Comparison of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal malignancy in obese patients: a propensity score-weighted cohort study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Insufficient evidence exists to ascertain the long-term prognosis in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Employing an institutional database from 2009 to 2019, we assessed individuals with a BMI of greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 who underwent surgery for primary stage I-III colorectal adenocarcinoma. The authors used propensity score-weighted analysis to compare short-term and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. RESULTS: This study enrolled 473 patients (open vs. laparoscopic surgery 220 vs. 253; median follow-up period, 60 months). The laparoscopy group showed a significantly longer operative time (252 vs. 212 min), a higher anastomotic-leakage rate (5.14% vs. 0.91%), and a greater proportion of Clavien-Dindo class greater than III complications (5.93% vs. 1.82%). The open group showed a higher wound infection rate (7.27% vs. 3.16%) and a higher readmission rate (6.36% vs. 2.37%). After propensity score weighting, laparoscopy was inferior to open surgery in terms of long-term overall survival (hazard ratio 1.43), disease-free survival (1.39), and recurrence rate (21.1% vs. 14.5%). In the subgroup analysis, female patients, older individuals, stage III patients, patients with rectal cancer, and those who underwent surgery after 2014 showed inferior long-term outcomes after laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery for patients with obesity requires significant caution. Despite good short-term outcomes, this procedure is associated with hidden risks and poor long-term prognoses. In female patients, older individuals, stage III patients, patients with rectal cancer, and those treated in the late surgery era subgroups, caution is advised when performing laparoscopic surgery.