Search

Purpose: It is to disclose whether the laparoscopic technique is feasible or not in the treatment of low rectal cancer., Materials and Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, Science Direct, SpringerLink, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library databases for the eligible studies. Review Manager 5.2 was used to test the heterogeneity and to evaluate the overall test performance., Results: Twelve studies met the final inclusion criteria (total n=2973). The pooled analyses showed, despite longer operation times, that there were significantly less blood loss, fewer transfusions, shorter times to bowel function recovery, resumed diet and hospital durations, and lower overall complication and wound infection rates. The compared results of the lymph node harvest number, distal resection margin, circumferential resection margin involvement, local and distant recurrences, disease-free survival, and overall survival were similar between both the groups., Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible for the treatment of low rectal cancer.

Background: When compared with conventional abdominoperineal resection (APR), extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of local recurrence for the treatment of locally advanced low rectal cancer. Combined with the laparoscopic technique, laparoscopic ELAPE (LELAPE) has the potential to reduce invasion and hasten postoperative recovery. In this study, we aim to investigate the advantages of LELAPE in comparison with conventional APR., Methods: From October 2010 to February 2013, 23 patients with low rectal cancer (T 3-4 N 0-2 M 0 ) underwent LELAPE; while during the same period, 25 patients were treated with conventional APR. The patient characteristics, intraoperative data, postoperative complications, and follow-up results were retrospectively compared and analyzed., Results: The basic patient characteristics were similar; but the total operative time for the LELAPE was longer than that of the conventional APR group (P = 0.014). However, the operative time for the perineal portion was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.328). The LELAPE group had less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.022), a lower bowel perforation rate (P = 0.023), and a positive circumferential margin (P = 0.028). Moreover, the patients, who received the LELAPE, had a lower postoperative Visual Analog Scale, quicker recovery of bowel function (P = 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.047). However, patients in the LELAPE group suffered more chronic perineal pain (P = 0.002), which may be related to the coccygectomy (P = 0.033). Although the metastasis rate and mortality rate were similar between the two groups, the local recurrence rate of the LELAPE group was statistically improved (P = 0.047)., Conclusions: When compared with conventional APR, LELAPE has the potential to reduce the risk of local recurrence, and decreases operative invasion for the treatment of locally advanced low rectal cancer.