Surgical resection for rectal cancer. Is laparoscopic surgery as successful as open approach? A systematic review with meta-analysis

被引:23
作者
Milone, Marco [1 ]
Manigrasso, Michele [1 ]
Burati, Morena [1 ]
Velotti, Nunzio [1 ]
Milone, Francesco [1 ]
De Palma, Giovanni Domenico [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Naples Federico II, Dept Clin Med & Surg, Naples, Italy
[2] Univ Naples Federico II, Dept Surg & Adv Technol, Naples, Italy
来源
PLOS ONE | 2018年 / 13卷 / 10期
关键词
TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION; SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES; PATHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES; ASSISTED RESECTION; OPEN COLECTOMY; PUBLICATION; CARE;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0204887
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background Recently, it has been questioned if minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was surgically successful. We decided to perform a meta-analysis to determine if minimally invasive surgery is adequate to obtain a complete resection for curable rectal cancer. Methods A systematic search pertaining to evaluation between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for rectal cancer was performed until 30th November 2016 in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive and open surgery. Outcomes analyzed were number of clear Distal Resection Margins (DRM or DM), complete Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) and complete, nearly complete and incomplete Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) and of patients who received laparoscopic or open treatment for rectal cancer. Results 12 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of successful surgical resection was similar between open and laparoscopic surgery. About distance from distal margin of the specimen, clear CRM and complete TME there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD = -0.090 cm, p = 0.364, 95% CI -0.283, 0.104; OR = 1.032, p = 0.821, 95% CI 0.784, 1.360; OR = 0.933, p = 0.720, 95% CI 0.638, 1.364, respectively). The analysis of nearly complete TME showed a significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.407, p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.103, 1.795), while the analysis of incomplete TME showed a non-significant difference (OR = 1.010, p = 0.964, 95% CI 0.664, 1.534). Conclusions By pooling together data from 5 RCTs and 7 nRCTs, we are able to provide evidence of safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery. Waiting for further randomized clinical trials, our results are encouraging to introduce laparoscopic rectal resection in daily practice.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], ONCOTARGET
  • [2] Bonjer HJ, 2007, ARCH SURG-CHICAGO, V142, P298
  • [3] Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a case-control study
    Breukink, SO
    Pierie, JPEN
    Grond, AJK
    Hoff, C
    Wiggers, T
    Meijerink, WJHJ
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2005, 20 (05) : 428 - 433
  • [4] Pathological outcomes in rectal cancer following laparoscopic surgery
    Cheung, Henry Yan Chi
    Dent, Owen F.
    Richardson, Gillian L.
    Chan, Charles
    Keshava, Anil
    Young, Christopher J.
    [J]. ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 14 (02) : E175 - E180
  • [5] Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical approach on the grade of mesorectal excision in rectal cancer
    Creavin, B.
    Kelly, M. E.
    Ryan, E.
    Winter, D. C.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 104 (12) : 1609 - 1619
  • [6] Multicentre propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery for T4 rectal cancer
    de'Angelis, Nicola
    Landi, Filippo
    Vitali, Giulio Cesare
    Memeo, Riccardo
    Martinez-Perez, Aleix
    Solis, Alejandro
    Assalino, Michela
    Vallribera, Francesc
    Mercoli, Henry Alexis
    Marescaux, Jacques
    Mutter, Didier
    Ris, Frederic
    Espin, Eloy
    Brunetti, Francesco
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2017, 31 (08): : 3106 - 3121
  • [7] Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis
    Duval, S
    Tweedie, R
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 2000, 56 (02) : 455 - 463
  • [8] Higher-risk of incomplete mesorectal excision and positive circumferential margin in low rectal cancer regardless of surgical technique
    Ferko, Alexander
    Orhalmi, Julius
    Dusek, Tomas
    Chobola, Milan
    Hovorkova, Eva
    Nikolov, Dimitar Hadzi
    [J]. VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2014, 9 (04) : 569 - 577
  • [9] Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer
    Fleshman, James
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2016, 20 (05) : 1056 - 1064
  • [10] Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial
    Fleshman, James
    Branda, Megan
    Sargent, Daniel J.
    Boller, Anne Marie
    George, Virgilio
    Abbas, Maher
    Peters, Walter R., Jr.
    Maun, Dipen
    Chang, George
    Herline, Alan
    Fichera, Alessandro
    Mutch, Matthew
    Wexner, Steven
    Whiteford, Mark
    Marks, John
    Birnbaum, Elisa
    Margolin, David
    Larson, David
    Marcello, Peter
    Posner, Mitchell
    Read, Thomas
    Monson, John
    Wren, Sherry M.
    Pisters, Peter W. T.
    Nelson, Heidi
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 314 (13): : 1346 - 1355