Right Colectomy for Cancer: A Matched Comparison of Three Different Surgical Approaches

Overall survival comparing laparoscopic to open surgery for right-sided colon cancer: propensity score inverse probability weighting population study

BACKGROUND

This retrospective cohort study reports on overall survival and short-term complications, comparing laparoscopic to open resection for right-sided colon cancers. It is one of the largest studies in the field with generalizable population-level results.

METHOD

This study on right sided colon cancers used prospectively collected administrative data linked to a death registry over 5 years from 2014 to 2018. Exclusion criteria were private patients, patients aged less than 10 years, synchronous and metachronous cancers. Propensity score weighting was used to balance cohorts and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the hazard of death. In addition, logistic regression analysis was used to assess secondary outcomes. For completeness, unweighted data was similarly analysed.

RESULTS

There were 3603 patients identified for the analysis: 1729 open patients and 1874 laparoscopic patients. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis of the weighted data showed no evidence of a statistically significant effect of laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery on overall survival for right-sided colon cancers (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04, P = 0.112). The weighted data showed lower odds of prolonged length of stay, return to theatre and discharge destination other than home in the laparoscopic cohort compared to the open cohort. There was no difference in inpatient mortality. Unweighted results were similar.

CONCLUSION

This study validates the use of laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer, showing similar long-term overall survival and inpatient mortality compared to open surgery. It is superior to open surgery for the short-term outcomes of LOS, return to theatre and discharge destination other than home.

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.

Patients with gastroenteric tumor after upper abdominal surgery were more likely to require rescue analgesia than lower abdominal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To find out the reasons why patients still need to use rescue analgesics frequently after gastrointestinal tumor surgery under the patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (IV-PCA), and the different abdominal surgery patients using the difference of analgesics.

METHODS

A total of 970 patients underwent abdominal operation for gastrointestinal tumors were included. According whether patients used dezocine frequently for rescue analgesics within 2 days after surgery, they assigned into two groups: RAN group (Patients who did not frequently use rescue analgesia, 406 cases) and RAY group (Patients who frequently used rescue analgesia, 564 cases). The data collected included patient's characteristics, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative activity recovery time.

RESULTS

No differences were observed in the baseline characteristics. Compared with the RAN group, patients in the RAY group had a higher proportion of open surgery, upper abdominal surgery, VAS score at rest on the first 2 days after surgery and PONV, and a slower recovery of most postoperative activities. Under the current use of IV-PCA background, the proportion of rescue analgesics used by patients undergoing laparotomy and upper abdominal surgery was as high as 64.33% and 72.8%, respectively. Regression analysis showed that open surgery (vs laparoscopic surgery: OR: 2.288, 95% CI: 1.650-3.172) and the location of the tumor in the upper abdomen (vs lower abdominal tumor: OR: 2.738, 95% CI: 2.034-3.686) were influential factors for frequent salvage administration.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient population, with our IV-PCA prescription for postoperative pain control, patient who underwent open upper abdominal surgery required more rescue postoperative analgesia.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I² 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I² 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I² 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I² 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I² 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I² 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24).

CONCLUSION

Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

Laparoscopic versus Open Transverse-Incision Approach for Right Hemicolectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: There is general agreement on the benefits of laparoscopy for treatment of rectal and left colon cancers, whereas findings regarding the comparison of laparoscopic and open right colonic resections are discordant. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the outcomes and advantages of laparoscopic versus transverse-incision open surgery for management of right colon cancer. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Comparative studies evaluating the results of laparoscopic and transverse-incision open right hemicolectomies were analyzed. The measured outcomes were mean operative time, time to feeding, duration of hospital stay, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Results: A total of 5 studies including 318 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed no differences in time to resume oral feeding, hospital stay, and number of lymph nodes harvested in between groups, but mean length of surgery was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group. Conclusion: These data confirm that the preferred approach to right hemicolectomy is yet unclear. Laparoscopy has a longer operative time than transverse-incision open surgery, and no significant short-term benefits were observed for the studied parameters. Well-designed randomized control trials (RCTs) might help to identify the differences between these two techniques for the surgical treatment of right colon cancer.

Laparoscopic Compared With Open Resection for Colorectal Cancer and Long-term Incidence of Adhesional Intestinal Obstruction and Incisional Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia and adhesional intestinal obstruction are important complications of laparoscopic and open resection for colorectal cancer. This is the largest systematic review of comparative studies on this topic.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic surgery decreases the incidence of incisional hernia and adhesional intestinal obstruction compared to open surgery for colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Online databases PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the European Society of Coloproctology were performed to cover gray literature.

STUDY SELECTION

We included both randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic resection was compared to open resection for patients with colorectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were incisional hernia and adhesional intestinal obstruction.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria (6 randomized comparative studies/9 nonrandomized comparative studies); 84,172 patients. Meta-analysis showed decreased odds of developing incisional hernia in the laparoscopic cohort (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95; p = 0.01) but no difference in requirement for surgery (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64-1.79; p = 0.79). Similarly, there were decreased odds of developing adhesional intestinal obstruction in the laparoscopic cohort (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92, p = 0.001), but no difference in requirement for surgery (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.53-1.35; p = 0.48).

