REVIEW article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Gastrointestinal Cancers: Colorectal Cancer
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1605040
This article is part of the Research TopicNational Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month 2025: Current Progress and Future Prospects on Colorectal Cancer Prevention, Diagnosis and TreatmentView all 13 articles
Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of SILS and SILS+1 Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Resection: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of RCTs
Provisionally accepted
- 1Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, China
- 2Department of General Surgery, Zigong, China
- 3Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chongqing, China
- 4The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: As minimally invasive techniques evolve, reduced-port laparoscopic colorectal resection, including single-incision (SILS) and single-incision plus one (SILS+1) approaches, has gained increasing clinical traction. However, whether it offers definitive advantages over conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery remains contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RLS) for colorectal resection and validate the robustness of findings through trial sequential analysis (TSA).: A systematic literature search was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from database inception to March 21, 2025, to identify RCTs comparing RLS with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal resection. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses were performed in RevMan 5.3, with TSA employed to control for random errors. Primary endpoints included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain.Results: Fourteen RCTs involving 1,713 patients were analyzed. Pooled data demonstrated no statistically significant differences between RLS and CLS in operative time (SMD: 0.29; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.64; p = 0.11), intraoperative blood loss (SMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.15; p = 0.40), intraoperative complications (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.88; p = 0.12), or postoperative complications (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.17; p = 0.38). RLS was associated with significantly shorter incision length (SMD: -1.60; 95% CI: -2.37 to -0.83; p < 0.0001).Secondary outcomes, including complication severity, resection margins, lymph node harvest, time to first flatus, hospital stay, conversion rates, and anastomotic leakage, showed comparable results between approaches.RLS demonstrates comparable safety profiles and operative efficiency to conventional laparoscopic resection, and with its principal advantage being reduced incision length, this approach can serve as an alternative surgical option for patients.
Keywords: Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery, conventional laparoscopic surgery, colorectal cancer, Colorectal resection, RLS
Received: 02 Apr 2025; Accepted: 08 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Lu, Shu, Zhong, Yang, Cheng and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Faqiang Zhang, Department of General Surgery, Zigong, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.