BACKGROUND: Whether laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LS) can achieve the same oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery (OS) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare oncologic adequacy of resection and long-term oncologic outcomes of LS with OS in the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: Literature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed to identify RCTs comparing values of oncologic adequacy of resection, recurrence, and survival following LS and OS. RESULTS: Six RCTs enrolling 1,033 participants were included in the meta-analysis. LS was associated with similar number of lymph nodes harvested and a similar distal tumor-free margin. LS was associated with a slightly high circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate with no significant difference (7.94% vs. 5.37%; risk ratio [RR], 1.13; P = 0.63). There was no significant difference between the two groups in local recurrence (RR, 0.55; P = 0.21). The 3-year overall survival advantage for LS over OS was not statistically significantly different (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = 0.11). The 3-year disease-free survival was not significantly different between the two groups (HR, 1.16; P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis suggests that there are no differences between laparoscopic-assisted and open surgery in terms of number of lymph nodes harvested, involvement of CRM, local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, and disease-free survival for rectal cancer. However, more high-quality studies are needed for further analysis due to the small number of included studies.
BACKGROUND: Whether laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LS) can achieve the same oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery (OS) for rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is to compare oncologic adequacy of resection and long-term oncologic outcomes of LS with OS in the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: Literature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed to identify RCTs comparing values of oncologic adequacy of resection, recurrence, and survival following LS and OS. RESULTS: Six RCTs enrolling 1,033 participants were included in the meta-analysis. LS was associated with similar number of lymph nodes harvested and a similar distal tumor-free margin. LS was associated with a slightly high circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate with no significant difference (7.94% vs. 5.37%; risk ratio [RR], 1.13; P = 0.63). There was no significant difference between the two groups in local recurrence (RR, 0.55; P = 0.21). The 3-year overall survival advantage for LS over OS was not statistically significantly different (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = 0.11). The 3-year disease-free survival was not significantly different between the two groups (HR, 1.16; P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis suggests that there are no differences between laparoscopic-assisted and open surgery in terms of number of lymph nodes harvested, involvement of CRM, local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, and disease-free survival for rectal cancer. However, more high-quality studies are needed for further analysis due to the small number of included studies.
Authors: Dietrich Doll; Ralf Gertler; Matthias Maak; Jan Friederichs; Karen Becker; Hans Geinitz; Monika Kriner; Hjalmar Nekarda; Jörg R Siewert; Robert Rosenberg Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Marco Braga; Matteo Frasson; Andrea Vignali; Walter Zuliani; Giovanni Capretti; Valerio Di Carlo Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: T Le Chevalier; G Scagliotti; R Natale; S Danson; R Rosell; R Stahel; P Thomas; R M Rudd; J Vansteenkiste; N Thatcher; C Manegold; J-L Pujol; N van Zandwijk; C Gridelli; J P van Meerbeeck; L Crino; A Brown; P Fitzgerald; M Aristides; J H Schiller Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.705
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: G Lezoche; M Baldarelli; Mario Guerrieri; A M Paganini; A De Sanctis; S Bartolacci; E Lezoche Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Simon S M Ng; Ka Lau Leung; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Jimmy C M Li; Anthony Y B Teoh; Wing Wa Leung Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-04-05 Impact factor: 5.344
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