LIMITATIONS

Incisional hernia and adhesional intestinal obstruction were poorly defined in many studies.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is associated with decreased odds of incisional hernias and adhesional intestinal obstructions compared with open surgery for colorectal cancer.

The adequacy of lymph node clearance in colon cancer surgery performed in a non-specialist centre; implications for practice

BACKGROUND

Despite recent medical advances, surgery remains the mainstay treatment in colon cancer. It is well established that better patient outcomes are achieved when complex surgery including pancreatic, oesophageal and rectal surgeries are carried out in high-volume centres. However, it is unclear as to whether or not colon cancer patients receive the same benefit. Lymph node adequacy is a key performance indicator of successful oncological colonic resection which impacts on patient outcome.

AIM

To assess the adequacy of lymph node clearance during colonic resection performed with curative intent in a non-specialist centre post introduction of the National Cancer Strategy.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed of a prospectively maintained database examining the lymph node clearance of all oncological resections for colon cancer over a 7-year period (Nov 2010-Dec 2017) at a satellite unit with links to a regional specialist centre. Primary outcome measured was the number of lymph nodes retrieved. Secondary outcomes included resection margins, 30-day complication rate and survival at 1 year. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, N.Y., USA).

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-seven patients were included. Mean age was 71.0 ± 11.6 years. Majority were male (n = 90, 53.6%). The majority of resections was right sided (n = 112.66.7%) with 78.6% of all resections being undertaken electively. All margins were free of tumour. The average lymph node count was 19.93 ± 8.63 (4.62) with only 17 (10.2%) of specimens containing < 12 nodes. The anastomotic leak rate was 3.3%. There was no association between surgeon or pathologist volume, nor emergent status and achieving oncological lymph node count (p = 0.14, 0.29, 0.97). 90.5% of patients were alive at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that colonic cancer surgery can be safely performed in a non- specialist centre with technical outcomes comparable to nationally reported figures.

Laparoscopic versus open transverse-incision right hemicolectomy: a retrospective comparison study

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical approach to right colon cancer is still under debate. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and transverse-incision open approaches to right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

Data on 99 adult patients with right-side colon cancer undergoing either laparoscopic or open transverse-incision right hemicolectomy at two different university hospitals, between January 2013 and December 2016, were retrospectively reviewed. Data concerning patients' characteristics, operative details and post-operative recovery were retrieved from prospective databases and analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-nine subjects were operated on laparoscopically, while 50 through an open transverse incision. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (182 versus 105 min; P < 0.01). Patients treated laparoscopically had a shorter time to first bowel movement, while time to resume a normal diet and post-operative length of hospital stay were comparable in between groups. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was higher in the laparoscopic group (25.6 versus 18.6; P < 0.01), but no significant difference in overall survival between groups was detected. At long-term follow-up, the incidence of incisional hernia was higher in the laparoscopic group as compared to the open group (24.5% versus 0%; P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that laparoscopic right hemicolectomy when compared to the transverse-incision open procedure may guarantee the same oncological radicality, but short-term functional benefits are still unclear. Randomized control studies are warranted to better clarify the comparison of these two approaches for right-sided colon cancers.

Emergency surgery for colorectal cancer does not affect nodal harvest comparing elective procedures: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

About 30% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) present with acute symptoms. The adequacy of oncologic resections is a matter of concern since few authors reported that emergency surgery in these patients results in a lower lymph node harvest (LNH). In addition, emergency resections have been reported with a longer hospital stay and higher morbidity rate. We thus conducted a propensity score-matched analysis with the aim of investigating LNH in emergency specimens comparing with elective ones. Secondary aim was the comparison of morbidity and hospital stay.

METHODS

Eighty-seven consecutive R0 emergency surgical procedures were matched with elective CRCs using the propensity score method and the following covariates: age, sex, stage, and localization. Groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses. Outcome measures were LNH, nodal ratio, Clavien's morbidity grades, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Emergency patients presented more metastatic nodes compared with elective ones (p 0.017); however, both presented a comparable mean LNH. Multivariate analysis documented that a T stage ≥3 was the only variable correlated with a nodal positivity (OR 6.3). On univariate analysis, emergency CRCs had a longer mean hospital stay compared with elective resections (p 0.006) and a higher rate of Clavien ≥4 events (p 0.0173). Finally, emergency resection and an age >66 years were variables independently correlated with a mean hospital stay >10 days (OR, respectively, 3.7 and 3.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency CRC resections were equivalent to the elective procedures with respect to LNH. However, emergency surgery correlated with a longer mean hospital stay. Graphical abstract Emergency and Elective resections for CRC provide similar LNH.