A case-control-study comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectosigmoidal and rectal cancer.

This study compared laparoscopic with open surgery for the cure of cancer of the rectosigmoid and rectum. Results of surgery, postoperative recovery, and oncological follow-up were compared between 32 laparoscopic curative procedures (19 laparoscopic-assisted anterior resections for cancer of the rectosigmoid or upper rectum and 13 laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancer) and 32 controls matched for age, UICC stage, tumor site, and type of resection who underwent open surgery during the same observation period. Morbidity was identical after laparoscopic and open resection (31.3%). Surgery was equally radical in the two groups regarding yield of lymph nodes and lateral and distal margins. Survival, recurrence, and cancer-related mortality showed no statistical differences. There was no port-site recurrence. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery were shown with a reduction in perioperative blood transfusion and earlier return of bowel function. However, the operative time was significantly increased in the laparoscopic group. This study shows that laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer is technically feasible, and that oncological short-term outcome does not differ from the results achieved by open techniques. However, prospective randomized trials are mandatory to evaluate the definite role of laparoscopic surgery for malignancy.