Laparoscopic versus open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a literature review and recommendations from the Comité de l’évolution des pratiques en oncologie

Abstract

Background: Adoption of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer treatment has been slow owing to initial case study results suggesting high recurrence rates at port sites. The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer still raises a number of concerns, particularly with the technique's complexity, learning curve and longer duration. After exploring the scientific literature comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer with respect to oncologic efficacy and shortterm outcomes, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) made recommendations for surgical practice in Quebec.Methods: Scientific literature published from January 1995 to April 2012 was reviewed. Phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses were included.Results: Sixteen randomized trials and 10 meta-analyses were retrieved. Analysis of the literature confirmed that for curative treatment of colorectal cancer, laparoscopy is not inferior to open surgery with respect to survival and recurrence rates. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including a shorter hospital stay, reduced analgesic use and faster recovery of intestinal function. However, this approach does require a longer operative time.

Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Sri Lanka: Open to Laparoscopy

“…In a meta-analysis, 40 to 50 % of patients eventually developed liver secondaries following surgery for CRC within 3 years [32]. In our study 10.7% of the patients developed liver secondaries within 2 years.…”

Improved survival with early adjuvant chemotherapy after colonic resection for stage III colonic cancer: A nationwide study

“…These results are confirmed on a nationwide basis in our data. The delay after open surgery may be due to increased risk of postoperative complications and morbidity associated with this surgical modality [14,41,42]. Indeed, delayed initiation and even risk of omission of adjuvant therapy occur in the presence of postoperative complications [23,24,43].…”

Colectomie laparoscopique versus colectomie par laparotomie dans le traitement des adénocarcinomes coliques non métastatiques

“…La plupart des auteurs s’accordent sur le fait que le choix de la voie d’abord n’influence pas la qualité du curage ganglionnaire. Dans les études comparatives et randomisées, la moyenne du nombre des ganglions prélevés variait de 10 à 26 en laparotomie et de 10 à 23 en laparoscopie sans différence significative entre les 2 voies d’abord [2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14]. Dans notre étude, la sécurité carcinologique est attestée par les marges de résections qui étaient comparables entre les deux groupes.…”