An interventional study of Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in Colorectal Neoplasm, sponsored by Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in China. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-27.
Sponsored by Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignant tumor. Radical resection is the mainstay of treatments for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. In case of traditional laparoscopic surgery, inexperienced assistants are likely to cause side injuries and interfere surgeon due to limited operating space. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery has only 3 ports for surgeon and observer, and the surgeon completes the surgery independently, which increases the difficulty of the operation. However, reduced-port laparoscopy has some potential advantages and applications. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery avoids the prolongation of the operation time and parainjury caused by inexperienced assistant. Reduced-port laparoscopy reduces some surgical incisions, resulting in less pain and faster recovery. Reduced-port laparoscopy also reduces the consumables, human resources and medical expenses. This study aims to evaluate the curative effect and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for resectable colorectal cancer.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignant tumor. In 2020, there were nearly 1.9 million new cases worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new malignant tumors, and the related death exceeded 900,000. In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer in our country has been rising rapidly year by year, with more than 400,000 new cases each year, leading China to the largest number of colorectal cancer cases in the world. For resectable non-metastatic colorectal cancer, radical surgical resection is the mainstay of treatments. Compared with the open surgery, the laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection has smaller wounds, faster postoperative recovery, and shorter hospital stay. The 10-year results of the COLOR trial showed similar DFS, OS, and recurrence rates between open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. In another trial (COST study), 872 patients with colon cancer were randomly assigned to open surgery or laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for curative colon cancer. After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year recurrence rates and the 5-year OS rates were similar.
Traditional laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection can be carried out smoothly by close cooperation between the surgeon and the assistant. However, inexperienced assistants are likely to cause parainjuries due to the opposite field of the view and the narrow operating space. In recent years, single-port laparoscopy gradually goes into service. However, it is easy to cause instrument conflicts, straight-line viewing angles, and lack of traction. Therefore, single-port surgery is extremely unergonomic and difficult for the surgeon. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery has been selectively used in some colon cancer anticipants. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery reduces or completely eliminates the assistant's operating ports, and the surgeon mainly relies on himself/herself to complete the exposure of the operative field. However, reduced-port laparoscopy has some potential advantages and applications. Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery is completed by the left and right hands of the surgeon, which is easier to coordinate, avoiding the prolongation of the operation time or even concomitant injury caused by the poor cooperation of the inexperienced assistant and the surgeon. Reduced-port laparoscopy reduces some surgical incisions, and extreme minimally invasive may result in less pain and faster recovery. From an economic point of view, the reduced-port laparoscopy reduces some surgical consumables and human resouce, leading to reduced cost of surgery.
In order to further explore the application of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery in patients with resectable colorectal cancer, the center plans to carry out a clinical study of 'reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus traditional laparoscopic surgery for resectable colorectal cancer', aiming to evaluate the complications associated with perioperative surgery, R0 resection rate, 3-year disease-free survival rate, and 3-year overall survival rate.
5,599 studies on the registry are indexed under Colorectal Neoplasms; 1,459 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 500 is above the median of 77 across 4,123 interventional studies indexed under Colorectal Neoplasms.
Browse Colorectal Neoplasms studies →Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University is the lead sponsor of 211 studies on the registry; 110 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
locations of trocars: A 10mm trocar is placed in the supraumbilical or subumbilicus as an observation port, and the surgeon inserts a 10mm trocar and a 5mm trocar on the ipsilateral side of the patient according to the intraoperative situation, as the main operation port and the secondary operation port, and the positions of the trocars follow the principle that the lesion is located at the triangular apex of the two trocars.
Procedure: Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery
locations of trocars: A 10mm trocar is placed in the supraumbilicus or subumbilicus as an observation port, and the surgeon inserts a 10mm trocar and a 5mm trocar in a suitable position according to the intraoperative situation as the main operation port and the secondary operation port. The assistant places two 5mm trocars in the appropriate position as the assistant operation port.
Procedure: conventional laparoscopic surgery
compare different operational styles of colon and upper rectal cancer
conventional laparoscopic surgery
DFS rate
Disease-free survival rate
Time frame: 1 year
Total opertaion time
Time from surgery started to surgery ended
Time frame: through opertation completion, an average of 2 hours
Intraoperative blood loss
Blood loss during operation
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 50 ml
Postoperative hospital stay
Day from operation finished to patient discharged
Time frame: through anticipants discharged, an average of 7 days
Postoperative complication rate
Any complication associated with operation based on Clavien-Dindo classification
Time frame: 30 days
Postoperative mortality
Death associated with operation
Time frame: 30 days
3 years DFS Rate
Disease-free survival rate
Time frame: 3 years
3 years OS Rate
Overall survival rate
Time frame: 3 years
This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Apr 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University