Systematic review of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer

303Citations
Citations of this article
108Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: This study compares the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer. Methods: An electronic search of the literature was undertaken to identify primary studies and systematic reviews. Information on the efficacy and safety of LS versus OS was analysed. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine long-term outcomes. Results: A systematic review published in 2000 and 12 more recent randomized clinical trials were identified. Compared with OS, LS reduced blood loss and pain, and resulted in a faster return of bowel function and earlier resumption of normal diet. Hospital stay was up to 2 days shorter after LS. No significant differences between the techniques were noted in the incidence of complications or postoperative mortality. The time required to complete LS was significantly longer (0-5-1-0 h more). No significant differences were found between the two procedures in terms of overall mortality, cancer-related mortality or disease recurrence. Conclusion: LS takes longer than OS but offers several short-term benefits. However, complication rates are similar for both procedures and no differences were found in long-term outcomes. Copyright © 2006 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Reza, M. M., Blasco, J. A., Andradas, E., Cantero, R., & Mayol, J. (2006, August). Systematic review of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5430

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free