[Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. A comparative study].

Background: Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is currently accepted and widespread worldwide. However, according tol the surgical experience on this approach, surgical and short-term oncologic results may vary. Studies comparing laparoscopic vs. open surgery in our population are scarce.

Objective: To determine the superiority of the laparoscopic vs. open technique for colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods: This retrospective and comparative study collected data from patients operated on for colorectal cancer between 1999 and 2011 at the Angeles Lomas Hospital, Mexico.

Results: A total of 82 patients were included in this study; 47 were operated through an open approach and 35 laparoscopically. Mean operative time was significantly lower in the open approach group (p= 0.008). There were no significant difference between both techniques for intraoperative bleeding (p= 0.3980), number of lymph nodes (p= 0.27), time to initiate oral feeding (p= 0.31), hospital stay (p= 0.12), and postoperative pain (p= 0.19). Procedure-related complications rate and type were not significantly different in both groups (p= 0.44). Patients operated laparoscopically required significantly less analgesic drugs (p= 0.04) and less need for epidural postoperative analgesia (p= 0.01).

Conclusions: Laparoscopic approach is as safe as the traditional open approach for colorectal cancer. Early oncological and surgical results confirm its suitability according to this indication.