Abstract:Objective To compare the shortterm efficacies of laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR) and laparotomy for ultralow rectal cancers by Meta-analysis. MethodsWe searched casecontrol trials that compared clinical outcomes of laparoscopic ISR and laparotomy from PubMed, EMBase, Ovid, CNKI and Wanfang database. Relevant published and unpublished data and conference papers were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently assessed the qualities of the included studies. Metaanalysis was performed by using of RevMan5.2 software. ResultsA total of 5 trials with 552 cases were included．The results of Metaanalysis showed that in terms of blood loss of the operation ［mean difference (MD)＝-65.42, 95%CI: -93.45-37.38, Z＝4.57, P<0.000 01］, flatus passage time (MD＝-0.96, 95%CI: -1.45-0.47, Z＝3.83, P＝0.000 1) and hospital stays (MD＝-1.69, 95%CI: -2.19-1.19, Z＝6.63, P<0.000 01), laparoscopic ISR were significantly superior than those of laparotomy, with significant differences. In terms of operation time (MD＝6.61, 95%CI: -21.2934.51, Z＝0.46, P＝0.64), the positive rate of circumferential resection margin (OR＝1.01, 95%CI: 0.372.80, Z＝0.02, P＝0.98) and postoperative morbidity (OR＝0.73, 95%CI: 0.451.20, Z＝1.23, P＝0.22), there were no significant differences in the two groups. However, laparotomy may clean more numbers of lymph nodes than those of laparoscopic ISR (MD＝-1.16, 95%CI: -2.14-0.18, Z＝2.31, P＝0.02), with significant difference. ConclusionThe shortterm efficacy of laparoscopic ISR is superior than that of laparotomy in the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer.

Key words:Laparoscopes,Laparotomy,Rectal neoplasms,Meta-analysis