Zheng Jiabin, Feng Xingyu, Yang Zifeng, Hu Weixian, Luo Yuwen, Li Yong
Department of General Surgery, Guangdong General Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
Oncotarget. 2017 Feb 21;8(8):12717-12729. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.14215.
Laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer was reported as advantageous compared to laparotomy resection. However, this finding remains controversial, especially given the two recent randomized controlled trials published on The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
To perform a meta-analysis that compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer.
To identify clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer published by August 2016, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Springer Link and Clinicaltrials.gov databases by combining various key words. Data were extracted from every identified study to perform a meta-analysis using the Review Manager 5.3 software.
A total of 43 articles from 38 studies with a total of 13408 patients were included. Although laparoscopic radical rectectomy increased operation time (MD = 37.23, 95% CI: 28.88 to 45.57, P < 0.0001), it can significantly decrease the blood loss (MD = -143.13, 95% CI: -183.48 to -102.78, P < 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (MD = -0.97, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.59, P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD = -2.40, 95% CI: -3.10 to -1.70, P < 0.0001), postoperative complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86, P < 0.0001), mortality (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.57, P < 0.0001) and the CRM positive rate (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75, P < 0.0001). No significant difference were noted between the groups regarding intraoperative complications, TME completeness and harvesting of lymph nodes. Regarding the long-term survival data, the laparoscopic group was not inferior to laparotomy. Some pooled data, such as 3-year DFS, 5-year OS and 5-year local recurrence were even superior for the laparoscopic group.
Given the definite benefits in short-term outcomes and trending benefits in long-term outcomes that were observed, we recommend laparoscopic surgery be used for rectal cancer resection.
与开腹手术相比,腹腔镜辅助直肠癌根治术据报道具有优势。然而,这一发现仍存在争议,尤其是考虑到最近发表在美国医学会杂志(JAMA)上的两项随机对照试验。
进行一项荟萃分析,比较腹腔镜手术和开放手术治疗直肠癌的短期和长期结果。
为了识别2016年8月前发表的比较腹腔镜手术和开放手术治疗直肠癌的临床试验,我们通过组合各种关键词搜索了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Springer Link和Clinicaltrials.gov数据库。从每项纳入研究中提取数据,使用Review Manager 5.3软件进行荟萃分析。
共纳入38项研究的43篇文章,总计13408例患者。虽然腹腔镜直肠癌根治术增加了手术时间(MD = 37.23,95%CI:28.88至45.57,P < 0.0001),但它能显著减少失血量(MD = -143.13,95%CI:-183.48至-102.78,P < 0.0001)、首次排气时间(MD = -0.97,95%CI:-1.35至-0.59,P < 0.0001)、住院时间(MD = -2.40,95%CI:-3.10至-1.70,P < 0.0001)、术后并发症(OR = 0.78,95%CI:0.72至0.86,P < 0.0001)、死亡率(OR = 0.40,95%CI:0.28至0.57,P < 0.0001)和环周切缘阳性率(OR = 0.64,95%CI:0.55至0.75,P < 0.0001)。两组在术中并发症、直肠系膜完整度和淋巴结清扫方面未观察到显著差异。关于长期生存数据,腹腔镜组不劣于开腹组。一些汇总数据,如3年无病生存率、5年总生存率和5年局部复发率,腹腔镜组甚至更优。
鉴于观察到的短期结果的明确益处和长期结果的潜在益处,我们建议将腹腔镜手术用于直肠癌切除术。