Ping Li1, Fang Fang1, Jia-Xun Cai1, Dong Tang1, Qing-Guo Li1, Dao-Rong Wang1. 1. Ping Li, Fang Fang, Jia-Xun Cai, Dong Tang, Qing-Guo Li, Dao-Rong Wang, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Subei People's Hospital of Jiangsu Province, the First Affiliated Hospital of Yang Zhou University, Yangzhou 225001, Jiangsu Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the fast-track rehabilitation protocol and laparoscopic surgery (LFT) vs conventional care strategies and laparoscopic surgery (LCC). METHODS: Studies and relevant literature comparing the effects of LFT and LCC for colorectal malignancy were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE. The complications and re-admission after approximately 1 mo were assessed. RESULTS: Six recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis, which related to 655 enrolled patients. These studies demonstrated that compared with LCC, LFT has fewer complications and a similar incidence of re-admission after approximately 1 mo. LFT had a pooled RR of 0.60 (95%CI: 0.46-0.79, P < 0.001) compared with a pooled RR of 0.69 (95%CI: 0.34-1.40, P > 0.5) for LCC. CONCLUSION: LFT for colorectal malignancy is safe and efficacious. Larger prospective RCTs should be conducted to further compare the efficacy and safety of this approach.
AIM: To evaluate the fast-track rehabilitation protocol and laparoscopic surgery (LFT) vs conventional care strategies and laparoscopic surgery (LCC). METHODS: Studies and relevant literature comparing the effects of LFT and LCC for colorectal malignancy were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE. The complications and re-admission after approximately 1 mo were assessed. RESULTS: Six recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis, which related to 655 enrolled patients. These studies demonstrated that compared with LCC, LFT has fewer complications and a similar incidence of re-admission after approximately 1 mo. LFT had a pooled RR of 0.60 (95%CI: 0.46-0.79, P < 0.001) compared with a pooled RR of 0.69 (95%CI: 0.34-1.40, P > 0.5) for LCC. CONCLUSION: LFT for colorectal malignancy is safe and efficacious. Larger prospective RCTs should be conducted to further compare the efficacy and safety of this approach.
Authors: C E Hightower; B J Riedel; B W Feig; G S Morris; J E Ensor; V D Woodruff; M D Daley-Norman; X G Sun Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Conor P Delaney; Peter W Marcello; Toyooki Sonoda; Paul Wise; Joel Bauer; Lee Techner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rebecca K Marcus; Heather A Lillemoe; David C Rice; Gabriel Mena; Brian K Bednarski; Barbra B Speer; Pedro T Ramirez; Javier D Lasala; Neema Navai; Wendell H Williams; Bradford J Kim; Rachel K Voss; Vijaya N Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Thomas D Martin; Talya Lorenz; Jane Ferraro; Kevin Chagin; Richard M Lampman; Karen L Emery; Joan E Zurkan; Jami L Boyd; Karin Montgomery; Rachel E Lang; James F Vandewarker; Robert K Cleary Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Stefano Turi; Francesco Deni; Gaetano Lombardi; Marilena Marmiere; Francesco Giuseppe Nisi; Luigi Beretta Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 3.133