Complete versus partial mobilization of splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal tumors: a comparative study

Splenic flexure mobilization in left-sided colonic and rectal resections: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of factors associated with anastomotic leak and complications

AIM

Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is commonly performed during left-sided colon and rectal resections. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the outcomes of SFM in left-sided colon and rectal resections and the risk factors for complications and anastomotic leak (AL).

METHOD

This study was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for studies that assessed the outcomes of sigmoid and rectal resections with or without SFM. The primary outcomes were AL and total complications, and the secondary outcomes were individual complications, operating time, conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay (LOS) and pathological and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies including data on 81 116 patients (49.1% male) were reviewed. SFM was undertaken in 40.7% of patients. SFM was associated with a longer operating time (weighted mean difference 24.50, 95% CI 14.47-34.52, p < 0.0001) and higher odds of AL (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33, p = 0.002). Both groups had similar odds of total complications, splenic injury, anastomotic stricture, conversion to open surgery, (LOS), local recurrence, and overall survival. A secondary analysis of rectal cancer cases only showed similar outcomes for SFM and the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

SFM was associated with a longer operating time and higher odds of AL, yet a similar likelihood of total complications, splenic injury, anastomotic stricture, conversion to open surgery, LOS, local recurrence, and overall survival. These conclusions must be cautiously interpreted considering the numerous study limitations. SFM may have only been selectively undertaken in cases in which anastomotic tension was suspected. Therefore, the suboptimal anastomoses may have been the reason for SFM rather than the SFM being causative of the anastomotic insufficiencies.

[Mobilization of splenic flexure - routine or selective (results of a single-center randomized study)]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety and effectiveness of routine splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) in surgical treatment of rectal cancer (RC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center randomized study was performed between 2016 and 2019. Patients were randomized into 2 groups (SFM (+), n=156, SFM(-), n=67). Standard anterior and low anterior rectal resection was used. We used a combination of medial, lateral, and anterior approaches for SFM. Intraoperative, early and late postoperative complications, histological data, local recurrence, overall 3-year, relapse-free and cancer-specific survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Surgery time was 253.2±72.8 and 252.0±78.0 min in the SFM(+) and SFM(-) groups, respectively (p=0.98). Blood loss was 53.3±53.6 and 67.0±108.8 ml, respectively (p=0.85), length of specimen - 28.6 (95% CI 27.2-29.9) and 24.0 cm (95% CI 22.2-25.7) (p<0.0001). Length of residual fragment of sigmoid colon was 5.0 (95% CI 3.9-6.1) and 9.1 cm (95% CI 7.2-11.1) (p<0.0001), respectively. The number of examined lymph nodes was 15.5 (95% CI 14.2-16.8) and 16.1 (95% CI 14.2-18.1) (p=0.52), number of affected lymph nodes - 1.5 (95% CI 0.9-2.1) and 1.5 (95% CI 0.9-2.2), respectively (p=0.38). Spleen damage was more common in the SFM (-) group (4.5% vs. 1.3%, p=0.12). Logistic regression analysis indicates that SFM does not affect the incidence of spleen damage. Severity of postoperative complications was similar (p=0.63). Anastomotic leak (AL) was more common in the SFM group (-) (17.9% vs. 9.6%, p=0.04). AL grade B was more common in the SFM(-) group (p=0.0001). Logistic regression analysis revealed the following predictors of anastomotic leakage: length of specimen and length of residual sigmoid colon. There was no significant relationship between SFM and incidence of local and systemic recurrences. Overall, cancer-specific and relapse-free 3-year survival was similar.

CONCLUSION

SFM is a safe procedure with various advantages. However, this approach does not improve intraoperative, early and long-term postoperative outcomes that does not allow us to recommend this approach for routine application.

Is routine splenic flexure mobilization always necessary in laparotomic or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection? A systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis

Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is one of the most difficult steps in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and its role is harshly debated. Some surgeons considered it routinely necessary to obtain a safe anastomosis and to respect oncologic criteria; for others SFM is frequently unnecessary, not ensuring the aspects mentioned above and increasing the risk of morbidity (splenic, bowel and vessels injury, lengthened procedure). We performed a systematic review and a comprehensive meta-analysis, without any language restriction, about the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes (anastomotic leakage, intra-operative complication, conversion rate, operative time, post-operative bleeding, intra-abdominal collection, prolonged ileus, wound infection, anastomotic stricture, overall complications, hospital stay, re-operation, post-operative mortality, R0 margin resection, local recurrence) in patients undergoing elective anterior rectal resection (ARR) with or without SFM, both in laparotomic (LT) and laparoscopic (LS) approach. Fourteen studies were meta-analyzed with a total amount of 42,221 patients. The comprehensive meta-analysis shows that the mobilization or the preservation (SFP) of the splenic flexure does not statistically influence the incidence of colorectal anastomotic leakage, conversion rate, post-operative bleeding, intra-abdominal collection, prolonged ileus, wound infection, anastomotic stricture, overall complications, hospital stay, re-operation, R0 margin resection, and local recurrence results. The operative time is significantly longer in every group of patients undergoing SFM. The incidence of intra-operative complication is statistically increased in overall patients and also in the LS subgroup of patients undergoing SFM, in which also higher incidence of wound infection and re-operation is shown. The meta-analysis shows that SFM may be considered not necessary to ensure better peri-operative and post-operative outcomes in both LT and LS ARR.

Splenic flexure mobilization in sigmoid and rectal cancer resections: a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the influence of the splenic flexure mobilization for the main surgical outcomes of patients submitted to resection of sigmoid and rectal cancer.

METHODS

we searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and LILACS, using the terms "splenic flexure mobilization", "colorectal surgery", "rectal cancer", "anterior resection", "sigmoid colon cancer", and "sigmoid resection". The main outcome was anastomotic dehiscence. Other outcomes analyzed were mortality, bleeding, infection and general complications. We estimated the effect sizes by grouping data from six case-control studies (1,433 patients) published until January 2018.

RESULTS

our meta-analysis showed that patients undergoing complete mobilization of the splenic flexure had a higher risk of anastomotic dehiscence (RR=2.27, 95%CI: 1.22-4.23) compared with those not submitted to this procedure. There was no difference between the groups in terms of mortality, bleeding, infection and general complications.

CONCLUSION

splenic flexure mobilization is associated with a higher risk of anastomotic dehiscence in resections of sigmoid and rectal cancer. This surgical maneuver should be used with caution in the surgical management of sigmoid or rectal cancers.

Effect of splenic flexure mobilization performed via medial-to-lateral and superior-to-inferior approach on early clinical outcomes in elective laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer

Introduction

Whether complete splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is required remains a controversial issue and there are numerous approaches regarding the performance of this procedure.

Aim

To investigate the effect of SFM performed with a medial-to-lateral and superior-to-inferior approach on early clinical outcomes in laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer.

Material and methods

The SFM procedure was initiated by the ligation of the inferior mesenteric vein followed by dissection extending from the upper border of the pancreas to the splenic hilum through the gastrocolic space. The mesocolon was dissected in a superior-to-inferior and medial-to-lateral fashion and the presacral space was entered by dividing the inferior mesenteric artery. The procedure was completed by dividing all the splenocolic, phrenicocolic, gastrocolic, and pancreaticomesocolic ligaments.

Results

A total of 43 patients were included in the study, comprising 26 (60.5%) men and 17 (39.5%) women with a mean age of 58.2 ±13.9 (range: 30–87) years. Of the 43 patients, 21 (48.8%) underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and a diversion stoma was performed in 37 (86%) patients. No adjacent organ injury occurred intraoperatively. Mean operative time was 271 ±50 min and mean blood loss was 144 ±83 ml. One (2.3%) patient might have developed anastomotic leakage secondary to bevacizumab therapy postoperatively and developed no anastomotic stenosis in the follow-up period. Mean length of hospital stay was 9.3 ±4.3 days and no mortality occurred in any patient.

Conclusions

Splenic flexure mobilization performed via the superior-to-inferior and medial-to-lateral approach appears to be a safe and feasible procedure.

