Laparoscopic Colectomy vs Laparoscopic CME: a Retrospective Study of Two Hospitals with Comparable Laparoscopic Experience

Surgical efficacy and learning curves of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision with intracorporeal anastomosis for right-sided colon cancer: A retrospective two-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is a potential benefit on long-term outcomes following complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer when compared to conventional colectomy. This study aims to analyze the learning curve and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic CME with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) for right-sided colon cancer in the hands of experienced colorectal surgeons.

METHODS

A two-center cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing right-sided colectomy from September 2021 to May 2022 at two tertiary colorectal centers in Denmark. Learning curves of surgical time were estimated using a cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM).

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included. According to the CUSUM analysis, 32 cases were needed to obtain a peak in operative time, resulting in a decrease in time consumption (group 1/learning phase: 217.2 min [SD 53.6] and group 2/plateau phase 191.6 min [SD 45.1], p = 0.05). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the rates of severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3) (13% vs. 7%, p = 0.67) between the two groups, while the length of hospital stay remained constant (median 3.0 days, interquartile range, IQR [2.0; 4.0]).

CONCLUSION

The learning curve of laparoscopic CME with ICA for right-sided colon cancer demonstrated that 32 cases were needed to obtain a plateau phase expressed by operative time.

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.

Right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision is safe, leads to an increased lymph node yield and to increased survival: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The introduction of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colon cancer has raised an important discussion in relation to the extent of colic and mesenteric resection, and the impact this may have on lymph node yield. As uncertainty remains regarding the usefulness of and indications for right hemicolectomy with CME and the benefits of CME compared with a traditional approach, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the two procedures in terms of safety, lymph node yield and oncological outcome.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature from 2009 up to March 15th, 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two hundred eighty-one publications were evaluated, and 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included. Primary endpoints analysed were anastomotic leak rate, blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, 3- and 5-year oncologic outcomes. Secondary outcomes were operating time, conversion, intraoperative complications, reoperation rate, overall and Clavien-Dindo grade 3-4 postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In terms of safety, right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to the standard procedure when comparing rates of anastomotic leak (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38-1.79), blood loss (MD -32.48, 95% CI -98.54 to -33.58), overall postoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.00), Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV postoperative complications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82-2.28) and reoperation rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26-1.75). Traditional surgery is associated with a shorter operating time (MD 16.43, 95% CI 4.27-28.60) and lower conversion from laparoscopic to open approach (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00-2.96). In terms of oncologic outcomes, right hemicolectomy with CME leads to a higher lymph node yield than traditional surgery (MD 7.05, 95% CI 4.06-10.04). Results of statistical analysis comparing 3-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were better in the CME group, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.66 and RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.56, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to traditional surgery in terms of safety and has a greater lymph node yield when compared with traditional surgery. Moreover, right-sided CME is associated with better overall and disease-free survival.

Right-side colectomy with complete mesocolic excision vs conventional right-side colectomy in the treatment of colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of complete mesocolic excision (CME) in the treatment of right-side colon cancer when compared with standard right-side hemicolectomy, focusing on oncological outcomes, mortality and morbidity rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE archives, including studies on CME in right-side colon cancer. Primary outcomes were five-year disease-free survival and five-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes investigated were mortality and morbidity rates, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leakage, postoperative ileus, day of postoperative flatus, pulmonary infection, duration of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies have been included in this meta-analysis for a total of 3918 patients. The five-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) results improved in the CME group with respect to conventional right-side colectomy with an OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.02-3.45) and OR 2.77 (95% CI 1.33-5.74), respectively. The incidence of mortality and morbidity was comparable between the two groups. Moreover, conventional surgery time was faster than CME (MD 33.69 min, 95% CI 12.79-54.59), while no significant differences were reported in mean blood loss and hospital stay. Furthermore, the CME group showed a higher mean number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 7.08 lymph nodes 95% CI 4.90-9.27).

CONCLUSION

Complete mesocolic excision of the right-side colectomy improves oncological outcomes without increasing mortality and morbidity rates compared to standard right-side hemicolectomy. CME should therefore be routinely performed in the treatment of right-side colon cancer.

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.

Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision versus conventional resection for right-sided colon cancer: a propensity score matching analysis of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer (RCC) is a demanding operation, especially when performed laparoscopically. The potential impact of CME in increasing postoperative complications is still unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic CME compared with laparoscopic non-complete mesocolic excision (NCME) during colectomy for RCC.

METHODS

Data from a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent laparoscopic right and extended right colectomy at our institution between January 2008 and February 2020 were retrieved and analyzed. Short-term outcomes of patients undergoing CME and NCME were compared. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 663 consecutive patients underwent resection of RCC in the study period. Among these, 500 met the inclusion criteria and after PSM a total of 372 patients were correctly matched, 186 in each group. A similar rate of overall postoperative complications was found between the CME and NCME groups (21.5% and 18.3%, p = 0.436). No difference was found in terms of conversion rate, severe complications, reoperations, readmissions, and mortality. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the CME group (22 versus 19, p = 0.003), with a lower rate of inadequate sampling (7.0% and 15.1%, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic CME for RCC is technically feasible and safe. It does not seem to be associated with a higher rate of complications or mortality compared with the "traditional" approach, but it allows better nodal sampling.

Complete Mesocolic Excision and D3 Lymphadenectomy versus Conventional Colectomy for Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Previous systematic reviews suggest that the implementation of 'complete mesocolon excision' (CME) for colon tumors entails better specimen quality but with limited long-term outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the pathological, perioperative, and oncological results of CME with conventional surgery (CS) in primary colon cancer.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings for CME and D3 lymphadenectomy. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 18,989 patients from 27 studies were included. Postoperative complications were higher in the CME group (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.22, I² = 0%), while no differences were observed in terms of anastomotic leak (I² = 0%) or perioperative mortality (I² = 49%). CME was associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested (I² = 95%), distance to high tie (I² = 65%), bowel length (I² = 0%), and mesentery area (I² = 95%). CME also had positive effects on 3- and 5-year overall survival (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.15, I² = 88%; and RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08, I² = 62%, respectively) and 3-year disease-free survival (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17, I² = 22%), as well as decreased local (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24-0.51, I² = 51%) and distant recurrences (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60-0.85, I² = 34%).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence suggests that CME improves oncological outcomes with a higher postoperative adverse events rate but no increase in anastomotic leak rate or perioperative mortality, compared with CS.

Oncological reasons for performing a complete mesocolic excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been shown to have an oncological benefit as compared to conventional colonic surgery for colon surgery, this benefit must be weighed up against the risk of major intra-abdominal complications. This paper aimed to assess the comparative oncological benefits of CME.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the literature until May 2020 was performed. Comparative studies assessing CME versus conventional colonic surgery for colon cancer were compared, and outcomes were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 700 publications were identified, of which 19 were found to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 25 886 patients were compared, with 14 431 patients in the CME arm. CME was associated with a significantly higher rate of vascular injury (odds ratio 3, P < 0.001). Rates of local and distant recurrence were lower in the CME group (odds ratio 0.66 and 0.73, respectively, both P < 0.001). CME patients had a significantly higher lymph node yield (P < 0.001). While no significant differences were noted between the two groups in terms of pooled 3- or 5-year disease-free survival, pooled 5-year overall survival was significantly higher in the CME group (relative risk 0.82, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence, CME is associated with improved oncologic outcomes at the expense of higher complication rates, including vascular injury. The oncological benefits need to weighed up against a multitude of factors including the level of hospital support, surgeon experience, patient age, and associated comorbidities.