Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Short- and Long-Term Oncological Outcome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

While several trials have compared laparoscopic to open surgery for colon cancer showing similar oncological results, oncological quality of laparoscopic versus open rectal resection is not well investigated.

Methods

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. Qualitative and quantitative meta-analyses of short-term (rate of complete resections, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin positivity) and long-term (recurrence, disease-free and overall survival) oncologic results were conducted.

Results

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were identified including 3528 patients. Patients in the open resection group had significantly more complete resections (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51–0.97; p = 0.03) and a higher number of resected lymph nodes (mean difference − 0.92; 95% CI − 1.08 to 0.75; p < 0.001). No differences were detected in the frequency of positive circumferential resection margins (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62–1.10; p = 0.18). Furthermore, no significant differences of long-term oncologic outcome parameters after 5 years including locoregional recurrence (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.44–2.05; p = 0.89), disease-free survival (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.84–1.58; p = 0.36), and overall survival (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.76–1.41; p = 0.82) were found. Most trials exhibited a relevant risk of bias and several studies provided no information on the surgical expertise of the participating surgeons.

Conclusion

Differences in oncologic outcome between laparoscopic and open rectal surgery for rectal cancer were detected for the complete resection rate and the number of resected lymph nodes in favor of the open approach. No statistically significant differences were found in oncologic long-term outcome parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel, R., C. Desantis, and A. Jemal, Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin, 2014. 64(2): p. 104–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Edwards, B.K., et al., Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer, 2010. 116(3): p. 544–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Heald, R.J., E.M. Husband, and R.D. Ryall, The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg, 1982. 69(10): p. 613–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobs, M., J.C. Verdeja, and H.S. Goldstein, Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc, 1991. 1(3): p. 144–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van der Pas, M.H., et al., Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol, 2013. 14(3): p. 210–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stead, M.L., et al., Assessing the relative costs of standard open surgery and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer in a randomised controlled trial in the United Kingdom. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol, 2000. 33(2): p. 99–103.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Guillou, P.J., et al., Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2005. 365(9472): p. 1718–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Theophilus, M., C. Platell, and K. Spilsbury, Long-term survival following laparoscopic and open colectomy for colon cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis, 2014. 16(3): p. O75–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang, C.L., G. Qu, and H.W. Xu, The short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2014. 29(3): p. 309–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Di, B., et al., Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer: a meta-analysis of 5-year follow-up outcomes. Surg Oncol, 2013. 22(3): p. e39–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuhry, E., et al., Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev, 2008. 34(6): p. 498–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vennix, S., et al., Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014(4): p. Cd005200.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Biondi, A., et al., Laparoscopic vs. open approach for colorectal cancer: evolution over time of minimal invasive surgery. BMC Surg, 2013. 13 Suppl 2: p. S12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Panic, N., et al., Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One, 2013. 8(12): p. e83138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins, J.P., et al., The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj, 2011. 343: p. d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonjer, H.J., C.L. Deijen, and E. Haglind, A Randomized Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer. N Engl J Med, 2015. 373(2): p. 194.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jayne, D.G., et al., Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg, 2010. 97(11): p. 1638–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jayne, D.G., et al., Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol, 2007. 25(21): p. 3061–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Green, B.L., et al., Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg, 2013. 100(1): p. 75–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kang, S.B., et al., Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol, 2010. 11(7): p. 637–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeong, S.Y., et al., Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol, 2014. 15(7): p. 767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leung, K.L., et al., Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet, 2004. 363(9416): p. 1187–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ng, S.S., et al., Long-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for upper rectal cancer: ten-year results of a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum, 2009. 52(4): p. 558–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Braga, M., et al., Laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer patients: outcome and cost-benefit analysis. Dis Colon Rectum, 2007. 50(4): p. 464–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fleshman, J., et al., Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2015. 314(13): p. 1346–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu, F.L., et al., Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus the open approach in curative resection of rectal cancer. J Int Med Res, 2010. 38(3): p. 916–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lujan, J., et al., Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg, 2009. 96(9): p. 982–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ng, S.S., et al., Laparoscopic-assisted versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for mid and low rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized trial. Surg Endosc, 2014. 28(1): p. 297–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pechlivanides, G., et al., Lymph node clearance after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus open approach. Dig Dis, 2007. 25(1): p. 94–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stevenson, A.R., et al., Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection on Pathological Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: The ALaCaRT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2015. 314(13): p. 1356–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhou, Z.G., et al., Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc, 2004. 18(8): p. 1211–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liang, X., et al., Effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic resection versus open surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a randomized, controlled trial from China. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2011. 21(5): p. 381–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kennedy, R.H., et al., Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL. J Clin Oncol, 2014. 32(17): p. 1804–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Strobel, O. and M.W. Buchler, The problem of the poor control arm in surgical randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg, 2013. 100(2): p. 172–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bege, T., et al., The learning curve for the laparoscopic approach to conservative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons drawn from a single institution’s experience. Ann Surg, 2010. 251(2): p. 249–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kayano, H., et al., Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc, 2011. 25(9): p. 2972–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Son, G.M., et al., Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2010. 20(7): p. 609–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Leibold, T., et al., Prognostic implications of the distribution of lymph node metastases in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Oncol, 2008. 26(13): p. 2106–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim, C.H., et al., Learning curve of laparoscopic low anterior resection in terms of local recurrence. J Surg Oncol, 2014. 110(8): p. 989–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sauer, R., et al., Adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: the German trial CAO/ARO/AIO-94. Colorectal Dis, 2003. 5(5): p. 406–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was used to create this review. However, the resources and facilities of the University of Heidelberg were used in conducting this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Henrik Nienhüser, Patrick Heger, Andre L. Mihaljevic and Thomas Schmidt contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Henrik Nienhüser, Patrick Heger, Robin Schmitz, Yakup Kulu, Markus K. Diener, Johannes Klose, Martin Schneider, Beat P. Müller-Stich, Alexis Ulrich, Markus W. Büchler, Andre L. Mihaljevic & Thomas Schmidt

  2. Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Patrick Heger, Markus K. Diener & Andre L. Mihaljevic

  3. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Robin Schmitz

Authors
  1. Henrik Nienhüser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Heger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robin Schmitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yakup Kulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus K. Diener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Johannes Klose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Beat P. Müller-Stich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alexis Ulrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Markus W. Büchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andre L. Mihaljevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Thomas Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HN, PH, RS, BPM, ALM, and TS are responsible for the conception and design of the study. HN, PH, RS, ALM, and TS performed the acquisition and analysis of the data and drafted the manuscript. YK, MKD, JK, MS, BPM, AU, and MWB offered substantial contributions to the interpretation of the data and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave their final approval of this version of the manuscript and are accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Schmidt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 67 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nienhüser, H., Heger, P., Schmitz, R. et al. Short- and Long-Term Oncological Outcome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Open Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 22, 1418–1433 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3738-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3738-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation