Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: What is the impact on short-term outcomes and survival?

doi:10.3748/wjg.v22.i37.8304

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 22, Issue 37

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (8076)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-2) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

1352

WORD

222

HTML

3728

Figures (1-2)

179

Tables (1-3)

169

Sum=5650

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1053

Download

1373

Sum=2426

Oct 7, 2016 (publication date) through Apr 25, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (50)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Minireviews

World J Gastroenterol. Oct 7, 2016; 22(37): 8304-8313
Published online Oct 7, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i37.8304

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of individual studies

Ref.	Study design	Colon and/or rectal	No. patients	Conversion (%)			Men (%)		Age (yr)		BMI (kg/m²)
Ref.	Study design	Colon and/or rectal	No. patients	Overall	Colon resection	Rectal resection	LAP	CONV	LAP	CONV	LAP	CONV
Allaix et al[13]	Retrospective	Both	1114	122 (10.9)	77 (10.7)	45 (11.4)	530 (53.4)	69 (56.6)	67.0¹	68.0	23.0	24.0
Agha et al[14]	Retrospective	Rectal	300	26 (8.6)	NA	26 (8.6)	166 (60.5)¹	21 (80.7)	64.7	64.5	26.2¹	29.0
Biondi et al[12]	Prospective	Both	207	33 (15.9)	14 (42.4)	19 (57.6)	102 (58.6)	23 (69.7)	65.5	66.8	NR	NR
Bouvet et al[15]	Prospective	Both	91	38 (41.1)	NR	NR	30 (56,6)	25 (65.8)	65.0	67.0	NR	NR
Chan et al[16]	Prospective	Both	470	41 (8.7)	NR (12.3)	NR (7.2)	238 (55.5)¹	30 (73.2)	69.0	69.1	NR	NR
Franko et al[21]	Prospective	Both	174	31 (17.8)	NR	NR	73 (51.0)	21 (51.2)	70.0	69.0	NR	NR
Keller et al[22]	Prospective	Rectal	141	25 (17.7)	NA	25 (17.7)	63 (54.3)	17 (68.0)	63.1	63.5	28.7	27.5
Li et al[23]	Retrospective	Colon	217	33 (15.2)	33 (15.2)	NA	94 (51.1)	20 (60.7)	62.6	62.9	25.6	24.5
Martínek et al[17]	Prospective	Both	243	17 (7.0)	10 (6.3)	7 (8.2)	146 (64.6)	13 (76.5)	64.5	62.8	26.7	28.4
Moloo et al[24]	Prospective	Both	359	46 (12.8)	NR	NR	171 (54.6)	25 (54.3)	65.0	65.0	NR	NR
Ptok et al[25]	Prospective	Colon	346	56 (16.2)	56 (16.2)	NA	NR	NR	66.5	68.9	NR	NR
Rickert et al[26]	Prospective	Rectal	162	38 (23.5)	NA	38 (23.5)	69 (55.7)	27 (71.0)	63.0¹	69.0	25.1	25.8
Rottoli et al[20]	Prospective	Rectal	173	26 (15.0)	NA	26 (15.0)	NR	NR	63.2	64.3	24.9¹	27.3
Rottoli et al[27]	Prospective²	Both	93	31 (NA)	NR	NR	37 (59.7)	24 (77.4)	72.0	72.0	26.8¹	29.6
Scheidbach et al[18]	Retrospective	Both	1409	80 (5.7)	41 (8.2)	39 (6.4)	658 (49.5)	46 (57.5)	68.9	69.7	25.2¹	26.4
White et al[19]	Prospective	Both	175	25 (14.3)	NR	NR	70 (46.7)	11 (44.0)	69.7	74.4	27.2	26.9
Yamamoto et al[28]	Prospective	Rectal	1073	78 (7.3)	NA	78 (7.3)	625 (62.8)	48 (61.5)	62.9	63.8	22.7¹	24.6
Yerokun et al[29]	Retrospective	Colon	46472	6144 (13.2)	6144 (13.2)	NA	19738 (48.9)¹	3308 (53.8)	70.0¹	69.0	NR	NR

¹P value of difference between overall LAP and CONV is < 0.05;

²Case-control study. BMI: Body mass index; NR: Not reported; NA: Not applicable; LAP: Laparoscopic group; CONV: Converted group.

Table 2 Reason for conversion, intra-operative blood loss and operative time

Ref.	Tumor related (%)			Anatomic related (%)	Intra-operative complication (%)	Obesity (%)	Adhesions (%)	Other reason (%)	Intra-operative blood loss (mL)		Duration of operation (min)
	Overall	Colon	Rectal						Intra-operative blood loss (mL)		Duration of operation (min)
	Overall	Colon	Rectal						LAP	CONV	LAP	CONV
Allaix et al[13]	59 (48.4)	44 (57.1)	15 (33.3)	6 (4.9)	5 (4.1)	23 (18.8)	18 (14.8)	11 (9.0)	100¹	150	140¹	180
Agha et al[14]	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	5 (19.2)	10 (38.5)	4 (15.4)	7 (26.9)	NR	NR	215¹	258
Biondi et al[12]	17 (51.5)	NR	NR	3 (9.1)	6 (18.2)	0 (0)	6 (18.2)	1 (3.0)	96.4¹	184	162.0¹	187.9
Bouvet et al[15]	6 (15.8)	NR	NR	10 (26.3)	2 (5.3)	0 (0)	12 (31.6)	8 (21.1)	NR	NR	240	270
Chan et al[16]	11 (26.9)	NR	NR	4 (9.8)	6 (14.7)	0 (0)	14 (34.1)	6 (14.7)	191.2¹	461.9	179.4	187.2
Franko et al[21]	4 (12.9)	NR	NR	18 (58.1)	5 (16.1)	0 (0)	NR	4 (12.9)	NR	NR	160¹	182
Keller et al[22]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	74¹	253	242.6¹	260
Li et al[23]	15 (45.5)	15 (45.5)	NA	4 (12.1)	4 (12.1)	0 (0)	10 (30.3)	0 (0)	90¹	147	165¹	188
Martínek et al[17]	3 (17.6)	NR	NR	6 (35.3)	5 (29.4)	NR	NR	3 (17.6)	177¹	415	152¹	224
Moloo et al[24]	13 (28.3)	NR	NR	12 (26.1)	4 (8.7)	0 (0)	5 (10.9)	11 (23.9)	NR	NR	NR	NR
Ptok et al[25]	15 (26.8)	15 (26.8)	NA	8 (14.3)	7 (12.5)	0 (0)	9 (16.1)	17 (30.4)	NR	NR	178.9	186.7
Rickert et al[26]	7 (18.4)	NA	7 (18.4)	11 (28.9)	4 (10.5)	6 (15.8)	6 (15.8)	4 (10.5)	NR	NR	345	363
Rottoli et al[20]	7 (26.9)	NA	7 (26.9)	10 (23.5)	6 (23.1)	0 (0)	2 (7.7)	1 (3.8)	NR	NR	285¹	342
Rottoli et al[27]	12 (38.7)	NR	NR	6 (19.3)	2 (6.5)	0 (0)	11 (35.5)	0 (0)	NR	NR	NR	NR
Scheidbach et al[18]	24 (30.0)	NR	NR	8 (10.0)	14 (17.5)	0 (0)	15 (18.8)	19 (23.7)	200¹	500	180¹	232
White et al[19]	18 (72.0)	NR	NR	0 (0)	4 (12.0)	0 (0)	3 (12.0)	0 (0)	NR	NR	145.6¹	172
Yamamoto et al[28]	13 (16.7)	NA	13 (16.7)	26 (33.3)	7 (9.0)	12 (15.4)	10 (12.8)	10 (12.8)	80¹	265	270¹	295
Yerokun et al[29]	NR	NR	NA	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

¹P value of difference between LAP and CONV is < 0.05. NR: Not reported; NA: Not applicable; LAP: Laparoscopic group; CONV: Converted group.

Table 3 Postoperative data

Ref.	Postoperative complications (%)		Woundinfection (%)		Anastomoticleakage (%)		Mortality(30-d) (%)		Hospitalstay (d)
Ref.	LAP	CONV	LAP	CONV	LAP	CONV	LAP	CONV	LAP	CONV
Allaix et al[13]	156 (15.7)	20 (16.4)	9 (0.9)	3 (2.5)	49 (4.9)	4 (3.3)	3 (0.3)	1 (0.8)	7	9
Agha et al[14]	101 (36.8)¹	16 (61.2)	33 (12.0)¹	6 (23.0)	23 (8.3)	3 (11.5)	0 (0)	0 (0)	10	10.5
Biondi et al[12]	10 (6.0)	11 (33.3)	1 (0.6)¹	2 (6.1)	3 (1.7)	1 (3.0)	NR	NR	8.4¹	10.6
Bouvet et al[15]	13 (24.5)	10 (26.3	NR	NR	NR	NR	1 (1.9)	0 (0)	6¹	8
Chan et al[16]	72 (16.7)¹	23 (56.1)	8 (1.9)	6 (2.4)	10 (2.3)	1 (2.4)	1 (0.2)	1 (2.4)	6¹	10
Franko et al[21]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	1 (0.7)	2 (6.5)	4.0¹	6.8
Keller et al[22]	25 (21.5)¹	8 (32.0)	2 (1.7)	4 (20.0)	3 (2.6)	0 (0)	1 (0.9)	0 (0)	4.4¹	6.8
Li et al[23]	NR	NR	4 (2.2)	3 (9.1)	14 (7.6)	3 (9.1)	NR	NR	4¹	8
Martínek et al[17]	65 (28.8)	6 (35.3)	NR	NR	NR	NR	7 (3.1)	0 (0)	11.3	12.5
Moloo et al[24]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
Ptok et al[25]	75 (25.9)	22 (39.3)	NR	NR	NR	NR	1 (0.3)	1 (1.8)	NR	NR
Rickert et al[26]	42 (33.9)	19 (50.0)	6 (4.8)¹	7 (18.4)	18 (16.4)	7 (22.6)	0 (0)	1 (2.6)	12¹	15
Rottoli et al[20]	34 (23.1)	4 (15.4)	NR	NR	17 (11.6)	4 (15.4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	8	9
Rottoli et al[27]	13 (21.0)	7 (22.6)	NR	NR	1 (1.6)	1 (3.2)	1 (1.6)	0 (0)	NR	NR
Scheidbach et al[18]	389 (28.5)¹	41 (51.3)	138 (10.4)¹	16 (20.0)	67 (5.0)¹	11 (13.8)	20 (1.5)¹	4 (5.0)	NR	NR
White et al[19]	NR	NR	14 (9.3)	5 (20.0)	NR	NR	0 (0)	1 (4.0)	8.3¹	14.4
Yamamoto et al[28]	210 (21.1)¹	34 (43.6)	56 (5.6)	14 (17.9)	72 (7.2)	14 (17.9)	0 (0)	0 (0)	14¹	20
Yerokun et al[29]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	419 (1.0)¹	115 (1.9)	5¹	6

¹P value of difference between LAP and CONV is < 0.05. NR: Not reported; LAP: Laparoscopic group; CONV: Converted group.

Citation: Allaix ME, Furnée EJB, Mistrangelo M, Arezzo A, Morino M. Conversion of laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: What is the impact on short-term outcomes and survival? World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(37): 8304-8313
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i37/8304.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i37.8304