4.5 Review

Laparoscopic Versus Open Complete Mesocolon Excision in Right Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 43, Issue 12, Pages 3179-3190

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05134-4

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Laparoscopic complete mesocolon excision (LCME) for right colonic cancer improves oncological outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes after LCME and open total mesocolon excision (OCME) for right-sided colonic cancers. Methods Literature searches of electronic databases and manual searches up to January 31, 2019, were performed. Random-effects meta-analysis model was used. Review Manager Version 5.3 was used for pooled estimates. Results After screening 1334 articles, 10 articles with a total of 2778 patients were eligible for inclusion. Compared to OCME, LCME improves results in terms of overall morbidity (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.80, p = 0.0001), blood loss (MD = 56.56, 95% CI 19.05 to 94.06, p = 0.003), hospital stay (MD = 2.18 day, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.83, p = 0.009), and local (OR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.12, p = 0.03) and distant recurrence (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.23-2.16, p = 0.0008). There was no significant difference regarding mortality, anastomosis leakage, number of harvested lymph nodes, and 3-year disease-free survival. Open approach was significantly better than laparoscopy in terms of operative time (MD = - 34.76 min, 95% CI - 46.01 to - 23.50, p < 0.00001) and chyle leakage (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96, p = 0.04). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that LCME in right colon cancer surgery is superior to OCME in terms of overall morbidity, blood loss, hospital stay, and local and distant recurrence with a moderate grade of recommendation due to the retrospective nature of the included studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available