Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and mid-term effects of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection with the conventional open approach for patients with low rectal cancer through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Ovid databases were searched for eligible studies until March 2017. Operation time, blood loss, circumferential resection margin-positive rate, distal margin length, number of resected lymph nodes, diverting stoma rate, postoperative overall morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay were the main short-term effect endpoints. We also examined disease-free survival, overall survival, local recurrence, and post-operational anal function as secondary outcomes to evaluate the mid-term effects of laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 620 patients were included in the analyses. Compared with the open approach, the laparoscopic ISR had less blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 214.65 ml, 95% CI [- 370.44, - 196.13], p < 0.01), less postoperative overall morbidity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.40, 0.86], p < 0.01), and shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD = - 5.87 days, 95% CI [- 11.35, - 0.40], p < 0.05); however, the operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (WMD = 47.34 min, 95% CI [4.10, 90.58], p < 0.05). No other significant differences were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ISR for low rectal cancer offers fewer complications and faster recovery, with similar operation quality and mid-term oncological results than the conventional approach. Although this technique is comparatively more complex than the conventional approach and requires practice, laparoscopic ISR shows great potential as a surgical option and deserves further clinical study.