Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2D vs 3D laparoscopic right colectomy: A propensity score-matching comparison of personal experience with systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of laparoscopic approach for right colectomy have been well established. However, the technical difficulty to construct the intra-corporeal anastomosis is still cumbersome.

AIM

To analyze the results of 3D and 2D laparoscopic right colectomy and to compare it to the published series through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy at Umbria2 Hospitals from January 2014 to March 2020 was performed. A systematic review was accomplished comparing 2D and 3D right colectomy.

RESULTS

In the personal series 47 patients of the 2D group were matched to 47 patients of the 3D group. The 3D group showed a favorable trend in terms of mean operative time (170.7 ± 32.9 min vs 183.8 ± 35.4 min; P = 0.053) and a significant lower anastomotic time (16.9 ± 2.3 min vs 19.6 ± 2.9 min, P < 0.001). The complete mesocolic excision (CME) subgroups analysis showed a shorter anastomotic time (16.5 ± 1.8 min vs 19.9 ± 3.0 min; P < 0.001) and operative time (175.0 ± 38.5 min vs 193.7 ± 37.1 min; P = 0.063) in the 3D group. Six studies and our series were included in the meta-analysis with 551 patients (2D group: 291; 3D group: 260).The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favour of the 3D group regarding the operative time (P < 0.001) and the anastomotic time (P < 0.001) while no differences were identified between groups in terms of blood loss (P = 0.827), LNH yield (P = 0.243), time to first flatus (P = 0.333), postoperative complications (P = 0.718) and length of stay (P = 0.835).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis results showed that 3D laparoscopic right colectomy shortens operative and anastomotic time without affecting the standard lymphadenectomy. In our series, the advantage of the 3D system becomes evident when CME and/or more complex associated procedure are requested significantly reducing both the total operative and the anastomotic time.

Updates on Robotic CME for Right Colon Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Background. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is a surgical technique introduced with the aim of ameliorating the oncologic results of colectomy. Various experiences have demonstrated favorable oncologic results of CME in comparison with standard colectomy, in which the principles of CME are not respected. The majority of the literature refers to open or laparoscopic CME. This review analyses current evidence regarding robotic CME for right colectomy. Methods. An extensive Medline (Pub Med) search for relevant case series, restricted to papers published in English, was performed, censoring video vignettes and case reports. Results. Fourteen studies (ten retrospective, four comparative series of robotic versus laparoscopic CME) were included, with patient numbers ranging from 20 to 202. Four different approaches to CME are described, which also depend on the robotic platform utilized. Intraoperative and early clinical results were good, with a low conversion and anastomotic leak rate and a majority of Clavien–Dindo complications being Grades I and II. Oncologic adequacy of the surgical specimens was found to be good, although a homogeneous histopathologic evaluation was not provided. Conclusions. Further large studies are warranted to define long-term oncologic results of robotic right colectomy with CME and its eventual benefits in comparison to laparoscopy.

Postoperative Complications Associated With Intra- Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis for Laparoscopic Right Colectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postoperative complications of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have compared postoperative complications of ICA and ECA after LRC, most were retrospective studies.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature to identify studies that compared postoperative complications between ICA and ECA in patients who underwent LRC. We performed meta-analysis using random-effects models to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of experiencing complications, and we analyzed heterogeneity using I² statistics.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies consist of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and propensity score matching studies involving a total of 3219 patients who underwent LRC were included. Among 1377 patients who received ICA, 255 (18.5%) had postoperative complications, whereas among 1652 patients who received ECA, 373 (22.6%) had such complications. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that ICA was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative complications (RR, .73; 95% CI: .57-.95; P = .02; I² = 57%) compared with ECA. Although there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in risk of anastomotic leakage (RR, .67; 95% CI: .39-1.17; P = .16; I² = 8%), there was a significant difference between them in risk of surgical site infection (RR, .50; 95% CI: .34-.71; P = .0002; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with a reduced risk of postoperative complications compared with ECA in patients undergoing LRC.

