CURRENT STATUS OF LAPAROSCOPY FOR COLORECTAL DISORDERS Steven D. Wexner, M.D., FACS, FRCS, FRCS(Ed) Cleveland Clinic Florida Chairman, Department of Colorectal.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oncologic Results of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Surgery for Stage II or III Left-Sided Colon Cancers A Randomized Controlled Trial A randomized.
Advertisements

Post-operative Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Parag Sanghvi, M.D., M.S.P.H. Department of Radiation Medicine Esophageal Care Conference 3/26/2007.
DEBATE: What is the Optimal Sequence of Therapies for Stage II-III Adenocarcinoma of the Proximal Stomach? Michael A. Choti, MD Department of Surgery UT.
A COMPARISON of LAPAROSCOPICALLY ASSISTED and OPEN COLECTOMY for COLON CANCER The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (Cost Study) NEJM,
Update on management of colonic diverticulitis Dr. Nerissa Mak Oi Sze Department of Surgery North District Hospital/ Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital.
Management of colorectal cancer with liver metastasis Dr. Vivian Lee Department of Surgery, UCH.
The Health Roundtable 3-3c_HRT1215-Session_LEMANU_CMDHB_NZ Enhanced Recovery After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Randomised Controlled Trial Presenter:
ANDREW NG PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL Role of primary chemoradiation in esophageal carcinoma.
How do we manage perforated Crohn’s Disease? Daniel von Allmen, MD Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, Ohio.
Long-Term Survival Following Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Sheung Tat FAN Department of Surgery, The University of HongKong Chair Professor.
NSABP PROTOCOL C-10: RESULTS A Phase II Trial of 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin and Oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) Plus Bevacizumab for Patients with Unresectable.
1.A 33 year old female patient admitted to the ICU with confirmed pulmonary embolism. It was noted that she had elevated serum troponin level. Does this.
Management of Colorectal Liver Metastasis
Giving Induction Radiation in Addition to Chemotherapy Is Not Associated with Improved Survival of NSCLC Patients with Operable Mediastinal Nodal Disease.
BIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF BREAST CANCER TREAMENT Benjamin O. Anderson, M.D. Director, Breast Health Clinic Professor of Surgery and Global Health, University.
Dr. LP Si Tseung Kwan O Hospital. Introduction CA stomach is the 4 th most commonly diagnosed malignancy worldwide 2 nd most common cause of cancer-related.
Management of early rectal carcinoma Joint Hospital Surgical Grand Round Jeren Lim United Christian Hospital.
Elective Colorectal Resection – How to Hasten the Recovery? Dr. Lily Ng RHTSK.
Lars Påhlman Dept. Surgery, Colorectal unit, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden How to handle peritoneal carcinomatosis found at laparotomy.
Current Status of Laparoscopy for Colon and Rectal Cancer
Heidi Beck & Eva Yuen NUTN 514 February 11, 2008.
Clinical Questions What is the superior surgical approach for postmenopausal women with early stage endometrial cancer in terms of patient quality of life?
Feza H. Remzi MD, FACS, FASCRS
T4 Colon Cancer and Laparoscopic Approach Gustavo Plasencia MD FACS, FASCRS Clinical Professor of Surgery Gustavo Plasencia MD FACS, FASCRS Clinical Professor.
Pancreatic Cancer Ali Shamseddine MD Proessor of Medicine AUBMC
Laparoscopic Pancreatectomy Attila Nakeeb, M.D., F.A.C.S. Department of Surgery Indiana University School of Medicine 7th Annual Symposium on Gastrointestinal.
Is surgical resection of an asymptomatic primary colorectal tumor beneficial for patients with incurable Stage IV disease? A Phase II Trial of 5-Fluorouracil,
The Impact of Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin in the Preoperative Multimodality Treatment of Patients with Carcinoma of the Rectum: NSABP R-04 1 Capecitabine.
SYNCHRONOUS COLORECTAL AND LIVER RESECTION J Peter A Lodge MD FRCS HPB and Transplant Unit St James’s University Hospital Leeds LS9 7TF 2006 Association.
Laparoscopic Liver Resections David A. Kooby, MD, FACS Associate Professor of Surgery Division of Surgical Oncology Emory University School of Medicine.
Evidence Based Medicine R3 林雅慧 Clerks 翁瑄、楊畯棋 指導老師 : 駱至誠 醫師.
The treatment of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the anal canal: A single institution experience P. Pathak, B. King, A. Ohinata, P. Das, C.H.
T Andre, E Quinaux, C Louvet, E Gamelin, O Bouche, E Achille, P Piedbois, N Tubiana-Mathieu, M Buyse and A de Gramont. Updated results at 6 year of the.
EARLY PROGRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH HIGH-RISK SOFT TISSUE SARCOMAS AN ANALYSIS FROM A PHASE III RANDOMIZED PROSPECTIVE TRIAL (EORTC 62961/ESHO) OF NEOADJUVANT.
Accelerated hemithoracic radiation followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma Marc de Perrot, Ronald Feld, Natasha B Leighl,
A comparison of open vs laparoscopic emergency colonic surgery; short term results from a district general hospital. D Vijayanand, A Haq, D Roberts, &
Clinical Decision on Harm. Clinical scenario or question Will laparoscopic hysterectomy increase post operative complications for our obese patient with.
Management of the primary in Stage IV colorectal cancer Erin Kennedy, MD, PhD, FRCSC Colorectal Surgery Mount Sinai Hospital University of Toronto.
Laparoscopic Treatment of Crohn’s Disease: Is It the Standard Approach? Steven D Wexner, MD, FACS, FRCS, FRCS (Ed) Chairman, Department of Colorectal Surgery.
The Health Roundtable Postoperative IV Antibiotic Therapy for Children with Complicated Appendicitis: A Propensity Score-Matched Observational Study Presenter:
EVALUATING u After retrieving the literature, you have to evaluate or critically appraise the evidence for its validity and applicability to your patient.
J. Lujan, G. Valero, Q. Hernandez, A. Sanchez, M.D. Frutos and P. Parrilla. British Journal of Surgery, September 2009.
The impact of smoking on cancer recurrence and survival in patients with stage III colon cancer: findings from CALGB Nadine A. Jackson, Charles S.
Therapeutic Delay and Survival after Surgery for Cancer of the Pancreatic Head with or without Preoperative Biliary Drainage Eshuis, van der Gaag, Rauws.
Mamoun A. Rahman Surgical SHO Mr Osborne’s team. Introduction Blood transfusion: -Preoperative ( elective) -Intra/postoperative ( urgent) Blood transfusion.
Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer A meta-analysis H. Lau Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong Medical Center, Tung Wah Hospital,
Cost comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Colorectal Resections in a district general hospital setting Menon A, Shapey I, Nicholson J, Muhammad KB, Solkar.
Early Treatment of Relapsed Ovarian Cancer Based on CA125 Level Alone Versus Delayed Treatment Based on Conventional Clinical Indicators Results of the.
Important questions As good or better ? Cost effective ? Overall, safer? Is it safe as a cancer operation? Can all surgeons do it? Compare to open surgery.
Laparoscopic vs. Conventional Resections for Colorectal Carcinoma 2LT Pil (Pete) Kang New York University School of Medicine 28 September 2000.
Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer Anna Bill-Axelson, M.D., Lars Holmberg, M.D., Ph.D., Mirja Ruutu, M.D., Ph.D., Michael.
Complete pathologic responses in the primary of rectal or colon cancer treated with FOLFOX without radiation A. Cercek, M. R. Weiser, K. A. Goodman, D.
R3 정상완. Introduction  EGC : Tumor invasion is limited to the mucosa or submucosa, regardless of lymph node involvement.  Accumulated histopathological.
D2 Lymphadenectomy Alone or with Para-aortic Nodal Dissection for Gastric Cancer NEJM July vol 359 R2 임규성.
Laparoscopic colorectal surgery
Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer What is the evidence?
Short-term outcome of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Obese Women
Results of Definitive Radiotherapy in Anal Canal Carcinoma
Title Introduction Methods Results Discussion Authors
นายแพทย์ธราธร ตุงคะสมิต นายแพทย์ชำนาญการพิเศษ โรงพยาบาลมะเร็งอุดรธานี
Treatment With Continuous, Hyperfractionated, Accelerated Radiotherapy (CHART) For Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): The Weston Park Hospital Experience.
Metastatic/Recurrent Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (M/R-GIST): Does surgical resection improve survival?
Laparoscopic vs Open Colonic Surgery: Long Term Survival
盧建璋, 陳鴻華, 李克釗, 胡萬祥, 張家駱, 蔡鎧隆, 林岳民, 鄭功全, 吳昆霖
Dr Jessica Jenkins Consultant Oncologist
Adjuvant Radiation is Required for Gastric Cancer
First efficacy and safety results from XELOX-1/NO16966, a randomised 2x2 factorial phase III trial of XELOX vs FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab or placebo in first-line.
The role of simultaneous resection of synchronous liver metastasis and primary colorectal cancer Samuel Lo Department of Surgery.
Presentation transcript:

