Laparoscopic versus open surgery in obstructive colorectal cancer patients following stents placement: a comprehensive meta-analysis of cohort studies

Author:

Zeng KeruiORCID,Zhang Faqiang,Yang Hua,Zha Xiaoying,Fang Shixu

Abstract

Abstract Background Over the past decade, the use of stent placement as a bridge to surgery (BTS) has emerged as an alternative to emergency surgery for patients with (OCRC). However, the optimal surgical approach remains indeterminate. This study seeks to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a combined treatment modality involving stent placement and laparoscopic surgery for OCRC presenting with malignant obstruction. Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted until June 2023 to identify studies that compared laparoscopic to open surgery in patients with OCBC following stent insertion. Results The meta-analysis incorporated 12 cohort studies, encompassing 933 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the 30-day mortality rates between the two groups (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 4.48; P = 0.95). Compared to the laparoscopic approach group, the open approach group had a higher rate of overall postoperative complications (POCs) (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.72, P < 0.0001). There was no significant variance in lymph node (LN) dissection number between the groups (mean differences [MD], 1.64; 95% CI − 1.51 to 4.78; P = 0.31). Notably, laparoscopic surgery resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (MD, − 25.84 ml; 95% CI − 52.16 to 0.49; P = 0.05) and a longer operation time (MD, 20.99 mins; 95% CI 2.31 to 39.44; P = 0.03). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (MD − 3.29 days; 95% CI − 5.27 to 1.31; P = 0.001). Conversely, the open approach group had a higher rate of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.96, P = 0.04). Although the number of included studies was insufficient to conduct a meta-analysis, several of them imply that laparoscopic surgery may yield more favorable outcomes in terms of the 3-year overall survival rate (OS), 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS), 5-year OS, and 5-year DFS when compared to open surgery. It is worth noting that these differences lack statistical significance. Conclusion In patients with OCRC subjected to stent insertion, laparoscopic surgery arguably presents a modest superiority over open surgery by diminishing the overall postoperative risk and potentially reducing the LOS.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference65 articles.

1. Simillis C, Lal N, Thoukididou SN, Kontovounisios C, Smith JJ, Hompes R, Adamina M, Tekkis PP (2019) Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Surg 270:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003227

2. Coker OO, Nakatsu G, Dai RZ, Wu WKK, Wong SH, Ng SC, Chan FKL, Sung JJY, Yu J (2019) Enteric fungal microbiota dysbiosis and ecological alterations in colorectal cancer. Gut 68:654–662. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317178

3. Veld JV, Amelung FJ, Borstlap WAA, Eise van Halsema E, Consten ECJ, Siersema PD, Ter Borg F, Silvester van der Zaag E, Fockens P, Bemelman WA, Elise van Hooft J, Tanis PJ (2019) Changes in management of left-sided obstructive colon cancer: National Practice and Guideline Implementation. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 17:1512–1520. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.7326

4. Abelson JS, Yeo HL, Mao J, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2017) Long-term postprocedural outcomes of palliative emergency stenting vs stoma in malignant large-bowel obstruction. JAMA Surg 152:429–435. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5043

5. Veld JV, Amelung FJ, Borstlap WAA, van Halsema EE, Consten ECJ, Siersema PD, Ter Borg F, van der Zaag ES, de Wilt JHW, Fockens P, Bemelman WA, van Hooft JE, Tanis PJ (2020) Comparison of decompressing stoma vs stent as a bridge to surgery for left-sided obstructive colon cancer. JAMA Surg 155:206–215. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5466

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3