Open resection is the standard method for surgical removal of primary colorectal tumors.
However, there is significant morbidity associated with this procedure.
Laparoscopic resection is technically more difficult but may overcome problems associated with open resections.
Dr Tania Lourenco and colleagues from the United Kingdom determined the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and laparoscopically assisted surgery.
The research team compared laparoscopy with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer.
|Return to usual activities is likely to be faster after laparoscopic resection|
The team conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term data from randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic resection with open resections.
Highly sensitive searches of 9 databases identified 19 primary randomized controlled trials describing data from over 4,500 participants.
The team found that length of hospital stay is shorter, blood loss and pain are less after laparoscopic resection than after open resections.
However, the team noted that duration of operation is longer with laparoscopic resection.
The team noted that lymph node retrieval, completeness of resection and quality of life do not appear to differ between laparoscopic and open resections.
The team observed no statistically significant differences in rates of anastomotic leakage, abdominal wound breakdown, or incisional hernia between the 2 procedures.
Wound and urinary tract infections, operative and 30-day mortality, recurrences, overall and disease-free survival up to 3 years did not differ between the procedures.
Dr Lourenco's team concluded, "Laparoscopic resection is associated with a quicker recovery in terms of return to usual activities and length of hospital stay."
"There is no evidence of a difference in complications or long-term outcomes in comparison to open resections, up to 3 years postoperatively."