Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of open versus laparoscopically assisted colectomy on systemic immunity in patients with colorectal cancer. Wound complications of laparoscopic vs open colectomy. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopic and open colonic resections. Prospective randomized study of laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for adenocarcinoma. Systemic cytokine response after laparoscopic-assisted resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: A prospective randomized trial. Prospective evaluation of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus laparotomy with resection for management of complex polyps of the sigmoid colon. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Laparoscopically assisted colon resection for colon carcinoma: perioperative results and long-term outcome. Interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and expression of human leukocyte antigen-DR on peripheral blood mononuclear cells in patients after laparoscopic vs. conventional bowel resection: a randomized study. Prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic vs. conventional surgery for refractory ileocolic Crohn's disease. A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Randomized clinical trial of the costs of open and laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer. Metabolic and functional results after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial. Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome. Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open surgery for colorectal cancer: comparative study of immune effects. Temperature control and recovery of bowel function after laparoscopic or laparotomic colorectal surgery in patients receiving combined epidural/general anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia.
Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon. The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown, and the nature and magnitude of any quality-of-life (QOL) benefit resulting from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown.
                To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer.
                Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [COST]). Between September 1994 and February 1999, 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinically resectable colon cancer.
                Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale (SDS), Quality of Life Index, and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months postoperative; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use; and length of stay.
                Of 449 patients, 428 provided QOL data. In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity, SDS summary, QOL Index summary, and global rating scale scores at each time point, the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery. The mean (median) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 (80) for LAC vs 74.4 (75) for open colectomy (P =.009). While in the hospital, patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy (mean [median], 3.2 [3] vs 4.0 [4] days; P<.001) and oral analgesics (mean [median], 1.9 [1] vs 2.2 [2] days; P =.03).
                Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with standard open colectomy. Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer, this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer. After confirming a favorable outcome of laparoscopic surgery for early colorectal cancer, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer.
                Fifty-nine patients with T2 or T3 colorectal cancer were randomized to undergo laparoscopic (n = 29) or open (n = 30) colectomy. Median follow-up was 20 months (range, 6-34 months).
                Operative time was longer (p <0.0001) and blood loss (p = 0.0034) and postoperative analgesic requirement were less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. An earlier return of bowel motility and earlier discharge from the hospital (p = 0.0164) were observed after laparoscopic surgery. Serum C-reactive protein levels on postoperative days 1 (p <0.0001) and 4 (p = 0.0039) were lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Postoperative complications did not differ between the two groups.
                Laparoscopic surgery for advanced colorectal cancer is feasible, with favorable short-term outcome. Laparoscopic surgery is believed to produce an attenuated metabolic stress response and to have a less dampening effect on the immune response than open surgery. To date, the effect has not been studied in a randomized clinical trial of colorectal cancer.
                The study was a two-armed randomized prospective trial conducted in parallel with the UK Medical Research Council's Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (CLASICC) trial comparing laparoscopically assisted colorectal surgery for left-sided tumours with conventional open surgery. Systemic immunity was assessed by determining the T- and B-cell counts, the CD4 : CD8 ratio, the natural killer cell counts, the immunoglobulin (Ig) G, IgM and IgA levels, and C3 and C4 levels. The white cell phagocytic activity (nitroblue tetrazolium test) was studied before operation and on the third postoperative day.
                A total of 236 patients were randomized in the immune study between 11 March 1997 and 14 August 1999; 161 had complete preoperative and postoperative assays for the analysis of results. There was no difference in mean response between the two surgical groups for each of the immune parameters studied. The unadjusted difference for the primary endpoint, T-cell count, 3 days after operation was - 1.6 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval - 5.0 to 1.8 per cent).
                There is no difference in the systemic immune response in patients having laparoscopically assisted colectomy compared with those undergoing conventional open surgery for colorectal cancer. This study was conducted to determine if laparoscopic colon surgery has changed the incidence of wound complications after colon resection.
                Eighty-three patients were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic (LCR) or open colon resection (OCR) for cancer at our institution as part of a multicenter trial. Data were tabulated from review of the prospective database and physician records.
                Thirty-seven patients were randomized to LCR and 46 to OCR. Seven patients in the LCR group were converted to OCR. LCR was performed using a limited midline incision for anastomosis and specimen extraction. Incision length was significantly greater (p <0.001) in the OCR group (19.4 +/- 5.6 cm) compared to the LCR extraction site (6.3 +/- 1.4 cm). Wound infections occurred in 13.5% of patients after LCR (2.7% trocar, 10.8% extraction sites) and in 10.9% of patients after OCR. Over a mean follow-up period of 30.1 +/- 17.8 months, incisional hernias developed in 24.3% of patients after LCR and 17.4% after OCR. In the LCR group, extraction sites accounted for 85.7% of all wound complications.
                The extraction site for LCR is associated with a high incidence of complications, comparable to open colectomy. Strategies to alter operative technique should be considered to reduce the incidence of these complications. Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival.
                From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
                219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively).
                LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival. Minimally invasive, laparoscopically assisted surgery was first considered in 1990 for patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Concern that this approach would compromise survival by failing to achieve a proper oncologic resection or adequate staging or by altering patterns of recurrence (based on frequent reports of tumor recurrences within surgical wounds) prompted a controlled trial evaluation.
                We conducted a noninferiority trial at 48 institutions and randomly assigned 872 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon to undergo open or laparoscopically assisted colectomy performed by credentialed surgeons. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The primary end point was the time to tumor recurrence.
                At three years, the rates of recurrence were similar in the two groups--16 percent among patients in the group that underwent laparoscopically assisted surgery and 18 percent among patients in the open-colectomy group (two-sided P=0.32; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.17). Recurrence rates in surgical wounds were less than 1 percent in both groups (P=0.50). The overall survival rate at three years was also very similar in the two groups (86 percent in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 85 percent in the open-colectomy group; P=0.51; hazard ratio for death in the laparoscopic-surgery group, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.21), with no significant difference between groups in the time to recurrence or overall survival for patients with any stage of cancer. Perioperative recovery was faster in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-colectomy group, as reflected by a shorter median hospital stay (five days vs. six days, P<0.001) and briefer use of parenteral narcotics (three days vs. four days, P<0.001) and oral analgesics (one day vs. two days, P=0.02). The rates of intraoperative complications, 30-day postoperative mortality, complications at discharge and 60 days, hospital readmission, and reoperation were very similar between groups.
                In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society The magnitude of surgical trauma after laparoscopic and open colonic resection was evaluated by examining postoperative serum values of interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-10, C-reactive protein (CRP), and granulocyte elastase (GE) for further evidence of the benefit realized with minimally invasive approaches in colonic surgery.
                Altogether, 42 patients with Crohn's disease (n = 20) or colon carcinomas/adenomas (n = 22) were matched by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and Crohn's Disease Activity Index for either a laparoscopic (n = 21) or an open colonic resection (n = 21). In both groups the postoperative serum levels of IL-6, IL-10, C-RP, and granulocyte elastase were determined, as indicators of surgical stress.
                Laparoscopic and open colonic resection caused a significant increase in serum IL-6, IL-10, CRP, and granulocyte elastase levels. The comparison between laparoscopic and open colonic resections, however, showed significantly lower serum IL-6, IL-10, CRP, and granulocyte elastase levels after laparoscopic colonic resection, which was most evident for IL-6 and granulocyte elastase.
                Our study demonstrated that IL-6 and granulocyte elastase may be appropriated particularly to monitor surgical stress. By using these parameters, we found a significant reduction in surgical trauma after laparoscopic surgery, was compared with the open procedure. This supports the clinical findings of a clear benefit for patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic surgery. Laparoscopic techniques have been evaluated for many operations, but retrospective and prospective studies have failed to show these techniques to be superior to open operations in all patients with colorectal disease. This study compares laparoscopic and open colonic resection in a randomized fashion with special reference to outcome, complications and immunomodulation.
                The clinical course, assessment of convalescence parameters, immunofunction and pathological evaluation of the operative specimen were compared in 34 patients with colonic adenocarcinoma. The patients were randomized to either laparoscopic surgery (group 1, n = 18) or open surgery (group 2, n = 16). As five patients were excluded the number of patients was 15 in group 1 and 14 in group 2.
                Patients in group 1 were discharged earlier (P < 0.05) and suffered less pain (P < 0.01 at rest, P < 0.05 during coughing and mobilization). Surgery was equally radical in the two groups. Intraoperative bleeding, postoperative reduction in pulmonary function, and level of fatigue were identical in the two groups. The immunodepression was more pronounced in patients in group 1 (P < 0.01).
                Laparoscopic colonic resection is an acceptable and safe alternative to open procedures; the differences between the two techniques are not marked. To compare the systemic cytokine response in patients after laparoscopic-assisted resection with those after open resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma.
                Laparoscopic resection of colorectal carcinoma is technically feasible, but objective evidence of its benefit is scarce. Systemic cytokines are accepted as markers of postoperative tissue trauma and mediators of the host immune response.
                Thirty-four patients with rectosigmoid carcinoma, without evidence of metastatic disease and suitable for laparoscopic resection, were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic (n = 17) or conventional open (n = 17) resection of the tumor. Clinical parameters were recorded. Sera were collected before surgery and at appropriate time points afterward and assayed for interleukin-1beta, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein. The primary end points were the cytokine and C-reactive protein levels. Data were analyzed by intention to treat.
                The demographic data of the two groups were comparable. The clinical outcome of both groups was satisfactory, with no surgical deaths and a reasonable complication rate. Both interleukin-1beta and interleukin-6 levels peaked 2 hours after surgery, with the responses in the laparoscopic group significantly less than those in the open group. C-reactive protein levels peaked at 48 hours, and the difference was also statistically significant. Levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha were not elevated after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups.
                Tissue trauma, as reflected by systemic cytokine response, was less after laparoscopic resection than after open resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma. The difference in the systemic cytokine response may have implications on the long-term survival. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy is technically feasible, but objective evidence of its benefits remains scarce. This study was done to evaluate the outcomes and operative stress of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus the traditional open method in the management of sigmoid complex polyps that cannot be safely or adequately removed by colonofibroscopy. Between January 1997 and December 1999, a total of 42 patients were equally randomized to the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group by the blocked randomization method. Three patients randomized to the laparoscopy group did not complete the trial; therefore 18 patients treated by laparoscopy-assisted sigmoidectomy and the other 21 treated by the open method were prospectively evaluated. These two groups of patients were well matched in age, gender, symptoms, tumor location, localization method, tumor size, morphology, histopathology, and the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis. Two standardized surgical strategies, the lateral-to-medial and medial-to-lateral dissection sequences, were performed in 14 and 4 patients of the laparoscopy group, respectively, according to whether their tumors were located above or below 20 cm above the anal verge. After evaluating the surgical outcomes, we found that the laparoscopy group was significantly better than the laparotomy group in regard to parameters that included severity of postoperative pain, wound size, postoperative complication rate, and the duration of postoperative ileus, hospitalization, and disability. There was no significant difference in the operating times for these two groups. However, the costs of the laparoscopy group were significantly higher. To evaluate the surgical stress, we measured the serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), total lymphocyte count, and CD4+/CD8+ ratio 24 hours before and after surgery. We found that the postoperative serum CRP level and the ESR were significantly less elevated and the total lymphocyte counts and CD4+/CD8+ ratio were significantly less depressed in the laparoscopy group than in the laparotomy group. We thus concluded that laparoscopy-assisted sigmoidectomy can be safely performed with shorter convalescence and less operative stress but at a higher cost. We strongly recommended the use of this technique in the management of sigmoid complex polyps if the patient's economic status permits. Although laparoscopic resection of colorectal carcinoma improves post-operative recovery, long-term survival and disease control are the determining factors for its application. We aimed to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in survival after laparoscopic and open resection for rectosigmoid cancer.
                From Sept 21, 1993, to Oct 21, 2002, 403 patients with rectosigmoid carcinoma were randomised to receive either laparoscopic assisted (n=203) or conventional open (n=200) resection of the tumour. Survival and disease-free interval were the main endpoints. Patients were last followed-up in March, 2003. Perioperative data were recorded and direct cost of operation estimated. Data were analysed by intention to treat.
                The demographic data of the two groups were similar. After curative resection, the probabilities of survival at 5 years of the laparoscopic and open resection groups were 76.1% (SE 3.7%) and 72.9% (4.0%) respectively. The probabilities of being disease free at 5 years were 75.3% (3.7%) and 78.3% (3.7%), respectively. The operative time of the laparoscopic group was significantly longer, whereas postoperative recovery was significantly better than for the open resection group, but these benefits were at the expense of higher direct cost. The distal margin, the number of lymph nodes found in the resected specimen, overall morbidity and operative mortality did not differ between groups.
                Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma does not jeopardise survival and disease control of patients. The justification for adoption of laparoscopic technique would depend on the perceived value of its effectiveness in improving short-term post-operative outcomes. The role of laparoscopic colon resection in the management of colon cancer is unclear. The aims of this study were to compare perioperative results and long-term outcomes in patients randomized to either open (O) or laparoscopically assisted (LA) colon resection for colon cancer.
                A prospective randomized trial comparing O to LA colon resection was conducted from January 1993 to November 1995. Preoperative workup, intraoperative results, complications, length of stay, pathologic findings, and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed with t-test. Follow-up periods ranged from 3.5 to 6.3 years (mean, 4.9 years).
                No port-site or abdominal wall recurrences were noted in any patients. [table: see text]
                These results suggest that laparoscopically assisted colon resection for malignant disease can be performed safely, with morbidity, mortality, and en bloc resections comparable with those of open laparotomy. Long-term (5-year) follow-up assessment shows similar outcomes in both groups of patients, demonstrating definite perioperative advantages with LA surgery and no perioperative or long-term disadvantages. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of surgical trauma in terms of approach (laparoscopic vs. conventional surgery) and extent of bowel resection (ileocolic resection vs. colectomy) on interleukin-6 level, C-reactive protein level, and expression of human leukocyte antigen-DR on peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Second, the length of the incision was correlated with the inflammatory response.
                Thirty-four patients were analyzed as part of a randomized trial comparing laparoscopically assisted vs. open bowel resection for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and familial adenomatous polyposis. C-reactive protein levels and expression of human leukocyte antigen-DR on peripheral blood mononuclear cells were measured preoperatively and one day after surgery. Interleukin-6 was measured preoperatively and on Days 1 and 7 postoperatively.
                Four of the 34 patients were excluded because of blood transfusion after surgery. One day postoperatively, the interleukin-6 level peaked significantly within the laparoscopic and conventional group. There was no significant difference between the conventional and laparoscopic groups at Day 1 postoperatively. At Day 7 postoperatively, interleukin-6 levels were similar in both groups and returned to baseline levels. There was a higher C-reactive protein level in the conventional group one day after surgery than in the laparoscopic group, although the difference was not significant. Preoperative and postoperative human leukocyte antigen-DR expression on monocytes and postoperative percentage of lymphocytes expressing human leukocyte antigen-DR did not differ between the conventional and laparoscopic groups. No differences in immune response with respect to the measured parameters were noticed in patients with a large or small bowel resection segment or in patients with a small (</=8 cm) or large (>8 cm) incision.
                These data suggest that surgical trauma did not significantly affect the immune status of patients with respect to the measured parameters in terms of either the approach or the extent of bowel resection. Surgeons have been reluctant to apply laparoscopic techniques to Crohn's disease surgery because of concerns with evaluating and excising inflamed tissue using laparoscopic methods. Additionally in Crohn's disease surgery, laparoscopic techniques have not been demonstrated to have clear advantages over conventional ones.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic vs. conventional techniques in 60 patients (25 males), median age 34.4 (range, 10-60.1) years, undergoing elective ileocolic resection for refractory Crohn's disease. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulmonary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care.
                Of the 31 patients assigned to laparoscopic and 29 to the conventional group, all had isolated Crohn's disease of the terminal ileum plus or minus the cecum. Median length of the incision was 5 cm in the laparoscopic group and 12 cm in the conventional group. Overall recovery of 80 percent of forced expiratory volume (one second) and forced vital capacity was a median of 2.5 days for laparoscopic and 3.5 days for conventional (P = 0.03). There was no difference in the amount of morphine equivalents used between groups postoperatively. Flatus and first bowel movement returned a median of 3 and 4 days, respectively, after laparoscopic vs. 3.3 and 4 days, respectively, after conventional surgery (P = 0.21). Median length of stay was five (range, 4-30) days for laparoscopic, and six (range, 4-18) days for conventional surgery. Major complications occurred in one patient in each group. Minor complications occurred in four laparoscopic and eight conventional patients (P < 0.05). There were no deaths. Two laparoscopic patients were converted to conventional as a result of adhesions or inflammation. All patients recovered well and there were no clinical recurrences in the follow-up period (median, 20; range, 12-45 months).
                Within a single institution, single surgical team, prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques offered a faster recovery of pulmonary function, fewer complications, and shorter length of stay compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease. Uncontrolled studies using laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery have not demonstrated clear advantages to these procedures compared with conventional ones, and surgeons are concerned about unusual early recurrences reported after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic (LAP) and conventional (CON) techniques in 109 patients undergoing bowel resection for colorectal cancers or polyps. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulmonary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care.
                Of the 55 patients assigned to LAP and 54 to the CON group, there were 42 and 38 with cancer, respectively (the other patients had large adenomas). Overall recovery of 80% of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity was a median of 3 days for LAP and 6.0 days for CON (p = 0.01). LAP patients used significantly less morphine than CON patients up to the second day after surgery (0.78 +/- 0.32 versus 0.92 +/- 0.34 mg/kg per day, p = 0.02). Flatus returned a median of 3.0 days after LAP versus 4.0 days after CON surgery (p = 0.006). Tumor margins were clear in all patients. After a median followup of 1.5 years (LAP) and 1.7 years (CON), there were no port site recurrences in the LAP group. Seven cancer-related deaths have occurred (three in the LAP group, four in the CON group).
                Within this prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques were as safe as conventional surgical techniques and offered a faster recovery of pulmonary and gastrointestinal function compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing large bowel resection for cancer or polyps. There were no apparent shortterm oncologic disadvantages. Longer followup is needed to fully assess oncologic outcomes. The objectives of this study were to compare both subjective clinical outcomes and the objective stress response of laparoscopic and open abdominal rectopexy in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. Abdominal rectopexy for patients with rectal prolapse is well suited for a laparoscopic approach as no resection or anastomosis is necessary.
                Forty patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse were randomized before operation to a laparoscopic group and an open group. They agreed to conform to a clinical pathway (CP) of liquid diet (CP1) and full mobility (CP2) on day 1, solid diet (CP3) on day 2 and discharge (CP4) before day 5. Their compliance was monitored by an assessor blinded to the operative group, who also rated pain and mobility. Patient-controlled morphine use was documented. Neuroendocrine and immune stress response and respiratory function were measured.
