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. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the data of 100 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 58 and 42 patients, respectively. More than half of the patients in both groups developed perforation in the sigmoid colon (open, 55.2%; laparoscopic, 59.5%). The most common cause of perforation was diverticulum, followed by colorectal cancer. The mean intraoperative blood loss tended to be lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (78.8 mL versus 160.1 mL; P=0.0756). Hospital stay tended to be shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (42.5 versus 55.7 days; P=0.0965). 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. Conclusions The laparoscopic approach for colorectal perforation in an emergency setting is a safe procedure compared with the open approach. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a decrease in intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay.