Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical efficacy.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is one of the main malignant tumors threatening human health. Surgery plays a pivotal role in treating colorectal cancer. The present study aimed to compare the clinical effect in patients with rectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgery by meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past 20 years. The data showed that 14 RCTs comparing laparoscopic surgery with conventional open surgery for rectal cancer matched the selection criteria and reported on 2,114 subjects, of whom 1,111 underwent laparoscopic surgery and 1,003 underwent open surgery for rectal cancer. Blood loss (P<0.00001), days to passage of flatus (P=0.0003), first bowel movement (P=0.0006), fluids intake (P<0.00001), walking independently (P<0.00001), length of hospital duration (P=0.003) and the rate of wound infection (P=0.04) were all significantly reduced following laparoscopic surgery. The incidence of complications, such as ureteric injury (P=0.33), urinary retention (P=0.43), ileus (P=0.05), anastomotic leakage (P=0.09) and incisional hernia (P=0.88), were not significantly different between the two groups. There were no significant differences in lymph nodes harvested (P=0.88), length of specimen (P=0.60), circumferential resection margin (CRM) (P=0.86), regional recurrence ((P=0.08), port site or wound metastasis (P=0.67), distant metastasis (P=0.12), 3-year overall survival (OS) (P=0.42), 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) (P=0.44), 5-year OS (P=0.60) and 5-year DFS (P=0.70). Therefore, laparoscopy for the treatment of patients with rectal cancer has the advantage of recovery and the same complications and prognosis as laparotomy, which indicates that laparoscopy may provide a potential survival benefit for patients with rectal cancer.