ReviewOncologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature
Introduction
Laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer has been shown in prospective randomised trials to be equivalent to open colectomy in terms of recurrence and survival outcomes.1, 2, 3 In addition, the laparoscopic approach has been found to be associated with improved quality of life compared with traditional open surgery.4, 5
Over the past decade, laparoscopic techniques have also been used for resection of primary rectal cancers. Short-term outcomes have been compared between the open and laparoscopic approach in several randomised prospective trials5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and two recent meta-analyses.12, 13 These studies have shown superior postoperative results in favour of the laparoscopic approach, similar to the findings found with laparoscopic colectomy. However, meta-analyses have been limited to short-term outcomes. There is a growing body of literature reporting oncologic parameters including node and margin status, recurrence rates and overall survival for laparoscopic rectal surgery. These data, however, are fragmented throughout numerous studies, making it difficult to determine the overall effect of laparoscopic techniques on oncologic results for patients undergoing rectal resections. The aim of this study is to present a systematic review of oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection for the treatment of rectal cancer and compare these outcomes to those of conventional open resections.
Section snippets
Study selection
Peer-reviewed trials published on laparoscopic rectal resections were found by searching the following databases from 1990 to 2007: Ovid Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The following search terms were used: “laparoscopy or laparoscop∗”, “rectal or rect∗”, “minimally/minimal∗ invasive”, and “cancer or neoplasm or malignancy”. The reference lists of retrieved articles as well as review articles found using the search terms “colorectal” and “cancer or neoplasm or
Study selection
The literature review yielded a total of 47 studies from 1997 through 2007. Twenty-three were excluded, 12 because they were non-comparative trials and 11 because they did not report on the variables of interest. The remaining 24 trials reported survival data, recurrence rates, margin status or node retrieval in patients treated with laparoscopic and open rectal resections for rectal cancer and formed the basis of this analysis. A summary of the trials included in this review is displayed in
Short-term outcomes
With growing data supporting minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer,2, 38, 39 there have been several systematic review articles recently published on this topic.40, 41, 42 However, these reviews have combined results for both rectal and colonic resections, and report limited data on long-term oncologic parameters. In the last 3 years, there have been five prospective randomised trials5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 comparing short-term outcomes of laparoscopic resections to conventional open
Conclusion
This review of the literature and meta-analysis supports the vast body of literature indicating that there is no difference in oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic vs. open resections for gastrointestinal malignancies. Laparoscopic surgery appears to be suitable for the treatment of rectal cancer as well.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no disclosures.
References (45)
- et al.
Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial
Lancet
(2002 June 29) - et al.
Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial
Lancet
(2004 April 10) - et al.
Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2005 May 14) - et al.
Off-pump myocardial revascularization is associated with less incidence of stroke in elderly patients
Ann Thorac Surg
(2004 February) - et al.
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists
Control Clin Trials
(1995 February) - et al.
Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer
Surg Clin North Am
(2005 February) - et al.
Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial
Lancet Oncol
(2005 July) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer
N Engl J Med
(2004 May 13)- et al.
Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial
JAMA
(2002 January 16) - et al.
Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in cancer patients: long-term complications, quality of life, and survival
Dis Colon Rectum
(2005 December)
Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer
Surg Endosc
Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost–benefit analysis
Dis Colon Rectum
Conventional approach × laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: results of a prospective randomized trial
Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo
Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASSIC trial group
J Clin Oncol
Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer
Int J Colorectal Dis
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis
Ann Surg Oncol
Do corticosteroids reduce mortality from alcoholic hepatitis? A meta-analysis of the randomized trials
Ann Intern Med
Measurement and evaluation in the classroom
Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: a correlational approach
Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis
Laparoscopic and open anterior resection for upper and mid rectal cancer: an evaluation of outcomes
Dis Colon Rectum
Cited by (102)
Oral management strategies for radiotherapy of head and neck cancer
2020, Japanese Dental Science ReviewCitation Excerpt :Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine have different mechanisms of action and different spectrums of efficacy. Chlorhexidine damages the outer layers of the microbial cell membrane, upsetting resting membrane potentials, whereas povidone-iodine uncouples iodine, which is absorbed by microbes, resulting in the inactivation of key cytoplasmic pathways [39]. Povidone-iodine is useful for the prevention of oral infections.
The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer
2016, European Journal of Surgical OncologyCitation Excerpt :Notwithstanding, one meta-analysis including eight studies (six non-randomized controlled trials and two randomized controlled trials) with 661 patients (268 underwent RTME and 393 LTME) concluded that operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes of these two techniques were similar.15 Two other meta-analyses comparing oncologic differences between LTME and OTME for treatment of primary rectal cancer also did not find significant difference between these two approaches.21,22 Findings from our study of patients with rectal adenocarcinomas at or below 10 cm from the anal verge, all of whom underwent neoadjuvant CRT by the same protocol design, demonstrate that RTME achieved similar short-term oncological outcomes when compared to OTME and LTME.
Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Outcomes after 140 Patients
2015, Journal of the American College of SurgeonsThe effect of surgical approach on short-term oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer surgery
2015, Surgery (United States)Effect of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer with N. O. S. E. on recovery and prognosis of patients
2022, Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies