Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery in Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies.

Study	Year	Area	Design	Type	Patients ()		TNM stage, , I/II/III/IV		Neoadjuvant therapy ()		Matching	Quality score
					L/RL	O	L/RL	O	L/RL	O
Matsumoto and Arita	2017	Japan	R	L	12	13	NR	NR	NR	NR	1, 2, 3, 5, 9	7
Nagayoshi et al.	2016	Japan	R	L	46	44	NR	NR	6	26	1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10	7
Yamaguchi et al.	2018	Japan	R	RL	78	78	15/18/45/0^¶	11/20/47/0^¶	6	6	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10	8
Yamaguchi et al.	2017	Japan	R	L	118	118	0/31/86/0^ζ	0/28/90/0^ζ	28	28	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8	8
Yamaguchi et al.	2015	Japan	P	RL	85	88	0/19/59/7^ζ	0/22/58/8^ζ	10	11	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	6
Nonaka et al.	2017	Japan	P	L	27	17	7/5/15/0^¶	2/3/12/0^¶	5	1	1,2,7,8,10	7
Chen et al.	2017	China	R	L	16	55	3/2/11/0^ζ	2/11/42/0^ζ	6	9	1,2,7,9,10	5
Wang et al.	2011	China	R	L	12	85	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	4

R = retrospective; P = prospective; L = laparoscopic surgery; RL = robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery; O = open surgery; NR = not reported; TNM stage ¶ = pTNM stage; ζ = cTNM stage. Matching: 1 = age; 2 = sex; 3 = body mass index; 4 = American Society of Anesthesiologists score; 5 = tumor distance from anal verge; 6 = previous abdominal surgery; 7 = neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; 8 = dissection area; 9 = tumor size; 10 = histopathologic type of tumor.