Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with colon cancer.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on health service use or patient-reported outcomes when comparing the effectiveness of laparoscopic with that of open surgery. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic with that of open surgery up to 2 years after intervention in patients with colon cancer. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients with colon cancer who underwent surgery (laparoscopic or open surgery) between June 2010 and December 2012, at 22 hospitals. Main outcomes of the study were mortality, complications, reoperation, readmission, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), as measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Duke-UNC, EuroQol-5D, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Q30 and Q29 at baseline, and 30 days and 1 and 2 years after surgery. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression and generalized linear models were used in analyses after adjusting for specific propensity scores developed for each outcome and time point. RESULTS: In the multivariable analysis, the complication rates up to 30 days (infectious, surgical, and medical) and 1 year (surgical), and readmission rate at 30 days and at 2 years were higher among patients who underwent open surgery than among those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences between the two surgical approaches in all other parameters assessed and in changes of all PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Though in most outcomes both surgical approaches provide similar results up to 2 years after intervention, still the rates of some complications and readmission, mainly up to 30 days, are higher in open surgery. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER NCT02488161.