Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Single Specialized Center Experience

BACKGROUND: Randomized studies have validated laparoscopic proctectomy for the treatment of rectal cancer as noninferior to an open proctectomy, but most of those studies have included sphincter-preserving resections along with abdominoperineal resection. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes between minimally invasive and open abdominoperineal resection. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a single specialized colorectal surgery department. Patients: All patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal cancer between 2000 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. RESULTS: We included 452 patients, 372 in the open group and 80 in the minimally invasive group, with a median follow-up time of 74 months. There were significant differences between the groups in terms of neoadjuvant radiation treatment (67.5% of the open versus 81.3% of the minimally invasive group, p = 0.01), operative time (mean of 200 minutes versus 287 minutes, p < 0.0001), and mean length of stay (9.5 days versus 6.6 days, p < 0.0001). Overall complication rates were similar between the groups (34.5% versus 27.5%, p = 0.177). There were no significant differences in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (21.7 versus 22.2 nodes, p = 0.7), circumferential radial margins (1.48 cm versus 1.37 cm, p = 0.4), or in the rate of involved radial margins (10.8% versus 6.3%, p = 0.37). Five-year overall survival was 70% in the open group versus 80% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.344), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the open group was 63.2% versus 77.6% in the minimally invasive group (p = 0.09). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited because it describes a single referral institution experience. CONCLUSIONS: Although both approaches have similar perioperative outcomes, the minimally invasive approach benefits the patients with a shorter length of stay and a lower risk for surgical wound infections. Both approaches yield similar oncological technical quality in terms of the lymph nodes harvested and margins status, and they have comparable long-term oncological outcomes.