The aim of the present meta-analysis compared left colic artery (LCA) preservation with non-preservation in laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer in terms of feasibility, efficacy and safety. The PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched prior to June 2017 for studies comparing LCA preservation and non-preservation in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Two researchers screened the literature independently, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias. The study was performed using RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies comparing LCA preservation and non-preservation in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were selected for this meta-analysis, with a combined study population of 1,471 patients. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that, when comparing LCA preservation with non-preservation in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, there were significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time (P<0.01), estimated blood loss (P<0.01), percentage of neostomy (P<0.01), the number of retrieved lymph nodes (P<0.01), time to first postoperative exhaust (P<0.01) and amount of anastomotic leakage (P<0.01). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (P=0.28), incidence of recurrence (P=0.73) and incidence of metastasis (P=0.52). Therefore, compared with LCA non-preservation, patients in whom the LCA was preserved during laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer had a better prognosis. However, there was no difference in recurrence or metastasis between the two groups. Although the operative time and estimated blood loss were increased with LCA preservation, these may be reduced with improving proficiency of the operating surgeons. The conclusions of the present study require verification by larger samples and high-quality randomized controlled trials.
