These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Total mesorectal excision versus conventional radical surgery for rectal cancer: a meta analysis].
    Author: Liang YC, Qing SH, Ding WX, Chen PY, Huang YB, Yu HT.
    Journal: Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2007 Jan; 10(1):43-8. PubMed ID: 17253173.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment outcomes of total mesorectal excision (TME) with those of conventional radical surgery (CRS) for rectal cancer. METHODS: Literature reviews were performed with key words, such as rectal cancer, total mesorectal excision, TME on all studies reported on TME versus CRS for rectal cancer between January 1986 to May 2006. According to the same screening criteria, 17 clinical studies were included in our systematic reviews. Two of our co-authors drew the details of trial design, characteristics of participants, results and so on from the studies included. Data analyses were performed by using RevMan 4.2. RESULTS: Sample volume in this Meta analysis was 5267 rectal cancer cases. Quality and quantity analyses were performed within all included studies, prospective studies (prospective nonrandomized studies and multicenter prospective nonrandomized studies) and retrospective studies. The results showed that postoperative survival rate was significantly increased [OR 1.81 (95%CI 1.55-2.11, P<0.00001), OR 1.79 (95%CI 1.49-2.15, P<0.00001) and OR 1.84 (95%CI 1.39-2.45, P<0.00001)] and local recurrence rate was significantly reduced [OR 0.35 (95%CI 0.29-0.43, P<0.00001), OR 0.41 (95%CI 0.32-0.53, P<0.00001) and OR 0.29 (95%CI 0.22-0.39, P<0.00001)] after TME was used. The results of all study analyses agreed with those from prospective studies analyses, in which postoperative mortality was significantly reduced [OR 0.51 (95%CI 0.32-0.87, P=0.007) and OR 0.56 (95%CI 0.33-0.94, P=0.04)] after TME treatment, meanwhile the results of retrospective study analyses indicated that there was no significant difference between TME group and CRS group in postoperative mortality [OR 0.39 (95%CI 0.14-1.10, P=0.07)]. TME was a risk factor for postoperative anastomotic leak according to the results of all included studies and prospective study analyses, but no difference between TME group and CRS group had been found [OR 1.24 (95%CI 0.84-1.83, P=0.29) OR 1.98 (95%CI 0.85-4.61, P=0.11)]. CONCLUSIONS: TME is still the standard operative technique for rectal cancer. As compared with CRS, TME results in lower postoperative local recurrence rate and higher survival rate.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]