A meta-analysis of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer

Aim. To compare the clinical efficacies between laparoscopic and conventional open surgery in lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced rectal cancer. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. According to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective or prospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques were included, and then a meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the difference in clinical and oncological outcomes between the two treatment approaches. Results. Eight studies involving a total of 892 patients were finally selected, with 394 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group and 498 cases in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with the traditional open group, the laparoscopic group had a longer operative time (WMD=81.56, 95% CI (2.09, 142.03), P=0.008), but less intraoperative blood loss (WMD=−452.18, 95% CI (-652.23, -252.13), P<0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD=−5.30, 95% CI (-8.42, -2.18), P=0.0009), and higher R0 resection rate (OR=2.17, 95% CI (1.14, 4.15), P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two groups (OR=0.52, 95% CI (0.26, 1.07), P=0.08). Lateral lymph node harvest, lateral lymph node metastasis, local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (P>0.05). Conclusion. Laparoscopic LLND has a similar efficacy in oncological outcomes and postoperative complications to the conventional open surgery, with the advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and higher R0 resection rate, and tumor radical cure is similar to traditional open surgery. Laparoscopic LLND is a safe and feasible surgical approach, and it may be used as a standard procedure in LLND for advanced rectal cancer.

Download Full-text

Open surgery versus laparoscopic surgery after stent insertion for obstructive colorectal cancer

Surgery Today ◽

10.1007/s00595-016-1331-7 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 46 (12) ◽

pp. 1383-1386 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Toshiyuki Enomoto ◽

Yoshihisa Saida ◽

Kazuhiro Takabayashi ◽

Sayaka Nagao ◽

Emiko Takeshita ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Stent Insertion ◽

Obstructive Colorectal Cancer

Download Full-text

Fast track multidiscipline treatment versus conventional treatment for colorectal cancer: The results of a prospective randomized controlled study (FTMDT trial).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.4_suppl.743 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽

pp. 743-743

Author(s):

Ke-Feng Ding ◽

Jun Li ◽

Jiao-Jiao Zhou ◽

Xiang-Xing Kong ◽

Jin-Jie He ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Conventional Treatment ◽

Fast Track ◽

Total Hospital ◽

Perioperative Treatment ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Hospital Stays

743 Background: Fast Track Multi-Discipline Treatment (FTMDT) integrates fast-track perioperative treatment (laparoscopic or open surgery) plus XELOX adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to verify the effects of FTMDT model and to clarify the value of laparoscopic surgery in fast-track perioperative treatment. Methods: The study (NCT01080547) was a prospective randomized controlled multi-centers study. Group I (FTMDT) received fast-track treatment plus XELOX chemotherapy (Group Ia received laparoscopic surgery and Group Ib received open surgery). Group II (conventional treatment, CT) received conventional treatment plus mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy (Group IIa received laparoscopic surgery and Group IIb received open surgery). The primary endpoint was total hospital stays during treatment. The secondary endpoints included surgical complications, chemotherapy related adverse events, quality of life and hospitalization costs. Results: Between April 2010 and June 2014, 374 patients were enrolled and 342 patients were finally analyzed. The total hospital stays were shorter in FTMDT than CT (median 13 days vs. 23.5 days, P= 0.0001) but similar between Group Ia and Group Ib (median 13 days vs. 14 days, P= 0.1951). The postoperative hospital stays were shorter in FTMDT than CT (median 6 days vs. 9 days, P= 0.0001) but similar between Group Ia and Group Ib (median 6 days vs. 6 days, P= 0.2160). Resume of flatus and defecation was earlier in FTMDT ( P< 0.05) and Group Ia was the earliest. The in-hospital complication rate was lower in FTMDT (6.40% vs. 14.71%, P= 0.014) but similar between Group Ia and Group Ib. The surgery cost of Group Ib was the lowest ( P< 0.05). The rate of chemotherapy related adverse events was similar between FTMDT and CT( P> 0.05). The EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning and fatigue in one week postoperative were better in FTMDT than CT( P< 0.05). Conclusions: FTMDT model enhanced the postoperative recovery of CRC patients. On the premise of fast-track perioperative treatment, laparoscopic surgery showed minor advantage over open surgery which had economic advantages. Clinical trial information: NCT01080547.

Download Full-text