Outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the short-term and oncological outcomes of laparoscopy compared to open procedures for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting. Patients and Methods: Forty-nine consecutive patients undergoing emergency open (n=38) or laparoscopic (n=11) major resection were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), history of previous abdominal surgery and tumor location between the open and laparoscopy groups. Pathological T4 tumors were more commonly observed in the open-surgery group than the laparoscopy group (47% vs. 9%; p=0.022). Obstruction (45% vs. 27%) and perforation (42% vs. 27%) were also more common in the open-surgery group. Bleeding or anemia was more common in the laparoscopy group (8% vs. 45%; p=0.028). There were no open conversions in the laparoscopy group. Regarding the type of surgery, Hartmann's operation was more common in the open-surgery group (32%) and right hemicolectomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (36%; p=0.058). There was no difference in the 30-day complication rate of open surgery (34%) and laparoscopy (36%) (p=0.895). Mean time to tolerable diet (8 days vs. 6 days, p=0.035) and mean length of hospital stay (17 days vs. 13 days, p=0.041) were shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recurrence and cancer-specific death did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: In selected colorectal cancer patients, emergency laparoscopy confers benefits in terms of short-term and oncological outcomes. Therefore, experienced laparoscopic surgeons may more actively consider the use of laparoscopy in the emergency setting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)295-300
Number of pages6
JournalIn Vivo
Volume29
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Mar 1

Fingerprint

Laparoscopy
Surgery
Colorectal Neoplasms
Emergencies
Tumors
Length of Stay
Neoplasms
Nutrition
Anemia
Body Mass Index

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

@article{5b3c63fd07614d6b885d9f5e9d4f16cb,
title = "Outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting",
abstract = "Aim: To evaluate the short-term and oncological outcomes of laparoscopy compared to open procedures for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting. Patients and Methods: Forty-nine consecutive patients undergoing emergency open (n=38) or laparoscopic (n=11) major resection were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), history of previous abdominal surgery and tumor location between the open and laparoscopy groups. Pathological T4 tumors were more commonly observed in the open-surgery group than the laparoscopy group (47{\%} vs. 9{\%}; p=0.022). Obstruction (45{\%} vs. 27{\%}) and perforation (42{\%} vs. 27{\%}) were also more common in the open-surgery group. Bleeding or anemia was more common in the laparoscopy group (8{\%} vs. 45{\%}; p=0.028). There were no open conversions in the laparoscopy group. Regarding the type of surgery, Hartmann's operation was more common in the open-surgery group (32{\%}) and right hemicolectomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (36{\%}; p=0.058). There was no difference in the 30-day complication rate of open surgery (34{\%}) and laparoscopy (36{\%}) (p=0.895). Mean time to tolerable diet (8 days vs. 6 days, p=0.035) and mean length of hospital stay (17 days vs. 13 days, p=0.041) were shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recurrence and cancer-specific death did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: In selected colorectal cancer patients, emergency laparoscopy confers benefits in terms of short-term and oncological outcomes. Therefore, experienced laparoscopic surgeons may more actively consider the use of laparoscopy in the emergency setting.",
author = "Kim, {Ik Yong} and Kim, {Bo Ra} and Kim, {Young Wan}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "295--300",
journal = "In Vivo",
issn = "0258-851X",
publisher = "International Institute of Anticancer Research",
number = "2",

}

Outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting. / Kim, Ik Yong; Kim, Bo Ra; Kim, Young Wan.

In: In Vivo, Vol. 29, No. 2, 01.03.2015, p. 295-300.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting

AU - Kim, Ik Yong

AU - Kim, Bo Ra

AU - Kim, Young Wan

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Aim: To evaluate the short-term and oncological outcomes of laparoscopy compared to open procedures for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting. Patients and Methods: Forty-nine consecutive patients undergoing emergency open (n=38) or laparoscopic (n=11) major resection were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), history of previous abdominal surgery and tumor location between the open and laparoscopy groups. Pathological T4 tumors were more commonly observed in the open-surgery group than the laparoscopy group (47% vs. 9%; p=0.022). Obstruction (45% vs. 27%) and perforation (42% vs. 27%) were also more common in the open-surgery group. Bleeding or anemia was more common in the laparoscopy group (8% vs. 45%; p=0.028). There were no open conversions in the laparoscopy group. Regarding the type of surgery, Hartmann's operation was more common in the open-surgery group (32%) and right hemicolectomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (36%; p=0.058). There was no difference in the 30-day complication rate of open surgery (34%) and laparoscopy (36%) (p=0.895). Mean time to tolerable diet (8 days vs. 6 days, p=0.035) and mean length of hospital stay (17 days vs. 13 days, p=0.041) were shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recurrence and cancer-specific death did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: In selected colorectal cancer patients, emergency laparoscopy confers benefits in terms of short-term and oncological outcomes. Therefore, experienced laparoscopic surgeons may more actively consider the use of laparoscopy in the emergency setting.

AB - Aim: To evaluate the short-term and oncological outcomes of laparoscopy compared to open procedures for colorectal cancer in the emergency setting. Patients and Methods: Forty-nine consecutive patients undergoing emergency open (n=38) or laparoscopic (n=11) major resection were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), history of previous abdominal surgery and tumor location between the open and laparoscopy groups. Pathological T4 tumors were more commonly observed in the open-surgery group than the laparoscopy group (47% vs. 9%; p=0.022). Obstruction (45% vs. 27%) and perforation (42% vs. 27%) were also more common in the open-surgery group. Bleeding or anemia was more common in the laparoscopy group (8% vs. 45%; p=0.028). There were no open conversions in the laparoscopy group. Regarding the type of surgery, Hartmann's operation was more common in the open-surgery group (32%) and right hemicolectomy was more common in the laparoscopy group (36%; p=0.058). There was no difference in the 30-day complication rate of open surgery (34%) and laparoscopy (36%) (p=0.895). Mean time to tolerable diet (8 days vs. 6 days, p=0.035) and mean length of hospital stay (17 days vs. 13 days, p=0.041) were shorter in the laparoscopy group. Overall recurrence and cancer-specific death did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: In selected colorectal cancer patients, emergency laparoscopy confers benefits in terms of short-term and oncological outcomes. Therefore, experienced laparoscopic surgeons may more actively consider the use of laparoscopy in the emergency setting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928109043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928109043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 25792660

AN - SCOPUS:84928109043

VL - 29

SP - 295

EP - 300

JO - In Vivo

JF - In Vivo

SN - 0258-851X

IS - 2

ER -