Recurrence rates at minimum five-year follow-up: laparoscopic versus open sigmoid resection for uncomplicated diverticulitis

Elective open versus laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis with the Sigma trial

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of published literature comparing open versus laparoscopic elective sigmoid resections for diverticular disease was conducted.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for data from January 1991 to March 2009. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-two comparative studies involving 10,898 patients were analyzed; 1538 patients were in the laparoscopic group and 9360 were in the open group. The operative time for laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) is longer than open resections (OSR) [random-effects model: SMD = 1.94, 95% CI = (1.14, 2.74), z = 4.74, p < 0.001]. However, patients who undergo LSR have earlier return to passage of feces [random-effects model: SMD = -1.01, 95% CI (-1.80, -0.22), z = -2.50, p = 0.013] and shorter hospital stay [random-effects model: SMD = -7.65, 95% CI (-10.96, -4.32), z = -4.52, p < 0.001]. Overall morbidity was higher in the OSR group [random-effects model: RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.40, 0.80), z = -3.24, p < 0.001] and no difference in mortality rates was observed (p = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection takes longer to perform than open procedures; however, it is safe and has lower overall morbidity, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stays. This approach should be considered for elective cases but more randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.

Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has fewer complications than conventional surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a meta-analysis of published literature comparing the complications after open and laparoscopic elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from January 1991 to March 2009. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Nineteen comparative studies involving 2,383 patients were analyzed. There were 1,014 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1,369 patients in the open group. There was no significant heterogeneity among any of the complications analyzed. Patients in the laparoscopic sigmoid resection group had fewer wound infections (fixed effects model: risk ratio [RR], .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.80; z, -3.05; P < .01; random effects model: RR, .59; 95% CI, .39-.89; z, -2.54; P < .05), blood transfusions (fixed effects model: RR, .25; 95% CI, .10-.60; z, -3.10; P < .01; random effects model: RR, .28; 95% CI, .11-.68; z, -2.81; P < .01), and ileus rates (fixed effects model: RR, .37; 95% CI, .20-.66; z, -3.34; P = .001; random effects model: RR, .37; 95% CI, .20-.68; z, -3.21; P = .001) compared with open sigmoid resections. No difference was seen for medical complications, need for rehospitalization, and reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection is safe and has fewer postoperative surgical complications. This approach should be considered for elective cases, however, more randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with diverticular disease by using meta-analytic techniques.

METHODS

Comparative studies published between 1996 and 2004 of open vs. laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease were included. The end points that were evaluated are operative and functional outcomes and adverse events. A random effects model was used during analysis of these outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed and sensitivity analysis was performed to account for bias in patient selection.

RESULTS

Twelve nonrandomized studies, incorporating 19,608 patients, were included in the analysis. One study with 18,444 patients accounted for 94.5 percent of the total sample. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in reduced infective (odds ratio, 0.61; P = 0.01), pulmonary (odds ratio, 0.4; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal tract (odds ratio, 0.75; P = 0.03), and cardiovascular complications (odds ratio, 0.28; P = 0.0008) with no significant heterogeneity. Operative time was longer with laparoscopic surgery (weighted mean difference, 67.59; P = 0.04), and length of stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, -3.81; P < 0.0001); however, these outcomes demonstrated significant heterogeneity. These results remained significant throughout all the sensitivity analyses except when evaluating high-quality studies (when the study with 18,444 patients was excluded), in which only blood loss and length of stay were significantly in favor of the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results for patients selected for laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for diverticular disease are equivalent with a potential reduction in complications and hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease performed by appropriately experienced surgeons in the elective setting may be safe and feasible; because of the potential of significant bias arising from the included studies, a randomized, controlled trial is recommended.