Comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis and resection in right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Usefulness of the one-step technique in functional end-to-end anastomosis for colonic surgery: results of a prospective multicentre cohort study from the Japanese KYCC group

BACKGROUND

Although functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) using a stapler in the colorectal field has been recognised worldwide, the technique varies by surgeon, and the safety of anastomosis using different techniques is unknown.

METHODS

This multicentre prospective observational cohort study was conducted by the KYCC Study Group in Yokohama, Japan, and included patients who underwent colonic resection at seven centres between April 2020 and March 2022. This study compared the incidence of surgery-related abdominal complications (SAC: anastomotic leakage [AL], anastomotic bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, enteritis, ileus, surgical site infection, and other abdominal complications) between two different methods of FEEA (one-step [OS] method: simultaneous anastomosis and bowel resection; two-step [TS] method: anastomosis after bowel resection). Complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade 2 or higher were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 293 eligible cases, the OS and TS methods were used in 194 (66.2%) and 99 (33.8%) patients, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The OS method used fewer staplers (three vs. four staplers, p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in SAC rate between the OS (19.1%) and the TS (16.2%) groups (p = 0.44). The OS group had four cases (2.1%) of AL (two patients; grade 3, two patients; grade 2) while the TS group had one case (1.0%) of grade 2 AL (p = 0.67). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that male sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.95; p < 0.00001), an open surgical approach (OR 2.36; p = 0.03), and longer operative duration (OR,2.79; p = 0.002) were independent predictors of complications, whereas the OS method was not an independent predictor (OR 1.17; p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The OS and the TS technique for stapled colonic anastomosis in a FEEA had a similar postoperative complication rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000039902 (registration date 23 March 2020).

Gastrointestinal functions after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a pilot randomized clinical trial on effects of abdominal drain, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis, and D3 lymphadenectomy with complete mesocolic excision

PURPOSE

Routine use of abdominal drain or prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is no longer part of current clinical practice in colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, in patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), it may reduce perioperative abdominal contamination. Furthermore, in cancer patients, prolonged surgery with extensive dissection such as central vascular ligation and complete mesocolon excision with D3 lymphadenectomy (altogether radical right colectomy RRC) is called responsible for affecting postoperative ileus. The aim was to evaluate postoperative resumption of gastrointestinal functions in patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for cancer with ICA and standard D2 dissection or RRC, with or without abdominal drain and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis.

METHODS

Monocentric factorial parallel arm randomized pilot trial including all consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and ICA for cancer, in 20 months. Patients were randomized on a 1:1:1 ratio to receive abdominal drain, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis or neither (I level), and 1:1 to receive RRC or D2 colectomy (II level). Patients were not blinded. The primary aim was the resumption of gastrointestinal functions (time to first gas and stool, time to tolerated fluids and food). Secondary aims were length of stay and complications' rate.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov no. NCT04977882.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients were screened; according to sample size, 36 were randomized, 12 for each arm for postoperative management, and 18 for each arm according to surgical techniques. A difference in time to solid diet favored the group without drain or antibiotic independently from standard or RRC. Furthermore, when patients were divided with respect to surgical technique and into matched cohorts, no differences were seen for primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal drainage and prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for cancer with ICA seem to negatively affect the resumption of a solid diet after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with ICA for cancer. RRC does not seem to influence gastrointestinal function recovery.

The current application and evidence for robotic approach in abdominal surgery: A narrative literature review

The current application of robotic surgery is evolving at a high pace in the current years. The technical advantages enable several abdominal surgical procedures to be performed minimally invasive instead of open surgery. Furthermore, procedures previously performed successfully using standard laparoscopy are now performed with a robotic approach, with conflicting results. The present narrative review reports the current literature on the robotic surgical procedures typically performed in a typical Scandinavian surgical department: colorectal, hernia, hepato-biliary, and esophagogastric surgery.

Best Evidence for Each Surgical Step in Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy: A Systematic Review

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for each surgical step of the minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) for non-locally advanced colon cancer, to define the most optimal procedure with the highest level of evidence.

Background

High variability exists in the way MIRH is performed between surgeons and hospitals, which could affect patients' postoperative and oncological outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search using PubMed was performed to first identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if there were none then landmark papers and consensus statements were systematically searched for each key step of MIRH. Systematic reviews were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and selection was based on highest quality followed by year of publication.

Results

Low (less than 12 mmHg) intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) gives higher mean quality of recovery compared to standard IAP. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is associated with lowest recurrence and highest 5-year overall survival rates, without worsening short-term outcomes. Routine D3 versus D2 lymphadenectomy showed higher LN yield, but more vascular injuries, and no difference in overall and disease-free survival. Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with better intra- and postoperative outcomes. The Pfannenstiel incision gives the lowest chance of incisional hernias compared to all other extraction sites.

Conclusion

According to the best available evidence, the most optimal MIRH for colon cancer without clinically involved D3 nodes entails at least low IAP, CME with D2 lymphadenectomy, an intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision.

Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Colo-colic Anastomosis in Minimally-invasive Left Colectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The primary aim was to investigate the operative outcomes of intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis in left-sided minimally-invasive colectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and follow-up data of IA versus EA in minimally-invasive left colectomy. Studies that investigated recto-sigmoid resections using transanal circular staplers were excluded. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 750 patients were included (IA n = 335 versus EA n = 415). IA was associated with significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.61, p < 0.0001) and less frequent surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.61, p = 0.002) as primary outcomes compared to EA. Of the secondary outcomes, length of incision (SMD -2.51, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.81, p = 0.004), time to first oral diet intake (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.22, p = 0. 0004) and time to first bowel movement (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09, p = 0.01) were significantly in favor of IA, while operative time was significantly shorter in the EA group (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

IA proves to be a safe and feasible option as it demonstrates benefits in terms of lower overall morbidity, fewer rates of SSI, smaller incision length, and faster postoperative gastrointestinal recovery despite a longer operative time compared to EA.

National implementation of an optimal standardised technique for right-sided colon cancer: protocol of an interventional sequential cohort study (Right study)

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with right-sided colon cancer. This operation has evolved during recent decades, with many innovations and improvements but this has also resulted in high variability of uptake with subsequent substantial variableness. The aim of this ongoing study is to identify current surgical variations, determine the most optimal and standardised MIRH and nationally train and implement that technique to improve short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

The Right study is a national multicentre prospective interventional sequential cohort study. Firstly, current local practice was evaluated. Subsequently, a standardised surgical technique for right-sided colon cancer was determined using the Delphi consensus method, and this procedure was trained during hands-on courses. The standardised MIRH will be implemented with proctoring (implementation cohort), after which the performance will be monitored (consolidation cohort). Patients who will receive a minimally invasive (extended) right hemicolectomy for cT1-3N0-2M0 colon cancer will be included. The primary outcome is patient safety reflected in the 90-day overall complication rate according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Secondary outcomes will include intraoperative complications, 90-day mortality rate, number of resected tumour-positive lymph nodes, completeness of mesocolic excision, surgical quality score, locoregional and distant recurrence and 5-year overall survival. A total number of 1095 patients (365 per cohort) will be included.

DISCUSSION

The Right study is designed to safely implement the best surgical practice concerning patients with right-sided colon cancer aiming to standardise and improve the surgical quality of MIRH at a national level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04889456, May 2021.

Extent of Lymph Node Harvest: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison of Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Right Hemicolectomy

Background: Minimally invasive surgery has been demonstrated to have clear advantages in colon cancer management, with a decrease in the morbidity and mortality associated with surgery. With the introduction of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), the entire mesenteric dissection and division is performed under vision laparoscopically and may lead to superior lymph node harvest. The aim of our study is to evaluate lymph node harvest in patients undergoing totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with ICA compared to laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). Methods: This is a single institution retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy at our institution between 2012 and 2022. Patients were identified using a hospital database, and surgeon office databases. Patients included underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for neoplastic lesions (colon cancer/unresectable polyps), or benign etiologies. We excluded patients who underwent laparotomy (intra-operative conversion), resection without anastomosis, resection for IBD, or lack of documented lymph node number. Data were compared using two-sided t-test evaluation with a 95% confidence interval. Results: A total of 679 patients were included, 493 ECA (72.6%) and 186 ICA (27.4%). Patient demographics (age, biologic sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists and body mass index) were not significantly different. Lymph node harvest was significantly higher in those with ICA (24 ± 14 versus 21 ± 1, P < .05). In subgroup analysis, this difference was maintained in patients with malignant processes (27 ± 14 versus 23 ± 10, P < .05). Conclusions: In our experience, ICA has higher lymph node harvest in comparison to ECA. This may improve outcomes and options for adjuvant therapies in malignant indications.

Laparoscopic vs. open loop ileostomy reversal: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies

PURPOSE

The present meta-analysis compares laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (LLIR) with open loop ileostomy reversal (OLIR) to evaluate the advantages of the laparoscopic technique compared to the traditional open technique in ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

Primary endpoints were hospital stay and overall complications. Secondary endpoints were operative time, EBL, readmission, medical complications, surgical complications, reoperation, wound infection, anastomotic leak, intestinal obstruction, and cost of the procedures. The included studies were also divided based on the type of anastomotic approach: extracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ELLIR) and intracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ILLIR).

RESULTS

In the analysis, 4 studies were included. Three hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled. As primary outcomes, a significant difference was found in hospital stay between the LLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.67, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.19, P = 0.007). The overall complications outcome resulted in favor of the LLIR group (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95, P = 0.03). As secondary outcomes, the operative time was in favor of the OLIR group (MD = 19.18, 95% CI 10.20-28.16, P < 0.001). Surgical complications were lower in the LLIR group than in the OLIR group. No other differences between the secondary endpoints were found. Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in hospital stay between the ILLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.92, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.30, P = 0.004). The overall complications outcome significantly favored the ILLIR group (RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.96, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis shows an advantage in terms of shorter post-operative hospitalization and reduction of complications of LLIR compared to OLIR. The sub-group analysis shows that performing an extracorporeal anastomosis exposes the same risks of the open technique.

Accelerated 23-h enhanced recovery protocol for colon surgery: the CHASE-study

The introduction of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program has radically improved postoperative outcomes in colorectal surgery. Optimization of ERAS program to an accelerated recovery program may further improve these said outcomes. This single-center, prospective study investigated the feasibility and safety of a 23-h accelerated enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for colorectal cancer patients (ASA I-II) undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery. The 23-h accelerated ERP consisted of adjustments in pre-, peri- and postoperative care; this was called the CHASE-protocol. This group was compared to a retrospective cohort of colorectal cancer patients who received standard ERAS care. Patients were discharged within 23 h after surgery if they met the discharge criteria. Primary outcome was the rate of the successful discharge within 23 h. Successful discharge within the CHASE-cohort was realized in 33 out of the 41 included patients (80.5%). Compared to the retrospective cohort (n = 75), length of stay was significantly shorter in the CHASE-cohort (p = 0.000), and the readmission rate was higher (p = 0.051). Complication rate was similar, severe complications were observed less frequently in the CHASE-cohort (4.9% vs. 8.0%). Findings from this study support the feasibility and safety of the accelerated 23-h accelerated ERP with the CHASE-protocol in selected patients.

Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer surgery

Laparoscopic right colectomy is currently considered the standard treatment for right colon cancer. After excision of the right colon, minimally invasive options for ileocolonic anastomosis include extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA). However, the choice of anastomotic technique remains debated. As the entire IA is performed in the abdominal cavity, it is known for its advantages of a faster intestinal recovery and small incision. However, IA is time-consuming and technically difficult, limiting its widespread use. Recently, the robotic approach has increased the adoption of intracorporeal anastomotic techniques owing to the benefits of endowrist-articulated instruments and staplers. Except for a small incision and faster bowel recovery, the outcomes of the two anastomoses methods are inconsistent. To date, there has been no clear conclusion regarding whether IA or EA should be used to treat right colon cancer. This review aimed to investigate the current evidence relating to intraoperative outcomes and short-term postoperative results between both anastomotic approaches.

Safety and efficacy of totally minimally invasive right colectomy in the obese patients: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis

Despite the well-known benefits of the minimally invasive approach for the right colon cancer treatment, less is known about its feasibility and advantages in morbid obese patients. The aim of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes after totally minimally invasive right colectomy between the obese and non-obese population. Data derived from a prospectively maintained multicenter colorectal database were analysed, dividing the enrolled patients into two groups: obese (BMI > 29.99) patient group and non-obese patient group. Data about gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Score, tumor characteristics, operative time, anastomosis time, extraction site, incision length, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, specimen length and retrieved nodes were taken to assess the achievement of the oncologic standards. After a propensity score matching, a total of 184 patients was included, 92 in each group. No differences were found in terms of demographic data and tumor characteristics. Intraoperative data showed a significant difference in terms of anastomosis time in favour of non-obese group (p < 0.0001). No intraoperative complications were recorded and no conversion was needed in both groups. No differences were found in terms of postoperative complications. There were no differences in terms of first mobilization (p = 0.745), time to first flatus (p = 0.241) time to tolerance to liquid and solid diet (p = 0.241 and p = 0.06) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.817). The analysis of oncologic outcomes demonstrated adequate results in both groups. The results obtained by our study confirmed the feasibility and safety of the totally minimally invasive approach even in obese population.