Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer
Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-te...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews číslo 4; s. CD005200 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
England
15.04.2014
|
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X, 1469-493X |
| On-line prístup: | Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Abstract | Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.
To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.
Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.
Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.
We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.
To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.
Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.
Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.
We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence. Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.BACKGROUNDColorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is proven to result in faster postoperative recovery, fewer complications and better cosmetic results with equal oncologic results. These short-term benefits are expected to be similar for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, the oncological safety of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial due to the lack of definitive long-term results. Thus, the expected short-term benefits can only be of interest when oncological results are at least equal.To evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).OBJECTIVESTo evaluate the differences in short- and long-term results after elective laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for the resection of rectal cancer compared with open total mesorectal excision (OTME).We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.SEARCH METHODSWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1990 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2013) and Current Controlled Trials (February 2013). We handsearched the reference lists of the included articles for missed studies.Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.SELECTION CRITERIAOnly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTME and OTME, reporting at least one of our outcome measures, was considered for inclusion.Two authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISTwo authors independently assessed study quality according to the CONSORT statement, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.We identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.MAIN RESULTSWe identified 45 references out of 953 search results, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 3528 rectal cancer patients. We did not consider the risk of bias of the included studies to have impacted on the quality of the evidence. Data were analysed according to an intention-to-treat principle with a mean conversion rate of 14.5% (range 0% to 35%) in the laparoscopic group.There was moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic and open TME had similar effects on five-year disease-free survival (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76 to1.38, 4 studies, N = 943). The estimated effects of laparoscopic and open TME on local recurrence and overall survival were similar, although confidence intervals were wide, both with moderate quality evidence (local recurrence: OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57 to1.39 and overall survival rate: OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.87 to1.52). There was moderate to high quality evidence that the number of resected lymph nodes and surgical margins were similar between the two groups.For the short-term results, length of hospital stay was reduced by two days (95% CI -3.22 to -1.10), moderate quality evidence), and the time to first defecation was shorter in the LTME group (-0.86 days; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.54). There was moderate quality evidence that 30 days morbidity were similar in both groups (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1). There were fewer wound infections (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93) and fewer bleeding complications (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.93) in the LTME group.There was no clear evidence of any differences in quality of life after LTME or OTME regarding functional recovery, bladder and sexual function. The costs were higher for LTME with differences up to GBP 2000 for direct costs only.We have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSWe have found moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has similar effects to open TME on long term survival outcomes for the treatment of rectal cancer. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision and further research could impact on our confidence in this result. There is moderate quality evidence that it leads to better short-term post-surgical outcomes in terms of recovery for non-locally advanced rectal cancer. Currently results are consistent in showing a similar disease-free survival and overall survival, and for recurrences after at least three years and up to 10 years, although due to imprecision we cannot rule out superiority of either approach. We await long-term data from a number of ongoing and recently completed studies to contribute to a more robust analysis of long-term disease free, overall survival and local recurrence. |
| Author | Pelzers, Loeki Wiggers, Theo Pierie, Jean-Pierre Breukink, Stephanie Vennix, Sandra Bouvy, Nicole Beets, Geerard L |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Sandra surname: Vennix fullname: Vennix, Sandra organization: Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1105 AZ – sequence: 2 givenname: Loeki surname: Pelzers fullname: Pelzers, Loeki – sequence: 3 givenname: Nicole surname: Bouvy fullname: Bouvy, Nicole – sequence: 4 givenname: Geerard L surname: Beets fullname: Beets, Geerard L – sequence: 5 givenname: Jean-Pierre surname: Pierie fullname: Pierie, Jean-Pierre – sequence: 6 givenname: Theo surname: Wiggers fullname: Wiggers, Theo – sequence: 7 givenname: Stephanie surname: Breukink fullname: Breukink, Stephanie |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24737031$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNj01LxDAYhIMo7of-haVHL13zJk2aHGXXL1jwouCtJOkbqLRNTLai_14XV_A0DzPDwCzI6RhGJGQFdA2UsmuopAAl1HqzpVQwStdxsvyEzH8CXVaav57-4xlZ5PxGKdcA6pzMWFXzmnKYk-3ORJNCdiF2rvjAlKdchIhjsQ970xcD5pDQHRA_XZe7MBY-pOLoOTM6TBfkzJs-4-VRl-Tl7vZ581Dunu4fNze7MjIheVmj5VqyFupW-tYLD9oIpUErZmhtrPGikpaDAINUaM8l1JZKMA6FbVXFluTqdzem8D5h3jdDlx32vRkxTLkBwYAzrfShujpWJztg28TUDSZ9NX_P2TcyxV53 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.CD005200.pub3 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 24737031 |
| Genre | Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-p2563-7eb3962d17d6fdf5f19a5891982a07abaf546b3151ae059f3617b061ace5bd842 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 206 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000335885000022&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1469-493X |
| IngestDate | Thu Oct 02 07:13:55 EDT 2025 Wed Jul 30 01:46:25 EDT 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 4 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-p2563-7eb3962d17d6fdf5f19a5891982a07abaf546b3151ae059f3617b061ace5bd842 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| PMID | 24737031 |
| PQID | 1521329894 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1521329894 pubmed_primary_24737031 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2014-04-15 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2014-04-15 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2014 text: 2014-04-15 day: 15 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2014 |
| References | 17054246 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD005200. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005200.pub2. |
| References_xml | – reference: 17054246 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD005200. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005200.pub2. |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.5394537 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Colorectal cancer including rectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the western world. For colon carcinoma, laparoscopic surgery is... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | CD005200 |
| SubjectTerms | Conversion to Open Surgery - statistics & numerical data Elective Surgical Procedures Humans Laparoscopy Rectal Neoplasms - surgery Rectum - surgery Treatment Outcome |
| Title | Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24737031 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1521329894 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000335885000022&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8NAEB7Uinjx_agvVvAam2ST7uYk0lo8tKUHhdzCbrILPZjEphV_vjNJqidB8BJCYGF3Mjvz7c7jA7hTlkoa09AxShKFmRs52pfWkVplGv21VWFdKDwW06mM42jWXrhVbVrl2ibWhjorUroj75Gf4XW78Ify3SHWKIquthQam9DhCGVIq0X8HUXguJFlU11E0-DxukLY9XsecYDLUN4Phk3rIVo-_x1m1u5mtP_fiR7AXgs02WOjGYewYfIj2Jm0ofRjGI7RTVIry6Kcp4ySM1YVIy4ttiwQkLM3UxVkDfHVfDY8PAwBLmu_paQtixN4HT29DJ6dllLBKRHbcEfg2Tnq-5knsr7NbGi9SBGvYCR95QqllQ2DvuYIA5TBf2g5AhyNLl-lJtSZDPxT2MqL3JwD48ZzTSCENCoKAqMjzxrl4wjlEuaxXbhdyydBlaU4hMpNsaqSHwl14awRclI2vTUSPxCcWupf_GH0JewifKnzaLzwCjoWN6y5hu30YzmvFje1LuBzOpt8AbQ0vew |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Laparoscopic+versus+open+total+mesorectal+excision+for+rectal+cancer&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Vennix%2C+Sandra&rft.au=Pelzers%2C+Loeki&rft.au=Bouvy%2C+Nicole&rft.au=Beets%2C+Geerard+L&rft.date=2014-04-15&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=CD005200&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.CD005200.pub3&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F24737031&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F24737031&rft.externalDocID=24737031 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |