BACKGROUND: Most studies available on laparoscopic colorectal surgery focus on highly selected patient groups. The aim of the present study was to review short- and long-term outcome of everyday patients treated in a general surgery department.
METHODS: Retrospective review was carried out of a prospective database of all consecutive patients having undergone primary laparoscopic (LAP) or open colorectal surgery between March 1993 and December 1997. Follow-up data were completed via questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 187 patients underwent LAP resection and 215 patients underwent open surgery. Follow up was complete in 95% with a median of 59 months (range, 1-107 months) and 53 months (range, 1-104 months), respectively. There were 28 conversions (15%) in the LAP group and these remained in the LAP group in an intention-to-treat analysis. The LAP operations lasted significantly longer for all types of resections (205 vs 150 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (8 vs 13 days, P < 0.001). Recovery of intestinal function was faster in the LAP group, but only after left-sided procedures (3 vs 4 days, P < 0.01). However, preoperative patient selection (more emergency operations and patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score in the open group) had a major influence on these elements and favours the LAP group. Surprisingly, the overall surgical complication rate (including long-term complications such as wound hernia) was 20% in both groups with rates of individual complications also being comparable in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Despite a patient selection favourable to the laparoscopy group, only little advantage in postoperative outcome could be shown for the minimally invasive over the open approach in the everyday patient.