We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Safety of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in patients with liver cirrhosis: A retrospective cohort study.
International Journal of Surgery 2018 July
BACKGROUND: Patients with liver cirrhosis represent a high risk group for colorectal surgery. The safety and effectiveness of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery for cirrhotic patients is not clear. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery with those of open procedure for colorectal cancer in patients with liver cirrhosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 62 patients with cirrhosis who underwent radical resections for colorectal cancer from 2005 to 2014 were identified retrospectively from a prospective database according to the technique adopted (laparoscopic or open). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Comparison of laparoscopic group and open group revealed no significant differences at baseline. In the laparoscopic group, the laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced estimated blood loss (136 vs. 266 ml, p = 0.015), faster first flatus (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.002) and shorter days to first oral intake (4 vs. 5 days, p = 0.033), but similar operative times (p = 0.856), number of retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.400) or postoperative hospital stays (p = 0.170). Despite the similar incidence of overall complications between the two groups (50.0% vs. 68.8%, p = 0.133), we observed lower morbidities in laparoscopic group in terms of the rate of Grade II complication (20.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.014). Long-term of overall and Disease-free survival rates did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery appears to be a safe and less invasive alternative to open surgery in some elective cirrhotic patients in terms of less blood loss or early recovery and does not result in additional harm in terms of the postoperative complications or long-term oncological outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 62 patients with cirrhosis who underwent radical resections for colorectal cancer from 2005 to 2014 were identified retrospectively from a prospective database according to the technique adopted (laparoscopic or open). Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Comparison of laparoscopic group and open group revealed no significant differences at baseline. In the laparoscopic group, the laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced estimated blood loss (136 vs. 266 ml, p = 0.015), faster first flatus (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.002) and shorter days to first oral intake (4 vs. 5 days, p = 0.033), but similar operative times (p = 0.856), number of retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.400) or postoperative hospital stays (p = 0.170). Despite the similar incidence of overall complications between the two groups (50.0% vs. 68.8%, p = 0.133), we observed lower morbidities in laparoscopic group in terms of the rate of Grade II complication (20.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.014). Long-term of overall and Disease-free survival rates did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery appears to be a safe and less invasive alternative to open surgery in some elective cirrhotic patients in terms of less blood loss or early recovery and does not result in additional harm in terms of the postoperative complications or long-term oncological outcomes.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app