ObjectiveTo compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.MethodsRelevant literatures were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Embase, CNKI, CBM, Wan-fang database, and VIP databases from Jan. 2009 to Jul. 2019, all the relevant trial documents ［included randomized controlled trial and non randomized controlled trial］ were collected for comparison of laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery on the clinical efficacy of rectal cancer patients, the qualified literatures were screened in strict accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria, and Stata12.0 software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 19 articles were included in the literature with 2 683 patients were included among them. Meta analysis results showed that, compared with the conventional laparoscopic surgery group, in laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery group, operation time [WMD=–6.78, 95% CI was (–11.96, –1.60), P<0.01], intraoperative blood loss [WMD=–14.94, 95% CI was (–23.48, –6.40),P<0.01], postoperative exhaust time [WMD=–13.55, 95% CI was (–18.24, –8.85), P<0.01], postoperative hospitalization time [WMD=–1.60, 95% CI was (–2.00, –1.21), P<0.01], incidence of postoperative overall complication [OR=0.50, 95% CI was (0.38, 0.67), P<0.01], and incidence of incision infection [OR=0.19, 95% CI was (0.08, 0.45), P<0.01] reduced. Those differences were not significant, such as intraoperative lymph node resection [WMD=–0.02, 95% CI was (–0.44, 0.40), P=0.92], incision margin distance of tumor [WMD=0.13, 95% CI was (–0.30, 0.55), P=0.56], and incidence of anastomotic fistula [OR=0.97, 95% CI was (0.62, 1.50), P=0.87].ConclusionsLaparoscopic transanal pull through surgery has more safe, effective, and reliable effects than conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. It has further research value, but there may be inevitable bias and other effects in the included literatures, so more randomized controlled clinical trials are needed in the future.