CURRENT STATUS OF LAPAROSCOPY FOR COLORECTAL DISORDERS Steven D. Wexner, M.D., FACS, FRCS, FRCS(Ed) Cleveland Clinic Florida Chairman, Department of Colorectal Surgery Professor of Surgery, Ohio State University Health Sciences Center at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Clinical Professor of Surgery, University of South Florida College of Medicine

Cleveland Clinic Florida Weston

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer  Short term benefits –Bowel function recovery –Quality of life (including pain) –Hospital stay  Costs  Long term benefits –Recurrence –Survival

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer IEvidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial II-1Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization II-2Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case control analytic studies, preferable from more than one center or research group II-3Evidence obtained from comparisons between times or places with or without the intervention; dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments were also included in this category IIIOpinion of respected authorities based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees Levels of evidence* *Can Med Assoc, 1979

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Levels of evidence* National Health, Medical Research Council Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant randomized controlled trials 2 Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial 3-1 Evidence obtained from well-designated pseudorandomized controlled trials (alternate allocation or some other method) 3-2 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with concurrent controls and allocation not randomized (cohort studies) 3-3 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with historical control, two or more single-arm studies, or interrupted time series without a parallel control group 4 Evidence obtained from case series, either posttest or pretest/posttest

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Bowel Function Recovery AuthorYear N of patients Bowel function recovery Bowel function recovery (mean/median n of days) Retrospective Melotti Schiedeck Zhou Prospective Morino Tsang

AuthorYear N of patients Bowel function (mean/median n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Seow-Choen Ramos Goh Schwandner Hartley Champault Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Bowel Function Recovery p<0.05 Case-control/Cohort

AuthorYear N of patients Bowel function (mean/median n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Milsom Curet Lacy Hasegawa p<0.05 Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Bowel Function Recovery Randomized

 The evidence that laparoscopy offers faster bowel function recovery than the traditional open approach may be considered high (Level I)

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Quality of Life - Pain AuthorYear N of patients Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? LapOpenLap p value Seow-Choen No- Ramos Yes<0.005 Goh No- Psaila Yes0.002 Schwandner No- Case-control/Cohort

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Quality of Life - Pain AuthorYear N of patients Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? Less pain/analgesic requirement (days)? LapOpenLap p value Stage Yes < 0.05 Schwenk Yes < 0.01 Milsom Yes0.02 Weeks Yes0.03 Hasegawa Yes0.002 Randomized

 Randomized trial (COST trial)  449 patients  228 Laparoscopy (Lap), 221Open  Pain, hospital stay  Quality of life (2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months) –Symptom distress scale –Quality of life index –Global rating scale (1-100) Weeks, JAMA 2002 Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Quality of life

Results Lap n = 228 Open n = 221 Age (years) Gender M:F 108:120108:113 Tumor stage IIIIIIIV ASA classification I or II I or II III III P=NSWeeks, JAMA 2002

Results Lap n = 228 Open n = 221 p value Oral analgesics IV narcotics/analgesics <0.001 Hospital stay <0.001 Weeks, JAMA 2002 > Patients in the Lap group had only greater mean global rate scores at 2 weeks after surgery (76.9 vs. 74.4; p=.0009) > No other differences in quality of life Values are means

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer  The superiority of laparoscopy in reducing pain during the same length of the postoperative period seems evident (Level I)  Other aspects of quality of life warrant further investigation

AuthorYearPatients Hospital Stay Retrospective Melotti Schiedeck Zhou Prospective Yamamoto Anderson Morino Tsang Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital Stay

AuthorYear N of patients Hospital Stay (mean n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Lord Franklin Seow-Choen Ramos Goh Khalili Psaila p<0.05 Cohort/case-control studies Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital Stay

AuthorYear N of patients Hospital Stay (mean n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Schwandner Fleshman Leung Hartley Baker Anthuber Champault p<0.05 Cohort/case-control studies (cont)

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital Stay AuthorYear N of patients Hospital Stay (mean n of days) (mean n of days) LapOpenLapOpen Stage Schwenk Milsom Curet Lacy Weeks Hasegawa Randomized p<0.05

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Hospital stay  There is high evidence (Level I) that laparoscopy for malignancy is associated with an earlier discharge compared to laparotomy

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs  Retrospective study Philipson, Wold J Surg 1997 Lap n = 28 Open n = 33 p Direct costs OR/recovery OR/recovery Ward Ward ICU ICU Total Total < Indirect costs <0.001 Overall total costs <0.001 (Australian $)

