Intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis: a review

Single-Center Experiences: A Comparison of Intracorporeal and Extracorporeal Anastomosis Outcomes in Right Hemicolectomy

Background Anastomosis formed in minimally invasive laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) may be achieved intra-corporeally (ICA) or extra-corporeally (ECA). This study compared the return of bowel function and other associated early patient outcomes and morbidity rates after an ICA or ECA in LRH. Methodology The study conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of elective LRH from January 2021 to September 2023. Patient demographics, surgical techniques, and outcomes were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results Ninety participants underwent LRH, and the anastomotic type was evenly distributed - with male patients comprising 53 (58.9%) of the total. The mean age was 64 (standard deviation [SD] ±16.8) years, and the median body mass index (BMI) was 27.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 7.8). The mean follow-up period was 5.1 (SD ± 6.0) months. Univariate analysis showed that ICA had a shorter time for return of bowel function (P < 0.01). Additionally, ICA was associated with lower pain scores (P < 0.01), low morbidity (P = 0.02), and shorter hospital stays (P = 0.01). When comparing ICA to ECA, no significant difference was observed for procedure duration (P = 0.13), anastomotic leak (AL, P = 1.00), surgical-site infections (P = 0.36), lymph node yield (P = 0.26), and any-cause mortality. Multivariate logistic regression, controlling for statistically insignificant confounding factors, revealed that ECA was significantly and independently associated with increased time to first flatus (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, P = 0.01) and higher average postoperative pain (OR 1.5, P = 0.02) compared to ICA. Conclusions This single-center experience showed that ICA is associated with a quicker return to normal bowel function and low morbidity outcomes. ICA participants were positively associated with clinically relevant and health economics outcomes of shorter hospital stays without significantly adding to the procedure's duration times or compromising principles of oncological resection yield.

Isoperistaltic vs antiperistaltic anastomosis after right hemicolectomy: A comprehensive review

To optimize the efficiency of ileocolic anastomosis following right hemicolectomy, several variations of the surgical technique have been tested. These include performing the anastomosis intra- or extracorporeally or performing a stapled or hand-sewn anastomosis. Among the least studied is the configuration of the two stumps (i.e., isoperistaltic or antiperistaltic) in the case of a side-to-side anastomosis. The purpose of the present study is to compare the isoperistaltic and antiperistaltic side-to-side anastomotic configuration after right hemicolectomy by reviewing the relevant literature. High-quality literature is scarce, with only three studies directly comparing the two alternatives, and no study has revealed any significant differences in the incidence of anastomosis-related complications such as leakage, stenosis, or bleeding. However, there may be a trend towards an earlier recovery of intestinal function following antiperistaltic anastomosis. Finally, existing data do not identify a certain anastomotic configuration (i.e., isoperistaltic or antiperistaltic) as superior over the other. Thus, the most appropriate approach is to master both anastomotic techniques and select between the two configurations based on each individual case scenario.

Intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy: short-term outcomes of a multi-center prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Studies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy.

METHODS

Multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates.

RESULTS

There were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy.

Anastomotic Technique-How to Optimize Success and Minimize Leak Rates

Determining when to perform a bowel anastomosis and whether to divert can be difficult, as an anastomosis made in a high-risk patient or setting has potential for disastrous consequences. While the surgeon has limited control over patient-specific characteristics, the surgeon can control the technique used for creating anastomoses. Protecting and ensuring a vigorous blood supply is fundamental, as is mobilizing bowel completely, and employing adjunctive techniques to attain reach without tension. There are numerous ways to create anastomoses, with variations on the segment and configuration of bowel used, as well as the materials used and surgical approach. Despite numerous studies on the optimal techniques for anastomoses, no one method has prevailed. Without clear evidence on the best anastomotic technique, surgeons should focus on adhering to good technique and being comfortable with several configurations for a variety of conditions.

Laparoscopic and open complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation for right colonic adenocarcinoma: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

To examine the outcome of patients treated with complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) after conventional and laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated stage I-IV colon adenocarcinoma patients treated by the same surgeon (L.M.) from 2013 to 2018. Postoperative complications, recurrences and survival are assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (M/F: 24/27) underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME (L-CME) or open CME (O-CME) plus CVL. Tumour location was the caecum in 39.2% of cases, the transverse in 23.5%, the hepatic colonic flexure in 21.5%, and the ascending colon in 15.6%. Twenty-four patients underwent L-CME while 27 underwent O-CME. More than 15 harvested lymphnodes are reported in 74.1% of O-CME patients and in 66.7% of L-CME patients (p = 0.562). Postoperative complications occurred in 7 O-CME and 5 L-CME patients, respectively (p = 0.669). Three-year overall survival, including stage IV, was of 75% versus 77.8% for L-CME and O-CME patients, respectively, while for stage I-III, was of 88.9% vs. 80% in L-CME and O-CME, respectively (p = 0.440). The median follow-up was of 2.43 years.

