Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access

• Autor(a) principal: FERNANDES,PEDRO RICARDO DE OLIVEIRA
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: FERNANDES NETO,FRANCISCO AMÉRICO, WOHNRATH,DURVAL RENATO, VAZQUEZ,VINÍCIUS DE LIMA
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69912020000100702
• topic: Surgical Oncology; Selection Bias; Laparoscopy; Conversion to Open Surgery

ABSTRACT We aim to alert the difference between groups while comparing studies of abdominal oncological operations performed either by minimally invasive or laparotomic approaches and potential conflicts of interest in presenting or interpreting the results. Considering the large volume of scientific articles that are published, there is a need to consider the quality of the scientific production that leads to clinical decision making. In this regards, it is important to take into account the choice of the surgical access route. Randomized, controlled clinical trials are the standard for comparing the effectiveness between these interventions. Although some studies indicate advantages in minimally invasive access, caution is needed when interpreting these findings. There is no detailed observation in each of the comparative study about the real limitations and potential indications for minimally invasive procedures, such as the indications for selected and less advanced cases, in less complex cavities, as well as its elective characteristic. Several abdominal oncological operations via laparotomy would not be plausible to be completely performed through a minimally invasive access. These cases should be carefully selected and excluded from the comparative group. The comparison should be carried out, in a balanced way, with a group that could also have undergone a minimally invasive access, avoiding bias in selecting those cases of minor complexity, placed in the minimally invasive group. It is not a question of criticizing the minimally invasive technologies, but of respecting the surgeon’s clinical decision regarding the most convenient method, revalidating the well-performed traditional laparotomy route, which has been unfairly criticized or downplayed by many people.