Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Milone M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6177141 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Milone Marco M Manigrasso Michele M Burati Morena M Velotti Nunzio N Milone Francesco F De Palma Giovanni Domenico GD

PloS one 20181009 10

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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, Scopu ...[more]

PMID: 30300377

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Colon surgery is associated with a high rate of surgical site infection (SSI), and there is an urgent need for strategies to reduce infection rates. Objective:To assess whether laparoscopic colon surgery is associated with a lower surgical site infection rate than open-approach laparoscopy, especially in patients with medically complex conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used previously validated diagnosis and procedure codes from Medicare beneficiaries who underwent colon surgery from January 1, 2009, to November 30, 2013. Analyses were performed from August 1 to December 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcome measures were SSI events, medical comorbidities, and laparoscopic or open approach procedures. Results:A total of 229 726 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.3 [9.4] years; 128 499 [55.9%] female) underwent colon procedures. There were 105 144 laparoscopic procedures and 124 582 open procedures. The overall mean SSI rate was 6.2%, varying by surgical procedure from 5.8% to 7.6%. Among the full study population, adjusted model results showed a significant association of laparoscopy with lower odds of SSI (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.41-0.46; P < .001). When stratified by surgical approach, the mean SSI rates were 4.1% (procedure-specific range, 3.9%-5.1%) for the laparoscopic approach and 7.9% (procedure-specific range, 7.4%-10.2%) for the open approach. When stratified by Elixhauser score groups, the mean SSI rates were 6.2% (procedure-specific range, 3.2%-8.7%) for group 1 (0-1 comorbidity), 5.5% (procedure-specific range, 3.6%-11.1%) for group 2 (2 comorbidities), and 6.6% (procedure-specific range, 4.6%-10.6%) for group 3 (3-13 comorbidities). An interaction was also observed between laparoscopic approach and Elixhauser groups, with increased odds of SSI among patients who had 3 to 13 comorbidities present at the time of the procedure (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32) compared with patient groups with fewer comorbidities. The population attributable fraction of SSIs for use of the open approach was 34.2%. A total of 2317 of 3882 hospitals (59.7%) performed few (0%-10%) or most (>50%) procedures laparoscopically. Conclusions and Relevance:Policy changes that promote surgical education and resources for laparoscopy, especially at low-adoption hospitals, may be associated with reduced colon SSI rates. Support of the development of innovative educational policies may help achieve improvement in patient outcomes and decreased health care use in colon surgery.

Project description:Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision, survival has improved substantially. Consequently, more patients have to deal with side effects of treatment. The most recently introduced surgical technique is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) which seems equally effective in terms of oncological control compared to laparoscopy. However, RAS enables further advantages which maximize the precision of surgery, thus providing better functional outcomes such as sexual function or contience without compromising oncological results. This review was done according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-II guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104519). The search was planned with PICO criteria and conducted on Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL. All screening steps were performed by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were original, comparative studies for laparoscopy vs. RAS for rectal cancer and reporting of functional outcomes. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The search retrieved 9703 hits, of which 51 studies with 24,319 patients were included. There was a lower rate of urinary retention (non-RCTs: Odds ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92]; RCTs: OR[CI] 1.29[0.08, 21.47]), ileus (non-RCTs: OR[CI] 0.86[0.75, 0.98]; RCTs: OR[CI] 0.80[0.33, 1.93]), less urinary symptoms (non-RCTs mean difference (MD) [CI] - 0.60 [- 1.17, - 0.03]; RCTs: - 1.37 [- 4.18, 1.44]), and higher quality of life for RAS (only non-RCTs: MD[CI]: 2.99 [2.02, 3.95]). No significant differences were found for sexual function (non-RCTs: standardized MD[CI]: 0.46[- 0.13, 1.04]; RCTs: SMD[CI]: 0.09[- 0.14, 0.31]). The current meta-analysis suggests potential benefits for RAS over laparoscopy in terms of functional outcomes after rectal cancer resection. The current evidence is limited due to non-randomized controlled trials and reporting of functional outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Evidence of benefits of laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted colectomies (LAC) over open procedures in gastrointestinal surgery has continued to accumulate. With its wide implementation, technical difficulties and limitations of LAC have become clear. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in an attempt to facilitate the transition from open techniques to minimally invasive procedures. Continuing debate exists about which approach is to be preferred, HALS or LAC. Several studies have compared these two techniques in colorectal surgery, but no single study provided evidence which procedure is superior. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out comparing HALS with LAC colorectal resection. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Embase Cochrane) and cross-reference search. The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Minimal outcome criteria for inclusion were operating time, conversion rate, hospital stay, and morbidity. RESULTS: Out of 468 studies a total of 13 studies were selected for comprehensive review. Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 non-RCTs, comprising 1017 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Because of possible clinical heterogeneity two groups of procedures were created: segmental colectomies and total (procto)colectomies. In the segmental colectomy group significant differences in favor of the HALS group were seen in operating time (WMD 19 min) and conversion rate (OR of 0.3 conversions). In the total (procto)colectomy group a significant difference in favor of the HALS group was seen in operating time (WMD 61 min). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that HALS provides a more efficient segmental colectomy regarding operating time and conversion rate, particularly accounting for diverticulitis. A significant operating time advantage exists for HALS total (procto)colectomy. HALS must therefore be considered a valuable addition to the laparoscopic armamentarium to avoid conversion and speed up complicated colectomies.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets