Clinical comparison of laparoscopy vs open surgery in a radical operation for rectal cancer: A retrospective case-control study

AIM: to assess the diverse immediate and long-term clinical outcomes, a retrospective comparison between laparoscopic and conventional operation was performed. METHODS: A total number of 916 clinical cases, from January 2006 to December 2013 in our hospital, were analyzed which covered 492 patients underwent the laparoscopy in radical resection (LRR) and 424 cases in open radical resection (ORR). A retrospective analysis was proceeded by comparing the general information, surgery performance, pathologic data, postoperative recovery and complications as well as long-term survival to investigate the diversity of immediate and long-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical operation. RESULTS: There were no statistically significance differences between gender, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), tumor loci, tumor node metastasis stages, cell differentiation degree or American Society of Anesthesiologists scores of the patients (P > 0.05). In contrast to the ORR group, the LRR group experienced less operating time (P < 0.001), a lower blood loss (P < 0.001), and had a 2.44% probability of conversion to open surgery. Postoperative bowel function recovered more quickly, analgesic usage and the average hospital stay (P < 0.001) were reduced after LRR. Lymph node dissection during LRR appeared to be slightly more than in ORR (P = 0.338). There were no obvious differences in the lengths and margins (P = 0.182). And the occurrence rate in the two groups was similar (P = 0.081). Overall survival rate of ORR and LRR for 1, 3 and 5 years were 94.0% and 93.6% (P = 0.534), 78.1% and 80.9% (P = 0.284) and 75.2% and 77.0% (P = 0.416), respectively. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy as a radical operation for rectal cancer was safe, produced better immediate outcomes. Long-term survival of laparoscopy revealed that it was similar to the open operation.