Completely intracorporeal anastomosis in robotic left colonic and rectal surgery: technique and 30-day outcomes

As robotic surgery continues to disseminate into the field of colon and rectal surgery, there is a growing interest in the utilization of intracorporeal anastomosis to potentially improve surgical outcomes. The purpoe of this study was to compare feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections performed with completely intracorporeal anastomosis (CICA) technique to the traditional extracorporeal assisted anastomosis (ECAA) technique. Consecutive series of patients who underwent elective robotic sigmoid or low anterior resections for benign or malignant disease utilizes either CICA or ECAA between August 2017 and November 2019. Surgical complications were assessed until 30 postoperative days and compared between the two groups. A total of 160 patients were identified; 73 (45.6%) in the CICA group and 87 (54.4%) in the ECAA group. Most of the procedures were performed for malignancy (76%). Estimated blood loss was lower in the CICA group (80.7 mL vs. 110.2 mL; p = 0.048), while operative times were longer (5.9 ± SD hours vs. 4.9 ± SD hours; p =  < 0.001). Overall conversion rate was 1.9%, with no conversions in the CICA group. Overall complications occurred in 54 patients (33.8%) with 13 (8.3%) representing major complications. There were no significant differences in 30 day outcomes between the two groups. This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections with CICA. Outcomes for robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections are encouraging regardless of anastomotic technique (CICA vs ECAA).

[Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery]

This article gives an overview of the relevant evidence from the literature on the topic of prophylactic use of meshes to prevent incisional and parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. In addition, based on a structured literature search the incidence of hernias in colorectal surgery over the past 5 years was analyzed. A slight majority (54%) of articles recommended the use of prophylactic mesh implantation in colorectal surgery. The prophylactic use of meshes appears to reduce the risk of hernias in colorectal surgery but is associated with a slightly increased perioperative wound infection rate. Parastomal hernias are associated with higher incidence rates compared with incisional hernias and also appear to benefit more from prophylactic mesh implantation. The evidence in the literature is still unclear regarding the use of synthetic or biological implants due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Perineal hernias were excluded from the analysis due to the incomparability of the mainly casuistic literature. An overview is given in the discussion. The analysis of the literature and also in reflection of our own experience comes to the conclusion that the disrupted integrity of the abdominal wall due to the operation should be prophylactically reinforced with a mesh after colorectal surgery. An evidence-based recommendation is not possible based on the current state of research on implantation techniques, e.g. onlay, sublay intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) and selection of the implant.

Intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis following neoplastic right hemicolectomy resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

PURPOSE

While minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach for right hemicolectomy, the choice of anastomotic technique is still debated. Both intracorporeal (ICA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) are described, with conflicting reports on safety and efficacy seen. This study aimed to examine impact of ICA and ECA on outcomes in right hemicolectomy.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCT) was performed. The primary outcome was overall morbidity. The secondary outcomes included both perioperative and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included incorporating 399 patients (199 patients (49.9%) ICA Vs 200 (50.1%) ECA). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43, 1.48, p = 0.47), anastomotic leak (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.58, 3.13, p = 0.5) or surgical site infections (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.17, 1.64, p = 0.27). ICA patients had a significantly less post-operative ileus (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.3-0.94, p = 0.03) quicker return to first flatus (WMD - 0.71, 95% CI - 1.12, 0.31, p = 0.0005), first bowel motion (WMD - 0.53, 95% CI - 0.69, - 0.37, p < 0.00001) and first meal (WMD - 0.68, 95% CI - 1.33, - 0.03, p = 0.04). Pain scores were significantly better for ICA patients on POD 3 (WMD - 0.76, 95% CI - 1.23, - 0.28, p = 0.002), POD 4 (WMD - 0.90, 95% CI - 1.71, - 0.09, p = 0.03) and POD 5 (WMD - 0.67, 95% CI - 1.22, - 0.13, p = 0.01). Length of hospital stay was similar (WMD - 0.46, 95% CI - 1.14, 0.22, p = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

ICA is associated with a quicker return to normal physiological function with equivalent post-operative morbidity. Both ECA and ICA are safe and feasible for restoring normal bowel continuity.

