Lymph Node Clearance after Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Laparoscopic versus Open ApproachPechlivanides G.a · Gouvas N.b · Tsiaoussis J.c · Tzortzinis A.d · Tzardi M.b · Moutafidis M.a · Dervenis C.e · Xynos E.b
aFirst Department of General Surgery, Athens Naval Hospital, bMedical School, University of Crete, cDepartment of Surgery, ‘Metropolitan Hospital’, dDepartment of General Surgery, Naval Hospital of Crete, and eFirst Department of General Surgery, ‘Agia Olga’ Hospital of Athens, Greece
19, Michelidaki Street
GR–712 02 Heraklion (Greece)
Tel. +30 2810 280 002, Fax +30 2810 280 009
Do you have an account?
Background: Laparoscopic resection of the rectum is still under scrutiny for its adequacy of oncological clearance. Aim: To assess lymph node yield after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer as compared to the open approach. Methods: 74 patients with middle and low rectal cancer were prospectively randomized in two groups. Group A included 39 patients who had an open TME (35 with low anterior resection of the rectum (LARR) and 4 with abdominoperineal resection of the rectum (APR)). In group B, there were 34 patients who had a laparoscopic TME (27 with LARR and 7 with APR). 10 of the LARR patients in group A and 14 of the LARR patients in group B had a defunctioning ileostomy. All operations were performed by one surgeon or under his supervision. Results: Gender and age distribution were similar for both groups (group A: 23 males; mean age 69 (41–85); group B: 20 males; mean age 72 (31–84)). The mean distance of the tumor from the dentate line was 7.6 cm (1–12 cm) for group A and 6.1 cm (1–12 cm) for group B. Anastomosis was formed at a mean distance of 5.5 cm (1.5–8.5 cm) from the dentate line in group A and 3.5 cm (1–4.5 cm) in group B. At histology, in group A there were 5 T4 tumors, 9 T3, 10 T3+ (<1 mm distance from the circumferential resection margin), 13 T2 and 2 T1. In group B, there were 3 T4 tumors, 14 T3, 8 T3+, 7 T2 and 2 T1. Differences between groups were not significant.The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved in group A specimens was 19.2 (5–45) and in group B 19.2 (8–41) (p = 0.2). In group A, 3.9 (1–9) regional, 13.9 (3–34) intermediate and 1.5 (1–3) apical lymph nodes were retrieved. The respective values in group B were 3.7 (3–7), 14.4 (4–33) and 1.3 (1–3). Differences between groups were not significant. Also, the incidence of lymph node involvement by the tumor was not significantly different between groups (group A: 23; group B: 19). Conclusions: Laparoscopic resection of the rectum can achieve similar lymph node clearance to the open approach. Also, distribution of the lymph nodes along the resected specimens is similar between the two approaches.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.