| 1. |
- Bonjer, H. Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
Laparoscopically assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer : a meta-analysis
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Archives of surgery (Chicago. 1960). - 0004-0010 .- 1538-3644. ; 142:3, s. 298-303
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis of trials randomizing patients with colon cancer to laparoscopically assisted or open colectomy to enhance the power in determining whether laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is oncologically safe. DATA SOURCES: The databases of the Barcelona, Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST), Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR), and Conventional vs Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Patients With Colorectal Cancer (CLASICC) trials were the data sources for the study. STUDY SELECTION: Patients who had at least 3 years of complete follow-up data were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Patients who had undergone curative surgery before March 1, 2000, were studied. Three-year disease-free survival and overall survival were the primary outcomes of this analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1765 patients, 229 were excluded, leaving 796 patients in the laparoscopically assisted arm and 740 patients in the open arm for analysis. Three-year disease-free survival rates in the laparoscopically assisted and open arms were 75.8% and 75.3%, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI] of the difference, -5% to 4%). The associated common hazard ratio (laparoscopically assisted vs open surgery with adjustment for sex, age, and stage) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.80-1.22; P = .92). The 3-year overall survival rate after laparoscopic surgery was 82.2% and after open surgery was 83.5% (95% CI of the difference, -3% to 5%). The associated hazard ratio was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P = .61). Disease-free and overall survival rates for stages I, II, and III evaluated separately did not differ between the 2 treatments. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopically assisted colectomy for cancer is oncologically safe.
|
|
| 2. |
- Buunen, Mark, et al.
(författare)
-
Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: The lancet oncology. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 10:1, s. 44-52
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer. METHODS: Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842. FINDINGS: During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]). INTERPRETATION: Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.
|
|
| 3. |
- van Ramshorst, Gabriëlle H, et al.
(författare)
-
Closure of midline laparotomies by means of small stitches : practical aspects of a new technique
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Surgical technology international. - : Universal Medical Press, Incorporated. - 1090-3941. ; 23:1, s. 34-38
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Randomized studies support the closure of midline incisions with a suture length to wound length ratio (SL:WL) of more than 4, accomplished with small tissue bites and short stitch intervals to decrease the risk of incisional hernia and wound infection. We investigated practical aspects of this technique possibly hampering the introduction of this technique. Patient data, operative variables and SL:WL ratio were collected at two hospitals: Sundsvall Hospital (SH) and Erasmus University Medical Center (EMC). A structured implementation of the technique had been performed at SH but not at EMC. Personnel were interviewed by questionnaire. At each hospital, 18 closures were analyzed. Closure time was significantly longer (p = 0.023) at SH (median 18 minutes, range: 9-59) than at EMC (median 13 minutes, range: 5-23). An SL:WL ratio of more than 4 was achieved in 8 of 18 cases at EMC and in all 18 cases at SH. We conclude that calculation of an SL:WL ratio is easily performed. Suturing with the small bite-short stitch interval technique of SH required 5 minutes extra, outweighing the morbidity of incisional hernia. Without a structured implementation to suture with an SL:WL ratio of more than 4, a lower ratio is often achieved.
|
|
