Affiliation:
1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Pengzhou People’s Hospital, Pengzhou City, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Xindu District, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
3. Department of Urology, Pengzhou People’s Hospital, Pengzhou City, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Abstract
Background:
Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy (COP) for locally advanced colon cancer has not been studied.
Methods:
We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) and COP. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023407029).
Results:
There are 10132 participants including 21 articles. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had less operation time (SMD 0.48; CI 0.32 to 0.65; I2 = 0%, P = .000), estimated blood loss (MD −1.23; CI −1.90 to −0.56; I2 = 95%, P < .0001), the median time to semi-liquid diet (SMD −0.43; CI −0.70 to −0.15; I2 = 0%, P = .002), time to the first flatus (SMD −0.97; CI −1.30 to −0.63; I2 = 7%, P < .0001), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.33; CI 0.24 to 0.46; I2 = 0%, P < .0001) in perioperative outcomes. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had fewer overall complications (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2 = 22.4%, P = .023), postoperative complications (RR 0.79; CI 0.69 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .001), and urinary retention (RR 0.63; CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .011) in perioperative outcomes.
Conclusion:
This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the difference between the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive and open treatment of locally advanced colon cancer through meta-analysis. Minimally invasive proctectomy is better than COP in postoperative and perioperative outcomes. However, there is no difference in oncological outcomes. This also provides an evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, multi-center RCT research is also needed to draw more scientific and rigorous conclusions in the future.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)