Copyright ©2010 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 7, 2010; 16(45): 5662-5668
Published online Dec 7, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i45.5662
Table 2 Published studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery with laparoscopically assisted colorectal surgery
Study, yrPatients (HALC vs LAC)OT (min)Incision length (cm)Complications (%)Conversion rate (%)LOS (d)Bowel function (d)Comments and conclusion
HALS study[14], 200018 vs 22142 vs 1517.4 vs 7.04.5 vs 5.514 vs 227 vs 6NAHALC retains the benefits of MIS
Targarona et al[20], 200227 vs 27120 vs 135NA26 vs 227 vs 23POD3: 6 vs 6NAInflammatory markers such as interleukin-6 and C-reactive proteins were raised in HALC group
MITT study[21], 200847 vs 48163 vs 2108.2 vs 6.119 vs 212 vs 12.55 vs 42.5 vs 3The OT can be reduced by > 30 min and 60 min in SC and TC; respectively if conducted by HALC
Polle et al[22], 200830 vs 35214 vs 298NAMajor: 16.5 vs 20NA10 vs 96 vs 5No significant short-term benefits for total laparoscopic compared with HALRPC with respect to morbidity, OT, QOL, costs, and LOS
Tjandra et al[23], 200832 vs 31170 vs 188NA22 vs 25.80 vs 05.9 vs 5.83.4 vs 1.9Some difference in recovery in favour of the laparoscopic group
Hassan et al[24], 2008109 vs 149276 vs 211NA18 vs 1115 vs 116 vs 53 vs 3HALS facilitates expansion of a MIS colectomy to include challenging procedures while maintaining short-term benefits of LAC
Chang et al[25], 200566 vs 85189 vs 2038.1 vs 6.221 vs 230 vs 135.2 vs 52.5 vs 2.8No difference in return of bowel function, LOS or complications. Significant difference in the OT and conversion rate in favour of HALC group. The incision size was smaller in the LAC group
Ringley et al[10], 200722 vs 18120 vs 1567 vs 5.5SimilarNA4 vs 4NAHALC is associated with shorter OT and greater lymph node harvest, but equal I.O blood loss, pedicle length and LOS