Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer

Gao, Feng; Cao, Yukun; Chen, Lisheng

doi:10.1007/s00384-005-0079-0

Cited by 77 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that laparoscopic APR was associated with less intraoperative bleeding, shorter interval between operation and diet resumption and shorter hospital stay. Our results were not consistent with previous studies indicating that laparoscopic APR is associated with earlier postoperative recovery (20,21) and less postoperative morbidity (22). Oncologic outcome was reported to be comparable with open APR (16).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies compared long-term outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer between laparoscopic and open procedures. Almost all these studies demonstrated that long-term oncologic outcome of laparoscopic approach is comparable with open APR (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(20)(21)(22). The problem for addressing this issue is relative rarity of the procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several meta-analyses compared the laparoscopic and open APR regarding short-and long-term outcomes (16)(17)(18)(19). They demonstrated that laparoscopic APR is associated with earlier postoperative recovery (20,21) and less postoperative morbidity (22). However, they reported a comparable oncologic outcome (16,20).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the Efficacy of Open Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperianal Resection in Management of Patients with Low Rectal Cancer

Ghahramani¹,

Eghlimi²,

Bananzadeh³

et al. 2014

Ann Colorectal Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results: Overall, 24 patients were included in this study of whom 11 underwent laparoscopy and 13 underwent open APR. The two study groups were comparable regarding age (P = 0.747), gender (P = 0.605), tumor stage (P = 0.116), tumor histopathology grade (P = 0.421) and distance from the anal verge (P = 0.711). The duration of operation was comparable between the groups (P = 0.336). Those who underwent laparoscopy had significantly lower intraoperative bleeding (485.5 ± 139.8 vs. 658.3 ± 183.2; P = 0.024), shorter operation-diet interval (2.27 ± 0.46 vs. 3.15 ± 0.37; P < 0.001) and shorter duration of hospitalization compared to the open APR group (4.09 ± 0.53 vs. 4.76 ± 0.59; P = 0.008). Conclusions: Laparoscopic APR is associated with minimal perioperative bleeding, shorter operation-diet interval and shorter durations of hospitalization compared to open approach in patients with low rectal cancer who had not received neoadjuvant chemo radiotherapy. Oncologic results in this operation were comprisable to open procedure because the mesorectal, anus and sphincter complex excision are performed in the same method. . Therefore, laparoscopy could be the method of choice for APR.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the Efficacy of Open Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperianal Resection in Management of Patients with Low Rectal Cancer

Ghahramani¹,

Eghlimi²,

Bananzadeh³

et al. 2014

Ann Colorectal Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gao and coworkers 93 analyzed 11 studies in the literature from 1995 to 2005, which included 285 patients who had undergone LARR. The study found laparoscopic surgery to be associated with lower morbidity rates but longer operative times.…”

Section: Laparoscopic Resection For Rectal Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal Access Cancer Management

Greene

Kercher

Teigland

et al. 2007

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimal access approaches in the treatment of a variety of solid tumors of the stomach, large bowel, and genitourinary system are now being advocated in several surgical specialty areas. The laparoscope has evolved from a diagnostic tool to a modality that allows for removal of tumors using small incisions and the application of pneumoperitoneum with carbon dioxide. Through studies using animal models and patient investigation, the immunologic benefits of laparoscopic cancer procedures appear to be beneficial when compared with conventional laparotomy. Overall benefits of analgesic reduction, more rapid postoperative recovery, and patient satisfaction are the byproducts of minimal access approaches. Patients with cancers of the stomach, colon, and kidney show similar long-term outcomes when compared with conventional open techniques. Caution, however, should be exercised in recommending laparoscopic approaches for routine management of primary tumors of the rectum and adrenal gland.

show abstract

“…The laparoscope seems to facilitate pelvic dissection including identification and preservation of critical structures such as the autonomic nervous system [11][12] . Laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is feasible and safe; the short-, mid-and long-term outcomes of the operation are favorable compared with those of conventional open surgery [13][14][15][16][17] . However, the laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is complicated and has some technical difficulties during operation; surgeons had to invent some methods to resolve the problem [18][19][20][21][22] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasonically activated scalpel versus monopolar electrocautery shovel in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Zhou¹,

Song²,

Qiu³

et al. 2008

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To investigate the feasibility and safety of monopolar electrocautery shovel (ES) in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer in order to reduce the cost of the laparoscopic operation, and to compare ES with the ultrasonically activated scalpel (US). METHODS: Forty patients with rectal cancer, who underwent laparoscopic TME with anal sphincter preservation from June 2005 to June 2007, were randomly divided into ultrasonic scalpel group and monopolar ES group, prospectively. White blood cells (WBC) were measured before and after operation, operative time, blood loss, pelvic volume of drainage, time of anal exhaust, visual analogue scales (VAS) and surgery-related complications were recorded. RESULTS: All the operations were successful; no one was converted to open procedure. No significant differences were observed in terms of preoperative and group and US group. The occurrence of surgery-related complications such as anastomotic leakage and wound infection was the same in the two groups. CONCLUSION: ES is a safe and feasible tool as same as US used in laparoscopic TME with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer on the basis of the skillful laparoscopic technique and the complete understanding of laparoscopic pelvic anatomy. Application of ES can not only reduce the operation costs but also benefit the popularization of laparoscopic operation for rectal cancer patients.

show abstract

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer

Abstract: LR is associated with less postoperative morbidity, but longer operation time. A prospective randomized controlled trial is warranted to fully investigate these and other outcome measures.

Cited by 77 publications

References 15 publications

Evaluating the Efficacy of Open Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperianal Resection in Management of Patients with Low Rectal Cancer

Evaluating the Efficacy of Open Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperianal Resection in Management of Patients with Low Rectal Cancer

Minimal Access Cancer Management

Ultrasonically activated scalpel versus monopolar electrocautery shovel in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About