Alberto Arezzo1, Roberto Passera2, Valentina Ferri3, Federica Gonella3, Roberto Cirocchi4, Mario Morino3. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Torino, Italy. alberto.arezzo@mac.com. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Torino, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Torino, Italy. 3. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Torino, Italy. 4. Department of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic surgery for right colectomy remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in safety of laparoscopic right colectomy, compared with open surgery, with particular attention to cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review from 1991 to 2014 was performed searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42014015256). We included randomised and controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary endpoints were 30 days mortality and overall morbidity. Then, a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR less than 1.0 was in favour of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot, heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on oncologic patients. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies, representing 3049 patients, met the inclusion criteria; only 2 were randomised for a total of 211 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.2 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 3.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.45 (95 % CI 0.21-0.93, p = 0.031). The raw incidence of overall complications was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (16.8 %) compared to the open group (24.2 %). The overall RR was 0.81 (95 % CI 0.70-0.95, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence of few randomised and mostly controlled series, mortality and morbidity were significantly lower after laparoscopy compared to open surgery.
PURPOSE: While definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic surgery for right colectomy remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in safety of laparoscopic right colectomy, compared with open surgery, with particular attention to cancerpatients. METHODS: A systematic review from 1991 to 2014 was performed searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42014015256). We included randomised and controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary endpoints were 30 days mortality and overall morbidity. Then, a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR less than 1.0 was in favour of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot, heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on oncologic patients. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies, representing 3049 patients, met the inclusion criteria; only 2 were randomised for a total of 211 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.2 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 3.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.45 (95 % CI 0.21-0.93, p = 0.031). The raw incidence of overall complications was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (16.8 %) compared to the open group (24.2 %). The overall RR was 0.81 (95 % CI 0.70-0.95, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence of few randomised and mostly controlled series, mortality and morbidity were significantly lower after laparoscopy compared to open surgery.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
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
Authors: Julia-Kristin Baukloh; Daniel Perez; Matthias Reeh; Matthias Biebl; Jakob R Izbicki; Johann Pratschke; Felix Aigner Journal: Visc Med Date: 2018-02-21
Authors: Marcos Gomez Ruiz; Paolo Pietro Bianchi; Sanjay Chaudhri; Roger Gerjy; Ismail Gögenur; David Jayne; Jim S Khan; Tero Rautio; Luis Sánchez-Guillén; Giuseppe Spinoglio; Alexis Ulrich; Philippe Rouanet Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 2.102