Laparoscopic and conventional resections for low rectal cancers: A retrospective analysis on perioperative outcomes, sphincter preservation, and oncological results

MakaleYalnız künye
  • SDG 3 · Sağlık ve Kaliteli Yaşam

Özet

Background: This study aims to compare the results of laparoscopic and conventional techniques in patients with low rectal cancers. Subjects and Methods: A retrospective data analysis was initiated in patients underwent laparoscopic or conventional surgery for cancers located in the low (<6 cm) rectum. Patient and tumor-related information, outcomes of operations, and survival were compared between the groups. Results: Among 142 patietns (91 men [64.1%]; mean±standard deviation age, 57.7±14.6 years) who had tumors located <6 cm from the dentate line, 92 (64.8%) were operated on with the laparoscopic technique. Demographics, tumor stage, and localization (2.9±2.0 versus 2.9±2.1 cm from the dentate line in laparoscopic and conventional arms, respectively; P=.968) were similar. However, there were more patients in the laparoscopic group who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (92.4% versus 80.0%; P=.03), since there were significantly fewer cases with stage I tumors in this group (3.3% versus 14%; P=.33). The conversion rate was 14.1% (n=13). The amount of bleeding and the requirement for transfusion decreased (P<.05 for both), and the possibility of sphincter-saving procedures (66.3% versus 34.0%; P<.001) increased, in the laparoscopy group. Other parameters were identical. In the laparoscopy group, the number of harvested lymph nodes (10.2±5.4 versus 12.4±6.0; P=.025) and the rate of vascular invasion (27.5% versus 47.8%; P=.021) were less, and Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed an improved survival (P=.042), although the follow-up period was significantly shorter in this group (P<.001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancers may be technically feasible and oncologically safe. Laparoscopy may increase the possibility of sphincter preservation.

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/15427Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2011.0479Yayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorGezen, Cem
dc.contributor.authorAltuntas, Yunus E.
dc.contributor.authorKement, Metin
dc.contributor.authorAksakal, Nihat
dc.contributor.authorOkkabaz, Nuri
dc.contributor.authorVural, Selahattin
dc.contributor.authorOncel, Mustafa
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-22T10:23:59.887729510Z
dc.date.available2026-10-22T10:23:59.887729510Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.description.abstractBackground: This study aims to compare the results of laparoscopic and conventional techniques in patients with low rectal cancers. Subjects and Methods: A retrospective data analysis was initiated in patients underwent laparoscopic or conventional surgery for cancers located in the low (<6 cm) rectum. Patient and tumor-related information, outcomes of operations, and survival were compared between the groups. Results: Among 142 patietns (91 men [64.1%]; mean±standard deviation age, 57.7±14.6 years) who had tumors located <6 cm from the dentate line, 92 (64.8%) were operated on with the laparoscopic technique. Demographics, tumor stage, and localization (2.9±2.0 versus 2.9±2.1 cm from the dentate line in laparoscopic and conventional arms, respectively; P=.968) were similar. However, there were more patients in the laparoscopic group who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (92.4% versus 80.0%; P=.03), since there were significantly fewer cases with stage I tumors in this group (3.3% versus 14%; P=.33). The conversion rate was 14.1% (n=13). The amount of bleeding and the requirement for transfusion decreased (P<.05 for both), and the possibility of sphincter-saving procedures (66.3% versus 34.0%; P<.001) increased, in the laparoscopy group. Other parameters were identical. In the laparoscopy group, the number of harvested lymph nodes (10.2±5.4 versus 12.4±6.0; P=.025) and the rate of vascular invasion (27.5% versus 47.8%; P=.021) were less, and Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed an improved survival (P=.042), although the follow-up period was significantly shorter in this group (P<.001). Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancers may be technically feasible and oncologically safe. Laparoscopy may increase the possibility of sphincter preservation.
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/lap.2011.0479
dc.identifier.endpage630
dc.identifier.issn1557-9034
dc.identifier.issue7
dc.identifier.pmid22731804
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84866999468
dc.identifier.startpage625
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/15427
dc.identifier.volume22
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000308700400002
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMARY ANN LIEBERT INC
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject.classificationSurgery
dc.subject.otherFemale
dc.subject.otherHumans
dc.subject.otherLaparoscopy
dc.subject.otherMale
dc.subject.otherMiddle Aged
dc.subject.otherRectal Neoplasms
dc.subject.otherRetrospective Studies
dc.subject.otherTreatment Outcome
dc.subject.otheradjuvant chemoradiotherapy
dc.subject.otheradult
dc.subject.otheranus sphincter
dc.subject.otherarticle
dc.subject.otherbleeding
dc.subject.otherblood transfusion
dc.subject.othercancer staging
dc.subject.othercancer surgery
dc.subject.othercancer survival
dc.subject.othercontrolled study
dc.subject.otherdemography
dc.subject.otherfollow up
dc.subject.otherhuman
dc.subject.otherintermethod comparison
dc.subject.otherlaparoscopic surgery
dc.subject.otherlow rectal cancer
dc.subject.otherlymph vessel metastasis
dc.subject.othermajor clinical study
dc.subject.otheroutcome assessment
dc.subject.otherpriority journal
dc.subject.otherrectum cancer
dc.subject.otherretrospective study
dc.subject.othertumor localization
dc.titleLaparoscopic and conventional resections for low rectal cancers: A retrospective analysis on perioperative outcomes, sphincter preservation, and oncological results
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.openalex8
rdl.citation.scopus10
rdl.citation.wos6
rdl.oa.statusclosed
rdl.sdgSDG03
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)