Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012:3:49-57.
doi: 10.7150/jca.3621. Epub 2012 Jan 13.

A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer

Hiroshi Ohtani  1 , Yutaka Tamamori, Yuichi Arimoto, Yukio Nishiguchi, Kiyoshi Maeda, Kosei Hirakawa
Affiliations

A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer

Hiroshi Ohtani et al. J Cancer. 2012.

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term results of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) and open colectomy (OC) for colon cancer.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for relevant papers published between January 1990 and October 2011 by using the search terms "laparoscopy," "laparoscopy-assisted," "surgery," "colectomy," "colon cancer," and "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)". We analyzed the outcomes of each type of surgery over short- and long-term periods.

Results: We selected 12 papers reporting RCTs that compared LAC with OC for colon cancer. Our meta-analysis included 4614 patients with colon cancer; of these, 2444 had undergone LAC and 2170 had undergone OC. In the short-term period, we found that the rates of overall postoperative complications and ileus in LAC were lower than in OC groups. LAC was associated with a reduction in intraoperative blood loss, a shorter duration of time to resumption and hospital stay, and lower rates of overall complication and ileus over the short-term, but with similar long-term oncologic outcomes such as overall and cancer-related mortality, overall recurrence, local recurrence, distant metastasis, and wound-site recurrence, compared to OC.

Conclusions: It is suggested that LAC may be preferred to OC for colon cancer.

Keywords: colon cancer; laparoscopy-assisted colectomy; meta-analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Flow diagram of this meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA Statement.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Meta-analysis of the short-term period for colon cancer
Fig 2
Fig 2
Meta-analysis of the short-term period for colon cancer
Fig 3
Fig 3
Meta-analysis of the long- term oncologic results for colon cancer
Fig 3
Fig 3
Meta-analysis of the long- term oncologic results for colon cancer
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS. Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy) Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;1:144–150. - PubMed
    1. Schwenk W, Böhm B, Müller JM. Postoperative pain and fatigue after laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resections. A prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:1131–1136. - PubMed
    1. Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1111–1124. - PubMed
    1. Braga M, Vignali A, Gianotti L, Zuliani W, Radaelli G, Gruarin P, Dellabona P, Di Carlo V. Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: a randomized trial on short-term outcome. Ann Surg. 2002;236:759–767. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S, Sargent D, Schroeder G; Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST. Study Group. Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2002;287:321–328. - PubMed