OBJECTIVE: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.
METHODS: Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.
RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on March 31, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, conversion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and readmission), and 5-year survival outcomes.
RESULTS: Nine articles published between 2007 and 2016 with a total of 1307 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer length of incision. No differences were found for operative time, blood loss, transfusion, conversion, lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, readmission, or 5-year survival outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that HALS is similar to LAS for CRC surgery in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes except for the longer length of incision.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains one of the most challenging techniques to learn.
METHODS: The authors collected studies that have compared hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal disease over the past 17 years. Data of interest for HALS and open surgery were subjected to meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twelve studies that included 1,362 patients were studied. In total, 2.66% of HALS procedures were converted to laparotomy. Compared with the open surgery group, blood loss, rate of wound infection, and ileus in the HALS group decreased, and incision length, recovery of gastrointestinal function, and hospitalization period were shorter. There were no significant differences in operating time, hospitalization costs, mortality, and complications, including urinary tract infection, pneumonia, and anastomotic leak, between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: HALS has the advantages of minimal invasion, lower blood loss, shorter incision length, and faster recovery, and it can shorten the length of hospitalization without an increase in costs. The drawbacks are that a small number of patients who undergo HALS may need to be converted to laparotomy, and the oncologic safety and long-term prognosis are not clear.