OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis of published literature comparing outcomes after laparoscopic resection (LR) with open resection (OR) for transverse colon tumours. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2013. The text words "minimally invasive", "keyhole surgery" and "transverse colon" were used in combination with the medical subject headings "laparoscopy" and "colon cancer". Outcome variables were chosen based upon whether the included articles reported results. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain a summative outcome. RESULTS: Six comparatives involving 444 patients were analysed. Of them 245 patients were in the LR group and 199 in the OR group. There was a significant increase in operative time in the LR group compared with the OR group [random effects model: SMD = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.01, -0.30), z = -3.60, p < 0.001] but there was significant heterogeneity amongst trials (Q = 15.51, df = 5, p = 0.008, I(2) = 68). There was less blood loss in the LR group [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.70, 95% CI (0.47, 0.93), z = 6.01, p < 0.001] and patients returned to oral diet earlier [random effects model: SMD = 0.78, 95% CI (0.40, 1.16), z = 4.01, p < 0.001] and had a reduced time to functioning bowel [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.86, 95% CI (0.60, 1.11), z = 6.63, p < 0.001]. No difference was seen for overall morbidity (p = 0.76) or mortality (p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: LR of transverse colon tumours is a safe and effective technique. Although there is an increase in operating time, operative and clinical outcomes of intraoperative blood loss and faster recovery are seen with laparoscopic procedures.
OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis of published literature comparing outcomes after laparoscopic resection (LR) with open resection (OR) for transverse colon tumours. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2013. The text words "minimally invasive", "keyhole surgery" and "transverse colon" were used in combination with the medical subject headings "laparoscopy" and "colon cancer". Outcome variables were chosen based upon whether the included articles reported results. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain a summative outcome. RESULTS: Six comparatives involving 444 patients were analysed. Of them 245 patients were in the LR group and 199 in the OR group. There was a significant increase in operative time in the LR group compared with the OR group [random effects model: SMD = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.01, -0.30), z = -3.60, p < 0.001] but there was significant heterogeneity amongst trials (Q = 15.51, df = 5, p = 0.008, I(2) = 68). There was less blood loss in the LR group [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.70, 95% CI (0.47, 0.93), z = 6.01, p < 0.001] and patients returned to oral diet earlier [random effects model: SMD = 0.78, 95% CI (0.40, 1.16), z = 4.01, p < 0.001] and had a reduced time to functioning bowel [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.86, 95% CI (0.60, 1.11), z = 6.63, p < 0.001]. No difference was seen for overall morbidity (p = 0.76) or mortality (p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: LR of transverse colon tumours is a safe and effective technique. Although there is an increase in operating time, operative and clinical outcomes of intraoperative blood loss and faster recovery are seen with laparoscopic procedures.
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
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