BACKGROUND AND AIM: Laparoscopic and open rectum surgery for rectal cancer remains controversial. This systematic review compared the short-term and long-term efficiency and complications associated with laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge and the China Biology Medicine Database to identify potential randomized controlled trials from their inception to March 31, 2014 without language restriction. Additional articles were identified from searching bibliographies of retrieved articles. Two reviewers independently assessed the full-text articles according to the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the methodological quality of included trials. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. RESULTS: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 3,045 participants (laparoscopic group, 1,804 cases; open group, 1,241 cases) were reviewed. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, earlier return of bowel movement and reduced length of hospital stay as compared to open surgery, although with increased operative time. It also showed an obvious advantage for minimizing late complications of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. Importantly, there were no significant differences in other postoperative complications, oncological clearance, 3-year and 5-year or 10 year recurrence and survival rates between two procedures. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this meta-analysis we conclude that laparoscopic surgery has advantages of earlier postoperative recovery, less blood loss and lower rates of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. In addition, oncological outcome is comparable after laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Laparoscopic and open rectum surgery for rectal cancer remains controversial. This systematic review compared the short-term and long-term efficiency and complications associated with laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge and the China Biology Medicine Database to identify potential randomized controlled trials from their inception to March 31, 2014 without language restriction. Additional articles were identified from searching bibliographies of retrieved articles. Two reviewers independently assessed the full-text articles according to the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the methodological quality of included trials. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. RESULTS: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 3,045 participants (laparoscopic group, 1,804 cases; open group, 1,241 cases) were reviewed. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, earlier return of bowel movement and reduced length of hospital stay as compared to open surgery, although with increased operative time. It also showed an obvious advantage for minimizing late complications of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. Importantly, there were no significant differences in other postoperative complications, oncological clearance, 3-year and 5-year or 10 year recurrence and survival rates between two procedures. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this meta-analysis we conclude that laparoscopic surgery has advantages of earlier postoperative recovery, less blood loss and lower rates of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. In addition, oncological outcome is comparable after laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer.
Authors: Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Morena Burati; Nunzio Velotti; Francesco Milone; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Piotr Małczak; Magdalena Mizera; Grzegorz Torbicz; Jan Witowski; Piotr Major; Magdalena Pisarska; Michał Wysocki; Marcin Strzałka; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 1.195