Feasibility of robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes of 161 consecutive patients

Technical and oncological aspects are still debated when dealing with minimally-invasive right colectomy. Main controversial issues still remain about whether the anastomosis should be performed intra- or extracorporeally and if a complete mesocolic excision (CME) should be carried out. We report the feasibility of robotic right colectomy with CME and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) for right sided colon cancer. Data from patients who underwent robotic right colectomy with IA and CME from January 2015 to April 2020 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Intraoperative outcomes and complications (minor I-II and major III-IV according to Clavien-Dindo classification), conversion rate, 30-day postoperative outcomes and pathological outcomes were the variables assessed. A total of 161 patients undergoing robotic right colectomy for cancer met the inclusion criteria. Mean operative time was 185 min, no intraoperative complications were observed, and the conversion rate was 3.7% (6 patients requiring elective conversions). Overall, mean postoperative stay was 4.9 days and the overall 30-day complication rate was 16.1%. 20 patients (12.4%) had minor complications, while major postoperative complications occurred in six patients (3.7%). Anastomotic leak was recorded in one patient (0.6%) and the 30-day re-admission rate was 0.6%. Mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 21.9. Patients requiring conversion experienced two minor complications, with a mean length of stay of 7 days. Robotic right colectomy with CME and IA is feasible and it is associated with good intraoperative and short-term postoperative clinical outcomes.

The impact of intracorporeal anastomosis in right laparoscopic colectomy in the surgical site infections and the hospital stay: a cohort study

Ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy is frequently performed extracorporeally. Intracorporeal anastomosis could be associated with several short-term benefits. However, it is a more technically demanding procedure. The primary endpoint of the study aimed to evaluate the postoperative surgical-site infection rate and its impact on the length of hospital stay after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared to extracorporeal anastomoses. Between 2010 and 2019, 108 unselected consecutive patients underwent right colectomy. An observational comparative cohort study of two anastomosis techniques, intracorporeal (IA) versus extracorporeal (EA), was conducted. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database of a university-affiliated hospital and retrospectively analyzed. The main exclusion criteria were emergency surgery and medical or anesthetic contraindication for laparoscopy. 53 patients underwent right colectomy with IA, and 55 had extracorporeal anastomoses. The groups did not differ in demographics, anesthetic risk, intraoperative data, pathological outcomes, or overall survival. Mean operative time was longer in the IA group (156.9 vs. 146.0 min; p = 0.061). A significant reduction in the anastomotic leak rate was observed in the IA group compared with the EA group (0 vs. 7.3%; p = 0.045) with no differences in the intraabdominal abscess rate (IA: 1.9% vs. EA: 1.8%; p = 0.97). The wound infection rate was 5.7% for IA and 10.9% for EA (p = 0.324). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for those who had intracorporeal anastomoses (5.2 ± 3.3 vs. 10.8 ± 9.6 days; p = 0.000). Right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with less surgical-site infections and a significantly shorter hospital stay than EA technique. Surgeons should consider the IA as the first option when performing laparoscopic right colectomy. Registration number: NCT04350203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: upgrading the level of evidence

The need for escalation of level of evidence regarding the comparative outcomes of intracorporeal (ICA) and extracorporeal (ECA) anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has been persistently highlighted by previous meta-analyses of level 2 and 3 evidence. A systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Overall perioperative morbidity, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection (SSI), paralytic ileus, bleeding, postoperative pain within 5 days, length of incision, conversion to an open procedure, harvested lymph nodes, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Four randomised controlled trials reporting a total of 399 patients evaluating outcomes of ICA (n = 199) and ECA (n = 200) in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy were included. The ICA was associated with significantly shorter length of incision (MD - 1.82, p < 0.00001), lower postoperative pain score on day 2 (MD - 0.69, p = 0.0007), day 3 (MD - 0.80, p = 0.02), day 4 (MD - 0.83, p = 0.01) and day 5 (MD - 0.49, p < 0.00001) when compared to ECA. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 0.27, p = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference in overall perioperative morbidity (RR 0.79, p = 0.47), anastomotic leak (RR 1.29, p = 0.65), SSI (RR 0.61, p = 0.42), bleeding (RR 0.70, p = 0.71), paralytic ileus (RR 0.60, p = 0.45), conversion to open (RD: - 0.02, p = 0.45), number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.82, p = 0.06), and procedure time (MD 16.04, p = 0.06) between two groups. The meta-analysis of level 1 evidence demonstrated that laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with ICA has comparable perioperative morbidity but better postoperative recovery than with ECA. The ICA is safe to be practiced more routinely where technical challenges allow.

Intracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: short-term outcomes with the DaVinci Xi robot

Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) may improve outcomes compared with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in minimally invasive right colectomy. This is a prospective series of robotic right hemicolectomies (RRC) with IA from one institution. 35 consecutive patients with verified or suspected right colon cancer undergoing RRC with IA, and historic control groups of 22 RRC and 40 laparoscopic right colectomies (LRC), both with EA. Primary outcome measure was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcome measures were 30-day complication rates, readmissions, pain scores, analgesic consumption, and specimen quality. Median LOS did not differ significantly between the groups (RRC-IA, 4 days; LRC-EA, 4 days; RRC-EA, 5 days). In-hospital surgical complications Clavien–Dindo 3 + were seen in 1, 2, and 0 patients, respectively, and 3, 5, and 3 patients were readmitted to hospital within 30 days. Median pain score was 2 in all groups on postoperative day (POD) 2. Relatively more patients in the RRC-IA group received gabapentin on POD 2 (p = 0.006), but use of other analgetics did not differ between groups. Mean specimen lengths were 31, 25 and 27 cm, respectively (RRC-IA vs. LRC-EA, p = 0.003), but mesentery width, proportion of mesocolic excisions and number of lymph nodes did not differ between the groups. RRC-IA was not associated with shorter LOS, fewer complications or better specimen quality than recent controls undergoing either RRC-EA or LRC-EA.

The art of robotic colonic resection: a review of progress in the past 5 years

Surgery is developing in the direction of minimal invasiveness, and robotic surgery is becoming increasingly adopted in colonic resection procedures. The ergonomic improvements of robot promote surgical performance, reduce workload for surgeons and benefit patients. Compared with laparoscopy-assisted colon surgery, the robotic approach has the advantages of shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to open surgery, and lower rate of intraoperative complications for short-term outcomes. Synchronous robotic liver resection with colon cancer is feasible. The introduction of the da Vinci Xi System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has introduced more flexibility to colonic operations. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. Single-port robotic colectomy reduces the number of robotic ports for better looking and faster recovery. Intestinal anastomosis methods using totally robotic surgery result in shorter time to bowel function recovery and tolerance to a solid diet, although the operative time is longer. Indocyanine green is used as a tracer to assess blood supplementation in the anastomosis and marks lymph nodes during operation. The introduction of new surgical robots from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes. The present article reviews recent advances in robotic colonic resection over the past five years.

Outcomes of Intra- versus Extra-Corporeal Ileocolic Anastomosis after Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy for Cancer: An Observational Study

Intracorporeal anastomoses (IA) are increasingly being used in colorectal surgery. Some data suggest that these might confer benefits compared with extracorporeal anastomoses (EA). The aim of this study is to compare the short-term complications associated with IA versus EA for minimally invasive right colectomy. This is a single-centre, retrospective study on a prospective database. Patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy for cancer between January 2017 and December 2019 were assessed for inclusion. The primary outcome was global 30-day morbidity. Overall, 189 patients were included, of whom 102 had IA. Global morbidity and medical complications were higher in patients with EA (23.5% vs. 40.2%, p = 0.014; 5.9% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.039, respectively). None of the patients with IA had non-infectious surgical wound complications, compared to 4.6% in the EA group (p = 0.029). No differences were found in anastomotic leakage (9.8% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.55). At multivariable analysis, EA was an independent risk factor for both surgical (OR = 3.71 95% CI: 1.06-12.91, p = 0.04) and overall complications (OR = 3.58 95% CI: 1.06-12.12, p = 0.04). IA lowers the risk for global, medical, and surgical complications with minimum risk for wound complications, without increasing the risk of AL.

