Dataset Information

There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Until recently there has been little data available about long-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. But new randomized controlled trials regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery for rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.A systematic review of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library from January 1966 to October 2016 with a subsequent meta-analysis was performed. Only randomized controlled trials with data on circumferential resection margins were included. The primary outcome was the status of circumferential resection margins. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, distal resection margins, disease-free and overall survival rates for 3 and 5 years and local recurrence rates.Eleven studies were evaluated, involving a total of 2018 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1526 patients in the open group. The presence of involved circumferential margins was reported in all studies. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of positive circumferential margins between the laparoscopic group and open group, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89-1.50 and no significant differences in involvement of distal margins (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.35-3.66), completeness of mesorectal excision (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82-1.82) or number of harvested lymph nodes (mean difference = -0.01, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.87). Disease-free survival rates at 3 and 5 years were not different (p = 0.26 and p = 0.71 respectively), and neither were overall survival rates (p = 0.19 and p = 0.64 respectively), nor local recurrence rates (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63-1.23).Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with similar short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery. The oncologic quality of extracted specimens seems comparable regardless of the approach used.

SUBMITTER: Pedziwiatr M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5602007 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Pędziwiatr M M Małczak P P Mizera M M Witowski J J Torbicz G G Major P P Pisarska M M Wysocki M M Budzyński A A

Techniques in coloproctology 20170809 8

<h4>Background</h4>Until recently there has been little data available about long-term outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. But new randomized controlled trials regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery for rectal cancer through a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review of Medline, Emb ...[more]

PMID: 28795243

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer. Methods:Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs. Results:Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs. Conclusion:Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.

Project description:Studies evaluating the outcomes after laparoscopic resections of transverse colon cancers are scant. This manuscript aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic (Lap) and open procedures for transverse colon carcinomas. All consecutive patients who underwent resection for a cancer located in the transverse colon between 2003 and 2019 were reviewed. Patients were categorized according to the surgical approach (Lap versus open) and groups were compared. Outcome measures were the short-term results, complications and functional recovery; moreover, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared overall and after propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, sex, ASA classification, BMI, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, use of postoperative chemotherapy, location of tumour, stage and grading, operation time, blood loss and complications. Of 248 transverse resections reviewed, 146 (81 Lap and 65 open) were selected for data analysis. Blood loss, fluid intake and the incidence of wound infection were significantly lower and the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Lap group (P < 0.001). The operation time and incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or above) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Mean follow-up was of 75.4 months in the Lap group and 78.6 months in the open group. Regression analyses showed that OS was associated with the postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (hazard ratio 1.18 (95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.27); P < 0.001), BMI (hazard ratio 0.81 (95 per cent c.i. 0.68 to 0.96); P = 0.017), operation time (hazard ratio 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.97 to 1.00; P = 0.010), and postoperative chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.27 (95 per cent c.i. 0.08 to 0.96); P = 0.042), while RFS was associated with the postoperative CEA level (hazard ratio 1.13 (95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 1.20); P < 0.001). PSM selected 42 patients for data comparison of long-term results, and showed no significant differences between groups (RFS: P = 0.530; OS: P = 0.561). Lap and open resections for transverse colon cancer provided similar outcomes in terms of severe post-operative complication and long-term results.

Dataset Information

There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Publications

There is no difference in outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis on short- and long-term oncologic outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets