M M Reza1, J A Blasco, E Andradas, R Cantero, J Mayol. 1. Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Agencia Laín Entralgo, Consejería de Sanidad y Consumo, Madrid, Spain. mercedes.reza@salud.madrid.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compares the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer. METHODS: An electronic search of the literature was undertaken to identify primary studies and systematic reviews. Information on the efficacy and safety of LS versus OS was analysed. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A systematic review published in 2000 and 12 more recent randomized clinical trials were identified. Compared with OS, LS reduced blood loss and pain, and resulted in a faster return of bowel function and earlier resumption of normal diet. Hospital stay was up to 2 days shorter after LS. No significant differences between the techniques were noted in the incidence of complications or postoperative mortality. The time required to complete LS was significantly longer (0.5-1.0 h more). No significant differences were found between the two procedures in terms of overall mortality, cancer-related mortality or disease recurrence. CONCLUSION: LS takes longer than OS but offers several short-term benefits. However, complication rates are similar for both procedures and no differences were found in long-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: This study compares the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer. METHODS: An electronic search of the literature was undertaken to identify primary studies and systematic reviews. Information on the efficacy and safety of LS versus OS was analysed. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine long-term outcomes. RESULTS: A systematic review published in 2000 and 12 more recent randomized clinical trials were identified. Compared with OS, LS reduced blood loss and pain, and resulted in a faster return of bowel function and earlier resumption of normal diet. Hospital stay was up to 2 days shorter after LS. No significant differences between the techniques were noted in the incidence of complications or postoperative mortality. The time required to complete LS was significantly longer (0.5-1.0 h more). No significant differences were found between the two procedures in terms of overall mortality, cancer-related mortality or disease recurrence. CONCLUSION: LS takes longer than OS but offers several short-term benefits. However, complication rates are similar for both procedures and no differences were found in long-term outcomes.
Authors: Giuseppe R Nigri; Alan S Rosman; Niccolò Petrucciani; Alessandro Fancellu; Michele Pisano; Luigi Zorcolo; Giovanni Ramacciato; Marcovalerio Melis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 4.584