Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open colectomy for colon cancer: a prospective randomized trial

Although laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has evolved as a technical option in the treatment of benign colonic diseases, its role in the treatment of malignancies remains controversial. The purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to compare perioperative parameters and outcomes between LAC vs. open colectomy (OC) in patients with stage I-III colon cancer.

Eligible patients with colon cancer who were scheduled for an elective colon resection from January 1995 to February 2001 were randomized to either the LAC or the OC treatment group. The two groups were compared with regard to operative time, blood loss, complications, pathologic findings and lymph node yield, length of postoperative hospital stay, gastrointestinal function, use of analgesic drugs, recurrence, and survival rates. The median follow-up was 35 months (range, 3-69 months).

A total of 49 patients were enrolled in the study: 20 were randomized to OC and 29 to LAC, one of whom was lost to follow-up. Thirteen patients in the LAC group had to be converted to OC (COC), and were analyzed in a separate group. The three patient groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, tumor site, lymph node harvest, operative procedure, anastomotic type, perioperative complication, recurrence, and survival rates. Tumor margins were clear in all patients. No incidence of port-site recurrence in the LAC group, or wound recurrence in the OC and COC groups, was found. Three patients died of cancer-related causes, one in each patient group. The LAC patients had significantly shorter hospital stay, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and less use of intravenous analgesia.

Short-term outcomes revealed that LAC could be performed safely and has therapeutic results similar to OC for colon cancer. Conversion of LAC to an open procedure was frequent but was not associated with a negative outcome.