Comparison between the perioperative results of single-access and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer

Comparison of Survival between Single-Access and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Rectal Cancer

Introduction

Innovative laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be classified into 2 types: firstly, new instruments such as robotic surgery and secondly, new technique such as single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown pathologic outcomes comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS); however, SALS is considered to be superior to CLS in terms of lower levels of discomfort and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of the two approaches.

Methods

From 2011 to 2014, 84 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled. The operations were anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections. Data collected included postoperative outcomes. The oncological outcomes recorded included 3-year and 5-year survival, local recurrence, and metastasis.

Results

SALS was performed on 41 patients, and CLS was utilized in 43 cases. The demographic data of the two groups were similar. Intraoperative volumes of blood loss and conversion rates were similar, but operative time was longer in the SALS group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or pathological outcomes. The oncologic results were similar in terms of 3-year survival (100% and 97.7%; p = 1.00), 5-year survival (78.0% and 86.0%; p = 0.401), local recurrence rates (19.5% vs 11.6%, p = 0.376), and metastasis rates (19.5% vs 11.6%; p = 0.376) for SALS and CLS, respectively.

Conclusion

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had comparable pathological and survival results, but SALS showed some superior benefits in the early postoperative period.