Peroral traction-assisted natural orifice trans-anal flexible endoscopic rectosigmoidectomy followed by intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis in a live porcine model

BACKGROUND

Compared to traditional open surgery, laparoscopic surgery has become a standard approach for colorectal cancer due to its great superiorities including less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, and better quality of life. In 2007, Whiteford et al reported the first natural orifice trans-anal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) sigmoidectomy using transanal endoscopic microsurgery. To date, all cases of NOTES colorectal resection have included a hybrid laparoscopic approach with the use of established rigid platforms.

AIM

To introduce a novel technique of peroral external traction-assisted transanal NOTES rectosigmoidectomy followed by intracorporeal colorectal end-to-end anastomosis by using only currently available and flexible endoscopic instrumentation in a live porcine model.

METHODS

Three female pigs weighing 25-30 kg underwent NOTES rectosigmoid resection. After preoperative work-up and bowel preparation, general anesthesia combined with endotracheal intubation was achieved. One dual-channel therapeutic endoscope was used. Carbon dioxide insufflation was performed during the operation. The procedure of trans-anal NOTES rectosigmoidectomy included the following eight steps: (1) The rectosigmoid colon was tattooed with India ink by submucosal injection; (2) Creation of gastrostomy by directed submucosal tunneling; (3) Peroral external traction using endoloop ligation; (4) Creation of rectostomy on the anterior rectal wall by directed 3 cm submucosal tunneling; (5) Peroral external traction-assisted dissection of the left side of the colon; (6) Trans-anal rectosigmoid specimen transection, where an anvil was inserted into the proximal segment after purse-string suturing; (7) Intracorporeal colorectal end-to-end anastomosis using a circular stapler by a single stapling technique; and (8) Closure of gastrostomy using endoscopic clips. All animals were euthanized immediately after the procedure, abdominal exploration was performed, and the air-under-water leak test was carried out.

RESULTS

The procedure was completed in all three animals, with the operation time ranging from 193 min to 259 min. Neither major intraoperative complications nor hemodynamic instability occurred during the operation. The length of the resected specimen ranged from 7 cm to 13 cm. With the assistance of a trans-umbilical rigid grasper, intracorporeal colorectal, tension-free, end-to-end anastomosis was achieved in the three animals.

CONCLUSION

Peroral traction-assisted transanal NOTES rectosigmoidectomy followed by intracorporeal colorectal end-to-end anastomosis is technically feasible and reproducible in an animal model and is worthy of further improvements.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive colectomy

Outcomes advantages for the minimally invasive approach to colon and rectal surgery have been clearly described since the original report of a laparoscopic colectomy in 1991. Advancements in minimally invasive options for colon and rectal surgery have produced the need for critical evaluation of alternative and evolving techniques. The evolution and increased adoption of the minimally invasive robotic platform has allowed the intracorporeal anastomosis, previously described with the laparoscopic approach, to be more widely available to surgeon skill sets because of robotic articulating instruments and ergonomic advantages. Studies comparing intra- and extracorporeal techniques for laparoscopic right colectomy have demonstrated some outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal approach that include fewer conversions-to-open, fewer postoperative complications, and shorter hospital length of stay. Recent robotic-assisted comparisons have also shown an intracorporeal advantage and have extended the analysis to left-sided colorectal resections. Further upgrades in minimally invasive options and techniques warrant further evidence-based considerations for surgeons choosing between these options and techniques.

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

BACKGROUND

We describe our preliminary experience in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) and intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer, comparing the robotic and the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational clinical cohort study on patients who underwent radical curative surgical resection of right colon cancer with CME from January 2014 to June 2019. Propensity scores were calculated by bivariate logistic regression, including the following variables: age, BMI, and size of tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent CME with CVL: 26 by means of robot-assisted surgery and 29 by means of 3D laparoscopic procedure. There were not statistically significant differences about all the intra- and postoperative outcomes (operative time, length of the specimen, time to bowel canalization, time to soft oral intake, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication, number of retrieved lymph nodes, number of positive lymph nodes and lymph node ratio) between the robotic and the 3D laparoscopic approach. After the matching procedure, 20 patients of the robotic group and 20 patients of the 3D laparoscopic group were selected for the analysis. There were no differences in any of the analyzed variables between the two groups except for longer operative time in the robotic group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The 3D vision revealed an important advantage in order to achieve the correct identification of surgical anatomy allowing a safe and effective right colectomy with CME, CVL, and intracorporeal anastomosis, either using laparoscopic or with robotic approach, providing similar short-term outcomes. Taking into account the high costs and the longer operative time of robotic procedure, the 3D laparoscopy could be considered in performing right colectomy with CME, while the robotic approach should be considered as a first choice approach for challenging situations (obese patient, complex associated procedures).

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: results from the CLIMHET study group

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC) is increasingly performed for the treatment of right colon disease. Nevertheless, standardization of the surgical technique regarding the performance of intracorporeal (IC) or extracorporeal (EC) anastomosis is lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term postoperative outcomes in patients who had laparoscopic right colectomy either with IC or EC.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, non-randomized and multicenter study conducted from January 2005 to December 2015 on the CLIMHET study group cohort from five tertiary centers in France. Data were collected for all patients with LRHC to compare patient characteristics, intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes in terms of medical and surgical complications, duration of hospitalization and mortality. A multivariate analysis was performed to compare the results in the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 597 patients undergoing LRHC, 150 had IC and 447 had EC. The incidence of medical complications (cardiac, vascular, and pulmonary complications) was lower in the IC group than in the EC group (13 vs 20%, p = 0.049). This difference remained significant in multivariate analysis after adjusting to field characteristics and patient histories (p = 0.009). Additionally, a shorter hospital stay (7 vs 8 days, p = 0.003) was observed in the IC group as compared to the EC group. This difference remained significant in favor of the IC group in multivariate analysis (p = 0.029). There was no difference between the groups as regards: surgical complications (p = 0.76), time of mobilization (p = 0.93), reintervention rate (p = 1) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that IC anastomosis in LRHC is associated with fewer medical complications and shorter hospital stays compared to EC anastomosis.

Does a 3D laparoscopic approach improve surgical outcome of mininvasive right colectomy? A retrospective case-control study

Laparoscopy has gained wide acceptance due its benefits for patients. However, advanced laparoscopic procedures are still challenging. One critical issue is lack of stereoscopic vision. Despite its diffusion, the totally laparoscopic approach for right hemicolectomy (TLRC) is still debated due to its difficulty, particularly for fashioning of the ileocolic anastomosis. The aim of this multicenter study is to investigate whether 3D vision offers any advantages on surgical performance over 2D vision during TLRC. All data of consecutive patients who underwent elective TLRC for cancer at three Italian surgical centers with either 2D or 3D technology from January 2013 to December 2018 were retrieved from a computer-maintained database. A case-matched analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method was performed. After matching, a total of 106 patients were analyzed with 53 patients in each group. Mean operative time was significantly longer for 2D-TLRC than for 3D-TLRC (153.2 ± 52.4 vs. 131 ± 51 min, p = 0.029) and a statistically significant difference in anastomosing time (p = 0.032, 19.2 ± 5.9 min vs. 21.7 ± 6.2 min for 3D and 2D group, respectively) was also recorded. No difference in the median number of harvested nodes (23 ± 11 vs. 21 ± 7 for 3D and 2D group, respectively; p = 0.48) was found. Neither intraoperative complications nor conversions occurred in the two groups. In conclusion, 3D vision appears to improve the performance of a TLRC by reducing operative time and making intracorporeal anastomosis easier. Prospective randomized studies are required to determine the real beneficial effects.