[Laparoscopic versus conventional open resection for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis on recurrence]

To compare the recurrence between laparoscopic resection and conventional open resection for colorectal cancer with meta-analysis.

Eligible articles were identified by searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database between January 1991 and January 2007 using the terms (laparoscopy, surgery, minimal invasive, colon, intestine, large, colectomy, colonic neoplasms, rectal neoplasms and randomized controlled trial). Prospective randomized clinical trials were eligible if they included patients with colorectal cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery followed-up by recurrence. Data were extracted from these trials by three independent reviewers.

Ten trials with recurrence information of 2474 patients were involved. In the combined results, no significant difference in the OR for overall recurrence between the laparoscopic surgery and open surgery group was found (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.19, P=0.64). Stratified by recurrence type, the combined results of the individual reports showed no significant differences for local recurrence (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.50 to 1.25,P=0.32), distant metastasis (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.28, P=0.54) and port-site or wound-site recurrence (OR 1.04,95%CI 0.21 to 5.27,P=0.96) between the two surgical techniques.

The recurrence rates for patients with colorectal cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery do not differ significantly from those by open surgery. Longer follow up studies will further define outcomes comparing the two techniques in the treatment of colorectal cancer.