BACKGROUND: The safety of laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer treatment has remained controversial, especially regarding the long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible. METHODS: We searched all of studies that compared the short- or long-term outcomes regarding laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgeries (the tumour distance from anal verge within 10 cm). The data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The combined outcome of the dichotomous variables was expressed as an estimation of the odds ratios and continuous variables were presented in the form of weighted mean differences with 95% credible intervals. Subgroup, publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n = 3,678). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery appear to be equivalent to open surgery for treatment of mid- low rectal cancer, with the more favourable short-term benefits, fewer complications, comparable pathological outcomes and long-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The safety of laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer treatment has remained controversial, especially regarding the long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible. METHODS: We searched all of studies that compared the short- or long-term outcomes regarding laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgeries (the tumour distance from anal verge within 10 cm). The data sources included PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The combined outcome of the dichotomous variables was expressed as an estimation of the odds ratios and continuous variables were presented in the form of weighted mean differences with 95% credible intervals. Subgroup, publication bias and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n = 3,678). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery appear to be equivalent to open surgery for treatment of mid- low rectal cancer, with the more favourable short-term benefits, fewer complications, comparable pathological outcomes and long-term outcomes.
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 Andersson; G Abis; M Gellerstedt; E Angenete; U Angerås; M A Cuesta; P Jess; J Rosenberg; H J Bonjer; E Haglind Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Xabier de Aretxabala; Federico Oppliger; Nicolas Solano; Guillermo Rencoret; Marcelo Vivanco; Daniel Carvajal; Juan Hepp; Ivan Roa Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 4.584
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