General Surgery Unit, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford Teaching Hospitals, Bradford, United Kingdom.
John Goligher Colorectal Unit, St James' University Hospital, The Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Int J Surg. 2017 May;41:78-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.03.050. Epub 2017 Mar 24.
Transverse colon malignancies have been excluded from all randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic against open colectomies, potentially due to the advanced laparoscopic skills required for dissecting around the middle colic vessels and the associated morbidity. Concerns have been expressed that the laparoscopic approach may compromise the oncological clearance in transverse colon cancer. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the laparoscopic (LPA) to the open (OPA) approach by performing a meta-analysis of long and short term outcomes.
Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases were interrogated. Selected studies were critically appraised and the short-term morbidity and long term oncological outcomes were meta-analyzed. Sensitivity analysis according to the quality of the study, type of procedure (laparoscopic vs laparoscopically assisted) and level of lymphadenectomy was performed. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were also investigated.
Eleven case control trials (1415 patients) were included in the study. There was no difference between the LPA and the OPA in overall survival [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.83 (0.56, 1.22); P = 0.34], disease free survival (p = 0.20), local recurrence (p = 0.81) or distant metastases (p = 0.24). LPA was found to have longer operative time [Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 45.00 (29.48, 60.52); P < 0.00001] with earlier establishment of oral intake [WMD = -1.68 (-1.84, -1.53); P < 0.00001] and shorter hospital stay [WMD = -2.94 (-4.27, -1.62); P = 0.0001]. No difference was found in relation to anastomotic leakage (p = 0.39), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.25), lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.17).
LPA seems to be safe with equivalent oncological outcomes to OPA and better short term outcomes in selected patient populations. High quality Randomized control trials are required to further investigate the role of laparoscopy in transverse colon cancer.
由于需要进行横结肠中血管的解剖操作,腹腔镜手术技术要求较高,因此,所有比较腹腔镜与开腹结肠切除术的随机对照试验均排除了横结肠癌患者,潜在地导致了这一结果。人们担心腹腔镜手术可能会影响横结肠癌的肿瘤清除率。本研究旨在通过荟萃分析长期和短期结果,全面比较腹腔镜(LPA)和开腹(OPA)手术。
通过检索 Medline、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、Scopus 和 Web of Knowledge 数据库,对选定的研究进行了批判性评价,并对短期发病率和长期肿瘤学结果进行了荟萃分析。根据研究质量、手术类型(腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助)和淋巴结清扫程度进行了敏感性分析。还调查了统计异质性和发表偏倚。
本研究纳入了 11 项病例对照试验(1415 例患者)。LPA 和 OPA 在总生存率[风险比(HR)=0.83(0.56,1.22);P=0.34]、无病生存率(p=0.20)、局部复发率(p=0.81)或远处转移率(p=0.24)方面无差异。LPA 的手术时间更长[加权均数差(WMD)=45.00(29.48,60.52);P<0.00001],术后口服摄入恢复时间更早[WMD=-1.68(-1.84,-1.53);P<0.00001],住院时间更短[WMD=-2.94(-4.27,-1.62);P=0.0001]。在吻合口漏(p=0.39)、腹腔脓肿(p=0.25)、淋巴结清扫数量(p=0.17)方面,两组间无差异。
在选定的患者人群中,LPA 似乎是安全的,其肿瘤学结果与 OPA 相当,并且具有更好的短期结果。需要高质量的随机对照试验来进一步研究腹腔镜在横结肠癌中的作用。