Comparison of Survival Among Adults With Rectal Cancer Who Have Undergone Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery: A Meta-analysis

Preoperative CT-derived sarcopenia as a predictor of postoperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for non-metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Sarcopenia is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for postoperative complications in gastrointestinal cancer surgery. This study aimed to assess the association between sarcopenia and postoperative complications following laparoscopic radical resection of non-metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 387 non-metastatic CRC patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection were categorized into a sarcopenic group and a non-sarcopenic group based on preoperative skeletal muscle index (SMI, cm2/m2). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Sarcopenia was present in 156 (40.31%) patients. The incidence of postoperative complications was 32.3%, with a serious complication (Clavien-Dindo III-V) rate of 12.1%. Compared with non-sarcopenic patients, sarcopenic patients had significantly higher incidences of total complications (P < 0.001) and severe complications (P = 0.026). Multivariable analysis identified sarcopenia as an independent risk factor for total postoperative complications (OR = 3.42, 95%CI 1.85-6.31). Further analysis of specific types of postoperative complications revealed that anastomotic leakage (P = 0.001), surgical site infection (P = 0.002), and surgical site adverse events (P = 0.001) rates were higher in sarcopenic patients. In multivariable analysis, sarcopenia was independently associated with anastomotic leakage (OR = 3.36, 95%CI = 1.12-10.12) and surgical site adverse events (OR = 3.02, 95%CI = 1.55-5.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative CT-derived sarcopenia can predict postoperative complications in patients with non-metastatic CRC undergoing laparoscopic radical resection, particularly anastomotic leakage and surgical site adverse events.

Guidance on the Surgical Management of Rectal Cancer: An Umbrella Review

This umbrella review synthesizes international guidelines on the surgical management of rectal cancer to provide unified recommendations tailored to local healthcare organizations. This review emphasizes the importance of surgical centralization in high-volume centers, which maximizes outcomes, reduces morbidity, and increases survival rates. Minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery, are highlighted for their perioperative benefits, although careful patient selection and surgical expertise are required. Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics is recommended to effectively reduce complications, including surgical site infections and anastomotic leakage. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols have been shown to significantly improve postoperative recovery and reduce hospital stay duration. Comprehensive perioperative care, including venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and infection control, is essential for optimal patient outcomes. This review underscores the need for structured training, certification, and regular audits for advanced techniques such as robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision. Implementation of a national database is recommended to support ongoing improvements in rectal cancer surgery. This review centralizes evidence-based recommendations to guide surgical decision-making and harmonize the multidisciplinary care for patients with rectal cancer.

Laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery: triumph of reason or necessity of evolution?

The role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer surgery has evolved considerably since the early 2000s. Initial randomized trials, such as COLOR II and COREAN, indicated that laparoscopic approaches offered similar pathological outcomes with better postoperative recovery than open surgery. In contrast, trials like ACOSOG Z6051 and ALaCaRT suggested noninferiority could not be established. Variability in trial outcomes, focusing on either disease-free survival or pathological measures, initially hindered consensus. Long-term analyses have shown no significant difference in disease-free survival between laparoscopic and open approaches. Meta-analyses have reinforced the benefits of laparoscopic surgery, with reduced mortality and similar oncologic effectiveness to open surgery. However, new techniques like transanal TME (TaTME) and robotic approaches have introduced alternatives, though each presents unique challenges, from recurrence rates in TaTME to costs in robotics. While laparoscopy remains the preferred method due to accessibility and outcomes, robotic surgery is expected to gain traction in high-volume centers.

Current and future perspectives in the management and treatment of colorectal cancer

