A comparison between open versus laparoscopic assisted colonic pouches for rectal cancer

The aim of this prospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted vs. open ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) with the creation of a colonic pouch-anal anastomosis. Patients undergoing ULAR with creation of a colonic pouch and who either had conventional open (CO) or laparoscopic assisted (LA) surgery in colorectal cancer were studied and compared. There were 33 patients, 22 in CO group and 11 in LA group. The groups were comparable for age, sex, tumour and anastomotic heights from anal verge, stage of disease, length of specimen removed and duration of surgery. Incisions were significantly shorter in the LA group (median, 9 cm vs. 16 cm, p = 0.01). Less parenteral analgesia was required in the LA group (2 days vs. 3 days, p = 0.05), but there were no significant differences in the time to passage of flatus, commencement of oral fluids or solid foods and length of hospital stay. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality. With regards to patients with Dukes A to C disease only, at a median of 12 months of follow-up, there was no patient with local or port site recurrence in the LA group. In the CO group, there was one local recurrence and two with distal metastases. In conclusion, laparoscopic assisted ULAR with colonic J pouch anal anastomosis is feasible, easy to perform and safe. It s advantages include significantly shorter incision and lower analgesic requirements postoperatively. Return of bowel function and length of hospital stay, however, are comparable to those of conventional open surgery.