Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 1 Septic abdominal complications (presence or absence)).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 1 Septic abdominal complications (presence or absence)).

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 2 Pulmonary complications (presence or absence).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 2 Pulmonary complications (presence or absence).

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 3 Number of septic abdominal complications.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 3 Number of septic abdominal complications.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 4 Surgical site infection.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 4 Surgical site infection.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 5 Suture dehiscence.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 5 Suture dehiscence.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 6 Postoperative ileus.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 6 Postoperative ileus.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 7 Intra‐abdominal abscess.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 7 Intra‐abdominal abscess.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 8 Incisional hernia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 8 Incisional hernia.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 9 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 9 Mortality.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 10 Number of reoperations.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 10 Number of reoperations.

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 11 Operative time.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery, Outcome 11 Operative time.

Table 1. Measures reported in non‐parametric form

Variable

Study

Laparoscopic group

Open surgery group

P value

Nasogastric aspiration time (median and range)

Bertleff 2009

2 (3.0) IQR

3 (1.3) IQR

0.33

Siu 2002

3 (2‐33)

3(1‐8)

0.28

Lau 1996

2 (1‐4)/ 3 (2‐1)

2 (1‐13)/ 3(1‐17)

No significant (P value not reported)

Time to return to oral diet

Siu 2002

4 (3‐35)

5 (3‐24)

0.06

Lau 1996

4 (3‐7)/ 4 (2‐11)

4 (3‐16)/ 4 (3‐19)

No significant (P value not reported)

Length of stay

Bertleff 2009

6.5 (9.3) IQR

8 (7.3) IQR

0.23

Siu 2002

6 (4‐35)

7 (4‐39)

0.004

Lau 1996

5 (3‐20)/ 6 (3‐11)

5 (3‐19)/ 5 (2‐21)

No significant (P value not reported)

Analgesic doses

Siu 2002

0 (0‐11)

6 (1‐30)

<0.001

Lau 1996

1 (0‐12)/ 2 (0‐17)

3 (0‐10)/ 4 (1‐9)

0.03

Bertleff 2009

1 (1.25) median days of analgesics

1 (1.0) median days of analgesics

0.007

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Measures reported in non‐parametric form
Comparison 1. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Septic abdominal complications (presence or absence)) Show forest plot

2

214

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.30, 1.47]

2 Pulmonary complications (presence or absence) Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.08, 3.55]

3 Number of septic abdominal complications Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.32, 1.15]

4 Surgical site infection Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.08, 1.00]

5 Suture dehiscence Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.29, 7.98]

6 Postoperative ileus Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.16, 1.80]

7 Intra‐abdominal abscess Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.33, 4.03]

8 Incisional hernia Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.21, 4.15]

9 Mortality Show forest plot

3

315

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.18, 1.78]

10 Number of reoperations Show forest plot

2

214

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.89 [0.46, 7.71]

11 Operative time Show forest plot

2

214

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

14.62 [‐35.25, 64.49]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery