Mariano Cesare Giglio1, Valerio Celentano2, Rachele Tarquini2, Gaetano Luglio2, Giovanni Domenico De Palma2, Luigi Bucci2. 1. Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. mariano.giglio@hotmail.it. 2. Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Sergio Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several studies compared the outcomes of laparoscopically completed colorectal resections (LCR) to those requiring conversion to open surgery (COS). However, a comparative analysis between COS patients and patients undergoing planned open surgery (POS) would be useful to clarify if the conversion can be considered a simple drawback or a complication, being cause of additional postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis of current evidences comparing postoperative outcomes of COS patients to POS patients. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus was performed to identify studies reporting short-term outcomes of COS and POS patients. Primary outcomes were 30-day overall morbidity and length of postoperative hospital stay. Data were analyzed with fixed-effect modeling, and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 30,656 patients undergoing POS and 1935 COS patients were selected. The mean conversion rate was 0.17. Similar 30-day overall morbidity and length of postoperative hospital stay were found in COS and POS patients. Wound infection (OR 1.43, 95 % CI 1.12 to 1.83, p < 0.01) was higher in the COS group. Other results were robust. Outcomes were comparable for patients undergoing resection for different natures of the disease (benign vs. malignant) and at different sites (colon vs. rectum). CONCLUSION: Conversions from laparoscopic to open procedure during colorectal resection are not associated with a poorer postoperative outcome compared to patients undergoing planned open surgery, except for a higher risk of wound infection.
PURPOSE: Several studies compared the outcomes of laparoscopically completed colorectal resections (LCR) to those requiring conversion to open surgery (COS). However, a comparative analysis between COS patients and patients undergoing planned open surgery (POS) would be useful to clarify if the conversion can be considered a simple drawback or a complication, being cause of additional postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis of current evidences comparing postoperative outcomes of COS patients to POS patients. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus was performed to identify studies reporting short-term outcomes of COS and POS patients. Primary outcomes were 30-day overall morbidity and length of postoperative hospital stay. Data were analyzed with fixed-effect modeling, and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 30,656 patients undergoing POS and 1935 COS patients were selected. The mean conversion rate was 0.17. Similar 30-day overall morbidity and length of postoperative hospital stay were found in COS and POS patients. Wound infection (OR 1.43, 95 % CI 1.12 to 1.83, p < 0.01) was higher in the COS group. Other results were robust. Outcomes were comparable for patients undergoing resection for different natures of the disease (benign vs. malignant) and at different sites (colon vs. rectum). CONCLUSION: Conversions from laparoscopic to open procedure during colorectal resection are not associated with a poorer postoperative outcome compared to patients undergoing planned open surgery, except for a higher risk of wound infection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conversion to open surgery; Laparoscopic colorectal resection; Meta-analysis; Short-term outcomes
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: Celeste Y Kang; Wissam J Halabi; Obaid O Chaudhry; Vinh Nguyen; Noor Ketana; Joseph C Carmichael; Alessio Pigazzi; Michael J Stamos; Steven Mills Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Peter J Hewett; Randall A Allardyce; Philip F Bagshaw; Christopher M Frampton; Francis A Frizelle; Nicholas A Rieger; J Shona Smith; Michael J Solomon; Jacqueline H Stephens; Andrew R L Stevenson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: F Penninckx; A Kartheuser; J Van de Stadt; P Pattyn; B Mansvelt; C Bertrand; E Van Eycken; D Jegou; S Fieuws Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Marco E Allaix; Edgar J B Furnée; Massimiliano Mistrangelo; Alberto Arezzo; Mario Morino Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Roberto Peltrini; Gaetano Luglio; Gianluca Cassese; Alfonso Amendola; Emanuele Caruso; Michele Sacco; Gianluca Pagano; Viviana Sollazzo; Antonio Tufano; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Luigi Bucci; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Open Med (Wars) Date: 2019-09-12
Authors: Rebecca Sahyoun; Brian D Lo; George Q Zhang; Miloslawa Stem; Chady Atallah; Peter A Najjar; Jonathan E Efron; Bashar Safar Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 2.571