INTRODUCTION

Minimal Access Surgery (MAS) has shown better peri-operative outcomes with equivalent oncological outcomes in gastrointestinal and thoracic oncology. Open CRS (O-CRS) procedure accompanies inevitable and significant surgical morbidity in patients. The aim of the review article is to compare outcomes of M-CRS and HIPEC/EPIC with open procedure in peritoneal surface malignancies.

CONTENT

Comprehensive search of databases was done and total 2,807 articles were found (2793-PubMed and 14-Cochrane review). PRISMA flow chart was prepared and 14 articles were selected. Meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines using random-effects model (DerSimonian Laird) and fixed effect model. Publication bias was tested with Funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Quality of studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

Patients in both groups [total (732), M-CRS(319), O-CRS(413)] were similar in demographic characteristics. Peri-operative outcomes were significantly better in M-CRS group in terms of blood loss SMD=-2.379, p<0.001 (95 % CI -2.952 to -1.805), blood transfusion RR=0.598, p=0.011 (95 % CI 0.402 to 0.889), bowel recovery SMD=-0.843, p=0.01 (95 % CI -1.487 to -0.2), hospital stay SMD=-2.348, p<0.001 (95 % CI -3.178 to -1.519) and total morbidity RR=0.538, p<0.001 (95 % CI 0.395 to 0.731). Duration of surgery SMD=-0.0643 (95 % CI -0.993 to 0.865, p=0.892) and CC0 score RR=1.064 (95 % CI 0.992 to 1.140, p=0.083) had no significant difference. Limited studies which evaluated survival showed similar outcomes. This meta-analysis shows that M-CRS and HIPEC/EPIC is feasible and has better peri-operative outcomes compared to open procedure in patients with limited peritoneal carcinoma index (PCI) peritoneal surface malignancies. Survival outcomes were not calculated. Further studies are warranted in this regard.