BACKGROUND

The long-term oncologic stability of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer was established, and laparoscopic surgery was accepted as an alternative to conventional open surgery for colon cancer. However, transverse colon cancer was excluded from the majority of the previous prospective studies. As a result, debate on laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer continues. This study aimed to compare the clinicopathologic outcome of laparoscopic surgery with that of conventional open surgery for transverse colon cancer.

METHODS

From August 2004 to December 2007, 106 cases of transverse colon cancer were managed by resection at our institution, and 89 of these cases were included in this study. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), operation time, blood loss, time to first flatus, time to start of diet, hospital stay, complications, tumor size, distal resection margin, proximal resection margin, and number of nodes harvested were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the laparoscopic and conventional groups in terms of age, sex, BMI, operation time, or hospital stay. The mean blood loss during the operations was significantly less in the laparoscopic group (113.8 +/- 128.9 ml) than in the conventional group (278.8 +/- 268.7 ml; p < 0.05). Moreover, the time to the first flatus was shorter (2.8 +/- 0.9 days vs. 4.4 +/- 2.0 days; p < 0.00) and the diet was started earlier (3.9 +/- 1.7 days vs. 5.4 +/- 1.9 days; p < 0.00) in the laparoscopic group. No intergroup differences in tumor size, proximal resection margin, or number of lymph nodes were observed. The mean distal resection margin was longer in the laparoscopic group (12.5 +/- 4.1 cm vs. 9.2 +/- 6.2 cm; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and conventional open surgeries were found to have similar clinical outcomes in transverse colon cancer, and the oncologic quality of laparoscopic surgery was found to be acceptable compared with conventional open surgery.