Commentary - Journal of Advanced Surgical Research (2021) Volume 5, Issue 2

Colorectal cancer: laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery

Jack Wilson^*

Editorial Office, Journal of Advanced Surgical Research, London, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Jack Wilson
Editorial Office Journal of Advanced Surgical Research
London
United Kingdom
E-mail: wilsnjkmed..@gmail.com

Accepted date: March 11, 2021

Abstract

Patients who had laparoscopic-assisted surgery recovered considerably quicker than those who had open surgery, with reduced time to first passing flatus (p=.041), time to first bowel motion (p=.04), time to resume regular food (p=.043), and time to walk independently (p=.031). When compared to open surgery, laparoscopic colorectal surgery generated less discomfort for patients, resulting in a reduced demand for analgesics (p=.002) and less hospital recovery time (p=.034). There were no changes in overall and disease-free survival rates after three and five years. Colon cancer is a significant cause of mortality globally, and the grounds for laparoscopic surgery have steadily grown. Laparoscopic colorectal resection has been demonstrated to offer greater benefits for postoperative recovery, such as postoperative discomfort and hospital stay, as well as long-term survival, leading to widespread adoption of laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to conventional open surgery for colon cancer. Despite the potential benefits of laparoscopic surgery, it is not regarded the standard therapy for colorectal cancer patients due to concerns about oncologic stability. Potential hazards include tumor recurrence at the port location following curative resection and inadequate lymph node dissection. In reality, because of the technical difficulties of this procedure, laparoscopic colorectal resection is sometimes limited by the requirement for skilled surgeons. In reality, because of the technical difficulties of this procedure, laparoscopic colorectal resection is sometimes limited by the requirement for skilled surgeons. As a result, there are debates over the cost-effectiveness of this theater's availability from the standpoint of public health. Patients who required emergency surgery due to a complication such as cancer perforation or failure of the self-expanding stent placement in patients with colorectal cancer blockage, situations in which colorectal cancer had invaded an adjacent organ or required multi-organ surgery the research excluded instances in which curative resection could not be performed.

Commentary

Patients who had laparoscopic-assisted surgery recovered considerably quicker than those who had open surgery, with reduced time to first passing flatus (p=.041), time to first bowel motion (p=.04), time to resume regular food (p=.043), and time to walk independently (p=.031). When compared to open surgery, laparoscopic colorectal surgery generated less discomfort for patients, resulting in a reduced demand for analgesics (p=.002) and less hospital recovery time (p=.034). There were no changes in overall and disease-free survival rates after three and five years.

Colon cancer is a significant cause of mortality globally, and the grounds for laparoscopic surgery have steadily grown. Laparoscopic colorectal resection has been demonstrated to offer greater benefits for postoperative recovery, such as postoperative discomfort and hospital stay, as well as longterm survival, leading to widespread adoption of laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to conventional open surgery for colon cancer. Despite the potential benefits of laparoscopic surgery, it is not regarded the standard therapy for colorectal cancer patients due to concerns about oncologic stability. Potential hazards include tumor recurrence at the port location following curative resection and inadequate lymph node dissection. In reality, because of the technical difficulties of this procedure, laparoscopic colorectal resection is sometimes limited by the requirement for skilled surgeons. In reality, because of the technical difficulties of this procedure, laparoscopic colorectal resection is sometimes limited by the requirement for skilled surgeons. As a result, there are debates over the cost-effectiveness of this theater's availability from the standpoint of public health. Patients who required emergency surgery due to a complication such as cancer perforation or failure of the self-expanding stent placement in patients with colorectal cancer blockage, situations in which colorectal cancer had invaded an adjacent organ or required multi-organ surgery the research excluded instances in which curative resection could not be performed.

Age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and co-morbidities were acquired prior to surgery. Tumor location, surgical time, blood loss, sample length, proximal and distal margin length, number of retrieved lymph nodes, tumour size, pathological differentiation, and clinical stage were among the pathological and perioperative variables examined. Analgesic use, peristalsis recovery time, time till flatus, off-bed, first liquid and semi-liquid intake, and hospital stay duration were all studied after surgery. There was also a collection of early and late postoperative problems. Patients were positioned supine for traditional open surgery, and a midline or right paramedian skin incision was made. The open operations were carried out in accordance with the operating surgeon's usual practises.

The operations for laparoscopic surgery were carried out with the patient in the modified lithotomy and Trendelenburg positions. The open technique was used to generate pneumoperitoneum. In general, three to five 12-mm ports were used: an umbilical port for the laparoscopic camera and two (or one) ports on each side. The surgeon and camera operator stood on the left side of the patients for prolonged right colectomy and transverse colectomy, and on the right side of the patients for extended left colectomy. The first assistant was on the other side of the surgeon, and the scrub nurse was between the patient's legs. The retroperitoneum and right colon mesocolon were separated, revealing the superior mesenteric vein's ventral side. The ileocolic vessels, right colic vessels, and midcolic vessels are all types of vessels. During the 72-hour period following surgery, prophylactic antibiotics were administered. This period was extended if there was any evidence of infection. Except for individuals with malignancies in the lower rectum, the catheter was withdrawn as soon as feasible. A physical examination was done one month after surgery and every three months thereafter, and laboratory indicators such as blood carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19.9 levels were measured. Symptoms were documented and wound scars were inspected at each patient visit. Every 6 months, an ultrasound or computed tomography scan of the abdomen was conducted, in addition to a chest X-ray, and a complete colonoscopy was performed once a year.