A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open restorative proctocolectomy

Aim The benefits of a laparoscopic approach to restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) are controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome following laparoscopic and open RPC, with particular attention to adverse events and long-term function. Method A systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Ovid databases was performed for studies published until March 2012. The primary end-point was long-term function. Secondary end-points were intra-operative details, short-term postoperative outcome and postoperative adverse events. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were calculated using fixed/random effect meta-analytic techniques. Results The final analysis included 27 comparative studies of 2428 patients, of whom 1097 (45.1%) underwent laparoscopic surgery. A laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly longer operation time (WMD 70.1 min, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (WMD -1.00 day, P < 0.001), reduced intra-operative blood loss (WMD -89.10 ml, P < 0.001) and a lower incidence of wound infection (OR 0.60, P < 0.005). No significant differences were observed in the rate of pouch failure. Although there was no significant difference in the number of daily bowel movements (OR 0.04, P = 0.950), laparoscopic surgery led to fewer nocturnal bowel movements (WMD -1.14, P < 0.001) and reduced pad usage during the day (OR 0.22, P < 0.001) and night (OR 0.33, P < 0.001). The post hoc power to detect differences in adverse event rates ranged from 5% to 42%. Conclusion Laparoscopic and open approaches to RPC produced equivalent adverse event rates and long-term functional results. However, the present evidence is underpowered to detect true differences in adverse event rates.