Review Article
Laparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer: What Is the Evidence?
Table 1
Short-term outcomes.
| | Trial | Type | Surgical method in comparison | Numbers | Mean/median lymph nodes harvested | CRM positivity | TME complete | Conversion to open (%) | Duration of intervention (min) | Blood loss (mL) | Length of hospital stay (days) | Morbidity within 28 days (%) | Mortality within 28 days (%) |
| CLASICC
[3] | Multicentre RCT-UK | Open versus laparoscopic assisted | 254 (O) versus 127 (L) | NA | 14 versus 16 (NA) | NA | 34% | 135 versus 180 (no significance calculated) | NA | 13 versus 11 (no significance calculated) | 40 versus 37 | NA |
| COREAN
[19] | Multicentre RCT—South Korea | Open versus laparoscopic assisted | 170 versus 170 | 18 versus 17 | 4.1 versus 2.9 (1 mm from margin) | 74.7 versus 72.4 | 1.20% | 197 versus 245* | 217.5 versus 200* | 9 versus 8 | 23.5 versus 21.2 | 0 versus 0 |
| COLOR II
[48] | Multicentre RCT—30 centres in 8 countries | Open versus laparoscopic assisted | 364 versus 739 | 14 versus 13 | 10 versus 10 (2 mm from margin) | 92 versus 88 | 17% | 188 versus 240* | 400 versus 200* | 9 versus 8 | 37 versus 40 | 2 versus 1 |
| Lujan et al.
[17] | Multicentre non randomised-72 centres in Spain | Open versus laparoscopic assisted | 3018 versus 1387 | 14.75 versus 14.53 | 16.3 versus 9.5 (1 mm from margin)* | 75.6 versus 82.4 | 17.37% | 186.38 versus 217.83* | NA | 11 versus 8* | 45.6 versus 38.3* | 3.6 versus 1.2* |
| Lujan et al.
[18] | Single centre RCT-Spain | Open versus laparoscopic assisted | 103 versus 101 | 11.6 versus 13.6 | 2.9 versus 4.0 (1 mm from margin) | NA | 7.90% | 172.9 versus 193.7 | 234.2 versus 127.8 | 9 versus 8 | 33.0 versus 33.7 | 2.9 versus 1.9 |
| Ng et al.
[20] | Single centre RCT-HK | Open versus laparoscopic APR | 48 versus 51 | 13 versus 12.4 | 4.2 versus 5.9 (NA) | NA | 9.80% | 163.7 versus 213.5 | 555.6 versus 321.7 | 11.5 versus 10.8 | 52.1 versus 42.1 | 2.8 versus 2.5 |
|
|
.
|