CONCLUSION

CME with CVL is a meticulous, complex but feasible technique. In our experience, oncological results in terms of recurrences and overall survival, after conventional and laparoscopic CME plus CVL, are comparable. Patients with stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma have a better prognostic trend especially when more than 15 lymphnodes are removed. The respect of oncological radicality and the correct indication to minimally invasive surgery are the undiscussed key outcome variables.

Right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for cancer: a prospective comparison between robotics and laparoscopy

Robotics in right colectomy are still under debate. Available studies compare different techniques of ileocolic anastomosis but results are non-conclusive. Our study aimed to compare intraoperative outcomes, and short-term postoperative results between robotic and standard laparoscopic right colectomies for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) fashioned with the same technique. All consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic right hemicolectomies with ICA for cancer in two hospitals, one of which is a tertiary care centre, were prospectively enrolled in our prospective observational study, from April 2018 to December 2019. ICA was fashioned with the same stapled hand-sewn technique. Continuous and categorical variables were analysed using t test and chi-squared test as required. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Forty patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 48 underwent robotic right colectomy and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Operative time was not statistically different between the two groups (robotic group 265.9 min vs laparoscopic group 254.2 min, p = 0.29). The robotic group had a significantly shorter time for stump oversewing (ileum reinforcement: robotic group 9.3 min vs laparoscopic group 14.2 min, p < 0.001; colon reinforcement: robotic 7.7. min, laparoscopy 13.9 min, p < 0.001) and for ICA (robotic 31.6 min vs laparoscopy 43.0, p < 0.001). One patient underwent extracorporeal anastomosis in the robotic group. The short-term outcomes were comparable between standard laparoscopic and robotic right colectomies with ICA. The limitation of the study is its small sample size and the fact that it was done in two institutions under the supervision of one person. Our data demonstrate that intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis is safe, and faster and easier with robotic systems. Robotics can facilitate more challenging ICA in minimally invasive surgery.

Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy between intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 77 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from January 2016 to June 2018 was performed. The intracorporeal group included 36 patients and the extracorporeal group 41 patients.

RESULTS

Patient demographics and disease-related characteristics were similar. Mean operative time was 152±38.3 minutes in IA vs. 148±34.8 minutes in EA (p = 0.664). IA was not associated with less overall postoperative complications and decreased rate of surgical site infections. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative leak, length of stay, mortality in both groups. There was no perioperative difference in median number of lymph node harvested. There was statistically significant difference in the length of larger incision [50 (50-70) mm in IA vs 80 (70-100) mm in EA; p<0.001], length of the specimen (323 ±52.7 mm in IA vs 295±64.7 mm in EA; p<0.05), free tumor margin (113.6±47.4 in IA vs 75.6±37.4 mm in EA; p<0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in IA in the less postoperative use of analgesics (p<0.032), and return of bowel function (p<0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

IA seems feasible and safe; it does not significantly affect the length of surgery, and it guarantees maintenance of radical oncological standards. Furthermore, IA significantly improves cosmesis and patient comfort postoperatively, reducing the rates of emesis, which leads to higher rates of early regular diet tolerance. Therefore, laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with improved short-term outcomes.

Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (The IVEA-study)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term outcomes of performing intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon neoplasm.

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in the laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery and the clear benefit of this approach over open surgery, because of the technical difficulty in performing intracorporeal anastomosis (IA), some continue to perform it extracorporeally in right colon surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a prospective multicenter randomized trial with 2 parallel groups on which either IA or extracorporeal anastomosis was performed in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon neoplasm, carried out between January 2016 and December 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients were randomized during the study period. At baseline, the 2 groups were comparable for age, sex, body mass index, surgical risk, and comorbidity. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 7 days with no differences between the groups. About 70% of patients had an uneventful postoperative period without complications. The most common complications were paralytic ileus (20.63%; 33), surgical site infection (SSI) (10%; 16), and anastomotic leakage (6.25%; 10). The results show a lower level of SSI in the IA group (3.65% vs. 16.67%, P=0.008). Other complications do not show statistically significant differences between groups. Likewise, the incision for the extraction of the specimen was smaller in the IA group (P=0.000) and creation of the anastomosis intracorporeally decreased postoperative pain (P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to the extracorporeal technique, IA decreased postoperative pain, incision size, and SSI. Further studies will be needed to verify our findings.

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.

