Scholarlink

Background <p>Laparoscopic segmental resection (LSR) is a common treatment modality for endoscopically unresectable colorectal polyps. Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) has emerged as a promising alternative, yet current evidence of its efficacy remains limited.</p> Objectives <p>This meta-analysis aims to compare the therapeutic outcomes of LECS versus LSR for endoscopically unresectable colorectal polyps and to provide robust evidence for clinical practice.</p> Methods <p>This meta-analysis was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO website. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies from database inception to May 16, 2025. Data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 18 software. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).</p> Results <p>A total of 13 studies involving 715 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis results showed that the LECS group had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (MD: −2.89&#xa0;days, 95% CI: −3.43 to −2.34, 13 studies, 715 patients), shorter operation time (MD: −41.62&#xa0;min, 95% CI: −56.96 to −26.28, 12 studies, 593 patients), fewer postoperative overall complications (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17&#xa0;to&#xa0;0.49, 9 studies, 513 patients), and lower estimated blood loss (MD: − 26.12&#xa0;mL, 95% CI: −37.07 to −15.17, 8 studies, 435 patients) when compared to the LSR group.</p> Conclusions <p>LECS demonstrates superior short-term outcomes compared to LSR and should be considered a preeminent alternative for endoscopically unresectable colorectal polyps. However, long-term efficacy remains to be confirmed by well-designed, high-quality trials.</p> Graphical abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery versus laparoscopic segmental resection for the treatment of endoscopically unresectable colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月8日

查看全文
  • Sufen Fang,
  • Kaiming Wu,
  • Ruisheng Cai,
  • Xueyan Hu,
  • Wenqing Wang,
  • Qiuyue Liu,
  • Yulong He,
  • Xuefu Zhou,
  • Dongjie Yang,
  • Tengfei Hao

摘要

Background

Laparoscopic segmental resection (LSR) is a common treatment modality for endoscopically unresectable colorectal polyps. Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) has emerged as a promising alternative, yet current evidence of its efficacy remains limited.

Objectives

This meta-analysis aims to compare the therapeutic outcomes of LECS versus LSR for endoscopically unresectable colorectal polyps and to provide robust evidence for clinical practice.

Methods

This meta-analysis was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO website. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies from database inception to May 16, 2025. Data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 18 software. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results

A total of 13 studies involving 715 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis results showed that the LECS group had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (MD: −2.89 days, 95% CI: −3.43 to −2.34, 13 studies, 715 patients), shorter operation time (MD: −41.62 min, 95% CI: −56.96 to −26.28, 12 studies, 593 patients), fewer postoperative overall complications (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.49, 9 studies, 513 patients), and lower estimated blood loss (MD: − 26.12 mL, 95% CI: −37.07 to −15.17, 8 studies, 435 patients) when compared to the LSR group.

Conclusions

LECS demonstrates superior short-term outcomes compared to LSR and should be considered a preeminent alternative for endoscopically unresectable colorectal polyps. However, long-term efficacy remains to be confirmed by well-designed, high-quality trials.

Graphical abstract