Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 13 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery

Reduced‐Port Versus Multi‐Port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta‐Analysis, and Meta‐Regression

  • Ayesha Shaukat1
  • Saad Ashraf1
  • Hamza Irfan2
  • Muhammad Shahmeer Ullah Shah1
  • Yumna Khabir1
  • Santosh Sah1
  • Um E. Abiha Batool1
  • Muhammad Zain Ul Haq1
  • Omer Bin Khalid Jamil3
  • Aymar Akilimali4
4 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Medicine Dow University of Health Sciences Karachi Pakistan
  2. 2Department of Medicine Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Medical and Dental College Lahore Pakistan
  3. 3Department of Surgery Dow University of Health Sciences Karachi Pakistan
  4. 4Medical Research Circle Goma Democratic Republic of the Congo
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background: Reduced‐port laparoscopic colectomy (RPLC) has emerged as an alternative to multi‐port laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) for colorectal cancer surgery, aiming to reduce operative morbidity and improve cosmetic outcomes. This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated and compared operative, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes between RPLC and MPLC.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2025. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251078328). Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies comparing RPLC and MPLC. Primary outcomes were estimated blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, lymph node yield, and postoperative recovery indicators. Secondary outcomes included conversion rates, complications, and Clavien‐Dindo graded adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. A random‐effects meta‐regression was performed to explore the impact of high‐stage tumors on the outcomes.

Results: Thirteen studies (n = 2897) were included. RPLC significantly reduced operative time (MD: −19.98 min; 95% CI: −29.73 to −10.24, p < 0.0001) and estimated blood loss (MD: −13.70 mL; 95% CI: −25.63 to −1.77, p = 0.02) without compromising hospital stay, lymph node yield, or complication rates. Meta‐regression revealed tumor stage significantly influenced operative time (p = 0.0013).

Conclusions: RPLC appears to provide comparable postoperative outcomes to MPLC with modest intraoperative advantages. As the evidence is largely retrospective and heterogeneous, these findings indicate the feasibility of RPLC rather than its superiority over MPLC. High‐quality clinical trials with longer follow‐up are required to confirm these findings and optimize clinical decision‐making.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration ID: CRD420251078328

Related

  1. Oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched study focusing on peritoneal recurrence.
    Takashi Nonaka, Keisuke Noda, Tetsuro Tominaga +7
    Annals of coloproctologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textOncologyEurope PMCPMC
  2. Optimal Exercise Dose for Improving Multidimensional Health Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.
    Jingyu Wang, Yuxuan He, Zhouluo Wang +8
    European journal of sport sciencePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textOncologyEurope PMCPMC
  3. Risk factors of short-term colectomy following Janus kinase inhibitor therapy in acute severe ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual-level data from real-world studies
    Yuntao Zou, David I Fudman, Shrinivas Bishu +4
    Crohn's & Colitis 360Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textGeneral medicinePMC
  4. Subserosal Indocyanine Green Mapping in Colorectal Surgery Using an Adjustable Laparoscopic Injection Needle.
    Jun Nagata, Hiroto Sannomiya, Kensuke Nitta +8
    Journal of the anus, rectum and colonPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textOncologyEurope PMCPMC
  5. Summary of the best evidence for early mobilization following laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer
    Rong She, Xiu Jin, Ziqin Shi +3
    Frontiers in MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{shaukat2026reducedport,
  title = {{Reduced‐Port Versus Multi‐Port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta‐Analysis, and Meta‐Regression}},
  author = {Ayesha Shaukat and Saad Ashraf and Hamza Irfan and Muhammad Shahmeer Ullah Shah and Yumna Khabir and Santosh Sah and Um E. Abiha Batool and Muhammad Zain Ul Haq and Omer Bin Khalid Jamil and Aymar Akilimali},
  journal = {Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  doi = {10.1002/ags3.70264},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.70264},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Reduced‐Port Versus Multi‐Port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta‐Analysis, and Meta‐Regression
AU  - Ayesha Shaukat
AU  - Saad Ashraf
AU  - Hamza Irfan
AU  - Muhammad Shahmeer Ullah Shah
AU  - Yumna Khabir
AU  - Santosh Sah
AU  - Um E. Abiha Batool
AU  - Muhammad Zain Ul Haq
AU  - Omer Bin Khalid Jamil
AU  - Aymar Akilimali
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/08/18
JO  - Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
DO  - 10.1002/ags3.70264
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.70264
AB  - Background: Reduced‐port laparoscopic colectomy (RPLC) has emerged as an alternative to multi‐port laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) for colorectal cancer surgery, aiming to reduce operative morbidity and improve cosmetic outcomes. This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated and compared operative, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes between RPLC and MPLC.  Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2025. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251078328). Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies comparing RPLC and MPLC. Primary outcomes were estimated blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, lymph node yield, and postoperative recovery indicators. Secondary outcomes included conversion rates, complications, and Clavien‐Dindo graded adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. A random‐effects meta‐regression was performed to explore the impact of high‐stage tumors on the outcomes.  Results: Thirteen studies (n = 2897) were included. RPLC significantly reduced operative time (MD: −19.98 min; 95% CI: −29.73 to −10.24, p < 0.0001) and estimated blood loss (MD: −13.70 mL; 95% CI: −25.63 to −1.77, p = 0.02) without compromising hospital stay, lymph node yield, or complication rates. Meta‐regression revealed tumor stage significantly influenced operative time (p = 0.0013).  Conclusions: RPLC appears to provide comparable postoperative outcomes to MPLC with modest intraoperative advantages. As the evidence is largely retrospective and heterogeneous, these findings indicate the feasibility of RPLC rather than its superiority over MPLC. High‐quality clinical trials with longer follow‐up are required to confirm these findings and optimize clinical decision‐making.  Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration ID: CRD420251078328
SN  - 2475-0328
ER  -