Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 39  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 73-80

Laparoscopic conversion to open in rectal cancer resection: effect on short-term and oncological outcomes


Department of Surgery, Assiut University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

Date of Submission19-Jun-2019
Date of Decision18-Jul-2019
Date of Acceptance31-Jul-2019
Date of Web Publication14-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
MBBCh, MSC Moamen S Abdelgawaad Shalkamy
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, El-Gamaa Street, Assiut, 71515
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1115-2613.278267

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background Laparoscopy has been accepted to be safe and feasible in rectal cancer resection. The effect of conversion to open on short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in colorectal patients with cancer is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term and oncological outcomes of conversion in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.
Patients and methods The data of 40 patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal cancer resection were prospectively collected. Of the 40 patients, eight (20%) patients underwent conversion to open surgery. Laparoscopic-successful group and laparoscopic-conversion group patients were compared.
Results Locally advanced tumor was the commonest reason for conversion (37.5%). Laparoscopic-conversion group had more intraoperative complications (P=0.017), greater blood loss (P=0.051), longer operative time (P=0.001), and lower rate of total mesorectal excision completeness (P=0.046) compared with laparoscopic-successful group. Pathological T4 was significantly higher in laparoscopic-converted group than in laparoscopic-successful group. The rate of local recurrence (50 vs. 10.3%) was significantly higher in laparoscopic-conversion group than in laparoscopic-successful group (P=0.027). Two-year disease-free survival was significantly prolonged in laparoscopic-successful group than in laparoscopic-conversion group (P=0.033).
Conclusion Conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic rectal resection has a negative effect on intraoperative outcomes and could be a negative predictive factor for long-term oncological outcomes.

Keywords: conversion, laparoscopic resection, rectal cancer


How to cite this article:
Abdelgawaad Shalkamy MS, Ahmed GA, Elkhateeb AI, Shehata MR, Hanna RS, Mohammed Abouelhassan AS. Laparoscopic conversion to open in rectal cancer resection: effect on short-term and oncological outcomes. Egypt J Surg 2020;39:73-80

How to cite this URL:
Abdelgawaad Shalkamy MS, Ahmed GA, Elkhateeb AI, Shehata MR, Hanna RS, Mohammed Abouelhassan AS. Laparoscopic conversion to open in rectal cancer resection: effect on short-term and oncological outcomes. Egypt J Surg [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 31];39:73-80. Available from: http://www.ejs.eg.net/text.asp?2020/39/1/73/278267




  Introduction Top


According to several randomized clinical trials and review of literature, the laparoscopic approach has been accepted to be superior to the open surgery in colorectal cancer resection owing to its short-term advantages such as less intraoperative blood loss, earlier postoperative recovery, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay without compromising long-term oncological outcomes [1],[2],[3],[4],[5].

The rate of laparoscopic conversion to the open surgery in colorectal cancer resection varies largely in randomized clinical trials and has been reported in up to 30% of patients [6],[7],[8],[9]. Several risk factors for conversion have been identified: patient-related factors, such as BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, age, sex, and previous abdominal surgery; tumor-related factors, such as location, T-stage, acute surgery, and metastatic setting; and procedure-specific factors, such as visceral injury, problems with anastomosis, bleeding, perforation, adhesions, a short mesentery, and the surgeon’s experience [10],[11],[12].

However, the effects of laparoscopic conversion to open surgery in rectal cancer resection on short-term and oncological outcomes remain controversial. Most of the literature studies included limited numbers of patients, did not analyze patients with colon cancer and those with rectal cancer separately, or did not analyze the cause for conversion as well [13],[14],[15]. The real effect of laparoscopic conversion to open surgery on short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in colorectal cancer patients is still unclear. As such, we wanted to include only patients with rectal cancer as well as to analyze the causes of conversion.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of laparoscopic conversion to the open surgery on short-term and oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.


  Patient and methods Top


Data of 40 patients with rectal neoplasm who underwent laparoscopic resection from December 2014 to April 2017 were prospectively collected. A written concent was taken from the patients for the laparoscopy intention to treat including possible conversion to open and complications. Patients with rectal neoplasm, the lower end of the lesion located within 15 cm from anal verge by colonoscopy or per rectum examination, were included. Emergency surgery (perforation or obstruction), palliative surgery, concurrent inflammatory bowel disease, and uncorrectable coagulopathy were the exclusion criteria.

Definition of conversion and study groups

Conversion was defined as the use or extension of any incision to perform any part of the procedure other than specimen retrieval or port placement. However, using the incision for anvil placement or applying stapler for distal rectal resection was not considered a conversion.

Patients were classified into two group: laparoscopic-successful group for laparoscopic completed resection and laparoscopic-conversion group for laparoscopic converted resection.

Parameter

Clinicopathological characteristic of patients included age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, tumor location, tumor size, clinical TNM stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. Intraoperative parameters included type of procedure, conversions to open surgery and its cause, stoma and its type, intraoperative complications, anastomosis methods, duration of operation, amount of blood loss, and total mesorectal excision (TME) completeness. Postoperative progress was recorded with respect to duration of pain killer, return of bowel function, duration of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and pathologic parameters. Tumor classification was defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 7th TNM edition [16].

Oncological parameters were as follows: disease recurrence was defined as local tumor recurrence or development of distant metastasis. Two-year disease-free survival (DFS) was used to evaluate oncologic outcomes. DSF was calculated from the date of surgery to the date of recurrence or death. Patients without evidence of recurrence or lost follow-up were censored. Patients with early postoperative death (within 30 days after surgery) were not included in DFS calculation. All the patients were followed up via clinical examination and MRI abdomen and pelvis every 3 month and via colonoscopy every 6 months.

Surgery

All the procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Preoperative care including antibiotic prophylaxis, bowel preparation, and thromboembolism prophylaxis, was provided for all patients. All patients were operated on the principles of surgical oncology with curative intention, such as high inferior mesenteric artery ligation, TME, adequate margins, and wound protection.

Anterior resection was defined as resection of tumors located above peritoneal reflection with tumor-specific mesorectal excision. Low anterior resection was defined as resection of tumors located at or below peritoneal reflection with TME. Intersphincteric resection was defined as TME with intersphincteric dissection in low laying rectal cancer in case of neoplasm did not invade external anal sphincter, otherwise abdominoperineal resection was a must. Total proctocolectomy with ileoanal anastomosis was defined for rectal neoplasm in the context of familial adenomatous polyposis coli.

A double stapling technique was used for anastomosis in most of cases, whereas hand sewing anastomosis was performed in case of intersphincteric resection or failure of stapling procedure.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22.0, software (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA). Categorical variables were analyzed using the χ2 test. Continuous variables were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U test. DFS was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and comparison of DFS between two groups was performed using the log-rank test. P values less than 0.05 were considered to be significant.


  Results Top


In total, 40 patients with pathologically proven rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic rectal resection were enrolled in this study. Mean±SD age was 51±16 years old, and most of the patients were male (24, 60%). Among 40 patients, laparoscopic-successful group had 32 (80%) patients and laparoscopic-conversion group had eight (20%) patients.

Clinicopathological characteristics of patients

Patients and disease characteristics are summarized in [Table 1]. There was no significant difference in term of age, sex, BMI, patient comorbidities, tumor characteristics, and neoadjuvant therapy between study groups. However, tumor size was significantly higher in laparoscopic-conversion group (mean±SD, 6.6±2.3 cm) compared with laparoscopic-successful group (mean±SD, 4.7±1.3 cm) (P=0.015).
Table 1 Clinicopathological characteristics of patients

Click here to view


Operative outcomes

Intraoperative blood loss was greater in laparoscopic-conversion group (mean±SD, 400±205 ml) than in laparoscopic-successful group (mean±SD, 246±146 ml) (P=0.051). Duration of the operation in laparoscopic-conversion group (mean±SD, 278.7±64.4 min) was significantly longer than in laparoscopic-successful group (mean±SD, 198.7±55.8 min) (P=0.001). Moreover, the incidence of intraoperative complications in the laparoscopic-conversion group (62.5%) was significantly higher than in the laparoscopic-successful group (25%) (P=0.017). However, the incidence of TME completeness in laparoscopic-conversion group (62.5%) was significantly lower than in laparoscopic-successful group (93.8%) (P=0.046). Details of operative outcomes are summarized in [Table 2].
Table 2 Intraoperative outcomes

Click here to view


Causes of conversion

Locally advance tumor was the most common cause of conversion (37.5%) followed by large tumor size and tumor perforation (25% for each), and then instrumental failure of laparoscopy (12.5%) ([Figure 1]).
Figure 1 Bar chart showing causes of laparoscopic conversion to open in rectal cancer resection.

Click here to view


Postoperative outcomes

Duration of pain killer was significantly longer in laparoscopic-conversion group (mean±SD, 5±0.5 day) than in laparoscopic-successful group (mean±SD, 3.6±1 day) (P=0.001), and length of hospitalization was significantly longer in laparoscopic-conversion group (mean±SD, 8.8±2 day) than in laparoscopic-successful group (mean±SD, 7.4±2.9 day) (P=0.013). The outcomes regarding parameters of return of bowel function showed no significant differences between the study groups ([Table 3]).
Table 3 Postoperative outcomes

Click here to view


Postoperative complications

Intestinal obstruction was observed in six (15%) patients; most of them were diagnosed as ileus except a case of internal herniation was observed in laparoscopic-successful group and readmission for open exploration was mandatory. Anastomotic disorders were observed in five (12.5%) patients, exclusively in laparoscopic-successful group: A anastomotic leakage occurred in two cases and were treated by percutaneous drainage; two cases of anastomotic stricture and ulceration were managed by repeated dilatation; and one case of anastomotic bleeding was associated with marked drop in hemoglobin level needed only blood transfusion and watchful waiting. A single case of early postoperative death was documented owing to massive pulmonary embolism. Colovaginal fistula was observed following repeated dilatation for anastomotic stricture, and recurrence was histologically excluded. Neither postoperative complications nor reoperation showed significant difference between the study groups ([Table 3]).

Pathologic outcomes

Analysis of pathologic outcomes, including pathology differentiation (P=0.503), lymphovascular (P=0.173), distal resection margin (P=0.539), number of harvested lymph nodes (P=0.325), and number of positive lymph nodes (P=0.359), revealed no statistically significant differences between the study groups ([Table 4]). However, subgroup analysis of pT stage categories revealed significant more frequent T4 stage in laparoscopic-conversion group (six, 75%) than in laparoscopic-successful group (eight, 25%) (P=0.014).
Table 4 Pathological and oncological outcomes

Click here to view


Oncological outcomes

Long-term oncologic outcomes are shown in [Table 4]. Tumor recurrence and DFS were used for assessment of oncologic outcomes. Local recurrence happened in seven (18.9%) patients. The rate of local recurrence was significantly higher in laparoscopic-conversion group (50%) compared with laparoscopic-successful group (10.3%) (P=0.027). Distant metastasis was diagnosed in six (16.5%) patients. Distant recurrence rate revealed no significant difference between laparoscopic-successful (10.3%) and laparoscopic-conversion group (37.5%) (P=0.101). Two-year DFS was significantly prolonged in laparoscopic-successful group 86.2% (mean, 22.1 months; CI 20.5–23.8 months) than in laparoscopic-conversion group 50% (mean, 19 months; CI, 14.9–23 months) (P=0.033) ([Figure 2]).
Figure 2 Kaplan–Meier curve shows 2-years disease-free survival (DFS) after laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer in laparoscopic-successful versus laparoscopic-conversion group.

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Laparoscopic surgery provides a magnified and well-illuminated image of the surgical field to allow for a more precise radical resection for colorectal cancer. However, there has been a rising concern about the worse outcomes of laparoscopic conversion to open in rectal cancer surgery.

The conversion rate in the present study was 20%, near to conversion rate in the COST trial (21%) [17], whereas it was lower than conversion rate in Rickert et al. [18] (23.5%) and much higher than COLOR II trials (16%) and other studies [1],[19],[20],[21],[22]. Herein, conversion rate could be accepted with technically challenging rectal resections conducted by different surgeons with different level of experience for laparoscopic resection. Tekkis et al. [11] reported a significant reduction of the conversion rate from 20.7 to 5.5% with increasing experience in laparoscopy and number of laparoscopic resections. In this study, we found that tumor-related factors, locally advanced tumor (37.5%) followed by large tumor size (25%), were the most common reasons for conversion, with cumulative percent constituting 62%. This is consistent with most of the studies reporting the reason of conversion, where the tumor-related factors were the most frequent reason for conversion [13],[20],[21],[23].

Allaix et al. [14] performed a systematic review and found male predominance and higher BMI in converted compared with laparoscopy-completed patients in many studies. Herein, there were no significant differences in term of patients and tumor characteristics between laparoscopic-successful and laparoscopic-converted group except tumor size, which was significantly higher in laparoscopic-conversion group compared with laparoscopic-successful group (P=0.015). Tumor size was significantly larger in laparoscopy-converted than laparoscopy-completed patients in the three retrospective studies [13],[18],[23].

The present study demonstrated the laparoscopic-conversion group was characterized by an increased rate of intraoperative complications, greater blood loss, and a longer operative duration compared with laparoscopic-successful group, which is consistent with several previous reports [21],[23],[24],[25],[26].

Controversial results were reported by several authors on comparing postoperative short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-completed colorectal resections and converted surgeries. CLASSIC trial and many studies reported longer hospital stay, higher complication rate, and transfusion requirement in laparoscopy-converted patients [6],[19],[24],[26]. However, several studies did not find any significant difference [18],[20],[21],[23],[25]. In contrast, Scheidbach et al. [26] reported a high reoperation rate and early return of bowel function in favor of laparoscopy completed (4.9 vs. 15.0%). In the present study, laparoscopic-conversion group was characterized by significantly longer hospital stay and pain killer duration, whereas postoperative complications together with return of bowel function and rate of reoperation showed no significant differences between the study group.

Most of the formerly cited studies revealed insignificant difference in T-stage, N stage, and positive margins between laparoscopy-completed and converted patients. However, three studies reviewed a higher frequency of T3 and T4 in laparoscopy-converted patients [19],[21],[27]. The present data revealed significant rise of T4 stage in laparoscopic-conversion group than in laparoscopic-successful group (P=0.014). The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar in both study group, and this is consistent with the series reporting this item [18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30].A difference in local recurrence rate between laparoscopy-completed and converted patients was reported by Chan et al. [13] (2.5 vs. 9.8%, respectively, P<0.001). However, many studies reported comparable differences in local recurrence rates between both groups but did not reach statistical significance [19],[20],[24]. Higher distant recurrence rates were reported by three studies in laparoscopy-converted patients but did not reach statistical difference [19],[20],[21]. Herein, the rate of local recurrence was significantly higher in laparoscopic-conversion group compared with laparoscopic-successful group (P=0.027), whereas distant recurrence rate revealed no significant difference between laparoscopic-successful and laparoscopic-conversion groups (P=0.101).

Favorable outcomes in DFS were found in multiple studies in the laparoscopy-completed rather than converted patients [13],[20],[21],[23],[31]. However, other two studies reported favorable outcomes in converted patients [24],[26]. Our results demonstrated worse 2-year DFS rate in laparoscopic-conversion group (P=0.033). We suggest that the worse DFS in the laparoscopic-conversion group might be related to several factors other than conversion itself, such as locally advanced tumor; conversion may delay time to start adjuvant therapy, and furthermore, missing neoadjuvant therapy in some patients in laparoscopic-conversion group could explain high rate of local recurrence. Limitations of our study were small sample size and short period of follow-up. The small sample size of the laparoscopic-conversion group may lead to an unpowered conclusion. Further large-scale investigation is needed to establish the oncological effect of laparoscopic conversion to open for rectal cancer resection.


  Conclusion Top


In conclusion, tumor-related factors (locally advanced tumor and large tumor size) are the major risk factors for laparoscopic conversion to open for rectal cancer resection. Conversion is associated with an increased rate of intraoperative complications. However, conversion per se could be a strong predictive factor, not an independent risk factor, for worse oncological outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank surgical and nursing team for clinical care of patients included in this work.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14:210–218.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, Quirke P, Guillou P, Jayne DG et al. Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2013; 100:75–82.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E et al. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10:44–52.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Azuma T, Mori Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K et al. A meta-analysis of the short-and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15:1375–1385.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Huang MJ, Liang JL, Wang H, Kang L, Deng YH, Wang JP. Laparoscopic assisted versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials on oncologic adequacy of resection and long-term oncologic outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011; 26:415–421.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365:1718–1726.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hewett PJ, Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, Frampton CM, Frizelle FA, Rieger NA et al. Short-term outcomes of the Australasian randomized clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments for colon cancer: the ALCCaS trial. Ann Surg 2008; 248:728–738.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Ng SS et al. Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomized trial. Lancet 2004; 363:1187–1192.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Capretti G, Di Carlo V. Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50:464–471.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Stormark K, Soreide K, Soreide JA, Kvaloy JT, Pfeffer F, Eriksen MT et al. Nationwide implementation of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes and long-term survival in a population based cohort. Surg Endosc 2016; 30:4853–4864.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP. Conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a predictive model with, 1253 patients. Surg Endosc 2005; 19:47–54.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Thorpe H, Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Copeland J, Brown JM. Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic Assisted Surgery In Colorectal Cancer Trial Group. Patient factors influencing conversion from laparoscopically assisted to open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2008; 95:199–205.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Chan ACY, Poon JTC, Fan JKM, Lo SH, Law WL. Impact of conversion on the long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2008; 22:2625–2630.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Allaix ME, Furnée EJ, 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; 22:8304–8313.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Clancy C, O’Leary DP, Burke JP, Redmond HP, Coffey JC, Kerin MJ et al. A meta‐analysis to determine the oncological implications of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Colorect Dis 2015; 17:482–490.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17:1471–1474.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2050–2059.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Rickert A, Herrle F, Doyon F, Post S, Kienle P. Influence of conversion on the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer compared with primarily open resection. Surg Endosc 2013; 27:4675–4683.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Agha A, Fürst A, Iesalnieks I, Fichtner-Feigl S, Ghali N, Krenz D et al. Conversion rate in 300 laparoscopic rectal resections and its influence on morbidity and oncological outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23:409–417  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rottoli M, Bona S, Rosati R, Elmore U, Bianchi PP, Spinelli A et al. Laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on short-term outcome and survival. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16:1279–1286.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Allaix ME, Degiuli M, Arezzo A, Arolfo S, Morino M. Does conversion affect short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy for colorectal cancer? Surg Endosc 2013; 27:4596–4607.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Cima RR, Hassan I, Poola VP, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Larson DR et al. Failure of institutionally derived predictive models of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery to predict conversion outcomes in an independent data set of 998 laparoscopic colorectal procedures. Ann Surg 2010; 251:652–658.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Biondi A, Grosso G, Mistretta A, Marventano S, Tropea A, Gruttadauria S et al. Predictors of conversion in laparoscopic assisted colectomy for colorectal cancer and clinical outcomes. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2014; 24:e21–e26.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Keller DS, Khorgami Z, Swendseid B, Champagne BJ, Reynolds HL, Stein SL et al. Laparoscopic and converted approaches to rectal cancer resection have superior long-term outcomes: a comparative study by operative approach. Surg Endosc 2014; 28:1940–1948.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Martínek L, Dostalík J, Guňková P, Guňka I, Vávra P, Zonča P. Impact of conversion on outcome in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2012; 7:74–81.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Scheidbach H, Garlipp B, Oberländer H, Adolf D, Köckerling F, Lippert H. Conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: impact on short- and long-term outcome. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2011; 21:923–927.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Bouvet M, Mansfield PF, Skibber JM, Curley SA, Ellis LM, Giacco GG et al. Clinical, pathologic, and economic parameters of laparoscopic colon resection for cancer. Am J Surg 1998; 176:554–558.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Yamamoto S, Fukunaga M, Miyajima N, Okuda J, Konishi F, Watanabe M. Impact of conversion on surgical outcomes after laparoscopic operation for rectal carcinoma: a retrospective study of 1,073 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208:383–389.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Li J, Guo H, Guan XD, Cai CN, Yang LK, Li YC et al. The impact of laparoscopic converted to open colectomy on short-term and oncologic outcomes for colon cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2015; 19:335–343.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Yerokun BA, Adam MA, Sun Z, Kim J, Sprinkle S, Migaly J et al. Does Conversion in laparoscopic colectomy portend an inferior oncologic outcome? Results from 104,400 patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 20:1042–1048.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
White I, Greenberg R, Itah R, Inbar R, Schneebaum S, Avital S. Impact of conversion on short and long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of curable colorectal cancer. JSLS 2011; 15:182–187.  Back to cited text no. 31
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patient and methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed104    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]