Comparison of postoperative recovery of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of right colon cancer with modified triangular anastomosis or tubular anastomosis: a retrospective cohort study

Background

We compared the advantages and disadvantages of modified triangular anastomosis and tubular anastomosis for digestive tract reconstruction in patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of right colon cancer.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 92 cases of laparoscopic-assisted resection of right colon cancer, treated from June 2017 to June 2018, at the Huai’an No. 1 People’s Hospital in China. Patients were divided into a modified triangular anastomosis group (n = 33) and a tubular anastomosis group (n = 59). In the modified triangular anastomosis group, digestive tract reconstruction was conducted using side-to-side anastomosis of the ileo-transverse colon with a 60-mm linear stapler. The common entry hole was closed with a running suture. The tubular anastomosis group underwent end-to-side anastomosis of the ileo-transverse colon with a tubular stapler anchor placed at the end of the ileum.

Results

At baseline and perioperatively, there were no significant between-group differences in age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, pathological stage, or tumour size (P > 0.05). There were also no significant between-group differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, the number of harvested lymph nodes, the first postoperative flatulence time, hospitalisation time, or postoperative complications (P > 0.05); however, the total cost of hospitalization for the triangular anastomosis group was significantly lower than the tubular anastomosis group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Modified triangular anastomosis is a safe and feasible procedure for laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of right colon cancer. These results affirm the safety and effectiveness of total laparoscopic radical resection of right colon cancer. Given the equivalent outcomes between the two procedures, the modified triangular procedure may be more a more cost-effective option for clinical application.

Ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis during robotic right colectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of different techniques

PURPOSE

Robotic assistance could increase the rate of ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) during robotic right colectomy (RRC). However, although robotic ICA can be accomplished with several different technical variants, it is not clear whether some of these technical details should be preferred. An evaluation of the possible advantage of one respect to another would be useful.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature on technical details of robotic ileo-colic ICA, from which we performed a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. The extracted data allowed a comparative analysis regarding the outcome of overall complication (OC), bleeding rate (BR) and leakage rate (LR), between (1) mechanical anastomosis with robotic stapler, versus laparoscopic stapler, versus totally hand-sewn anastomosis and (2) closure of enterocolotomy with manual double layer, versus single layer, versus stapled.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies including 2066 patients were selected. Globally, the side-to-side, isoperistaltic anastomosis, realized with laparoscopic staplers, and double-layer closure for enterocolotomy, is the most common technique used. According to the meta-analysis, the use of robotic stapler was significantly associated with a reduction of the BR with respect to mechanical anastomosis with laparoscopic stapler or totally hand-sewn anastomosis. None of the other technical aspects significantly influenced the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ICA fashioning during RRC can be accomplished with several technical variants without evidence of a clear superiority of anyone of these techniques. Although the use of robotic staplers could be associated with some benefits, further studies are necessary to draw conclusions.

Comparison of Intra-Abdominal Infection Risk Between Intracorporeal and Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy for Colon Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

No previous study has compared the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) between intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) related to intra-abdominal infection in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the risk of SSI in IA and EA in this context.

METHODS

From July 2014 to March 2018, 101 consecutive (median age, 73 years; male, 54) patients underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer. The IA and EA groups consisted of 51 and 50 cases, respectively. After either IA or EA, lavage was performed with 100 mL of saline in the area surrounding the anastomosis, and a sample was collected for bacterial culture. The product of the virulence score and dose of bacterial contamination score called the risk of SSI score was evaluated in both groups, and short-term outcomes in both groups were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in patient characteristics between the 2 groups. The frequency of organ/space SSI in the IA group was significantly higher than that in the EA group (7.8% vs 0%, P = .04). The risk of SSI score was significantly higher in the IA group than in the EA group (median, 9 vs 1, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with EA, IA in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy increased organ/space SSI rates, signifying intra-abdominal infection. We strongly recommend prevention of intra-abdominal infection when performing an IA.

Robotic ileocolic resection with intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn's disease

The robotic platform can overcome limitations of the laparoscopic approach, particularly in the facilitation of intracorporeal anastomosis creation. We aim to share our institutional experience with robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and compare it to a laparoscopic cohort. We identified patients who underwent ileocolic resection for CD with a purely robotic (R) or laparoscopic (L) approach between February 2015 and 2018. Chart review was performed and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data was collected. A total of 47 patients with a mean age of 35.2 years old were identified and 61% were female. Seventy percent [n = 33, (23 females, 69.6%)] of the cases were performed robotically and 30% of the cases [n = 14, (6 females, 42.8%)] were performed laparoscopically. The groups were well matched for age, gender, BMI as well as disease related factors (CD duration; clinical classification and location), perioperative immunosuppression, and surgical history. Time to bowel function was shorter by about 1 day in the robotic group (R: 1.9 ± 0.88 days vs. L: 2.7 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.003). Mean operative time was longer in the robotic group by 51 min and this difference was significant (p = 0.03), however 30.3% of patients underwent ureteral stent placement, which can account for added time in robotic cases. There were less conversions in the robotic group [R: 1(4.3%) vs. L: 1(7%)], but this was not significant. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Complication (L: 21.4% vs. R: 15.1%, p = 0.605) and reoperation rates (L: 0% vs. R: 3.03%, p = 0.429) were similar. Robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease is as safe and feasible as the laparoscopic approach. This was accomplished with no leaks, major morbidity or mortality and comparable length of stay, with 1 day shorter return of bowel function, and with a lower overall complication rate. The robotic approach offers advantages in Crohn's disease which should be studied further in prospective studies.

