resection group, but these benefits were at the expense of higher direct cost. The distal margin, the number of lymph nodes found in the resected specimen, overall morbidity and operative mortality did not differ between groups.
                Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma does not jeopardise survival and disease control of patients. The justification for adoption of laparoscopic technique would depend on the perceived value of its effectiveness in improving short-term post-operative outcomes. There are few reports on laparoscopic rectum resection demonstrating its feasibility and efficacy in patients with rectal cancer. Most patient series are small, and results must be considered preliminary and medium-term. Our large prospective conducted study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a totally laparoscopic resection for rectum carcinoma with emphasis on perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.
                Between November 1992 and July 2003, 194 unselected patients were resected laparoscopically for rectal carcinoma. Patients with locally advanced rectum carcinoma (uT3/uT4) and no evidence of distant metastases were candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Adjuvant treatment was administered to patients with UICC stage II/III disease. All patients were followed up prospectively to evaluate complications and late outcomes. Survival probability analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Study selection was made by Medline search using the following key words: rectal cancer, rectal neoplasms, laparoscopy, and resection. Single case reports and abstracts were excluded. When surgical series were reported more than once, only the most recent reports were considered and listed.
                The most common procedures were low anterior resection with total mesorectum excision in 65.5% of patients and high anterior resection in 25.3%. Average operative time was 174 min. Average number of lymph nodes removed was 25.4 and length of specimen resected was 27.6 cm. Resection was curative in 145 patients and palliative in 49 cases. UICC tumor stages were as follows: stage I: 25.2%, stage II: 27.3%, stage III: 30.4%, and stage IV: 17%. Intraoperative complications were <1% for lesions of the ureter, urinary bladder, and deferent duct. Conversion to conventional surgery was necessary in two cases (1%). The most common postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage in 13.5% of patients. There was no postoperative mortality. Follow-up evaluation ranged from 1 to 128 months with a mean of 46.1 months. The most common late complication was incisional hernia in 3.6% of patients. Port-site metastases occurred in one patient (0.5%). Tumor recurrence developed in 23 of the 145 curative resected patients (11.7% distant metastases and 4.1% local recurrence). Overall local recurrence rate was 6.7% (4.1% after curative resection and 14.3% after palliative resection). Overall survival rate was 90.6% at 1 year, 74.5% at 3 years, and 66.3% at 5 years. Overall 5-year survival rate was 76.9% after curative resection and 31.8% after palliative resection. Cancer-related survival rate was 94% at 1 year, 82.4% at 3 years, and 78.9% at 5 years. At 5 years it was 87.7% after curative resection and 48.5% after palliative resection. At 5 years, the survival rate was 100% for stage I, 94.4% for stage II, 66.6% for stage III, and 44.6% for stage IV.
                Our results and the literature review clearly demonstrate that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is not associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Established oncological and surgical principles are respected and long-term outcomes are at least as good as those after open surgery. 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.
                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.
                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).
                Laparoscopic colonic resection is an acceptable and safe alternative to open procedures; the differences between the two techniques are not marked. The Laparoscopic approach has been applied to colorectal surgery for many years; however, there are only a few reports on laparoscopic low and ultralow anterior resection with construction of coloanal anastomosis. This study compares open versus laparoscopic low and ultralow anterior resections, assesses the feasibility and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach of total mesorectal excision (TME) with anal sphincter preservation (ASP), and analyzes the short-term results of patients with low rectal cancer.
                We analyzed our experience via a prospective, randomized control trail. From June 2001 to September 2002, 171 patients with low rectal cancer underwent TME with ASP, 82 by the laparoscopic procedure and 89 by the open technique. The lowest margin of tumors was below peritoneal reflection and 1.5-8 cm above the dentate line (1.5-4.9 cm in 104 cases and 5-8 cm in 67 cases). The grouping was randomized.
                Results of operation, postoperative recovery, and short-term oncological follow-up were compared between 82 laparoscopic procedures and 89 controls who underwent open surgery during the same period. In the laparoscopic group, 30 patients in whom low anterior resection was performed had the anastomosis below peritoneal reflection and more than 2 cm above the dentate line, 27 patients in whom ultralow anterior resection was performed had anastomotic height within 2 cm of the dentate line, and 25 patients in whom coloanal anastomosis was performed had the anastomosis at or below the dentate line. In the open group, the numbers were 35, 27, and 27, respectively. There was no statistical difference in operation time, administration of parenteral analgesics, start of food intake, and mortality rate between the two groups. However, blood loss was less, bowel function recovered earlier, and hospitalization time was shorter in the laparoscopic group.
