Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection versus an open approach for low rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Table 1 Basic characteristics of the included studies

Study	Year	Country	Type	Patients	Age mean ± SD/median (range)		BMI mean ± SD/median (range)		Pathological stage^a				T stage^a				N stage^a				Mean tumor size mean ± SD/median (range)
				Lap/open	Lap	Open	Lap	Open	Lap		Open		Lap		Open		Lap		Open		Lap	Open
				Lap/open	Lap	Open	Lap	Open	I/II III/IV		I/II III/IV		T0/1/2	3/4	T0/1/2	3/4	N0 1/2		N0 1/2
Laurent [24]	2012	Italy	RCNT	110/65	64 (22–82)	64 (30–86)	24.4 (17–33)	25.3 (16–35)	76	34	48	17	16	94	9	56	49	61	33	32	NR
Yamamoto [25]	2011	Japan	RCNT	22/22	55 (34–68)	58 (35–69)	21.8 (16.8–26.7)	22.5 (19.3–28.9)	18	4	19	3	NR				NR				2.2 (1.5–3.8)	2.8 (1.1–5.5)
Park [26]	2011	Korea	RCNT	130/80	60.9 ± 11.7	59.1 ± 11.4	23.4 ± 3.2	23.3 ± 2.6	76	54	44	36	53	77	46	34	NR				4.0 ± 1.9	4.3 ± 1.8
Chi [18]	2015	China	RCNT	89/48	56.8 ± 12.0	55.3 ± 14.9	22.2 ± 4.2	27.6 ± 6.5	36	53	16	32	46	43	26	22	63	26	26	22	3.4 ± 1.1	3.1 ± 1.4
Fujimoto [28]	2010	Japan	RCNT	35/19	61 (33–82)	58 (28–67)	NR	NR	19	14	14	5	22	13	8	11	18	17	10	9	2.7 (1.0–9.0)	3.5 (1.2–7.0)

^aUICC classification
SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index, RCNT retrospective comparative non-randomized trial, LAP laparoscopic surgery, Open open surgery

ISSN: 1477-7819