Laparoscopic versus open surgery for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: a prospective comparative study
The role of laparoscopic resection (LR) in the management of extraperitoneal rectal cancer still is unclear. This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term results of laparoscopic and open resection (OR) for low and midrectal cancer. A prospective nonrandomized trial comparing patients submitted to OR or LR for low and midrectal cancer at a single institution was conducted. The study included 191 consecutive patients: 98 patients who underwent LR and 93 who underwent OR. The mean follow-up period was 46.3 months for LR and 49.7 months for OR. The conversion rate for LR was 18.4%. With the use of LR, the mean time for complete patient mobilization was shorter (1.7 vs 3.3 days; p < 0.001) and patients were earlier in passing flatus (2.6 vs 3.9 days; p < 0.001) and stools (3.8 vs 4.7 days; p < 0.01), and in resuming oral intake (3.4 vs 4.8 days; p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was shorter for LR, but the difference did not reach significance (11.4 vs 13 days). Morbidity and mortality rates were similar: LR (24.4% and 1%) and OR (23.6% and 2.2%). Laparoscopic patients presented a higher rate of anastomotic fistulas (13.5% vs 5.1%) and reoperations (6.1% vs 3.2%) but the difference was statistically nonsignificant. Laparoscopic resection presented a significantly lower local recurrence rate (3.2% vs 12.6%; p < 0.05). The cumulative survival and disease-free rates at 5 years were, respectively, 80% and 65.4% after LR and 68.9% and 58.9% after OR (nonsignificant difference). Stage-by-stage comparison showed prolonged cumulative survival for stages III and IV cancer in LR (82.5% vs 40.5%; p = 0.006 and 15.8% vs 0%; p = 0.013, respectively) and a reduced rate of cancer-related death for stage III in LR (11.4% vs 51.9%; p = 0.001). As compared with conventional open surgery, LR for low and midrectal cancer is characterized by a faster recovery and similar overall morbidity (but a higher rate of anastomotic leakages), and does not present any adverse oncologic effect.