The Safety of Selective Use of Splenic Flexure Mobilization in Sigmoid and Rectal Resections-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: According to traditional textbooks on surgery, splenic flexure mobilization is suggested as a mandatory part of open rectal resection. However, its use in minimally invasive access seems to be limited. This stage of the procedure is considered difficult in the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to systematically review literature on flexure mobilization and perform meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase and Scopus databases to identify all eligible studies that compared patients undergoing rectal or sigmoid resection with or without splenic flexure mobilization. Inclusion criteria: (1) comparison of groups of patients with and without mobilization and (2) reports on overall morbidity, anastomotic leakage, operative time, length of specimen, number of harvested lymph nodes, or length of hospital stay. The outcomes of interest were: operative time, conversion rate, number of lymph nodes harvested, overall morbidity, mortality, leakage rate, reoperation rate, and length of stay. Results: Initial search yielded 2282 studies. In the end, we included 10 studies in the meta-analysis. Splenic flexure is associated with longer operative time (95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61–41.25; p < 0.001) and higher rate of anastomotic leakage (risk ratios (RR): 1.02; 95% CI 1.10–3.35; p = 0.02), however the length of hospital stay is shorter by 0.42 days. There were no differences in remaining outcomes. Conclusions: Not mobilizing the splenic flexure results in a significantly shorter operative time and a longer length of stay. Further research is required to establish whether flexure mobilization is required in minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery for Cancer: What Is the Role of Complete Mesocolic Excision and Splenic Flexure Mobilization?

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer is nowadays routinely performed worldwide. After the introduction by Heald of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, also a complete mesocolic excision has been advocated as an essential surgical step to improve oncologic results in patients with colon cancer. The complete removal of mesocolon with high ligation of the main mesenteric arteries and veins and the mobilization of splenic flexure are well-known but still debated in western surgical society. The authors reviewed the literature and outlined the rationale and the results of splenic flexure mobilization and complete mesocolic excision in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

How much colonic redundancy could be obtained by splenic flexure mobilization in laparoscopic anterior or low anterior resection?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is performed to ensure a tension free anastomosis with an adequate resection margin in laparoscopic anterior resection (AR) or low anterior resection (LAR). This retrospective study was performed to determine the amount of colonic redundancy that can be expected by SFM.

METHODS

Retrospective review of medical record for a total of 203 patients who underwent SFM during laparoscopic AR or LAR for the treatment of sigmoid colon or rectal cancer was performed.

RESULTS

The obtained redundancy of the colon by SFM was 27.81 ± 7.29 cm from the sacral promontory. The redundancy of the colon by SFM with high ligation of the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) (29.54 ± 7.17 cm from the sacral promontory) was greater than that with low ligation of the IMV (24.94 ± 6.07 cm from the sacral promontory, P < 0.0001). It took about 9.82% of the total operation time to perform SFM. There was no intraoperative complication during SFM.

CONCLUSIONS

SFM during laparoscopic AR or LAR is a safe and feasible option. Based on the result of this study, one can gain about 27.81 cm redundancy of the colon by SFM.

Efficacy of paralleled clipping of rectal ligament in resection of rectal cancer in elderly obese male patients

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of paralleled clipping of rectal ligament in resection of rectal cancer in elderly obese male patients.

METHODS: Ninety-two elderly obese male patients with rectal cancer were randomly divided into either a control group or an experimental group, with 46 patients in each group. The control group underwent regular handling of rectal ligament in resection of rectal cancer, while the experimental group underwent paralleled clipping of rectal ligament. Intraoperative and postoperative indices were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: The operative time and the rate of rectal ulceration were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group (67.2 min ± 10.3 min vs 124.8 min ± 11.8 min, 0.0% vs 15.2%, t = 24.942, χ² = 7.577, P = 0.000, 0.006). There was no significant difference in intraoperative bleeding and the rate of ureteral injury between the two groups (157.9 mL ± 26.2 mL vs 154.2 mL ± 27.4 mL, 2.2% vs 4.3%, t = 0.662, χ² = 0.662, 0.345, P = 0.510, 0.557). The rates of mesorectal disintegrity and pelvic infection were significantly lower in the experimental group than in the control group (2.2% vs 17.4%, 4.3% vs 19.6%, χ² = 6.035, 5.060, P = 0.014, 0.024).

CONCLUSION: Paralleled clipping of rectal ligament in resection of rectal cancer can reduce surgical difficulty and improve surgical safety in elderly obese male patients.