Laparoscopic versusopen right hemicolectomy with curative intent for colon carcinoma

AIM: Laparoscopic surgery, especially laparoscopic rectal surgery, for colorectal cancer has been developed considerably, However, due to relatively complicated anatomy and high requirements for surgery techniques,laparoscopic right colectomy develops relatively slowly, This study was designed to co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World journal of gastroenterology : WJG 2005, Vol.11 (3), p.323-326
1. Verfasser: Min-HuaZheng BoFeng Ai-GuoLu Jian-WenLi Ming-LiangWang Zhi-HaiMao Yan-YanHu FengDong Wei-GuoHu Dong-HuaLi LuZang Yuan-FeiPeng Bao-MingYu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:AIM: Laparoscopic surgery, especially laparoscopic rectal surgery, for colorectal cancer has been developed considerably, However, due to relatively complicated anatomy and high requirements for surgery techniques,laparoscopic right colectomy develops relatively slowly, This study was designed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) with open right hemicolectomy (ORH) in the treatment of colon carcinoma.METHODS: Between September 2000 and February 2003,30 patients with colon cancer who underwent LRH were compared with 34 controls treated by ORH in the same period. All patients were evaluated with respect to surgeryrelated complications, postoperative recovery, recurrence and metastasis rate, cost-effectiveness and survival.RESULTS: Among 30 LRH, 2 (6.7%) were converted to open procedure. No significant differences were observed in terms of mean operation time, blood loss, post-operative complications, and hospital cost between LRH and ORH groups. Mean time for bowel movement, hospital stay,and time to resume early activity in the LRH group were significantly shorter than those in the ORH group (2.24±0.56 vs 3.25±1.29 d, 13.94±6.5 vs 18.25±5.96 d, 3.94±1.64 vs 5.45±1.82 d respectively, P
ISSN:1007-9327
2219-2840