Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pelvic exenteration in rectal tumours: a focused meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pelvic exenteration in rectal tumours: a focused meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pelvic exenteration in rectal tumours: a focused meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pelvic exenteration in rectal tumours: a focused meta-analysis
2025
Overview
Purpose
Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex surgical procedure used to treat patients with recurrent or locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) as a final recourse. Thus, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative to the traditional open PE as it may reduce surgical trauma and improve recovery. This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes between MIS and open PE in patients with LARC.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Six retrospective studies comprising 368 patients (179 MIS patients; 189 open patients) were included. Data on operative parameters along with short-term and long-term outcomes, including the 3-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were extracted. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for binary outcomes, while standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes. All measures were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models.
Results
MIS was associated with significantly reduced blood loss (standardised mean difference (SMD), − 1.57; 95% CI, − 2.27 to − 0.88;
p
< 0.00001), shorter hospital stays (SMD, − 6.46; 95% CI, − 12.21 to − 0.71;
p
= 0.03), and quicker diet resumption (SMD: − 0.79; 95% CI, − 1.36 to − 0.21;
p
= 0.008) than open PE. MIS was associated with a borderline reduction in total complications (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20–1.00;
p
= 0.05) and lower rates of abdominal wound complications (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.45;
p
< 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in R0 resection rates, major complications, or mortality. For long-term outcomes, MIS demonstrated significantly improved 3-year OS (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.41;
p
= 0.04), whereas 3-year DFS showed no significant difference (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.41;
p
= 0.87).
Conclusion
MIS offers significant short-term advantages over open PE, including reduced blood loss, faster recovery, and fewer complications while demonstrating improved 3-year OS. These findings support MIS PE as a safe, effective, and viable option for patients with recurrent or LARC.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
