Muhammad Shafique Sajid1, Adil Ahamd1, William Fa Miles1, Mirza Khurrum Baig1. 1. Muhammad Shafique Sajid, Adil Ahamd, William FA Miles, Mirza Khurrum Baig, Department of General, Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2DH United Kingdom.
Abstract
AIM: To systematically analyze the randomized trials comparing the oncological and clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) vs open total mesorectal excision (OTME) in the management of rectal cancer. METHODS: Published randomized, controlled trials comparing the oncological and clinical effectiveness of LTME vs OTME in the management of rectal cancer were retrieved from the standard electronic medical databases. The data of included randomized, controlled trials was extracted and then analyzed according to the principles of meta-analysis using RevMan(®) statistical software. The combined outcome of the binary variables was expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the combined outcome of the continuous variables was presented in the form of standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Data from eleven randomized, controlled trials on 2143 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. There was a trend towards the higher risk of surgical site infection (OR = 0.66; 95%CI: 0.44-1.00; z = 1.94; P < 0.05), higher risk of incomplete total mesorectal resection (OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.43-0.91; z = 2.49; P < 0.01) and prolonged length of hospital stay (SMD, -1.59; 95%CI: -0.86--0.25; z = 4.22; P < 0.00001) following OTME. However, the oncological outcomes like number of harvested lymph nodes, tumour recurrence and risk of positive resection margins were statistically similar in both groups. In addition, the clinical outcomes such as operative complications, anastomotic leak and all-cause mortality were comparable between both approaches of mesorectal excision. CONCLUSION: LTME appears to have clinically and oncologically measurable advantages over OTME in patients with primary rectal cancer in both short term and long term follow ups.
AIM: To systematically analyze the randomized trials comparing the oncological and clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) vs open total mesorectal excision (OTME) in the management of rectal cancer. METHODS: Published randomized, controlled trials comparing the oncological and clinical effectiveness of LTME vs OTME in the management of rectal cancer were retrieved from the standard electronic medical databases. The data of included randomized, controlled trials was extracted and then analyzed according to the principles of meta-analysis using RevMan(®) statistical software. The combined outcome of the binary variables was expressed as odds ratio (OR) and the combined outcome of the continuous variables was presented in the form of standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Data from eleven randomized, controlled trials on 2143 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. There was a trend towards the higher risk of surgical site infection (OR = 0.66; 95%CI: 0.44-1.00; z = 1.94; P < 0.05), higher risk of incomplete total mesorectal resection (OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.43-0.91; z = 2.49; P < 0.01) and prolonged length of hospital stay (SMD, -1.59; 95%CI: -0.86--0.25; z = 4.22; P < 0.00001) following OTME. However, the oncological outcomes like number of harvested lymph nodes, tumour recurrence and risk of positive resection margins were statistically similar in both groups. In addition, the clinical outcomes such as operative complications, anastomotic leak and all-cause mortality were comparable between both approaches of mesorectal excision. CONCLUSION: LTME appears to have clinically and oncologically measurable advantages over OTME in patients with primary rectal cancer in both short term and long term follow ups.
Authors: Omar H Llaguna; Benjamin F Calvo; Karyn B Stitzenberg; Allison M Deal; Charles T Burke; Robert G Dixon; Joseph M Stavas; Michael O Meyers Journal: Am Surg Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: P G Vaughan-Shaw; T Cheung; J S Knight; P H Nichols; S A Pilkington; A H Mirnezami Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: F Mauvais; C Sabbagh; O Brehant; L Viart; T Benhaim; D Fuks; R Sinna; J-M Regimbeau Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 2.043
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: 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: James Fleshman; Megan Branda; Daniel J Sargent; Anne Marie Boller; Virgilio George; Maher Abbas; Walter R Peters; Dipen Maun; George Chang; Alan Herline; Alessandro Fichera; Matthew Mutch; Steven Wexner; Mark Whiteford; John Marks; Elisa Birnbaum; David Margolin; David Larson; Peter Marcello; Mitchell Posner; Thomas Read; John Monson; Sherry M Wren; Peter W T Pisters; Heidi Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stanisław Kłęk; Magdalena Pisarska; Katarzyna Milian-Ciesielska; Tomasz Cegielny; Ryszard Choruz; Jerzy Sałówka; Piotr Szybinski; Michał Pędziwiatr Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 1.195