Laparoscopic-Assisted Versus Open Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Comparison

Background: Despite the theoretical advantages of laparoscopic surgery, it is still not considered the standard treatment for colorectal cancer patients because of criticism concerning oncologic stability. This study aimed at examining the short- and long-term follow-up results of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colorectal cancer and at investigating clinical outcomes, oncologic safety, and any potential advantages of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Subjects and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a database containing the information about patients who underwent surgery for stage I-III colorectal cancer from January 2004 to January 2012 at our institution. Results: The patients who underwent the laparoscopic-assisted procedure showed a significantly faster recovery than those who underwent open surgery, namely, less time to first passing flatus (P = .041), time of first bowel motion (P = .04), time to resume normal diet (P = .043), and time to walk independently (P = .031). Laparoscopic colorectal surgery caused less pain for patients, leading to lower need of analgesic (P = .002) and less hospital recovery time (P = .034), compared with patients who underwent open surgery. No differences were found in 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates. Conclusions: Our results suggested that the laparoscopic approach was as safe as the open alternative. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery has been shown to be a favorable surgical option with better short- term outcomes and similar long-term oncological control compared with open resection.