In this editorial, we reviewed the article by Fadlallah et al that was recently published in the World Journal of Clinical Oncology. The article provided a comprehensive and in-depth view of the management and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC), one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. The article analyzed the therapeutic modalities and their sequencing, focusing on total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. It highlighted the role of immunotherapy in tumors with high microsatellite instability or deficient mismatch repair, addressing recent advances that have improved prognosis and therapeutic response in localized and metastatic CRC. Innovations in surgical techniques, advanced radiotherapy, and systemic agents targeting specific mutational profiles are also discussed, reflecting on how they revolutionized clinical management. Circulating tumor DNA has emerged as a promising tool for detecting minimal residual disease, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring, solidifying its role in precision oncology. This review emphasized the importance of technological and therapeutic advancements in improving clinical outcomes and personalizing CRC treatment.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for low rectal cancer (LASRE): 3-year survival outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly used for rectal cancer, but the long-term oncological outcomes for low rectal cancer have not been fully established. We aimed to evaluate the 3-year survival outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was conducted at 22 tertiary hospitals in China. Individuals aged 18-75 years with histologically confirmed cT1-2N0, cT3-4aN0, or cT1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma within 5 cm from the dentate line were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to undergo laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. Central randomisation was conducted using a web response system, and was stratified by clinical stage, age, sex, BMI, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Investigators, patients and statisticians were not masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival, defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower limit of one-sided 97·5% CI for group difference (laparoscopic surgery group minus open surgery group) of greater than -10%. The primary analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded patients with distant metastasis discovered during surgery and those who did not undergo surgery or underwent local resection only. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01899547, and has been completed.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 12, 2013, and June 6, 2018, 1070 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment. 1039 patients (685 in the laparoscopic surgery group and 354 in the open surgery group; median age 57 years, IQR 50 to 64; 620 [60%] male and 419 [40%] women) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. 3-year disease-free survival was 81·4% (95% CI 78·2 to 84·1) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 79·8% (75·2 to 83·6) in the open surgery group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·69 to 1·23; p=0·56). The difference between groups was 1·60% (one-sided 97·5% CI -3·34 to ∞, p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). 3-year overall survival was 91·7% (95% CI 89·3 to 93·5) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 93·7% (90·6 to 95·8) in the open surgery group (HR 1·34, 95% CI 0·82 to 2·19; p=0·24). 3-year locoregional recurrence was 3·7% (95% CI 2·5 to 5·3) and 2·3% (1·1 to 4·3), respectively (HR 1·64, 95% CI 0·74 to 3·63; p=0·22). 5-year overall survival was 84·6% (95% CI 81·5 to 87·1) and 86·6% (82·5 to 89·8) in the open group (HR 1·16, 95% CI 0·82 to 1·64; p=0·41).

INTERPRETATION

Laparoscopic surgery performed by experienced surgeons is non-inferior to open surgery for 3-year disease-free survival among patients with low rectal cancer. These results support the use of laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer.

FUNDING

The Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program of the National Health and Family Planning Commission of China; Minimally Invasive Medical Center Construction Program, Fujian Province, China; and Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology, Fujian Province, China.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Rectal Cancer Resection: Insights From a Resource-Limited Setting

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer treatment are emerging as the standard of care. Robotic surgery is unfeasible across the country due to constrained resource allocation. This study aimed to assess the oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer in a resource-limited setting.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched analysis was carried out to compare the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer resection at a high-volume tertiary cancer centre in South India.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty patients were included (110 patients in each group). The median follow-up was 93 months. There was no difference in positive circumferential resection margin between laparoscopic and open group (4.5% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.55), with a significantly better nodal yield in laparoscopic group. There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic and open groups in terms of local recurrence (5.1% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.12), 5-year disease-free survival (86% vs. 81%, p = 0.22, HR 0.699, 95% CI 0.353-1.27) or overall survival (85% vs. 76%, p = 0.21, HR 0.658, 95% CI 0.340-1.27). The mean cost between the two groups had no difference.

CONCLUSION

In a resource-limited setting with good expertise, laparoscopic surgery is an effective minimally invasive option that has good survival outcomes without imposing a financial burden on patients.

Robotic surgery is associated with a decreased risk of circumferential resection margin positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer undergoing mesorectal excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether robotic surgery (RS) decreases the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) in patients with rectal cancer (RC) undergoing mesorectal excision (ME).

BACKGROUND

Although it is well known that CRM positivity affects postoperative outcomes in patients with RC undergoing ME, few studies have investigated whether RS is superior to conventional LS for the risk of CRM positivity.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature up to December 2022 to identify studies that compared the risk of CRM positivity between patients with RC undergoing robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies, consisting of 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 propensity score matching (PSM) studies, involved a total of 9203 patients with RC who underwent ME were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that RS decreased the overall risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.82; 95 % CI, 0.73-0.92; P = 0.001; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS. Results of a meta-analysis of the 4 selected RCTs also showed that RS decreased the risk of CRM positivity (RR, 0.62; 95 % CI, 0.43-0.91; P = 0.01; I2 = 0 %) compared with conventional LS.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that RS is associated with a decreased risk of CRM positivity compared with conventional LS in patients with RC undergoing ME.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Radical surgery remains the primary option for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) as it has the potential to considerably extend the patient's lifespan. At present, the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for LRRC remains unclear.

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with LRRC who were admitted to the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences between 2015 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Patients were categorized into two groups, namely the open group and the laparoscopic group, based on the surgical method used. Propensity score matching was used to reduce baseline differences. The short-term outcomes and long-term survival between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Curative surgery was performed on 111 patients who were diagnosed with LRRC. After propensity score matching, a total of 80 patients were included and divided into the laparoscopic group (40 patients) and the open group (40 patients). The laparoscopic group had less intraoperative bleeding (100 vs. 300, P = 0.011), a lower postoperative complication rate (20.0% vs. 42.5%, P = 0.030), a lower incidence of wound infection (0 vs. 15.0%, P = 0.026), and a shorter time to first flatus (2 vs. 3, P = 0.005). The laparoscopic group had higher 3-year overall survival (85.4% vs. 57.5%, P = 0.016) and 3-year disease-free survival (63.9% vs 36.5%, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery is linked to less bleeding during the operation, quicker recovery after the surgery, and a lower incidence of infections at the surgical site. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery for LRRC might yield superior long-term survival outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for nonmetastatic T4a gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

​The applicability of laparoscopy to nonmetastatic T4a patients with gastric cancer remains unclear due to the lack of high-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival rates of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for these patients through a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and CNKI were examined for relevant studies without language restrictions through July 25, 2023. Individual participant data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. One-stage and two-stage meta-analyses were performed. In addition, data regarding surgical outcomes and recurrence patterns were also collected, which were meta-analyzed using traditional aggregated data.

RESULTS

Six studies comprising 1860 patients were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analyses, the results demonstrated that LG was associated with a significantly better DFS (Random-effects model: P = 0.027; Restricted mean survival time [RMST] up to 5 years: P = 0.033) and a comparable OS (Random-effects model: P = 0.135; RMST up to 5 years: P = 0.053) than OG for T4a gastric cancer patients. Two-stage meta-analyses resulted in similar results, with a 13% reduced hazard of cancer-related death (P = 0.04) and 10% reduced hazard of overall mortality (P = 0.11) in the LG group. For secondary outcomes, the pooled results showed an association of LG with less estimated blood loss, faster postoperative recovery and more retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for patients with nonmetastatic T4a disease is associated with a potential survival benefit and improved surgical outcomes.

Effect of Robotic Inferior Mesenteric Artery Ligation Level on Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Rectum Cancer

Background: Life expectancy of patients with rectal cancer is increasing day by day with innovative treatments. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which disrupts the comfort of life in these patients, has become a serious problem. We aimed to evaluate the effect of high ligation (HL) and low ligation (LL) techniques on LARS in rectal cancer surgery performed with the robotic method. Materials and Methods: The data of patients diagnosed with mid-distal rectal cancer between 2016 and 2021 who underwent robotic low anterior resection by the same team in the same center with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups as those who underwent HL and LL procedures. Preoperative, 8 weeks after neoadjuvant treatment, 3 and 12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated. Results: A total of 84 patients (41 HL, 43 LL) were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the demographic characteristics and pathology data of the patients. Although there was a decrease in LARS scores after neoadjuvant treatment, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups at 3 and 12 months after ileostomy closure (P: .001, P: .015). Conclusions: In patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection, there is a statistically significant difference in the LARS score in the first 1 year with the LL technique compared with that of the HL technique, and the LL technique has superiority in reducing the development of LARS between the two oncologically indistinguishable methods.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Survival Outcomes of Adjuvant Therapy in Stage II-III Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Colon

BACKGROUND

Colonic signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) is a mucinous adenocarcinoma subtype often associated with poor prognosis. This study assessed the survival benefits of adjuvant therapy after curative resection of stage II-III colonic SRCC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of outcomes of adjuvant therapy in colonic SRCC using National Cancer Database (2010-2019) data. Patients who received adjuvant therapy were matched to those who did not use the nearest neighbor propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The unmatched cohort included 3530 patients. Patients who received adjuvant therapy were significantly younger, more often male, and more often had Charlson scores 0-1, left-sided cancers, stage III disease, lymphovascular invasion, and perineural invasion. The matched cohort included 958 patients (53.6% female); 479 received adjuvant therapy and 479 did not. Adjuvant therapy was associated with longer mean OS (39.9 vs. 29.2 months; P < .001). Survival benefit of adjuvant therapy was evident in stage III disease (37.5 vs. 24.7 months; P < .001), right-sided colon cancer (40.2 vs. 27.7 months; P < .001), and transverse colon cancer (40.6 vs. 31.1 months; P = .002), but not stage II disease (52.1 vs. 53.1 months; P = .694) or left-sided colon cancer (35.8 vs. 32.6 months; P = .417). Independent predictors of improved OS were adjuvant therapy (HR: 0.539; P < .001), laparoscopic surgery (HR: 0.829; P = .001), robotic-assisted surgery (HR: 0.63; P = .007), and number of harvested lymph nodes (HR: 0.976; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved OS in stage III, right-sided, and transverse colon SRCC. The survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in stage II and left-sided colon SRCC was limited.

Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection yields comparable clinical and oncological results with shorter hospital stay compared to open access: a 5-year national cohort

PURPOSE

Although widely applied, the results following laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) compared to open rectal resection (ORR) are still debated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical short- and long-term results as well as oncological resection quality following LRR or ORR for cancer in a 5-year national cohort.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry were retrieved from January 2014 to December 2018 for patients who underwent elective resection for rectal cancer. Primary end point was 5-year overall survival. Secondary end points were local recurrence rates within 5 years, oncological resection quality, and short-term outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 1796 patients were included, of whom 1284 had undergone LRR and 512 ORR. There was no difference in 5-year survival rates between the groups after adjusting for relevant covariates with Cox regression analyses. Crude 5-year survival was 77.1% following LRR compared to 74.8% following ORR (p = 0.015). The 5-year local recurrence rates were 3.1% following LRR and 4.1% following ORR (p = 0.249). Length of hospital stay was median 8.0 days (quartiles 7.0-13.0) after ORR compared to 6.0 (quartiles 4.0-8.0) days after LRR. After adjusting for relevant covariates, estimated additional length of stay after ORR was 3.1 days (p < 0.001, 95% CI 2.3-3.9). Rates of positive resection margins and number of harvested lymph nodes were similar. There were no other significant differences in short-term outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSION

LRR was performed with clinical and oncological outcomes similar to ORR, but with shorter hospital stay.

GRECCAR 14 - a multicentric, randomized, phase II-III study evaluating the tailored management of locally advanced rectal carcinoma after a favourable response to induction chemotherapy: Study protocol

AIM

Total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) is becoming standard in patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma (LARC). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has proven side effects on bowel and genitourinary function. An early tumoral response to induction chemotherapy demonstrates its high prognostic value. Tailored management could be used as an alternative to systematic CRT. The GRECCAR 14 trial will attempt to personalize treatment strategy according to the patient's early tumour response to intensive chemotherapy with the aim of achieving the best toxicity-efficiency ratio.

METHOD

GRECCAR 14 is a multicentric, randomized, two-arm, phase II-III noninferiority trial. Patients with mid or low LARC with a predictive circumferential resection margin ≤2 mm or T3c-d stage with extramural venous invasion will be included. Evaluation of the tumoral response will be performed after six courses of high-dose FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. Good responders (GRs) will be defined by a 60% decrease in tumoral volume on magnetic resonance imaging. Patients will be randomized to CRT before surgery. The primary endpoints will be R0 resection for phase II and the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) for phase III.

RESULTS

Tailored management of LARC is becoming an exciting challenge for the modality of neoadjuvant treatment and for the type of surgery or its omission. Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX has established efficacy, with a significant increase in the 3-year DFS. Better control of systemic disease must be accompanied by the same locoregional control, with the lowest morbidity. Our previous GRECCAR 4 trial demonstrated the high value of the early tumoral response after induction chemotherapy and the long-term safety of tailored management for GRs.

CONCLUSION

If GRECCAR 14 demonstrates the ability to tailor TNT for LARC, this could lead to changes in clinical practice.

