Javascript must be enabled to continue!
A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy for locally advanced colon cancer
View through CrossRef
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.
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Title: A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy for locally advanced colon cancer
Description:
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.
Related Results
Breast Carcinoma within Fibroadenoma: A Systematic Review
Breast Carcinoma within Fibroadenoma: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Introduction
Fibroadenoma is the most common benign breast lesion; however, it carries a potential risk of malignant transformation. This systematic review provides an ove...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease with colon cancer: A nationwide analysis.
Mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease with colon cancer: A nationwide analysis.
e15669
Background:
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, is a chronic condition chara...
Edoxaban and Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials
Edoxaban and Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract
Introduction
Cancer patients face a venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk that is up to 50 times higher compared to individuals without cancer. In 2010, direct oral anticoagul...
063. ROBOTIC ASSISTED MIMINALLY INVASIVE IVOR-LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY VERSUS CONVENTIONAL MINIMALLY INVASIVE IVOR-LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY
063. ROBOTIC ASSISTED MIMINALLY INVASIVE IVOR-LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY VERSUS CONVENTIONAL MINIMALLY INVASIVE IVOR-LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY
Abstract
Background
Minimally invasive technique for esophagectomy has emerged as the standard of care for resectable esophageal...
Podoplanin-mediated platelet activation promotes proliferation and invasion of colon cancer cells
Podoplanin-mediated platelet activation promotes proliferation and invasion of colon cancer cells
Abstract
Background: Recent studies have shown that podoplanin is highly expressed in many tumors, suggesting that podoplanin may be related to the invasion and metastasis ...
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
This section provides current contact details and a summary of recent or ongoing clinical trials being coordinated by International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Clinical tria...
Microwave Ablation with or Without Chemotherapy in Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Microwave Ablation with or Without Chemotherapy in Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Introduction
Microwave ablation (MWA) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, whether it i...

