Abstract
This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of microinvasive and open operations on postoperative wound complications in low rectal carcinoma patients. Research on limited English has been conducted systematically in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The date up to the search was in August 2023. Following review of the classification and exclusion criteria for this research and the evaluation of its quality in the literature, there were a total of 266 related papers, which were reviewed for inclusion in the period from 2004 to 2017. A total of 1774 cases of low rectal cancer were enrolled. Of these 913 cases, the laparoscopic operation was performed on 913 cases, while 861 cases were operated on low rectal carcinoma. The overall sample was between 10 and 482. Five trials described the efficacy of laparoscopy have lower risk than open on postoperative wound infection in patients with low rectal cancer (OR, 0.72;95 % CI, 0.48,1.09 p = 0.12). Three studies results showed that the anastomotic leak was not significantly different between open and laparoscopy (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58,1.26 p = 0.44). Six surgical trials in low rectal cancer patients reported haemorrhage, and five cases of surgical time were reported, with laparoscopy having fewer bleeding compared with open surgery (MD, -188.89; 95% CI, -341.27, -36.51 p = 0.02). Compared with laparoscopy, the operation time was shorter for the open operation (MD, 33.06; 95% CI, 30.56, 35.57 p < 0.0001). Overall, there is no significant difference between laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of incidence of infection and anastomosis leak. However, the rate of haemorrhage in laparoscopy is lower，and operation time in open surgery is lower.