Comparative analysis of short- and long-term outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer patients undergoing hemodialysis.

Abstract

Purpose: Although minimally invasive colorectal surgery has been proven to have a shorter hospital stay and fewer short-term complications than open surgery, the advantages of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer patients undergoing hemodialysis have not been validated. This study compared the outcomes of open and laparoscopic approaches in these patients.

Materials and methods: Between January 2007 and December 2020, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 78 hemodialysis patients who underwent curative-intent, elective colorectal surgery. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical method: open and laparoscopic.

Results: Postoperative morbidity (p = 0.480) and mortality (p = 0.598) rates and length of hospital stay (28.8 vs. 27.5 days, p = 0.830) were similar between the groups. However, laparoscopic surgery patients had a shorter return to clear liquid, full liquid, or soft food time than open surgery patients (p < 0.001, p = 0.007, and p = 0.002, respectively). Disease-free survival and long-term cancer-specific survival rates were also similar between the two groups (p = 0.353 and p = 0.201, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that intraoperative blood transfusion was a risk factor for severe complications and mortality (OR 6.055; p = 0.046), and the odds ratio (OR) of laparoscopic surgery was not significantly greater than that of open surgery (OR = 0.537, p = 0.337).

Conclusion: Although laparoscopic surgery did not result in hemodialysis patients having a shorter postoperative hospital stay, our results suggest that the laparoscopic approach is as safe as open surgery for hemodialysis patients and may be beneficial for shortening the return time to food intake.