Lu Kai, Shu Shilong, Zhong Furui, Yang Hua, Cheng Yong, Zhang Faqiang
Department of General Surgery, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China.
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Front Oncol. 2025 Aug 27;15:1605040. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1605040. eCollection 2025.
As minimally invasive techniques evolve, reduced-port laparoscopic colorectal resection, including single-incision (SILS) and single-incision plus one (SILS+1) approaches, has gained increasing clinical traction. However, whether it offers definitive advantages over conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery remains contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RLS) for colorectal resection and validate the robustness of findings through trial sequential analysis (TSA).
A systematic literature search was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from database inception to March 21, 2025, to identify RCTs comparing RLS with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal resection. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3, with TSA employed to control for random errors. Primary endpoints included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain.
Fourteen RCTs involving 1,713 patients were analyzed. Pooled data demonstrated no statistically significant differences between RLS and CLS in operative time (SMD: 0.29; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.64; = 0.11), intraoperative blood loss (SMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.15; = 0.40), intraoperative complications (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.88; = 0.12), or postoperative complications (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.17; = 0.38). RLS was associated with significantly shorter incision length (SMD: -1.60; 95% CI: -2.37 to -0.83; < 0.0001). Secondary outcomes, including complication severity, resection margins, lymph node harvest, time to first flatus, hospital stay, conversion rates, and anastomotic leakage, showed comparable results between approaches.
RLS demonstrates comparable safety profiles and operative efficiency to conventional laparoscopic resection, and with its principal advantage being reduced incision length, this approach can serve as an alternative surgical option for patients.
随着微创技术的发展,包括单切口(SILS)和单切口加一(SILS+1)入路在内的减少端口腹腔镜结直肠切除术在临床上越来越受到关注。然而,与传统多端口腹腔镜手术相比,它是否具有明确优势仍存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在全面评估减少端口腹腔镜手术(RLS)用于结直肠切除的安全性和有效性,并通过试验序贯分析(TSA)验证研究结果的稳健性。
从数据库建立至2025年3月21日,在Web of Science、PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase上进行系统文献检索,以识别比较RLS与传统腹腔镜手术(CLS)用于结直肠切除的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估方法学质量。在RevMan 5.3中进行荟萃分析,并采用TSA控制随机误差。主要终点包括手术时间、术中失血、术中并发症、术后并发症和术后疼痛。
分析了14项涉及1713例患者的RCT。汇总数据显示,RLS与CLS在手术时间(标准化均数差:0.29;95%可信区间:-0.07至0.64;P=0.11)、术中失血(标准化均数差:0.04;95%可信区间:-0.06至0.15;P=0.40)、术中并发症(比值比:1.6;95%可信区间:0.88至2.88;P=0.12)或术后并发症(比值比:0.88;95%可信区间:0.67至1.17;P=0.38)方面无统计学显著差异。RLS与显著更短的切口长度相关(标准化均数差:-1.60;95%可信区间:-2.37至-0.83;P<0.0001)。次要结局,包括并发症严重程度、切缘、淋巴结清扫、首次排气时间、住院时间、中转率和吻合口漏,两种手术方式结果相当。
RLS与传统腹腔镜切除术相比,安全性和手术效率相当,其主要优势在于切口长度缩短,该手术方式可作为患者的替代手术选择。