Hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation: a novel technique for right colon cancer

Definition and reporting of lymphadenectomy and complete mesocolic excision for radical right colectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several procedures have been proposed to reduce the rates of recurrence in patients with right-sided colon cancer. Different procedures for a radical right colectomy (RRC), including extended D3 lymphadenectomy, complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation have been associated with survival benefits by some authors, but results are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to assess the variability in definition and reporting of RRC, which might be responsible for significant differences in outcome evaluation.

METHODS

PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review to identify the definitions of RRC. Primary aims were to identify surgical steps and different nomenclature for RRC. Secondary aims were description of heterogeneity and overlap among different RRC techniques.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles satisfied inclusion criteria. Eight surgical steps were identified and recorded as specific to RRC: Central arterial ligation was described in 100% of the included studies; preservation of mesocolic integrity in 73% and dissection along the SMV plane in 67%. Other surgical steps were inconstantly reported. Six differently named techniques for RRC have been identified. There were 35 definitions for the 6 techniques and 40% of these were used to identify more than one technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The only universally adopted surgical step for RRC is central arterial ligation. There is great heterogeneity and consistent overlap among definitions of all RRC techniques. This is likely to jeopardise the interpretation of the outcomes of studies on the topic. Consistent use of definitions and reporting of procedures are needed to obtain reliable conclusions in future trials. PROSPERO CRD42021241650.

A new approach: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with priority access to small bowel mesentery

Background

For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the intermediate approach is commonly employed. However, this approach possesses several disadvantages. In this study, we compare priority access to the small bowel mesentery and the intermediate approach.

Methods

The clinical data of 196 patients admitted to the First Hospital of Chongqing Medical University for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from January 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected and divided into the small bowel mesenteric priority access and traditional intermediate access groups. The operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph node dissection, postoperative anal venting time, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications were compared between the two different approaches.

Results

In total, 81 cases of small bowel mesenteric priority access and 115 cases of intermediate approach for right hemi-colonic radical resection were compared. The operative time was 191.98 ± 46.05 and 209.48 ± 46.08 min in the small bowel mesenteric priority access and intermediate access groups, respectively; the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative bleeding and lymph node clearance. However, the scatter plot analysis showed that severe intraoperative bleeding was relatively less frequent in the small mesenteric priority access group, compared with that in the intermediate approach group. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in the first exhaust and defecation times, hospital stay after operation, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative complication between the two groups.

Conclusion

In laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach can significantly shorten the operation time compared with the intermediate approach. It can reduce intraoperative bleeding and the operation is simple and safe to perform, making it suitable for less experienced surgeons. Therefore, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach has the potential to be a suitable alternative and deserves further clinical promotion and application.

Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries in elderly patients with right colon cancers: A case-control study

An increasing proportion of patients aged more than 70 years old are suffering from colorectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-terms outcomes between open surgery (OS) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in treatment of these elderly patients with right colon cancers.We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent right colon resections for cancers in our institution between June, 2009 and December, 2014. Short- and long-terms outcomes including surgical endpoints, postsurgical recovery data, postoperative morbidity and mortality, overall survival and disease-free survival were compared among OS, LS, and HALS groups. All data were analyzed by SPSS 22.0.Finally, 69 consecutive patients (OS = 26, LS = 24, HALS = 19) with right colon cancers were included in the analysis. Compared with OS, HALS was associated with less time to first anus exhaust (P = .013), first liquid diet (P = .045), and first soft diet (P = .036). Meanwhile, there were significant less operative time (P = .0027), blood loss (P < .001), and less time to first liquid diet (P = .009) in HALS, compared with LS. In regards to long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in overall survival and disease-free survival among the 3 groups.Compared with OS or LS, HALS may be more favorable in the treatment of elderly right colon cancers with decreased surgical time and postoperative recovery, and comparable cancer-specific survivals.

Implementing complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer - mission completed?

The definition of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon carcinomas revolutionized the way of colon surgery. This technique conquered the world starting from Erlangen. Nevertheless, currently new developments especially in minimally invasive surgery challenge CME to become settled as a standard of care. To understand the evolution of CME, anatomical details occurring during embryogenesis and their variations have to be considered. This knowledge is indispensable to transfer CME from an open to a minimally invasive setting. Conventional surgery for colon cancer (non-CME) has a morbidity of 12.1–28.5% and a 3.7% mortality risk vs. 12–36.4% morbidity and 2.1–3% mortality for open CME. The morbidity of laparoscopic CME is between 4 and 31% with a mortality of 0.5–0.9%. In robotic assisted surgery, morbidity between 10 and 25% with a mortality of 1% was published. The cancer-related survival after 3 and 5 years for open CME is respectively 91.3–95% and 90% vs. 87% and 74% for non-CME. For laparoscopic CME the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 87.8–97% and 79.5–80.2%. In stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 83.9% and 80.8% in the Erlangen data of open technique vs. 75.4% and 65.5–71.7% for laparoscopic surgery. For stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year local tumor recurrence is 3.8%. The published data and the results from Erlangen demonstrate that CME is safe in experienced hands with no increased morbidity. It offers an obvious survival benefit for the patients which can be achieved solely by surgery. Teaching programs are needed for minimally invasive CME to facilitate this technique in the same quality compared to open surgery. Passing these challenges CME will become the standard of care for patients with colon carcinomas offering all benefits of minimally invasive surgery and oncological outcome.