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.

Randomized clinical trial of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy (IEA trial)

BACKGROUND

Several non-randomized and retrospective studies have suggested that intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) has advantages over extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in laparoscopic right colectomy, but scientific evidence is lacking. The aim was to compare short-term outcomes and to define the possible benefits of IA compared with EA in elective laparoscopic right colectomy.

METHODS

An RCT was conducted from May 2015 to June 2018. The primary endpoint was duration of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were intraoperative technical events and postoperative clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were randomized. Duration of surgery was longer for procedures with an IA than in those with an EA (median 149 (range 95-215) versus 123 (60-240) min; P < 0·001). Wound length was shorter in the IA group (median 6·7 (4-9·5) versus 8·7 (5-13) cm; P < 0·001). Digestive function recovered earlier in patients with an IA (median 2·3 versus 3·3 days; P = 0·003) and the incidence of paralytic ileus was lower (13 versus 30 per cent; P = 0·022). Less postoperative analgesia was needed in the IA group (mean(s.d.) weighted analgesia requirement 39(24) versus 53(26); P = 0·001) and the pain score was also lower (P = 0·035). The postoperative decrease in haemoglobin level was smaller (mean(s.d.) 8·8(1·7) versus 17·1(1·7) mg/dl; P = 0·001) and there was less lower gastrointestinal bleeding (3 versus 14 per cent; P = 0·031) in the IA group. IA was associated with a significantly better rate of grade I and II complications (P = 0·016 and P = 0·037 respectively). The duration of hospital stay was slightly shorter in the IA group (median 5·7 (range 2-19) versus 6·6 (2-23) days; P = 0·194).

CONCLUSION

Duration of hospital stay was similar, but IA was associated with less pain and fewer complications. Registration number: NCT02667860 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Use of barbed suture for the closure of enterocolotomy after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. A prospective descriptive study

INTRODUCTION

Performing intracorporeal anastomoses and sutures is possibly the technique that requires the greatest skill in laparoscopic surgery. The appearance of the new barbed sutures in recent years has seemed to facilitate this surgical step. The aim of our study is to evaluate short-term results in patients with neoplasms of the right colon, after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using barbed suture at the closure of the enterocolotomy.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, prospective, descriptive study that includes patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for neoplastic colonic pathologies between June 2015 and December 2018. In all patients, the intracorporeal anastomosis was performed using the endocutter, and closure of the enterocolotomy was done with a double layer of barbed suture.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were treated (47.5% women), with an average age of 70.6±9 (49-92) years. The average operative time was 99.5±38minutes Anastomotic dehiscence was observed in 2.5% of the sample, and 5 patients required re-operation (6.2%) as a result of 2leaks, 2obstructive symptoms and one peritoneal bleeding. Mean hospital stay was 7 (3-173) days.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of barbed suture in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis seems to present a morbidity similar to series described in literature. Prospective, controlled and randomized studies with a larger number of patients would be necessary to confirm these findings.

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie) network prospective trial on 1225 cases comparing intra corporeal versus extra corporeal ileo-colic side-to-side anastomosis

Background

While laparoscopic approach for right hemicolectomy (LRH) is considered appropriate for the surgical treatment of both malignant and benign diseases of right colon, there is still debate about how to perform the ileo-colic anastomosis. The ColonDxItalianGroup (CoDIG) was designed as a cohort, observational, prospective, multi-center national study with the aims of evaluating the surgeons’ attitude regarding the intracorporeal (ICA) or extra-corporeal (ECA) anastomotic technique and the related surgical outcomes.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-five Surgical Units experienced in colorectal and advanced laparoscopic surgery were invited and 85 of them joined the study. Each center was asked not to change its surgical habits. Data about demographic characteristics, surgical technique and postoperative outcomes were collected through the official SICE website database. One thousand two hundred and twenty-five patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018.

