Background
The surgical approach to treat colon cancer has remained a matter of debate for many years. The assessment of short-term outcomes of the most common available modalities for surgical resection of colon cancer, which are the laparoscopic and open techniques, is considered a tool by which the best approach for colon cancer resection can be judged and documented. The aim of this work was to report on the initial experience in laparoscopic resection of colon cancer in a Middle Eastern oncology center.
Patients and methods
A total of 88 patients were involved in the current study who were proved to have colon cancer by a confirmed biopsy. They were subjected randomly to open or laparoscopic colectomy (LAC) and followed up for short-term outcomes (operative time, blood loss, and postoperative sequelae) to determine the most beneficial strategy based on its advantages. Data were collected and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20.
Results
The results showed that LAC was significantly different compared with open colectomy (OC) regarding the postoperative pain score, which was 3.14 and 6.85 for LAC and OC, respectively (=0.02). Time to bowel sounds return was faster in LAC at 3.48 vs 7.5 h in OC (<0.05). Postoperative ileus and surgical site infection were less frequent in LAC (=0.03 and 0.05, respectively). The most impressive statistically significant differences were in hospital stay (4.75 days after LAC vs 8.11 days after OC; =0.02) and the reported overall morbidity, which was recorded in 6.6% of LAC cases compared with 21% of OC cases; this difference was significant (<0.01).
Conclusion
LAC showed multiple advantages over OC in many aspects related to short-term outcomes. The results of this study support the view that minimally invasive LAC is an effective and safe procedure for resection of colon cancer.