Role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer: A review

Table 2 Meta-analyses showing oncological outcomes

Ref.	Trials(n)	Patients(n)	OSlap vs open	DFSlap vs open	LRlap vs open	LN harvestedlap vs open (n)	CRM positivitylap vs open
Huang et al[25]	6	1033	HR = 0.76, P = 0.11, 4 trials (3 yr)	HR = 1.13, P = 0.64, 3 trials (3 yr)	RR = 0.55, P = 0.21, 4 trials (3 yr)	P = 0.43, 5 trials	7.94% vs 5.37%, P = 0.63, 5 trials (3 yr)
Ohtani et al[26]	12	2095	N/A	OR = 1.17, P = 0.35 (5 yr)	OR = 0.93, P = 0.61 (5 yr)	P = NS	P = NS
Anderson et al[27]	24	3158	72% vs 65%, P = NS, 13 trials (3 yr)	N/A	7% vs 8%, P = NS, 16 trials (3 yr)	10 vs 11, P = 0.001 17 trials	5% vs 8%, P = NS, 10 trials (3 yr)
Aziz et al[28]	20	2071	N/A	N/A	N/A	P = NS	9.5% vs 10.8%, OR = 0.93, P = 0.38

OS: Overall survival; DFS: Disease free survival; LR: Local recurrence; LN: Lymph nodes; CRM: Circumferential margins; HR: Hazard ratio; N/A: Not applicable; NS: Non-significant; OR: Odds ratio.