Results

ICA was performed in 70.4% of cases, ECA in 29.6%. Isoperistaltic anastomosis was completed in 85.6%, stapled in 87.9%. Hand-sewn enterotomy closure was adopted in 86%. Postoperative complications were reported in 35.4% for ICA and 50.7% for ECA; no significant difference was found according to patients’ characteristics and technologies used. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter for ICA (7.3 vs. 9 POD). Postoperative pain in patients not prescribed opioids was significantly lower in ICA group.

Conclusions

In our survey, a side-to-side isoperistaltic stapled ICA with hand-sewn enterotomy closure is the most frequently adopted technique to perform ileo-colic anastomosis after any indications for elective LRH. According to literature, our study confirmed better short-term outcomes for ICA, with reduction of hospital stay and postoperative pain.

Trial registration

Clinical trial (Identifier: NCT03934151).

[Intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a review of evidence and a single-center experience]

Laparoscopic colon resections are currently becoming a standart method of surgical treatment of colon cancer. Long-term oncologic outcomes of such procedures are shown to be non-inferior to outcomes of traditional open surgery, while short-term results and morbidity profile are more favourable. The current direction of colon mini-invasive surgery development is to make procedures more easily tolerable by patients, using less traumatic methods and operative approaches. The article contains a review of one of such methods, which allows less traumatic performance of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy - an intracorporeal ileotransversoanastomosis. The current evidence concerning safety and efficacy are reviewed, when authors' own data are also brought to support implementation of this method into routine practice.

A Multicenter Study Evaluating Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resections are increasingly performed laparoscopically for rectal cancer. Recently, natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been reported as an alternative approach without additional incisions or extensions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of NOSES by comparing the short-term outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic resection (CLR) in a multicenter retrospective study from China and Russia.

METHODS

The retrospective multicenter study was conducted at three centers between January 2015 and December 2017. Relevant collected data included patient demographics, operative parameters, and postoperative complications. All procedures were performed using either a NOSES or a CLR approach.

RESULTS

The data of a total of 768 consecutive patients with rectal cancer were retrospectively analyzed, including 412 CLR and 356 NOSES cases. The two groups were comparable for all demographics and characteristics except for the median tumor size (P = 0.038). No difference was found in the operative time and number of retrieved lymph nodes. Intraoperative complications and positive resection margins were nil in both groups. No difference was found in the time to first flatus (P = 0.150), time to first defecation (P = 0.084), length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.152), anastomotic leakage (P = 0.377), and intra-abdominal abscess (P = NA). The CLR group but not the NOSES group had incisional hernia or wound infection events, although the difference between groups was not significant (P = 0.253).

CONCLUSIONS

The NOSES procedure is a well-established strategy and may be considered as an alternative procedure to CLR for rectal cancer. However, the long-term benefits of this approach require further evaluation.

Isoperistaltic versus antiperistaltic ileocolic anastomosis. Does it really matter? Results from a randomised clinical trial (ISOVANTI)

BACKGROUND

Right hemicolectomy is a very common surgery. Many studies compare different options for laparoscopic ileocolic anastomoses: intra- or extracorporeal; handsewn or stapled; side-to-side or end-to-side. However, there are no studies about the influence that peristalsis could have on this anastomosis. The aim of this study is to compare safety and feasibility of isoperistaltic and antiperistaltic anastomosis in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality between both groups. The secondary endpoint is to compare long-term functional outcomes (chronic diarrhoea) and quality of life (GIQLI questionnaire) after a 1-year follow-up period.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomised, prospective trial in patients undergoing scheduled surgery for right colon cancer with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and isoperistaltic (ISO) or antiperistaltic (ANTI) ileocolic anastomoses.

RESULTS

Hundred and eight patients were included in the study. Patients were randomised either to isoperistaltic or antiperistaltic configuration (54 ISO/ANTI). No significant differences in baseline variables were found. No differences in surgical time (130 [120-150] min ISO vs. 140 [127-160] ANTI, p = 0.481), nor in anastomotic time (19 [17-22] vs. 20 [16-25], p = 0.207) and nor in postoperative complications: 37.0% ISO versus 40.7% ANTI, (p = 0.693) were found. There were no differences in postoperative ileus (p = 0.112) nor in anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs. 5.56%, p = 1.00). Differences in "time to first flatus" and "time to first deposition" were found in favour of the antiperistaltic group (p = 0.004 and p = 0.017). Anastomotic configuration did not influence hospital stay (3 days [2-6] isoperistaltic vs. 3 [2-4] antiperistaltic, p = 0.236). During follow-up, there were no differences between the two groups at 1, 6 and 12 months (p = 0.154, p = 0.498 and p = 0.683), nor in chronic diarrhoea rates in GIQLI scores (24% ISO vs. 31.4% ANTI, p = 0.541).

CONCLUSIONS

The isoperistaltic and antiperistaltic ileocolic anastomosis present similar results in terms of performance, safety and functionality. However, further studies must be carried out in order to assess relationship between postoperative ileus and anastomosis configuration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Randomised Clinical trial (Identifier: NCT02309931).

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy assisted by laparoscopy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cancer diagnosed in men and the second in women. Laparoscopic surgery has been a technical revolution in colorectal surgery, facilitating a better recovery of patients with lower morbidity and better esthetic results, compared to traditional surgery via laparotomy, without compromising safety and long-term oncological results.

PURPOSE

The trial is a randomized controlled trial indented to evaluate the two interventions with thorough measurements of the postoperative variables and complications to improve the evaluation of the surgical technique. The primary endpoint is to compare the hospital stay, which will be measured in days between both groups. The purpose of the study at secondary endpoints is to compare intraoperative and postoperative events between both groups in terms of operating time, anastomotic performance time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes, need for blood transfusion, length of the surgical wound, start and tolerance of oral intake, beginning of digestive functionality, postoperative pain, need for analgesic administration, surgical wound infection, paralytic ileus, anastomosis leakage or dehiscence, need for surgical reintervention, and hospital readmission within the first 30 days after surgery.

METHODS

This trial is a prospective, randomized, single-blind, and single-center clinical trial comparing intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis for right laparoscopic hemicolectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Nowadays, there are several retrospective trials comparing the benefits for extracorporeal anastomosis versus intracorporeal anastomosis in right colon cancer patients. Considering the impact for laparoscopic surgery, we think it is necessary to do a randomized trial comparing extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis modalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov No. NCT02667860 and Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau Research Institute No. IIBSP-AIE-2015-01.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive right colectomy: A multi-center propensity score-matched comparison of outcomes

Background

The primary objective of this study was to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomies for benign and malignant disease. Recent studies suggest potential short-term outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique.

Methods

This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis techniques for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy between January 11, 2010, and July 21, 2016.

Results

After propensity score-matching, there were a total of 1029 minimal invasive surgery cases for analysis—379 right colectomies (335 robotic-assisted and 44 laparoscopic) done with an intracorporeal anastomosis and 650 right colectomies (253 robotic-assisted and 397 laparoscopic) done with an extracorporeal anastomosis. There were no significant differences in any preoperative patient characteristics between groups. The minimally invasive intracorporeal anastomosis group had significantly longer operative times (p<0.0001), lower conversion to open rate (p = 0.01), shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02) and lower complication rate from after discharge to 30-days (p = 0.04) than the extracorporeal anastomosis group.

Conclusions

This comparison shows several clinical outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique in minimally invasive right colectomy. These data may guide future refinements in minimally invasive training techniques and help surgeons choose among different minimally invasive options.

Totally robotic complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer

Complexity and operative risks of complete mesocolic excision (CME) seem to be important drawbacks to generalize this procedure in the surgical treatment of right colon cancer. Robotic systems have been developed to improve quality and outcomes of minimal invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of robotic right-sided CME and present our initial experience. A retrospective review of 37 patients undergoing totally robotic right-sided CME between February 2015 and November 2017 was performed. All the operations were carried out using the key principles of both CME with intracorporeal anastomosis and no-touch technique. Data on perioperative clinical findings and short-term outcomes were analyzed. There were 20 men and 17 women with a mean age of 64.4 ± 13.5 years and a body mass index of 26.8 ± 5.7 kg/m². The mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 289.8 ± 85.3 min and 77.4 ± 70.5 ml, respectively. Conversion to laparoscopy occurred in one patient (2.7%). All the surgical margins were clear and the mesocolic plane surgery was achieved in 27 (72.9%) of the cases. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 41.8 ± 11.9 (median, 40; range 22-65). The mean length of hospital stay was 6.6 ± 3.7 days. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were 5.4 and 21.6%, respectively. We believe that use of robot for right-sided CME is feasible and appears to provide remarkably a high number of harvested lymph nodes with good specimen quality.

The Use of Barbed Suture for Intracorporeal Mechanical Anastomosis During a Totally Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: Is It Safe? A Retrospective Nonrandomized Comparative Multicenter Study