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs  Retrospective study Khalili, DCR 1998 Lap n = 80 Open n = 90 p OR costs ($) 2,1001, Total costs ($) 14,80014,

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs  Retrospective study Psaila, Br J Surg 1998 Lap n = 29 Open n = 25 p Disposable equipment (lb) 140 (200) 400 (220) 0.05 Total cost (lb) 3300 (1700) 2900 (1500) NS Values are mean (s.d)

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Costs  The data available does not provide adequate evidence on whether total costs differ between laparoscopy and laparotomy in the treatment of malignancy

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence Author, year N of patients Mean FU time (months) Recurrence (%) OverallLocalDistant Retrospective Huscher, Schiedek, Prospective Lumley, Anderson, Scheidbach,

Cohort/case-control studies Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence Author,year N of patients Mean FU (months) Recurrence (%) OverallLocalDistant LapOpenLapOpenLapOpenLapOpen Franklin, Ramos, Khalili, / Schwandner, / Santoro, Lezoche, / Hartley, Feliciotti, p=NS

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Survival Author, year N of patients Mean FU (months) Survival time Overall survival (%) TNM/Dukes stages Retrospective Fleshman, year I-93; II-72; III-53 Color trial, year I-95; II-98; III-93 Poulin, year72.1 Lechaux, year79 Prospective Scheidbach, year80.9 Anderson, year A-100; B-76; C-51 Morino, year I-92; II-79; III-67

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Survival Author, year N of patients Mean FU (months)Survival Overall survival (%) TNM Stage LapOpenLapOpen Franklin, /485-year Leung, year Khalili, year Schwandner, year9393 Santoro, year Leung, /284-year Hartley, year7177 Lujan, year I-73; II-61;III-55 I-75;II-65; III-46 Champault, year Pantakar, year I-76; II-68; III-53 I-80; II-64; III-50 Cohort/case-control studies

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Randomized Controlled Trial  111 Laparoscopy vs. 106 Laparotomy  Non metastatic colon cancer  Median follow-up time: 43 (27-85) months  Postoperative chemotherapy for all suitable patients with Stage II or III rectal cancer  Intention-to-treat analysis Lacy et al, The lancet 2002

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence Lacy et al, The lancet 2002 Laparoscopy(n=106)Open(n=102) Hazard ratio (95% CI) p Tumor recurrence 18 (17%) 28 (27%) 0.72 ( ) 0.07 Type of recurrence Distant metastasis Distant metastasis Locoregional relapse Locoregional relapse Peritoneal seeding Peritoneal seeding Port-site metastasis Port-site metastasis Time to recurrence (months) 15 (14) 17 (12) Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intention 6 (33%) 9 (32%)

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Survival Lacy et al, The lancet 2002 Laparoscopy(n=106)Open(n=102) Hazard ratio (95% CI) p Overall mortality 19 (18%) 27 (26%) 0.77 ( ) 1.04 Cancer-related mortality 10 (9%) 21 (21%) 0.68 ( ) 0.03 Causes of death Perioperative mortality Perioperative mortality Tumor progression Tumor progression Others Others

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Predictive factors Lacy et al, The lancet 2002 Hazard ratio (95% CI) p Probability of being free of recurrence Lymph node metastasis (presence or absence) Surgical procedure (Open vs. Lap) Preoperative serum CEA (> ng/ml vs. ng/ml vs. < 4 ng/ml) 0.31 ( ) 0.39 ( ) 0.43 ( ) Overall survival Surgical procedure (open vs. Lap) Lymph-node metastasis (presence vs. absence) 0.48 ( ) 0.49 ( ) Cancer-related survival Lymph-node metastasis (presence vs. absence) Surgical procedure (open vs. Lap) 0.29 ( ) 0.38 ( ) Cox’s regression model

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Overall survival Lacy et al, The lancet 2002

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Cancer-related survival Lacy et al, The lancet 2002

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Recurrence free – by Stage Lacy et al, The lancet 2002

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Overall survival- by Stage Lacy et al, The lancet 2002

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Cancer related survival – by Stage Lacy et al, The lancet 2002

Laparoscopic Colectomy: Cancer  Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancies  a systematic review  English language  Randomized controlled trials  Controlled clinical trials  Case series/reports Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer 52 papers met inclusion criteria52 papers met inclusion criteria –“Little high level evidence was available” –“The evidence base for laparoscopic-assisted reection of colorectal malignancies is inadequate to determine the procedures safety and efficacy” Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Disadvantages vs. Open Colectomy Significantly longer operative timesSignificantly longer operative times Possibly more expensivePossibly more expensive Possibly worse short term immune effectsPossibly worse short term immune effects Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer “Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancy was more expensive and time-consuming”“Laparoscopic resection of colorectal malignancy was more expensive and time-consuming” The new procedure’s advantages revolve around early recovery from surgery and reduced pain”The new procedure’s advantages revolve around early recovery from surgery and reduced pain” Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer Advantages vs. Open Colectomy Improved cosmesis (no data but appears uncontentious)Improved cosmesis (no data but appears uncontentious) Quicker hospital dischargeQuicker hospital discharge Less narcotic use, though possibly larger benefits for certain types of colectomy (low colonic)Less narcotic use, though possibly larger benefits for certain types of colectomy (low colonic) Possibly less pain at rest, at least for patients who have uncovered proceduresPossibly less pain at rest, at least for patients who have uncovered procedures Possibly earlier return of bowel function and resumption of normal dietPossibly earlier return of bowel function and resumption of normal diet Chapman et al. Ann Surg 2001

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer  Short term Quality-of-Life outcomes Following Laparoscopic-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy for Colon Cancer (COST Study)  AIMS –Are disease free and overall survival equivalent ? –Is laparoscopic approach associated with better QOL ? Weeks et al. JAMA 2002

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer  Randomized control trial  449 patients –Adenocarcinoma of single segment of colon –Excluded: Acute presentation, rectal and transverse colon cancers, advanced local disease, those lesions with evidence of metastatic disease, ASA IV or V  Quality of surgery: –All surgeons with > 20 cases; Random audit of cases Weeks et al. JAMA 2002

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer  Outcomes: –Survival: still pending –QOL at 2days, 2 weeks and 2 months using: »Symptom Distress Scale, Global QOL Scale, QOL index  Results: Intention to Treat Analysis –Shorter use of narcotics –Shorter length of stay by 0.8 days (p<0.01) –Quality of life: no difference Weeks et al. JAMA 2002

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Cancer  Conclusions –“The modest benefits in short term QOL measures we observed are not sufficient to justify the use of this procedure in the routine care setting”  Unresolved Issues: –Blunting of QOL differences via analgesic use –QOL differences between POD 2 and POD 14 –Recurrence and survival outcomes –Incidence of small bowel obstruction Weeks et al. JAMA 2002

Laparoscopic Colectomy : Prospective, Randomized, Controlled 48 institutions, 872 patients Prospective, randomized Follow-up 4.4 years Conversion 21% Endpoint was time to tumor recurrence Nelson, NEJM 2004

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Laparoscopic (n=435) Open(n=425) Age7069 Female Location Right Right Left Left Sigmoid Sigmoid TNM Stage Unknown Unknown Nelson, NEJM 2004

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Outcome at Surgery Laparoscopic (N=435) Open(N=425) P value Bowel margins (cm) Lymph nodes Surgery time (min) 15090<0.001 Conversion90-- Intraoperative complications 815NS Length of incision (cm) 186<0.001 Nelson, NEJM 2004

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Post-operative Laparoscopic(n=435)Open(n=425) IV narcotics (days) 34<0.001 PO narcotics (days) Length of Stay 56< day mortality 24NS Complications9285NS Rates of readmission 1012NS Rates of reoperation <2%<2%NS Nelson, NEJM 2004

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Outcome Laparoscopic(n=435)Open(n=425) P value Recurrence*(4.4yrs) Wound recurrence 1%1% P=0.50 NS 3yr survival 86%85% P=0.51 NS Nelson, NEJM 2004 * Laparoscopic procedure not significantly inferior to Open Procedure.

Cumulative Incidence of Recurrence at Any Satge

Overall Survival at Any Stage

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled: Conclusions  No difference between: –Time to recurrence –Disease-free survival –Overall survival  Oncologic outcome of laparoscopic resection is similar to that of open resection  Laparoscopic Approach is associated with less pain and a shorter hospital stay than conventional surgery Nelson, NEJM 2004

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Conclusion  Laparoscopy for colorectal cancer has shown to be potentially superior to laparotomy in regard to short-term benefits and equivalent with regard to long term benefits  Available data appear to support that laparoscopic colectomy and conventional open colectomy have either similar or superior long-term outcomes (Level 1 evidence)

Laparoscopy: Colorectal cancer Conclusion  Surgeons with sufficient expertise and ongoing peer-reviewed data collection may offer this therapy to appropriately selected patients

International Colorectal Disease Symposium 16 th Annual An International Exchange of Medical and Surgical Concepts Marriott’s Harbor Beach Resort & Spa Fort Lauderdale, Florida February 17 – 19, 2005