PURPOSE: Crohn's disease is established in laparoscopic surgery due to partial bowel dissection and low postoperative complication rate. However, laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis remains further discussed even if the trend of minimally invasive technique exists. This study is to figure out how laparoscopic surgery works for ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Sixteen controlled trials were identified through the search strategy mentioned below. There was only one prospective randomized study among the studies selected. A meta-analysis pooled the outcome effects of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery was performed. Fixed effect model or random effect model was respectively used depending on the heterogeneity test of trials. RESULTS: Postoperative fasting time and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis (-1.37 [-2.15, -0.58], -3.22 [-4.20, -2.24], respectively, P < 0.05). Overall complication rate was higher in open surgery, compared with laparoscopic surgery (54.8% versus 39.3%, P = 0.004). However, duration of laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis was extended compared with open surgery (weighted mean difference 69.29 min, P = 0.04). As to recovery of bowel function, peritoneal abscess, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bowel obstruction, wound infection, blood loss, and mortality, laparoscopic surgery did not show any superiority over open surgery. Re-operation rate was almost even (5.2% versus 7.3%). The whole conversion to open surgery was 4.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis was at least as safe as open surgery, even better in postoperative fasting time, postoperative hospital stay, and overall complication rate. However, clinical value of laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis needed further evaluation with more well-designed and long-term follow-up studies.
PURPOSE:Crohn's disease is established in laparoscopic surgery due to partial bowel dissection and low postoperative complication rate. However, laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis remains further discussed even if the trend of minimally invasive technique exists. This study is to figure out how laparoscopic surgery works for ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Sixteen controlled trials were identified through the search strategy mentioned below. There was only one prospective randomized study among the studies selected. A meta-analysis pooled the outcome effects of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery was performed. Fixed effect model or random effect model was respectively used depending on the heterogeneity test of trials. RESULTS: Postoperative fasting time and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis (-1.37 [-2.15, -0.58], -3.22 [-4.20, -2.24], respectively, P < 0.05). Overall complication rate was higher in open surgery, compared with laparoscopic surgery (54.8% versus 39.3%, P = 0.004). However, duration of laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis was extended compared with open surgery (weighted mean difference 69.29 min, P = 0.04). As to recovery of bowel function, peritoneal abscess, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bowel obstruction, wound infection, blood loss, and mortality, laparoscopic surgery did not show any superiority over open surgery. Re-operation rate was almost even (5.2% versus 7.3%). The whole conversion to open surgery was 4.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis was at least as safe as open surgery, even better in postoperative fasting time, postoperative hospital stay, and overall complication rate. However, clinical value of laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis needed further evaluation with more well-designed and long-term follow-up studies.
Authors: Stefan Maartense; Michalda S Dunker; J Frederick Slors; Miguel A Cuesta; Dirk J Gouma; Sander J van Deventer; Ad A van Bodegraven; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P W Marcello; J W Milsom; S K Wong; K A Hammerhofer; M Goormastic; J M Church; V W Fazio Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Se-Jin Baek; Amy L Lightner; Sarah Y Boostrom; Kellie L Mathis; Robert R Cima; John H Pemberton; David W Larson; Eric J Dozois Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: J Nygren; J Thacker; F Carli; K C H Fearon; S Norderval; D N Lobo; O Ljungqvist; M Soop; J Ramirez Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Manish Chand; Muhammed R S Siddiqui; Ashish Gupta; Shahnawaz Rasheed; Paris Tekkis; Amjad Parvaiz; Alex H Mirnezami; Tahseen Qureshi Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Serin Schiessling; Christine Leowardi; Peter Kienle; Dalibor Antolovic; Phillip Knebel; Thomas Bruckner; Martina Kadmon; Christoph M Seiler; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener; Alexis Ulrich Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 3.445