                Some 75 per cent of all clinical pathway objectives of early recovery were achieved in the laparoscopic group compared with 37 per cent in the open group (P < 0.01). Significant differences in favour of laparoscopy were noted with regard to narcotic requirements, and pain and mobility scores. Differences in objective measures of stress response favouring laparoscopy were found for urinary catecholamines, interleukin 6, serum cortisol and C-reactive protein. No differences were noted in respiratory function but significant respiratory morbidity was greater in the open group (P < 0.05). None of the measured outcomes, subjective or objective, favoured the open group apart from operating time, which was significantly shorter (153 versus 102 min; P < 0.01).
                This study has demonstrated significant subjective and objective differences in favour of a laparoscopic technique for abdominal rectopexy. The advantages were all short term but no evidence of any adverse effect on longer-term outcomes was observed. There has been no randomized clinical trial of the costs of laparoscopic colonic resection (LCR) compared with those of open colonic resection (OCR) in the treatment of colonic cancer.
                A subset of Swedish patients included in the Colon Cancer Open Or Laparoscopic Resection (COLOR) trial was included in a prospective cost analysis; costs were calculated up to 12 weeks after surgery. All relevant costs to society were included. No effects of the procedures, such as quality of life or survival, were taken into account.
                Two hundred and ten patients were included in the primary analysis, 98 of whom had LCR and 112 OCR. Total costs to society did not differ significantly between groups (difference in means for LCR versus OCR euro1846; P = 0.104). The cost of operation was significantly higher for LCR than for OCR (difference in means euro1171; P < 0.001), as was the cost of the first admission (difference in means euro1556; P = 0.015) and the total cost to the healthcare system (difference in means euro2244; P = 0.018).
                Within 12 weeks of surgery for colonic cancer, there was no difference in total costs to society incurred by LCR and OCR. The LCR procedure, however, was more costly to the healthcare system.
                Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. This study was designed to compare metabolic and functional results after laparoscopic and open colorectal resection.
                Seventy-nine patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 40) or open (n = 39) colorectal resection. Before and after operation, the following parameters were determined: respiratory function (spirography and blood gas); serum level of cortisol, lactate, and C-reactive protein; total lymphocyte count; and CD4 and CD8 lymphocyte subsets. Intraoperative core temperature was measured by a bladder probe. Postoperative pain and analgesic consumption were also monitored.
                Mild operative hypothermia, a trend to postoperative reduction of total lymphocyte count, and significant impairment of respiratory function early after surgery were found in both groups. Laparoscopy showed a higher CD4/CD8 ratio (P = 0.01) on postoperative Day 1 and a faster return of C-reactive protein to preoperative values (P = 0.01) than in the open colorectal resection group. Morphine consumption in the first 48 hours after surgery was lower in the laparoscopic than in the open group (P = 0.02).
                Laparoscopy was associated with a less pronounced immunosuppression and inflammatory response and a lower consumption of analgesic drugs than open surgery. Moreover, our data did not show any additional detrimental effect of laparoscopy on either operative core temperature or early postoperative respiratory function. The primary endpoint was to compare the impact of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation to mitogens and gut oxygen tension were surrogate endpoints.
                Evidence-based proof of the effect of laparoscopic colorectal surgery on immunometabolic response and clinically relevant outcome variables is scanty. Further randomized trials are desirable before proposing laparoscopy as a superior technique.
                Two hundred sixty-nine patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 136) or open (n = 133) colorectal resection. Four trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative complications. Lymphocyte proliferation to Candida albicans and phytohemagglutinin was evaluated before and 3 and 15 days after surgery. Operative gut oxygen tension was monitored continuously by a polarographic microprobe.
                In the laparoscopic group the conversion rate was 5.1%. The overall morbidity rate was 20.6% in the laparoscopic group and 38.3% in the open group. Postoperative infections occurred in 15 of the 136 patients in the laparoscopic group and 31 of the 133 patients in the open group. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.4 +/- 2.9 days in the laparoscopic group and 12.5 +/- 4.1 days in the open group. On postoperative day 3, lymphocyte proliferation was impaired in both groups. Fifteen days after surgery, the proliferation index returned to baseline values only in the laparoscopic group. Intraoperative gut oxygen tension was higher in the laparoscopic than in the open group.
                Laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in a significant reduction of 30-day postoperative morbidity. Lymphocyte proliferation and gut oxygen tension were better preserved in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that laparoscopic-assisted resection for colorectal cancer has an immunologic advantage over traditional open surgery.
                Sixteen patients with colorectal cancer were randomized to undergo laparoscopic-assisted resection or open surgery. Basic patient data were recorded, and serum interleukin-6 levels, relative proportions of lymphocytes, and human leukocyte antigen-DR expression on monocytes were determined at specific time intervals.
                Operating time was longer for laparoscopic-assisted resection (P=0.02), but analgesic requirements were less (P=0.04). All patients exhibited the following: interleukin-6 levels increased to a maximum at 4 hours and returned to preoperative levels within 48 hours. This response appeared greater for open resection (mean peak level, 313 vs. 173 pg/ml; P=0.25). Relative granulocytosis (P < 0.001) was seen within 48 hours, which was offset by a decrease in percentage of lymphocytes (P < 0.001). Changes in lymphocyte subfractions were most significant seven days postsurgery: natural killer cells decreased (P=0.003); T cells increased (P=0.008), with elevation in the CD4/CD8 ratio (P=0.003). B cells were largely unchanged at all time periods. Human leukocyte antigen-DR expression on monocytes was significantly less at 48 hours postsurgery (P < 0.001). All changes were reversed within three weeks of surgery. There were no differences when comparing laparoscopic-assisted resection with open surgery.
                Both laparoscopic-assisted resection and open surgery affect the immune response. It would appear that laparoscopic-assisted resection does not have an immunologic advantage over open surgery in patients with colorectal cancer. We compared the effects of a laparoscopic (n = 23) versus laparotomic (n = 21) technique for major abdominal surgery on temperature control in 44 patients undergoing colorectal surgery during a combined epidural/general anesthesia. A thoracic epidural block up to T4 was induced with 6-10 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine; general anesthesia was induced with thiopental, fentanyl, and atracurium IV and maintained with isoflurane. Core temperature was measured with a bladder probe and recorded every 15 min after the induction. In both groups, core temperature decreased to 35.2 degrees C (range, 34 degrees C-36 degrees C) at the end of surgery. After surgery, normothermia returned after 75 min (60-120 min) in the Laparoscopy group and 60 min (45-180 min) in the Laparotomy group (P = 0.56). No differences in postanesthesia care unit discharge time were reported between the two groups. The degree of pain during coughing was smaller after laparoscopy than laparotomy from the 24th to the 72nd observation times (P < 0.01). Morphine consumption was 22 mg (2-65 mg) in the Laparotomy group and 5 mg (0-45 mg) in the Laparoscopy group (P = 0.02). The time to first flatus was shorter after laparoscopy (24 h [16-72 h]) than laparotomy (72 h [26-96 h]) (P = 0.0005), and the first intake of clear liquid occurred after 48 h (24-72 h) in the Laparoscopy group and after 96 h (90-96 h) in the Laparotomy group (P = 0.0005). Although laparoscopic surgery provides positive effects on the degree of postoperative pain and recovery of bowel function, the reduction in heat loss produced by minimizing bowel exposure with laparoscopic surgery does not compensate for the anesthesia-related effects on temperature control, and active patient warming must also be used with laparoscopic techniques.
                This prospective, randomized, controlled study demonstrates that laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in less postoperative pain and earlier recovery of bowel function than conventional laparotomy but does not reduce the risk for perioperative hypothermia. Accordingly, active warming must be provided to patients also during laparoscopic procedures.
Under traditional perioperative treatment, lapararoscopic colonic resections show clinically relevant advantages in selected patients. If the long-term oncological results of laparoscopic and conventional resection of colonic carcinoma show equivalent results, the laparoscopic approach should be preferred in patients suitable for this approach to colectomy.