Short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: A nationwide retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy for treatment of rectal cancer is widely used in clinical practice. However, the safety and advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery at the national level remain unclear. We compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Using a Japanese nationwide inpatient database, this study analyzed data on patients who underwent rectal resection between July 2010 and March 2018. We performed propensity score matching analyses to compare in-hospital mortality, morbidities, blood transfusion, diverting stomas, anastomotic leakages, duration of anesthesia, postoperative length of stay, and readmission within 30 days between the laparoscopy and open surgery groups.

RESULTS

Among 99 137 eligible patients, propensity score matching generated 29 717 pairs. Laparoscopy was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (0.4% vs 0.6%, P = .006), overall morbidities (28.7% vs 33.2%, P < .001), and blood transfusion rate (11.5% vs 22.9%, P < .001); shorter postoperative duration of stay (16 days vs 18 days, P < .001); and longer duration of anesthesia (390 vs 310 minutes, P < .001). Grade C anastomotic leakage was not different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

With respect to in-hospital mortality, morbidities, blood transfusion, postoperative length of hospitalization, and readmission within 30 days, laparoscopy is advantageous over open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer.