Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: An individual patient data meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection remains controversial. Thus, we aimed to conduct a one-stage meta-analysis with reconstructed patient-level data using randomized trial data to compare long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic and open surgical resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for articles comparing laparoscopic with open surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcome was disease free survival (DFS) while secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). One-stage meta-analysis was conducted using patient-level survival data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves with Web Plot Digitizer. Shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints. RESULTS: Seven randomized trials involving 1767 laparoscopic and 1293 open resections for rectal cancer were included. There were no significant differences between both groups for DFS and OS with respective hazard ratio estimates of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78-1.06, p = 0.241) and 0.86 (95% CI:0.73-1.02, p = 0.090). Sensitivity analysis for non-metastatic patients and patients with mid and lower rectal cancer showed no significant differences in OS and DFS between both surgical approaches. In the laparoscopic arm, improved DFS was noted for stage II (HR: 0.73, 95% CI:0.54-0.98, p = 0.036) and stage III rectal cancers (HR: 0.74, 95% CI:0.55-0.99, p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis concludes that laparoscopic rectal cancer resection does not compromise long-term oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery with potential survival benefits for a minimal access approach in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal carcinoid tumor. A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single-arm analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As there has been so far no consensus on the best endoscopic resection technique, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for treating rectal carcinoid tumors. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles on the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors using ESD vs EMR published up to October 2020 for outcomes including en bloc and complete resection, margin involvement, procedure time, requirement for additional surgery, bleeding, perforation and recurrence. Risk ratio and weighted mean differences were used for a DerSimonian and Laird random effects pairwise meta-analysis. Single-arm meta-analyses of proportions and random effects meta-regression analysis were also conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies involving 1360 rectal carcinoid tumors were included, in which 655 and 705 rectal carcinoid tumors were resected with ESD and EMR, respectively. The resection efficacy of ESD was comparable to that of EMR for tumors <10 mm. However, there were a significantly higher complete resection rate, and lower rates of vertical margin involvement and requirement for additional surgery using ESD than using EMR for tumors ≤20 mm. ESD had a longer procedure time and an increased likelihood of bleeding than EMR. CONCLUSIONS: ESD is more effective in providing a curative treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors ≤20 mm in size as ESD can achieve a higher complete resection rate with lower vertical margin involvement than EMR. While they are suitable for treating rectal carcinoid tumors <10 mm as both techniques provide similar efficacy.

Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.

Comparing complete mesocolic excision versus conventional colectomy for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Conventional colectomy, and the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) D2 Lymphadenectomy (LND2), are currently considered standard of care for surgical management of colon cancer. Colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and JSCCR D3 Lymphadenectomy (LND3) are more radical alternative approaches and provide a greater degree of lymph nodal clearance. However, controversy exists over the long-term benefits of CME/LND3 over non-CME colectomies (NCME)/LND2. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the surgical, pathological, and oncological outcomes of CME/LND3 with NCME/LND2. Embase, Medline and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until May 15, 2020, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they compared curative intent CME/LND3 with NCME/LND2. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were estimated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes respectively. Out of 1310 unique citations, 106 underwent full-text review, and 30 were included for analysis. In total, 21,695 patients underwent resection for colon cancer. 11,625 received CME/LND3, and 10,070 underwent NCME/LND2. No significant differences were found in post-operative morbidity and mortality. Both overall and disease-free survival favored CME/LND3 (5-year OS: OR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64, p = 0.03; 5-year DFS: OR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.28; p = 0.007). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to demonstrate that CME/LND3 has superior long-term survival outcomes compared to NCME/LND2.

Indocyanine green fluorescent imaging on anastomotic leakage in colectomies: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.

PURPOSE: The usage of indocyanine green (ICG) dye is commonly associated with decreased anastomotic leakage rates in colectomies. This study aims to perform a network meta-analysis to assess the usage of ICG fluorescence imaging in right-sided colectomies. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Trials, CNKI, and WanFang electronic databases were reviewed, and meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis were conducted in this review. Studies comparing ICG usage with conventional approaches of anastomosis were selected, with postoperative anastomotic leak rate being the primary outcome. RESULTS: Ten articles were included, with a total of 675 patients involved, of which 515 patients underwent colorectal surgery with ICG. Anastomotic leak rates with ICG were estimated to be 1% (CI 0.00-0.04) and 3% (CI 0.01-0.06) for right and left procedures, respectively. No significant difference was observed in left-sided colectomies (OR 0.587; 95% CI 0.218-1.582; p = 0.292). There were nearly half the odds of anastomotic leakage when ICG was used in right-sided colectomies (OR 0.524; 95% CI 0.128-2.137). CONCLUSION: With the ability to potentially avert postoperative anastomotic leakage, coupled with its minimal costs and side effects, administration of ICG in colectomies in centers where equipment is available should be encouraged.