There is no doubt that the laparoscopic revolution could beconsidered one of the major improvements for the man-agement of colorectal diseases. Since its introduction in the1990s, several meta-analyses have clearly demonstrated itsfeasibility and efficacy [1, 2]. It is becoming the new ‘‘goldstandard’’ for the care of colonic diseases with a high levelof evidence [3] because of its mini-invasiveness and betterpostoperative comfort for surgical patients. At the sametime, another improvement in colorectal surgery, initiatedby Kehlet and coworkers, the so-called enhanced recoveryprotocol or the fast-track surgery (FTS) approach [4, 5],initially less recognized, has gradually gained worldwideacceptance [6]. This new paradigm, a parallel revolution inthe care of surgical patients (based on a multimodalapproach of patients), was initiated in the field of opensurgery. However, the evidence-based literature showswith a high level of evidence that FTS is feasible, safe, andoffers a better postoperative recovery compared with tra-ditional care [5], even for laparoscopic surgery.Generally speaking, beside the field of colorectal sur-gery, one of the most important lessons learned from thelaparoscopic revolution has been that some of the olddogma has to be questioned: this has sparked a review ofseveral practices in open surgery. As an example, surgicalstress and inflammatory response to surgery have beenbetter evaluated and cell-mediated immunosuppression hasbeen highlighted as an important component in this setting[7]. Thanks to the laparoscopic approach, ‘‘modern open’’surgery also has become less ‘‘aggressive.’’Two alternatives for colorectal surgeryWe are now faced with two alternative options, bothdesigned to improve perioperative surgical care: ‘‘tradi-tional’’ laparoscopic surgery and ‘‘open’’ FTS.It is noteworthy that in the major, randomized trials [8–11] that served to establish the superiority of laparoscopiccolon surgery compared with its open counterpart, the con-trol patients underwent open traditional approach withoutFTS—the standard when those trials were initiated. There-fore, from anevidence-basedpoint ofview, one can only saythat laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery as itwas conceptualized in the 1990s. Without trials comparingtraditional laparoscopic surgery to open FTS, whether thereis sound evidence that the traditional laparoscopic surgery issuperior to open FTS remains to be shown.When we consider the respective results of these twoapproaches and compare for example the length of post-operative hospital stay (LOS), the results of randomizedtrials on conventional laparoscopic surgery (without amultimodal perioperative approach) were never superior tothose of FTS. Indeed, LOS is an outcome subjected tovariations related to socioeconomic factors, but all pub-lished large trials showed concordant results with a meanLOS exceeding 5 days in all cases [8–11], whereas in mostrandomized trials on ‘‘open’’ FTS, the mean LOS did notexceed 5 days [references on request to KS].