Comparing the Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Resections of Colorectal Cancer

Introduction: Surgical resection of non-metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma remains the gold standard treatment. Laparoscopy offers various advantages over the open surgical modality. However, the adoption of laparoscopy in different countries is slow because of the associated learning curve and the apprehension around the integrity of the resection margin. Aim: To compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections for colorectal cancer performed in a single institution. Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 99 consecutive patients who underwent elective resection for adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Patients were divided into two groups, the open surgery group and the laparoscopic group, then matched into 30 pairs using a propensity score. Variables compared between the groups were demographics, tumor localization, type of resection, 30-day postoperative outcome, number of lymph nodes, length of resected specimens, distal margins, tumor T stage, and TNM stage. Results: Compared to open surgery, laparoscopy resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays and reduced complications, particularly infections (p < 0.05), in the matched patients. There was no statistical difference between the groups in the other analyzed variables (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The results suggest that patients who underwent laparoscopic resection experienced significant improvements in the first 30 days postoperatively when compared to patients who underwent open resection. Patients in the laparoscopy group had fewer complications, a faster postoperative recovery, and a shorter hospital stay than patients in the open group, while adhering to oncological resection principles.