Comparison of perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open abdominoperineal resection

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) and open APR.MethodsA multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed. The University HealthSystem Consortium database was accessed and searched for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes between October 2008 and January 2010. Discharge data were collected on patients undergoing laparoscopic APR and open APR.ResultsSix hundred sixty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic APR, and 2,443 underwent open APR. When lower risk patient groups with minor or moderate severity of illness were compared, laparoscopic APR showed lower morbidity, reduced length of stay, reduced cost, and reduced incidence of intensive care unit admission. Comparative analysis showed no significant difference in mortality rate or 30-day readmission. When higher risk patients were compared, there were significantly reduced costs and reduced incidence of intensive care unit cases in the laparoscopic group.ConclusionsPatients undergoing laparoscopic APR had overall superior perioperative outcomes compared with those undergoing open APR. Laparoscopic APR demonstrates excellent perioperative outcomes in appropriately selected patients.