Laparoscopic vs open subtotal colectomy for benign and malignant disease.

AIM: The present meta-analysis aims to compare short-term and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open subtotal colectomy for benign and malignant disease.
METHODS: A literature search of Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies published between 1992 and 2005, comparing laparoscopic (LSC) and open (OSC) subtotal colectomy. A random effect meta-analytical technique was used and sensitivity analysis performed on studies published since the beginning of 2000, higher quality papers, those reporting on more than 40 patients, and those studies reporting on adult cases or acute colitis.
RESULTS: A total of eight studies satisfied the criteria for inclusion. These included outcomes on 336 patients, 143 (42.6%) of whom had undergone laparoscopic resection, with an overall conversion rate to open surgery of 5% (range 0-11.8%). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group by 86.2 min (P < 0.001) and throughout subgroup analysis, although it was only in patients with acute colitis that this finding was without significant heterogeneity. Operative blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group by 57.5 millilitres in high quality and studies published since 2000, and 65.3 millilitres in those reporting on more than 40 patients. There was no significant difference in early or long-term complications between the groups. A statistically significant reduction in length of postoperative stay was observed in the laparoscopic groups by 2.9 days (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy was associated with longer operating times but a reduced length of stay compared to open surgery. Although short-term outcomes were equivalent in both groups, the suggested benefits in terms of reduced long-term obstructive complications were not supported by this meta-analysis.