ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the recurrence between laparoscopic resection and conventional open resection for colorectal cancer with meta-analysis.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Eligible articles were identified by searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database between January 1991 and January 2007 using the terms (laparoscopy, surgery, minimal invasive, colon, intestine, large, colectomy, colonic neoplasms, rectal neoplasms and randomized controlled trial). Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with colorectal cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery followed-up by recurrence. Data were extracted from these trials by three independent reviewers.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Ten trials with recurrence information of 2474 patients were involved. In the combined results, no significant difference in the OR for overall recurrence between the laparoscopic surgery and open surgery group was found (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.19, P=0.64). Stratified by recurrence type, the combined results of the individual reports showed no significant differences for local recurrence (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.50 to 1.25,P=0.32), distant metastasis (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.28, P=0.54) and port-site or wound-site recurrence (OR 1.04,95%CI 0.21 to 5.27,P=0.96) between the two surgical techniques.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The recurrence rates for patients with colorectal cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery do not differ significantly from those by open surgery. Longer follow up studies will further define outcomes comparing the two techniques in the treatment of colorectal cancer.</p>
Subject(s)
Humans , Colectomy , Colorectal Neoplasms , Pathology , General Surgery , Laparoscopy , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare treatment outcomes of total mesorectal excision (TME) with those of conventional radical surgery (CRS) for rectal cancer.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Literature reviews were performed with key words, such as rectal cancer, total mesorectal excision, TME on all studies reported on TME versus CRS for rectal cancer between January 1986 to May 2006. According to the same screening criteria, 17 clinical studies were included in our systematic reviews. Two of our co-authors drew the details of trial design, characteristics of participants, results and so on from the studies included. Data analyses were performed by using RevMan 4.2.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Sample volume in this Meta analysis was 5267 rectal cancer cases. Quality and quantity analyses were performed within all included studies, prospective studies (prospective nonrandomized studies and multicenter prospective nonrandomized studies) and retrospective studies. The results showed that postoperative survival rate was significantly increased [OR 1.81 (95%CI 1.55-2.11, P<0.00001), OR 1.79 (95%CI 1.49-2.15, P<0.00001) and OR 1.84 (95%CI 1.39-2.45, P<0.00001)] and local recurrence rate was significantly reduced [OR 0.35 (95%CI 0.29-0.43, P<0.00001), OR 0.41 (95%CI 0.32-0.53, P<0.00001) and OR 0.29 (95%CI 0.22-0.39, P<0.00001)] after TME was used. The results of all study analyses agreed with those from prospective studies analyses, in which postoperative mortality was significantly reduced [OR 0.51 (95%CI 0.32-0.87, P=0.007) and OR 0.56 (95%CI 0.33-0.94, P=0.04)] after TME treatment, meanwhile the results of retrospective study analyses indicated that there was no significant difference between TME group and CRS group in postoperative mortality [OR 0.39 (95%CI 0.14-1.10, P=0.07)]. TME was a risk factor for postoperative anastomotic leak according to the results of all included studies and prospective study analyses, but no difference between TME group and CRS group had been found [OR 1.24 (95%CI 0.84-1.83, P=0.29) OR 1.98 (95%CI 0.85-4.61, P=0.11)].</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>TME is still the standard operative technique for rectal cancer. As compared with CRS, TME results in lower postoperative local recurrence rate and higher survival rate.</p>