Complete mesocolic excision does not increase short-term complications in laparoscopic left-sided colectomies: a comparative retrospective single-center study

Tata Memorial Centre Evidence Based Management of Colorectal cancer

ABSTRACT

This review article examines the evidence-based management of colorectal cancers, focusing on topics characterized by ongoing debates and evolving evidence. To contribute to the scientific discourse, we intentionally exclude subjects with established guidelines, concentrating instead on areas where the current understanding is dynamic. Our analysis encompasses a thorough exploration of critical themes, including the evidence surrounding complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymphadenectomy in colon cancers. Additionally, we delve into the evolving landscape of perioperative chemotherapy in both colon and rectal cancers, considering its nuanced role in the context of contemporary treatment strategies. Advancements in surgical techniques are a pivotal aspect of our discussion, with an emphasis on the utilization of minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery in both colon and rectal cancers, including advanced rectal cases. Moving beyond conventional radical procedures, we scrutinize the feasibility and implications of endoscopic resections for small tumors, explore the paradigm of organ preservation in locally advanced rectal cancers, and assess the utility of total neoadjuvant therapy in the current treatment landscape. Our final segment reviews pivotal trials that have significantly influenced the management of colorectal liver and peritoneal metastasis.

Efficacy and Feasibility of Complete Mesocolic Excision with Central Vascular Ligation in Complicated Colorectal Cancer

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) involves sharp dissection through the embryological planes. However, it may be associated with high mortalities and morbidities especially in colorectal emergencies. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of CME with CVL in complicated colorectal cancers (CRCs). This was a retrospective study of emergency CRC resection in a tertiary center between March 2016 and November 2018. A total of 46 patients, with a mean age of 51 years, underwent an emergency colectomy for cancer (males, 26 [56.5%]; females, 20 [43.5%]). CME with CVL was performed for all patients. The mean operative time and blood loss were 188 min and 397 mL, respectively. Only five (10.8%) patients presented with burst abdomen, whereas only three (6.5%) presented with anastomotic leakage. The mean length of vascular tie was 8.7 cm, and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) was 21.2. Emergency CME with CVL is a safe and feasible technique when performed by a colorectal surgeon and will result in obtaining a superior specimen with a large number of LNs.

Current Controversies in the Management of Locally Advanced Colon Cancer

n/a.

Complete mesocolic excision versus conventional surgery for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) lacks consistent data advocating operative superiority compared to conventional surgery for colon cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, analysing population characteristics and perioperative, pathological and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

D3 extended lymphadenectomy dissection was considered comparable to CME, and D2 and D1 dissection to be comparable to conventional surgery. Outcomes reviewed included lymph node yield, R1 resection, overall complications, overall survival and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

In all, 3039 citations were identified; 148 studies underwent full-text reviews and 31 matched inclusion criteria: total cohort 26 640 patients (13 830 CME/D3 vs. 12 810 conventional). Overall 3- and 5-year survival was higher in the CME/D3 group compared with conventional surgery: relative risk (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.93, P = 0.016) and RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95, P = 0.011) respectively. Five-year disease-free survival also demonstrated CME/D3 superiority (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.86, P < 0.001), with similar findings at 1 and 3 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the CME/D3 and conventional group in overall complications (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97-1.14, P = 0.483) or anastomotic leak (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81-1.29, P = 0.647).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis suggests CME/D3 may have a better overall and disease-free survival compared to conventional surgery, with no difference in perioperative complications. Quality of evidence regarding survival is low, and randomized control trials are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Does Obesity Impact Surgical and Pathological Outcomes in Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision for Colon Cancer?

Background: Obesity is one of the contributing factors to technical difficulties in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. However, there are no data regarding the outcomes for obese patients undergoing robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon cancer. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether robotic CME in obese patients can be performed with similar morbidity and pathological results compared with nonobese patients. Methods: Patients who underwent robotic CME between 2014 and 2019 were classified into obese and nonobese groups. Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m². Demographic data, perioperative outcomes and pathological results were compared between the groups. Results: There were 42 and 105 patients in the obese and nonobese group, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding preoperative characteristics. There were no significant differences with respect to operative times (244 ± 64 versus 304 ± 75 minutes, P = .29), blood loss (median, 50 versus 80 mL, P = .20), intraoperative complications (0% versus 3.8%, P > .99), and conversions (0% versus 1.9%, P > .99). No differences were detected in length of hospital stay (6 ± 1 versus 6 ± 2 days, P = .73), anastomotic leak (2.4% versus 1.9%, P > .99), septic complications, reoperations (2.4% versus 3.8%), and readmissions (2.4% versus 2.9%) (P > .05). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (33 ± 11 versus 34 ± 13, P = .79), resection margin status, and mesocolic fascia grading were similar. Conclusion: Robotic CME in obese patients can be performed with a similar morbidity and pathological profile compared with nonobese patients. The Clinical Trial Registration number is not applicable for this study.

Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Versus Noncomplete Mesocolic Excision: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) emphasizes sharp dissection along the mesocolon plane and ligation of the supplying vessels at their origin. Although laparoscopic CME is reported to be feasible and safe, the benefit of laparoscopic CME over noncomplete mesocolic excision (NCME) remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety, quality, and effect of laparoscopic CME with NCME.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science on March 27, 2020. Studies comparing laparoscopic CME with NCME were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, pathologic, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven studies (5 articles and 2 conference abstracts) published between 2015 and 2020 with a total of 1595 patients (742 by CME and 853 by NCME) were enrolled. Compared with NCME, laparoscopic CME was associated with less intraoperative blood loss [P<0.001, weighted mean difference (WMD)=-12.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): -13.56 to -10.45, I2=44%], more harvested lymph nodes (P<0.001, WMD=6.50, 95% CI: 3.57-9.42, I2=89%), longer length of specimens (P=0.004, WMD=3.57, 95% CI: 1.12-6.03, I2=93%), longer distance from tumor to high tie (P<0.001, WMD=1.36, 95% CI: 0.87-1.85, I2=76%), and longer distance from nearest bowel wall to high tie (P<0.001, WMD=1.36, 95% CI: 0.87-1.85, I2=85%). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, postoperative complications, wound infection, ileus, proximal, and distal resection margin or disease-free survival between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently limited evidences suggest that laparoscopic CME can slightly decrease intraoperative blood loss and improve specimen quality, but its safety and survival benefits need to be further studied. High-quality evidences are needed before laparoscopic CME can be recommended as the standard procedure for colon cancer surgery.