Laparoscopic Assisted Colectomy Versus Open Colectomy; Retrospective Case-Control Study.
- Author:
Sung Il CHOI
1
;
Jong Gook WOO
;
Nae Sung CHANG
;
Woo Yong LEE
;
Ho Kyung CHUN
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hkchun@smc.samsung.co.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Laparoscopic colectomy;
Open colectomy;
Postoperative recovery;
Oncologic clearance
- MeSH:
Case-Control Studies*;
Chyle;
Colectomy*;
Colon;
Colonic Diseases;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Ileus;
Length of Stay;
Lymph Nodes;
Retrospective Studies*;
Urinary Retention
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology
2003;19(4):229-234
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Despite many reports on laparoscopic-assisted colectomies (LAC) over the past decade, the feasibility of their use in both benign and malignant disease of the colon is not clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LAC for the treatment of colonic diseases. METHODS: Between April 2000 and August 2002, we attempted a laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in 95 patients (LAC group). We excluded 3 patients who had converted to open surgery. The surgical outcomes were compared with 92 matched patients who underwent conventional open surgery during the same period (open group), focusing on the results of the surgery, postoperative recovery, complications and oncologic clearance. Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in age, Dukes stage, and type of resection. RESULTS: There were 29 benign and 63 malignant diseases. The mean operating time for the LAC group and the open group were 167.9 and 95.1 minutes, respectively (P<0.00). However, the time taken for passing gas (40.4 hours vs 56.7 hours)(P=0.02) and the length of hospital stay (7.9 days vs 8.6 days) (P=0.07) were significantly shorter in the LAC group than in the open group. Nine patients in the LAC group had complications (9.7%): anastomotic site bleeding (4), chyle leakage (3), urinary retention (1), and ileus (1). All were treated conservatively. There were no differences in complication rates between the groups. The average number of harvested lymph nodes was 20.9 (2~64) in the LAC group and 21.5 (4~60) in the open group (P=0.49). The average distal resection margins were 3.7 (2.0~9.0) cm in the LAC group and 3.3 (1.0~5.0) cm in the open group (P=0.21) for an anterior resection and 3.2 (1.0~7.0) cm in the LAC group and 2.3 (0.7~7.0) cm in the open group for a low anterior resection (P=0.48). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that LAC had an advantage over open surgery in terms of earlier recovery. Oncological clearance (the number of lymph nodes removed and the resection margins) did not differ between the two procedures. Thus, LAC is a feasible technique in the treatment of colon disease with acceptable morbidity. However, long-term data from a randomized trial is needed.