                Totally laparoscopic TME with ASP is feasible, and it is a minimally invasive technique with the benefits of much less blood loss during operation, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospitalization. After confirming a favorable outcome of laparoscopic surgery for early colorectal cancer, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer.
                Fifty-nine patients with T2 or T3 colorectal cancer were randomized to undergo laparoscopic (n = 29) or open (n = 30) colectomy. Median follow-up was 20 months (range, 6-34 months).
                Operative time was longer (p <0.0001) and blood loss (p = 0.0034) and postoperative analgesic requirement were less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. An earlier return of bowel motility and earlier discharge from the hospital (p = 0.0164) were observed after laparoscopic surgery. Serum C-reactive protein levels on postoperative days 1 (p <0.0001) and 4 (p = 0.0039) were lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Postoperative complications did not differ between the two groups.
                Laparoscopic surgery for advanced colorectal cancer is feasible, with favorable short-term outcome. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy is technically feasible, but objective evidence of its benefits remains scarce. This study was done to evaluate the outcomes and operative stress of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus the traditional open method in the management of sigmoid complex polyps that cannot be safely or adequately removed by colonofibroscopy. Between January 1997 and December 1999, a total of 42 patients were equally randomized to the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group by the blocked randomization method. Three patients randomized to the laparoscopy group did not complete the trial; therefore 18 patients treated by laparoscopy-assisted sigmoidectomy and the other 21 treated by the open method were prospectively evaluated. These two groups of patients were well matched in age, gender, symptoms, tumor location, localization method, tumor size, morphology, histopathology, and the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis. Two standardized surgical strategies, the lateral-to-medial and medial-to-lateral dissection sequences, were performed in 14 and 4 patients of the laparoscopy group, respectively, according to whether their tumors were located above or below 20 cm above the anal verge. After evaluating the surgical outcomes, we found that the laparoscopy group was significantly better than the laparotomy group in regard to parameters that included severity of postoperative pain, wound size, postoperative complication rate, and the duration of postoperative ileus, hospitalization, and disability. There was no significant difference in the operating times for these two groups. However, the costs of the laparoscopy group were significantly higher. To evaluate the surgical stress, we measured the serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), total lymphocyte count, and CD4+/CD8+ ratio 24 hours before and after surgery. We found that the postoperative serum CRP level and the ESR were significantly less elevated and the total lymphocyte counts and CD4+/CD8+ ratio were significantly less depressed in the laparoscopy group than in the laparotomy group. We thus concluded that laparoscopy-assisted sigmoidectomy can be safely performed with shorter convalescence and less operative stress but at a higher cost. We strongly recommended the use of this technique in the management of sigmoid complex polyps if the patient's economic status permits. Minimal invasive surgical approach can achieve quick functional recovery. However, the oncologic outcome for cancer is still a concern. This study aims to compare the oncologic outcome between laparoscopic and open methods in the curative resection of Stage II or III left-sided colon cancers.
                In consideration of statistical power up to 90%, 286 eligible patients with curable left-sided colon cancer (Tumor-Node-Metastasis Stage II and Stage III disease) requiring the takedown of colonic splenic flexure to facilitate a curative left hemicolectomy were recruited randomly and equally allocated to the laparoscopic and open group. The primary endpoint was time-to-recurrence of tumor. Data was analyzed according to intention-to-treat principle.
                Postrandomization exclusion occurred because of metastatic disease detected intraoperatively occurred in 13 patients and because of patient withdrawal from trial in 4. Therefore, 135 and 134 patients actually comprised the laparoscopic and open group, respectively. The median follow-up of patient was 40 months (range: 18-72 months). The oncologic results were similar (P = 0.362, one-sided log-rank test) in laparoscopic and open group of patients, with the estimated cumulative recurrence rate of 13.2% (9/68) versus 17.2% (11/64) in Stage II disease and 20.9% (14/67) versus 25.7% (18/70) in Stage III disease, respectively. The recurrence patterns were similar between the two groups. Both open and laparoscopic groups were comparable in the number of dissected lymph node (15.6 +/- 3.0 vs. 16.0 +/- 6.0, P = 0.489), various demographic and clinicopathologic parameters.
                The estimated cumulative recurrence rate for the surgery of Stage II or III left-sided colon cancers was the same between laparoscopic and open methods.
Under traditional perioperative treatment, lapararoscopic colonic resections show clinically relevant advantages in selected patients. If the long-term oncological results of laparoscopic and conventional resection of colonic carcinoma show equivalent results, the laparoscopic approach should be preferred in patients suitable for this approach to colectomy.