Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Department of General Surgery, S Maria Hospital, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
Colorectal Disease (Impact Factor: 2.08). 02/2012; 14(6):e277-96. DOI:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02985.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer were compared by analysing a total of 26 end points which included intraoperative and postoperative recovery, short-term morbidity and mortality, late morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes.
We searched for published randomized clinical trials, presenting a comparison between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer using the following electronic databases: PubMed, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and EMBASE.
Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis incorporating a total of 1544 patients, having laparoscopic (N = 841) and open rectal resection (N = 703) for cancer. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a statistically significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss and in the number of blood transfusions, earlier resuming solid diet, return of bowel function and a shorter duration of hospital stay. We also found a significant advantage for laparoscopy in the reduction of post-operative abdominal bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and late morbidity. No differences were found in terms of intra-operative and late oncological outcomes.
The meta-analysis indicates that laparoscopy benefits patients with shorter hospital stay, earlier return of bowel function, reduced blood loss and number of blood transfusions and lower rates of abdominal postoperative bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and other late morbidities.

0 0
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has limited short-term benefits in comparison with open surgery. Long-term measures of recovery are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of surgical approach (laparoscopic vs open) for the treatment of rectal cancer on the time to postoperative chemotherapy. This study is a retrospective review of 150 patients who underwent low anterior resection and received postoperative chemotherapy between 2005 and 2011. This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. One hundred fifty patients who had stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection were selected. All patients received postoperative chemotherapy, the timing of which was at the discretion of the oncologist. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic variables, and time to postoperative chemotherapy were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables affecting the time to postoperative chemotherapy. There were no differences in clinicopathologic variables between cohorts including age, BMI, sex, ASA score, diverting ileostomy, preoperative radiotherapy, or pathologic stage. Univariate analysis demonstrated differences in intraoperative blood loss (300 vs 448 mL, p < 0.01), length of stay (7.6 vs 8.9 days, p < 0.05), wound infection (12.0 vs 24.0%, p < 0.05), and tumor location (8.0 vs 6.9 cm, p < 0.05) for laparoscopic vs open patients. There were more complications in the open vs laparoscopic group (47 vs 24, p < 0.001); however, the percentage of patients experiencing complications in the open vs laparoscopic cohorts did not reach statistical significance (32.0 vs 18.7%, p = 0.09). A decrease in mean time to postoperative chemotherapy was found for patients undergoing laparoscopic vs open surgery (50.1 vs 75.2 days, p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the approach of surgery was an independent predictor of time to postoperative chemotherapy (p < 0.01). This study was limited by its retrospective design and selection bias. In selected patients, patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery receive postoperative chemotherapy 25 days earlier than patients undergoing open surgery. Time to postoperative chemotherapy serves as an outcome measure for improved recovery in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 08/2013; 56(8):945-51. · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: In the late '80s the successes of the laparoscopic surgery for gallbladder disease laid the foundations on the modern use of this surgical technique in a variety of diseases. In the last 20 years, laparoscopic colorectal surgery had become a popular treatment option for colorectal cancer patients.
    BMC Surgery 10/2013; 13 (suppl 2)(S12). · 1.97 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery; but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer (RC). We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RTME in patients with RC are equivalent to those of LTME. Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RTME with LTME for RC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated. Eight studies were identified that included 1229 patients in total, 554 (45.08%) in the RTME and 675 (54.92%) in the LTME. Meta-analysis suggested that the conversion rate to open surgery in RTME was significantly lower than in LTME (P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, recovery outcome, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, and the oncological accuracy of resection and local recurrence between the two groups. The positive rate of circumferential resection margins (P = 0.04) and the incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.002) were lower in RTME compared with LTME. RTME for RC is safe and feasible, and the short- and medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are equivalent or preferable to LTME. It may be an alternative treatment for RC. More multicenter randomized controlled trials investigating the long-term oncological and functional outcomes are required to determine the advantages of RTME over LTME in RC.
    Journal of Surgical Research 01/2014; · 2.02 Impact Factor