๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer

โœ Scribed by J. Lujan; G. Valero; Q. Hernandez; A. Sanchez; M. D. Frutos; P. Parrilla


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2009
Tongue
English
Weight
128 KB
Volume
96
Category
Article
ISSN
0007-1323

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Abstract

Background

The laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer is controversial. This study compared surgical outcomes after laparoscopic and open approaches for mid and low rectal cancers.

Methods

Some 204 patients with mid and low rectal adenocarcinomas were allocated randomly to open (103) or laparoscopic (101) surgery. The surgical team was the same for both procedures. Most patients had stage II or III disease, and received neoadjuvant therapy with oral capecitabine and 50โ€“54 Gy external beam radiotherapy.

Results

Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 78ยท6 and 76ยท2 per cent of patients in the open and laparoscopic groups respectively. Blood loss was significantly greater for open surgery (P < 0ยท001) and operating time was significantly greater for laparoscopic surgery (P = 0ยท020), and return to diet and hospital stay were longer for open surgery. Complication rates, and involvement of circumferential and radial margins were similar for both procedures, but the number of isolated lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group (mean 13ยท63 versus 11ยท57; P = 0ยท026). There were no differences in local recurrence, disease-free or overall survival.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has a similar complication rate to open surgery, with less blood loss, rapid intestinal recovery, shorter hospital stay, and no compromise of oncological outcomes. Registration number: NCT00782457 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


Letter 3: Randomized clinical trial comp
โœ S. Badvie; R. I. Hallan ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2009 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 91 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses should be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk). All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be edited and published

Letter 4: Randomized clinical trial comp
โœ S. Khan; R. Zadeh; J. MacFie ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2009 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 91 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses should be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk). All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be edited and published

Letter 5: Randomized clinical trial comp
โœ A. Saklani ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2009 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 91 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 1 views

The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses should be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk). All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be edited and published