Efficacy of pelvic floor peritoneal reconstruction after laparoscopic resection of middle and low rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Study, procedure, and reconstruction characteristics, mean ± SD/median (interquartile range)

Ref.	Year	Design	Operation	Reconstruction approach	PC/control (n)	Age, PC/control	Male/female/PC/control
Yan et al[1]	2021	Retrospective cohort	LAPR	Primary pelvic peritoneal suture closure	86/96	61.42 ± 11.75/62.07±12.82	62/24/64/32
Shen et al[2]	2021	Retrospective cohort	LAPR/ELAPE	Primary pelvic peritoneal closure	79/21	58 (26-78)/62 (30–91)	47/32/10/11
Li et al[3]	2021	Retrospective PSM cohort	LAR	Primary pelvic peritoneal closure	292/292	59 ± 2.1/61 ± 1.9	161/131/168/124
Wang et al[4]	2018	Retrospective cohort	LAR (Dixon)	Pelvic peritonization by suture	92/97	62.23 ± 4.34/62.45 ± 4.89	56/36/60/37
Ji et al[5]	2022	Prospective cohort	LAR	Continuous barbed-suture reconstruction	58/172	58.4 ± 11.1/59.5 ± 11.0	35/23/105/67
Han et al[6]	2023	Retrospective cohort	LAR	Pelvic peritoneal reconstruction	48/49	61.25 ± 10.38/59.47 ± 11.40	29/19/27/22
Gao et al[7]	2021	Retrospective PSM cohort	LAR	Pelvic peritoneal reconstruction	153/153	61 (51-67)/60 (52-67)	100/53/99/54
Hultman et al[8]	2010	Retrospective cohort	APR/ELAPE	Pedicled omental flap reconstruction	29/41	59.9/57.8	Not reported
Li et al[9]	2025	Retrospective cohort	LAPR	Extraperitoneal colostomy + peritoneal closure	98/64	60.13 ± 10.09/62.09 ± 9.18	57/41/38/26
Shen et al[10]	2022	Retrospective cohort	LAPR/ELAPE	Primary pelvic peritoneal closure	82/22	Not reported	Not reported
Fu et al[11]	2024	Retrospective cohort	LAR	Pelvic floor peritoneal suture closure	401/717	58 (51-65)/59 (49-65)	268/133/460/257

Reconstruction approaches have been reported, as described in the source articles. PC: Pelvic floor peritoneal reconstruction; PSM: Propensity score matching; LAPR: Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection; ELAPE: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision; LAR: Laparoscopic anterior resection.