Development and validation of a competitive risk model in patients with rectal cancer: based on SEER database

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies. To predict the specific mortality risk of rectal cancer patients, we constructed a predictive nomogram based on a competing risk model.

METHODS

The information on rectal cancer patients was extracted from the SEER database. Traditional survival analysis and specific death analysis were performed separately on the data.

RESULTS

The present study included 23,680 patients, with 16,580 in the training set and 7100 in the validation set. The specific mortality rate calculated by the competing risk model was lower than that of the traditional survival analysis. Age, Marriage, Race, Sex, ICD-O-3Hist/Behav, Grade, AJCC stage, T stage, N stage, Surgery, Examined LN, RX SUMM-SURG OTH, Chemotherapy, CEA, Deposits, Regional nodes positive, Brain, Bone, Liver, Lung, Tumor size, and Malignant were independent influencing factors of specific death. The overall C statistic of the model in the training set was 0.821 (Se = 0.001), and the areas under the ROC curve for cancer-specific survival (CSS) at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.842, 0.830, and 0.812, respectively. The overall C statistic of the model in the validation set was 0.829 (Se = 0.002), and the areas under the ROC curve for CSS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.851, 0.836, and 0.813, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive nomogram based on a competing risk model for time-specific mortality in patients with rectal cancer has very desirable accuracy. Thus, the application of the predictive nomogram in clinical practice can help physicians make clinical decisions and follow-up strategies.

Association of Laparoscopic Surgery with Improved Perioperative and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Resectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from Propensity-Score Matched Studies

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have associated laparoscopic surgery with better overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The potential benefits of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) over open liver resection (OLR) have not been demonstrated in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC).

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed to search studies comparing OS and perioperative outcome for patients with resectable iCC. Propensity-score matched (PSM) studies published from database inception to May 1, 2022 were eligible. A frequentist, patient-level, one-stage meta-analysis was performed to analyze the differences in OS between LLR and OLR. Second, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two approaches by using a random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model.

RESULTS

Six PSM studies involving data from 1.042 patients (530 OLR vs. 512 LLR) were included. LLR in patients with resectable iCC was found to significantly decrease the hazard of death (stratified hazard ratio [HR]: 0.795 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.638-0.992]) compared with OLR. Moreover, LLR appears to be significantly associated with a decrease in intraoperative bleeding (- 161.47 ml [95% CI - 237.26 to - 85.69 ml]) and transfusion (OR = 0.41 [95% CI 0.26-0.69]), as well as with a shorter hospital stay (- 3.16 days [95% CI - 4.98 to - 1.34]) and a lower rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) complications (OR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.93]).

CONCLUSIONS

This large meta-analysis of PSM studies shows that LLR in patients with resectable iCC is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and, being conservative, yields similar OS outcomes compared with OLR.

Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy about the outcomes of prophylactic ileostomy via the specimen extraction site (SES) after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of stoma through the SES versus new site (NS).

Methods

All relevant studies from 1997 to 2022 were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP databases. This meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software 5.3 for statistical analysis.

Results

7 studies with 1736 patients were included. The present meta-analysis noted that prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with a higher risk of overall stoma-related complications, especially parastomal hernia (OR, 2.39, 95% CI 1.43-4.00; p=0.0008). No statistical difference was found in terms of wound infection, ileus, stoma edema, stoma prolapse, stoma necrosis, stoma infection, stoma bleeding, stoma stenosis, skin inflammation around the stoma, stoma retraction and postoperative pain score on postoperative day 1 and 3 between SES group and NS group. However, prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with lesser blood loss (MD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.62 - -0.13; p=0.003), shorter operation time(MD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.54 - -0.32 min; p<0.00001), shorter post-operative hospital stay (MD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.43 - -0.08; p=0.004), shorter time to first flatus(MD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.39 - -0.08; p=0.003) and lower postoperative pain score on postoperative day 2.

Conclusion

Prophylactic ileostomy via SES after LRCS reduces new incision, decreases operative time, promotes postoperative recovery, and improves cosmetic outcomes, but may increase the incidence of parastomal hernias. The vast majority of parastomal hernias can be repaired by closing the ileostomy, therefore SES remain an option for temporary ileostomy after LRCS.