A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.
OBJECTIVE
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.
1. Department of Surgery, Osaka City Sumiyoshi Hospital.
Hiroshi
H
Ohtani
Yutaka
Y
Tamamori
Yuichi
Y
Arimoto
Yukio
Y
Nishiguchi
Kiyoshi
K
Maeda
Kosei
K
Hirakawa