Background. A totally laparoscopic right colectomy could be perceived as a more challenging procedure over a laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy owing to the difficulty of intracorporeal anastomosis and the closure of the enterotomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the barbed auto-locking absorbable suture for the closure of an anastomotic stapler-access enterotomy during a totally laparoscopic right colectomy. Methods. From January 2010 to April 2016, data from patients who had undergone a laparoscopic right colectomy in 2 different departments of 2 institutions (the Department of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, San Camillo Hospital in Trento and the Department of Surgical Specialties and Nephrology, University Federico II in Naples) were retrospectively analyzed. We compared the data of patients in whom the stapler-access enterotomy was closed through a conventional absorbable suture (Group A), with the data of patients in whom a stapler-access enterotomy was closed through a V-Loc 180 suture (Group B). Biometric features and intraoperative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. Results. The 2 groups (Group A: 40 patients; Group B: 40 patients) were comparable for biometric features and postoperative outcomes. The anastomosing time was lower in Group B. A statistically significant difference was noted in the mean operative time between Groups A and B (Group A = 134.92 ± 34.17; Group B = 120.92 ± 23.27, P = .035). Only one anastomotic leakage per group was recorded, each treated with an anastomosis redo. During the reoperations, we find in both groups an intact stapler-access enterotomy. Conclusion. On retrospective analysis, barbed suture appears to be safe and efficient for closure of the stapler-access enterotomy during totally laparoscopic right colectomy.

Robotic right hemicolectomy: Analysis of 108 consecutive procedures and multidimensional assessment of the learning curve

PURPOSE

Surgeons tend to view the robotic right colectomy (RRC) as an ideal beginning procedure to gain proficiency in robotic general and colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, oncological RRC, especially if performed with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis confectioning, cannot be considered a technically easier procedure. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve of the RRC performed for oncological purposes and to evaluate its safety and efficacy investigating the perioperative and pathology outcomes in the different learning phases.

METHODS

Data on a consecutive series of 108 patients undergoing RRC with intracorporeal anastomosis between June 2011 and September 2015 at our institution were prospectively collected to evaluate surgical and short-term oncological outcomes. CUSUM (Cumulative Sum) and Risk-Adjusted (RA) CUSUM analysis were performed in order to perform a multidimensional assessment of the learning curve for the RRC surgical procedure. Intraoperative, postoperative and pathological outcomes were compared among the learning curve phases.

RESULTS

Based on the CUSUM and RA-CUSUM analyses, the learning curve for RRC could be divided into 3 different phases: phase 1, the initial learning period (1st-44th case); phase 2, the consolidation period (45th-90th case); and phase 3, the mastery period (91th-108th case). Operation time, conversion to open surgery rate and the number of harvested lymph nodes significantly improve through the three learning phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for oncological RRC with intracorporeal anastomosis is composed of 3 phases. Our data indicate that the performance of RRC is safe from an oncological point of view in all of the three phases of the learning curve. However, the technical skills necessary to significantly reduce operative time, conversion to open surgery rate and to significantly improve the number of harvested lymph nodes were achieved after 44 procedures. These data suggest that it might be prudent to start the RRC learning curve by treating only benign diseases and to reserve the performance of oncological resection to when at least the initial learning phase has been completed.

Surgical approach to right colon cancer: From open technique to robot. State of art

This work is a topic highlight on the surgical treatment of the right colon pathologies, focusing on the literature state of art and comparing the open surgery to the different laparoscopic and robotic procedures. Different laparoscopic procedures have been described for the treatment of right colon tumors: Totally laparoscopic right colectomy, laparoscopic assisted right colectomy, laparoscopic facilitated right colectomy, hand-assisted right colectomy, single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy, robotic right colectomy. Two main characteristics of these techniques are the different type of anastomosis: Intracorporeal (for totally laparoscopic right colectomy, single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy, laparoscopic assisted right colectomy and robotic technique) or extracorporeal (for laparoscopic assisted right colectomy, laparoscopic facilitated right colectomy, hand-assisted right colectomy and open right colectomy) and the different incision (suprapubic, median or transverse on the right side of abdomen). The different laparoscopic techniques meet the same oncological criteria of radicalism as the open surgery for the right colon. The totally laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis and even more the single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy, remain a technical challenge due to the complexity of procedures (especially for the single incision laparoscopic surgery colectomy) and the particular right colon vascular anatomy but they seem to have some theoretical advantages compared to the other laparoscopic and open procedures. Data reported in literature while confirming the advantages of laparoscopic approach, do not allow to solve controversies about which is the best laparoscopic technique (Intracorporeal vs Extracorporeal Anastomosis) to treat the right colon cancer. However, the laparoscopic techniques with intracorporeal anastomosis for the right colon seem to show some theoretical advantages (functional, technical, oncological and cosmetic advantages) even if all studies conclude that further prospective randomized trials are necessary. Robotic technique may be useful to overcome the problems related to inexperience in laparoscopy in some surgical centers.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer is associated with substantial morbidity despite the introduction of enhanced recovery protocols and laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with an intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) is less invasive than laparoscopic assisted hemicolectomy, possibly leading to further decrease in post-operative morbidity and faster recovery. The current standard technique includes an extracorporeal anastomosis with mobilization of the colon, mesenteric traction and a extraction wound located in the mid/upper abdomen with relative more post-operative morbidity compared to extraction wounds located in the lower abdomen.

