Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 8, 2026
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and
Ke Chen1, Guodong Cao1, Bo Chen1
1Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui 230022, PR China.
Objective:
To present a meta-analysis of high-quality published reports comparing laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.
Methods:
Studies that compared LRR and ORR and were published within the last 5 years were identified. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) were evaluated based on the Jadad score, the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and modified Methodological Indices for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS). The mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to compare the operative time, blood loss, mortality, complications, harvested lymph nodes, hospital stay, distal resection margin, and circumferential resection margin. The risk ratio (RR) method was used to examine recurrence and survival.
Results:
Fourteen studies were identified and included 7 RCTs and 7 NRCTs and 4353 patients (2251 LRR, 2102 ORR). Although the operation time of the LRR group was obviously longer than that of the conventional surgery group (MD = 25.64, 95%CI = [5.17,46.10], P = 0.01), LRR was associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.52,0.87], P = 0.002), less blood loss (MD = -66.49, 95%CI = [-88.31, -44.66], P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (OR = -1.26,95%CI = [-2.45, -0.07],P = 0.004) and shorter bowel function recovery times (MD = -0.93, 95%CI = [-1.27,-0.58], P < 0.00001). Moreover, the difference in the DRM was statistically clear (MD = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02,0.27], P = 0.03). However, no significant differences between the LRR and ORR groups were observed in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, positive CRM, local and distal recurrence, or overall and disease-free survival.
Conclusions:
This study indicates that there are no significant differences between LRR and ORR in terms of survival and pathological outcomes with the exception of the DRM. Moreover, this study suggests that LRR can be performed safely and elicits faster recovery times compared with conventional surgery.
