4.4 Article

Multivisceral and standard resections in colorectal cancer

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 397, Issue 1, Pages 75-84

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-011-0854-z

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; Multivisceral; Survival; Laparoscopic; Emergency

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current study was designed to identify prognostic factors for long-term survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer in a consecutive cohort. A total of 123 patients were operated because of T4 colorectal cancer between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2008 in the Clinic of Surgery, UK-SH Campus Luebeck. A total of 78 patients underwent a multivisceral resection. The postoperative morbidity was elevated in the patient group with multivisceral resections (34.6% vs. 26.7%). Nevertheless, we detected no significant differences concerning 30 days mortality (7.7% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.815). The main prognostic factor that reached significance in the multivariate analysis was the possibility to obtain a R0 resection (p < 0.0001) resulting in a 5-year survival rate of 55% for patients with curative resection. There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year survival between multivisceral and non-multivisceral resections (p = 0.608). Also we were not able to detect any significant differences for cancer of colonic or rectal origin (p = 0.839), for laparoscopic vs. open procedures (p = 0.610), and for emergency vs. planned operations (p = 0.674). Moreover, the existence of lymph node metastases was not a predictive factor concerning survival as there was no difference between patients with and without lymph node metastases (p = 0.658). Multivisceral resections are associated with the same 5-year survival as standard resections. Therefore, the aim to perform a R0 resection should always be the main goal in surgery for colorectal cancer. In planned operations, a laparoscopic approach is justified in selected patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available