Methods

A systematic review of PubMed and Embase databases was performed on studies comparing the intracorporeal versus the extracorporeal performed anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Primary outcomes were mortality, short-term morbidity and length of stay. For quality assessment, the MINORS checklist was used. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and a subgroup analysis was performed for data regarding short-term morbidity and length of stay in studies published in 2012≥.

Results

A total of 2692 papers were identified, 12 non-randomized comparative studies were included in the analysis with a total number of 1492 patients. No significant change in mortality was found (OR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.09–1.46; I² = 0 %). Short-term morbidity decreased significantly in favour of IA (OR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.49–0.93; I² = 20 %). Length of stay was decreased, but with serious risk of heterogeneity (MD −0.77 days, 95 % CI −1.46 to −0.07; I² = 81 %). Subgroup analysis for papers published in 2012≥ resulted in an even larger decrease in short-term morbidity (OR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.50–0.85; I² = 0 %) and a significant decrease in length of stay with low risk of heterogeneity (MD −0.77 days, 95 % CI −1.17 to −0.37; I² = 4 %).

Conclusion

Intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is associated with reduced short-term morbidity and decreased length of hospital stay suggesting faster recovery as shown in this meta-analysis.

Single-layer versus double-layer closure of the enterotomy in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a single-center study

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of totally laparoscopic right colectomy, in particular to compare the incidence of leakage of the ileocolic anastomosis after either single-layer (SL) or double-layer (DL) enterotomy closure.

METHODS

From March 2010 to July 2014, 162 patients underwent laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis. The enterotomy was closed with either SL (77 patients) or DL technique (85 patients). Short-term outcomes in both groups were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Median time to perform the ileocolic anastomosis was similar in the two groups (17 min in SL versus 20 min in DL, p = 0.109). DL closure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of anastomotic leakage (1.2 % in DL vs 7.8 % in SL, p = 0.044). Shorter hospital stay was also observed in the DL group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of DL closure of the enterotomy resulted in significantly improved outcome. We strongly recommend a double-layer closure technique when performing an intracorporeal enterocolic anastomosis.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence suggests that the intracorporeal fashioning of an anastomosis after a laparoscopic right colectomy may offer several advantages. However, due to the difficulty of the intracorporeal technique, laparoscopic extracorporeal confectioning of the anastomosis remains the most widely adopted technique. Although the purpose of the robotic approach was to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic technique and to simplify the most demanding surgical procedures, such as performing an intracorporeal anastomosis, evidence is lacking that compares the robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (RRCIA) technique with both the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LRCEA) and the laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis confectioning (LRCIA) techniques. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the RRCIA to those of both the LRCEA and the LRCIA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of two Italian centres was performed on the data on patients undergoing an RRCIA, LRCEA or LRCIA for cancer or adenomas.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-six patients (RRCIA = 102, LRCEA = 94, LRCIA = 40) met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The three groups were comparable in their demographic and baseline characteristics. No significant differences were found in the conversion to open rates, intraoperative blood loss, 30-day morbidity and mortality, number of lymphnodes harvested and other pathological characteristics. Compared with the LRCEA, the RRCIA required a longer operative time (P < 0.0001) but had better recovery outcomes, such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). Compared with the LRCIA, the RRCIA had a shorter time to first flatus (P < 0.0001) but offered no advantages in terms of the length of the hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Performing the RRCIA offers significantly better perioperative recovery outcomes compared with the LRCEA, with a substantial reduction in the length of the hospital stay. The RRCIA does not offer the same advantages compared with the LRCIA.

Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction-colectomy: A systematic review

Over the last 20 years, laparoscopic colorectal surgery has shown equal efficacy for benign and malignant colorectal diseases when compared to open surgery. However, a laparoscopic approach reduces postoperative morbidity and shortens hospital stay. In the quest to optimize outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, reduction of access trauma could be a way to improve recovery. To date, one method to reduce access trauma is natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE). NOSE aims to reduce access trauma in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The specimen is delivered via a natural orifice and the anastomosis is created intracorporeally. Different methods are used to extract the specimen and to create a bowel anastomosis. Currently, specimens are delivered transcolonically, transrectally, transanally, or transvaginally. Each of these NOSE-procedures raises specific issues with regard to operative technique and application. The presumed benefits of NOSE-procedures are less pain, lower analgesia requirements, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, better cosmetic results, and lower incisional hernia rates. Avoidance of extraction site laparotomy is the most important characteristic of NOSE. Concerns associated with the NOSE-technique include bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity, inflammatory response, and postoperative outcomes, including postoperative pain and the functional and oncologic outcomes. These issues need to be studied in prospective randomized controlled trials. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the role of NOSE in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.