Evaluating Surgical Outcomes: A Systematic Comparison of Evidence from Randomized Trials and Observational Studies in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Description
Title: Evaluating Surgical Outcomes: A Systematic Comparison of Evidence from Randomized Trials and Observational Studies in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Authors: Martel, Guillaume
Date: 2012
Abstract: Background: Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is a novel healthcare technology, for which much research evidence has been published. The objectives of this work were to compare the oncologic outcomes of this technology across different study types, and to define patterns of adoption on the basis of the literature. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of the literature was conducted using 1) existing systematic reviews, 2) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 3) observational studies. Outcomes of interest were overall survival, and total lymph node harvest. Outcomes were compared for congruence. Adoption was evaluated by means of summary expert opinions in the literature. Results: 1) Existing systematic reviews were of low to moderate quality and displayed evidence of overlap and duplication. 2) Laparoscopy was not inferior to open surgery in terms of oncologic outcomes in any study type. 3) Oncologic outcomes from RCTs and observational studies were congruent. 4) Expert opinion in the literature has been supportive of this technology, paralleling the publication of large RCTs. Conclusions: The evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in RCTs and observational studies suggests that it is not inferior to open surgery. Adoption of this technology has paralleled RCT evidence.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10393/20534
http://dx.doi.org/10.20381/ruor-5148
CollectionThèses, 2011 - // Theses, 2011 -
Files
Martel_Guillaume_2012_Thesis.pdfMSc Thesis Guillaume Martel 20125.92 MBAdobe PDFOpen