Ernest Cheng, Juanita Chui, Mina Sarofim, Jasmine Mui, Amit Sarkar, Zachary Bunjo, Andrew Gilmore, Assad Zahid
{"title":"R0 Resection Rates in Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pelvic Exenteration for Colorectal Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Ernest Cheng, Juanita Chui, Mina Sarofim, Jasmine Mui, Amit Sarkar, Zachary Bunjo, Andrew Gilmore, Assad Zahid","doi":"10.1002/jso.28149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Pelvic exenteration is a curative option for select patients with locally invasive or recurrent colorectal cancer. Achieving clear margins (R0 resection) is critical for optimal oncological outcomes and quality of life. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, offers advantages in visualisation and precision, but its feasibility is debated given data limitations. This meta-analysis compares outcomes of MIS with open pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with studies comparing MIS to open approaches for pelvic exenteration in colorectal cancer included. The primary outcome was R0 resection rate, with secondary outcomes encompassing operative, postoperative, and oncological results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven retrospective studies were analysed, including a total of 564 patients. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in R0 resection rates between MIS and open approaches (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.51, p = 0.41) with low heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 19%). MIS had similar lymph node harvest, operative time, and postoperative complications but demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter length of stay, and improved 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MIS achieves comparable R0 resection rates to open surgery in pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer, with advantages in recovery and survival outcomes. Current evidence is limited by retrospective studies with selection bias requiring future standardised prospective trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.28149","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: Pelvic exenteration is a curative option for select patients with locally invasive or recurrent colorectal cancer. Achieving clear margins (R0 resection) is critical for optimal oncological outcomes and quality of life. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, offers advantages in visualisation and precision, but its feasibility is debated given data limitations. This meta-analysis compares outcomes of MIS with open pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with studies comparing MIS to open approaches for pelvic exenteration in colorectal cancer included. The primary outcome was R0 resection rate, with secondary outcomes encompassing operative, postoperative, and oncological results.
Results: Seven retrospective studies were analysed, including a total of 564 patients. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in R0 resection rates between MIS and open approaches (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.51, p = 0.41) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 19%). MIS had similar lymph node harvest, operative time, and postoperative complications but demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter length of stay, and improved 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates.
Conclusions: MIS achieves comparable R0 resection rates to open surgery in pelvic exenteration for colorectal cancer, with advantages in recovery and survival outcomes. Current evidence is limited by retrospective studies with selection bias requiring future standardised prospective trials.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.