***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: CONTEXT Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy ( LAC ) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon . The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown , and the nature and magnitude of any quality -of-life ( QOL ) benefit result ing from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown . OBJECTIVE To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter , r and omized controlled trial ( Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [ COST ] ) . Between September 1994 and February 1999 , 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinical ly resectable colon cancer . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale ( SDS ) , Quality of Life Index , and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days , 2 weeks , and 2 months postoperative ; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use ; and length of stay . RESULTS Of 449 patients , 428 provided QOL data . In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity , SDS summary , QOL Index summary , and global rating scale scores at each time point , the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery . The mean ( median ) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 ( 80 ) for LAC vs 74.4 ( 75 ) for open colectomy ( P = .009 ) . While in the hospital , patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy ( mean [ median ] , 3.2 [ 3 ] vs 4.0 [ 4 ] days ; P<.001 ) and oral analgesics ( mean [ median ] , 1.9 [ 1 ] vs 2.2 [ 2 ] days ; P = .03 ) . CONCLUSION Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with st and ard open colectomy . Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer , this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer Background : No r and omized controlled trial has compared laparoscopic sigmoid resection ( LSR ) to open sigmoid resection ( OSR ) for symptomatic diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon . This study tested the hypothesis that LSR is associated with decreased postoperative complication rates as compared with OSR . Methods : This was a prospect i ve , multicenter , double-blind , parallel-arm , r and omized controlled trial . Eligible patients were r and omized to either LSR or OSR .  Endpoints included postoperative mortality , and complications were classified as major and minor . The generator of the allocation sequence was separated from the executor . Blinding was ensured using an opaque wound dressing to cover the abdomen . Symptomatic diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon was defined as recurrent disease Hinchey I , IIa , IIb , symptomatic stricture , or severe rectal bleeding . The decision to discharge patients was made by independent physicians blind to the allocation sequence . Data were analyzed according to the intention to treat principle . Results : From 2002 to 2006 , 104 patients were r and omized in 5 centers . All patients underwent the allocated intervention . Fifty-two LSR patients were comparable to 52 OSR patients for gender , age , BMI , ASA grade , comorbid conditions , previous abdominal surgery , and indication for surgery . LSR took longer ( P = 0.0001 ) but caused less blood loss ( P = 0.033 ) . Conversion rate was 19.2 % . Mortality rate was 1 % . There were significantly more major complications in OSR patients ( 9.6 % vs. 25.0 % ; P = 0.038 ) . Minor complication rates were similar ( LSR 36.5 % vs. OSR 38.5 % ; P = 0.839 ) . LSR patients had less pain ( Visual Analog Scale 1.6 ; P = 0.0003 ) , systemic analgesia requirement ( P = 0.029 ) , and returned home earlier ( P = 0.046 ) . The short form-36 question naire showed significantly better quality of life for LSR . Conclusions : LSR was associated with a 15.4 % reduction in major complication rates , less pain , improved quality of life , and shorter hospitalization at the cost of a longer operating time Background R and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) have reported improved or unchanged three-year survival following  laparoscopic colon resection ( LCR ) for colon cancer compared with that following open resection ( OCR ) . The aim of this study was to determine health-related quality of life ( HRQL ) in patients r and omized to laparoscopic or open resection for colon cancer . Methods In total , 285 patients ( 130 LCR , 155 OCR ) from seven Swedish centers were included .  HRQL was assessed preoperatively and at 2 , 4 , and 12 weeks postoperatively with the EQ-5D and EORTC QLQ-C30 instruments . Results The LCR patients did significantly better on the social function component of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at two and four weeks and on the role function component at two weeks . Conclusion Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer improved quality of life during the first postoperative month Purpose A r and omized , controlled trial comparing h and -assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with open surgery did not show an advantage for the laparoscopic approach . The trial was criticized because h and -assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy was not considered a true laparoscopic proctocolectomy . The objective of the present study was to assess whether total laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy has advantages over h and -assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with respect to early recovery . Methods Thirty-five patients underwent total laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy and were compared to 60 patients from a previously conducted r and omized , controlled trial comparing h and -assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy and open restorative proctocolectomy .  End points included operating time , conversion rate , reoperation rate , hospital stay , morbidity , quality of life , and costs . The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index were used to evaluate general and bowel-related quality of life . Results Groups were comparable for patient characteristics , such as sex , body mass index , preoperative disease duration , and age . There were neither conversions nor intraoperative complications . Median operating time was longer in the total laparoscopic compared with the h and -assisted laparoscopic group ( 298 vs. 214 minutes ; P < 0.001 ) . Morbidity and reoperation rates in the total laparoscopic , h and -assisted laparoscopic , and open groups were comparable ( 29 vs. 20 vs. 23 percent and 17 vs.10 vs. 13 percent , respectively ) . Median hospital-stay was 9 days in the total laparoscopic group compared with 10 days in the h and -assisted laparoscopic group and 11 days in the open group ( P = not significant ) . There were no differences in quality of life and total costs . Conclusions There were no significant short-term benefits for total laparoscopic compared with h and -assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with respect to early morbidity , operating time , quality of life , costs , and hospital stay Background and aims Evidence demonstrating improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for colorectal cancer is accumulating . In addition , programmes optimising peri-operative care for major abdominal surgery are becoming widespread . Evaluating laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery programmes usually focuses on short-term recovery . The aim of this study was to compare recovery after laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer up to 1 year post-operatively , using a combination of self-report and observer data . Patients / Methods From January 2002 to March 2004 , 62 patients were r and omised ( 2:1 ) to receive laparoscopic ( n = 43 ) or open surgery ( n = 19 ) within an enhanced recovery programme .  Functional outcomes up to 1 year were assessed using interview-administered question naires . Results / Findings Question naire and health-related quality of life data were obtained in over 85 % of patients . Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery  felt fully recovered and resumed driving more quickly than those having open surgery ( p = 0.016 and p = 0.048 respectively ) . Fifty-eight percent of patients having open surgery felt fully recovered by 12 months versus 88 % of laparoscopic patients .Interpretation/ Conclusion Within an enhanced recovery programme , patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery  recovered more quickly than after open resection . Both approaches however , were associated with slow recovery despite a relatively short hospital stay Purpose This study was design ed to evaluate the impact of  laparoscopic rectal resection  on short-term postoperative morbidity and costs . Methods A total of 168 patients with rectal cancer were r and omly assigned to laparoscopic ( n = 83 ) or open ( n = 85 ) resection . Outcome parameters were : postoperative morbidity , length of hospital stay , quality of life , long-term survival , and local recurrences . The mean follow-up period was 53.6 months . Cost-benefit analysis was based on hospital costs . Results Operative time was 53 minutes longer in the laparoscopic group ( P < 0.0001 ) . Postoperative morbidity rate was 28.9 percent in the laparoscopic vs. 40 percent in the open group ( P = 0.18 ) . The mean length of hospital stay was 10 ( 4.9 ) days in the laparoscopic group and 13.6 ( 10 ) days in the open group ( P = 0.004 ) . Local recurrence rate and five-year survival were similar in both groups ; however , the limited number of patients does not allow firm conclusions . Quality of life was better in the laparoscopic group only in the first year after surgery ( P < 0.0001 ) . The additional charge in the laparoscopic group was $ 1,748 per patient r and omized ( $ 1,194 the result of surgical instruments and $ 554 the result of longer operative time ) . The saving in the laparoscopic group was $ 1,396 per patient r and omized ( $ 647 the result of shorter length of hospital stay and $ 749 the result of the lower cost of postoperative complications ) . The net balance result ed in $ 351 extra cost per patient r and omly allocated to the laparoscopic group . Conclusions Short-term postoperative morbidity was similar in the two groups . Laparoscopic resection reduced length of hospital stay , improved first-year quality of life , and slightly increased hospital costs BACKGROUND The safety and short-term benefits of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer remain debatable . The multicentre COLOR ( COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection ) trial was done to assess the safety and benefit of laparoscopic resection compared with open resection for curative treatment of patients with cancer of the right or left colon . METHODS 627 patients were r and omly assigned to laparoscopic surgery and 621 patients to open surgery .  The primary endpoint was cancer-free survival 3 years after surgery . Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality , number of positive resection margins , local recurrence , port-site or wound-site recurrence , metastasis , overall survival , and blood loss during surgery . Analysis was by intention to treat . Here , clinical characteristics , operative findings , and postoperative outcome are reported . FINDINGS Patients assigned laparoscopic resection had less blood loss compared with those assigned open resection ( median 100 mL [ range 0 - 2700 ] vs 175 mL [ 0 - 2000 ] , p<0.0001 ) , although laparoscopic surgery lasted 30 min longer than did open surgery ( p<0.0001 ) . Conversion to open surgery was needed for 91 ( 17 % ) patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure . Radicality of resection as assessed by number of removed lymph nodes and length of resected oral and aboral bowel did not differ between groups . Laparoscopic colectomy was associated with earlier recovery of bowel function ( p<0.0001 ) , need for fewer analgesics , and with a shorter hospital stay ( p<0.0001 ) compared with open colectomy .  Morbidity and mortality 28 days after colectomy did not differ between groups . INTERPRETATION Laparoscopic surgery can be used for safe and radical resection of cancer in the right , left , and sigmoid colon This article describes the initiation and implementation of the multicentre Australia and New Zeal and prospect i ve r and omized controlled clinical study comparing laparoscopic and conventional open surgical treatments of right‐sided and left‐sided potentially curable colon cancer ( Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study ) . Six hundred and one adult patients were admitted with a clinical diagnosis of a single adenocarcinoma based on a physical examination and colonoscopy , barium enema or computed tomography scan and r and omly allocated to either laparoscopic or open surgery .  The primary aim of the study is to compare 5‐year mortality and tumour recurrence rates between the two groups . Secondary 
    Output:
    
In conclusion , based on presently available high-level evidence , this systematic review showed no clinical ly relevant differences in postoperative quality of life between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery