Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Emergency Surgery for Colorectal Perforation: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Background:

This study aimed to clarify the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation by comparing the clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergency surgery for colorectal perforation.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 116 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal perforation. The patients were categorized into two groups: the open group included patients who underwent laparotomy, and the laparoscopic group included those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Clinical and operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

Results:

The open and laparoscopic groups included 67 and 49 patients, respectively. More than half of the patients in both groups developed perforation in the sigmoid colon (open, 58.2%; laparoscopic, 61.2%). The most common cause of perforation was diverticulum, followed by colorectal cancer. The mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (70.0 mL versus 160.3 mL; P = .0290). The incidence of surgical site infection was lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (2.0% versus 13.4%; P = .0430). There were no significant differences in either the short- or long-term outcomes between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the choice of surgical approach (open versus laparoscopic) did not affect overall survival in patients with colorectal perforation.

Conclusion:

The laparoscopic approach for colorectal perforation in an emergency setting can be safely performed and provides certain advantages over an open approach in suitable patients.