Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2014
[Treatment reality with respect to laparoscopic surgery of colonic cancer in Germany].
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ptok H, Gastinger I, Bruns C, Lippert H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer is equivalent to open resection with respect to the oncological results and has short-term advantages in the early postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether laparoscopic colonic resection has become established as the standard in routine treatment.
METHODS: Data from the multicenter observational study "Quality assurance colonic cancer (primary tumor)" from the time period from 1 January 2009 to 21 December 2011 were evaluated with respect to the total proportion of laparoscopic colonic cancer resections and tumor localization and specifically for laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer resections. A comparison between low and high volume clinics (< 30 versus ≥ 30 colonic cancer resections/year) was carried out.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic colonic cancer resections were carried out in 12 % versus 21.4 % of low and high volume clinics, respectively (p < 0.001) with a significant increase for low volume clinics (from 8.0 % to 15.6 %, p < 0.001) and a constant proportion in high volume clinics (from 21.7 % to 21.1 %, p = 0.905). For sigmoid colon cancer laparoscopic resection was carried out in 49.7 % versus 47.6 % (p = 0.584). Differences were found between low volume and high volume clinics in the conversion rates (17.3 % versus 6.6 %, p < 0.001), the length of the resected portion (Ø 23.6 cm versus 36.0 cm, p < 0.001) and the lymph node yield (Ø n = 15.7 versus 18.2, p = 0.008). There were no differences between the two groups of clinics regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality. The postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly lower for laparoscopic sigmoid resection than for conventional sigmoid resection.
CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic access route for colonic cancer resection is not the standard approach in the participating clinics. The laparoscopic access route has the highest proportion for sigmoid colon resection. The differences in the conversion rates, length of the resected portion and the number of lymph nodes investigated between the low volume and high volume clinics must be viewed critically and must be interpreted in connection with the long-term oncological results.
METHODS: Data from the multicenter observational study "Quality assurance colonic cancer (primary tumor)" from the time period from 1 January 2009 to 21 December 2011 were evaluated with respect to the total proportion of laparoscopic colonic cancer resections and tumor localization and specifically for laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer resections. A comparison between low and high volume clinics (< 30 versus ≥ 30 colonic cancer resections/year) was carried out.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic colonic cancer resections were carried out in 12 % versus 21.4 % of low and high volume clinics, respectively (p < 0.001) with a significant increase for low volume clinics (from 8.0 % to 15.6 %, p < 0.001) and a constant proportion in high volume clinics (from 21.7 % to 21.1 %, p = 0.905). For sigmoid colon cancer laparoscopic resection was carried out in 49.7 % versus 47.6 % (p = 0.584). Differences were found between low volume and high volume clinics in the conversion rates (17.3 % versus 6.6 %, p < 0.001), the length of the resected portion (Ø 23.6 cm versus 36.0 cm, p < 0.001) and the lymph node yield (Ø n = 15.7 versus 18.2, p = 0.008). There were no differences between the two groups of clinics regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality. The postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly lower for laparoscopic sigmoid resection than for conventional sigmoid resection.
CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic access route for colonic cancer resection is not the standard approach in the participating clinics. The laparoscopic access route has the highest proportion for sigmoid colon resection. The differences in the conversion rates, length of the resected portion and the number of lymph nodes investigated between the low volume and high volume clinics must be viewed critically and must be interpreted in connection with the long-term oncological results.