A comparative analysis between laparoscopy and open colectomy: assessment of perioperative and oncological outcomes

Abstract

AIM: Aim of the study was to compare two groups of patients affected by colorectal adenocarcinoma that underwent to open colectomy and laparoscopic colectomy respectively, highlighting the advantage and problems.

MATERIAL OF STUDY: This is a retrospective analysis. Between January 2003 and December 2006, 54 patients who underwent colectomy were recruited. Of these, 26 patients underwent open colectomy, and 28 laparoscopy.

RESULTS: For open colectomy the average duration of surgery was 177.9 minutes (surgical time) and 280.4 minutes (time of operating room) with a minimum of 110 and a maximum of 360 minutes, with significant differences according to type of surgery performed and the patient’s clinical history. For laparoscopy the average duration was 293 minutes, (range 135 - 520), with significant differences depending on the portion of the intestinal tract removed.

DISCUSSION: The comparison of two different surgical techniques, laparoscopic and open colectomy revealed some differences. The duration of the resection was greater for laparoscopy when compared to the traditional technique.

CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches are technically feasible, safe and oncologically correct. Laparoscopic technique shows a much more favorable outcome in terms of pain, absence of extensive scarring, the incidence of incisional hernias and hospital stay -surgery compared with surgery laparotomy.