AIM To review evidence on the short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic(LRR) vs open rectal resection(ORR) for rectal cancer.METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Open Grey and Clinical Trials.gov register for randomized clinical trials(RCTs) comparing LRR vs ORR for rectal cancer and reporting short-term clinical outcomes. Articles published in English from January 1, 1995 to June, 30 2016 that met the selection criteria were retrieved and reviewed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA) statements checklist for reporting a systematic review was followed. Random-effect models were used to estimate mean differences and risk ratios. The robustness and heterogeneity of the results were explored by performing sensitivity analyses. The pooledeffect was considered significant when P < 0.05.RESULTS Overall, 14 RCTs were included. No differences were found in postoperative mortality(P = 0.19) and morbidity(P = 0.75) rates. The mean operative time was 36.67 min longer(95%CI: 27.22-46.11, P < 0.00001), the mean estimated blood loss was 88.80 ml lower(95%CI:-117.25 to-60.34, P < 0.00001), and the mean incision length was 11.17 cm smaller(95%CI:-13.88 to-8.47, P < 0.00001) for LRR than ORR. These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses that focused on the four major RCTs. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.71 d shorter(95%CI:-2.84 to-0.58, P < 0.003) for LRR than ORR. Similarly, bowel recovery(i.e., day of the first bowel movement) was 0.68 d shorter(95%CI:-1.00 to-0.36, P < 0.00001) for LRR. The sensitivity analysis did not confirm a significant difference between LRR and ORR for these latter two parameters. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high. CONCLUSION LRR is associated with lesser blood loss, smaller incision length, and longer operative times compared to ORR. No differences are observed for postoperative morbidity and mortality. AIM To review evidence on the short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic (LRR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using Cochrane Central Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Open Gray and Clinical Trials .gov register for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LRR vs ORR for rectal cancer and reporting short-term clinical outcomes. Articles published in English from January 1, 1995 to June, 30 2016 that met the selection criteria were retrieved and reviewed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements checklist for reporting a systematic review was followed. Random-effect models were used to estimate mean differences and risk ratios. The robustness and heterogeneity of the results were explored by performing sensitivity analyzes The pooledeffect was considered significant when P <0.05.RESULTS Overall, 14 RCTs were included. No differences were found in postoperative morta The mean operative time was 36.67 min longer (95% CI: 27.22-46.11, P <0.00001), the mean estimated blood loss was 88.80 ml lower (95% CI : -117.25 to-60.34, P <0.00001), and the mean incision length was 11.17 cm smaller (95% CI: -13.88 to-8.47, P <0.00001) for LRR than ORR. These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyzes The mean length of hospital stay was 1.71 d shorter (95% CI: -2.84 to-0.58, P <0.003) for LRR than ORR. Similarly, bowel recovery (ie, day of the first bowel movement) was 0.68 d shorter (95% CI: -1.00 to-0.36, P <0.00001) for LRR. The sensitivity analysis did not confirm a significant difference between LRR and ORR for these latter two parameters. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high. CONCLUSION LRR is associated with lesser blood loss, smaller incision length, and longer operative times compared to ORR. No differences are observed for postoperative morbidity and mortality.