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

Comparing extracorporeal, semi-extracorporeal, and intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: introducing a bridging technique for colorectal surgeons

Purpose

Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has been associated with faster recovery in bowel function compared to extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). However, the technical difficulty of laparoscopic suturing technique and intraabdominal fecal contamination hinder many surgeons from implementing such a procedure. We introduce and compare a bridging technique designated as "semi-extracorporeal" anastomosis (SEA), which embraces the advantages and amends the drawbacks of IA and EA.

Methods

Between May 2016 and October 2022, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy were analyzed. All patients who received laparoscopic right hemicolectomy underwent one of the 3 anastomosis methods (EA, SEA, and IA) by a single colorectal surgeon at a single tertiary care hospital. Data including perioperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were analyzed by each group.

Results

A total of 100 patients were reviewed. Thirty patients underwent EA; 50 and 20 patients underwent SEA and IA, respectively. Operation time (minute) was 170 (range, 100-285), 170 (range, 110-280), and 147.5 (range, 80-235) in EA, SEA, and IA, respectively (P = 0.010). Wound size was smaller in SEA and IA compared to EA (P < 0.001). IA was associated with a shorter time (day) to first flatus compared to SEA and EA (4 [range, 2-13] vs. 4 [range, 2-7] vs. 2.5 [range, 1-4], P < 0.001). Postoperative complication showed no statistical significance between the 3 groups.

Conclusion

Semi-extracorporeal was an attractive bridging option for colorectal surgeons worrisome of the technical difficulty of IA while maintaining faster bowel recovery and smaller wound incisions compared to EA.

Incisional Hernia After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Study with Retrospective Control on Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis

Background: Incisional hernias often occur after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, but the precise risk factors are not fully understood. This study's primary aim was to compare the incidence of incisional hernias following laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomotic reconstruction (ICA) versus extracorporeal anastomotic reconstruction (ECA). Materials and Methods: A cohort study compared two groups of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer following a standardized perioperative enhanced recovery program (ERP): a prospective group underwent ICA from January 2018 to February 2020 and a retrospective group underwent ECA from January 2013 to December 2016. The presence of incisional hernias was assessed by reviewing patients' follow-up computed tomography scans or evaluating the patients by telephone interview or outpatient office visit and diagnostic imaging. Secondary objectives included the hospital length of stay, postoperative complications, 30-day readmission rate, reoperation, and mortality. Results: The study included 89 patients who had laparoscopic right colectomy for malignant colon neoplasms. Among these, 48 underwent ECA (ECA group), and 41 had ICA (ICA group). At a median follow-up of 36 months, incisional hernia was observed in 1 patient (2.4%) in the ICA group, in contrast to 11 (22.9%) confirmed cases in the ECA group (P = .010). The length of hospital stay was similar between the two groups (5 days versus 4 days; P = .064). The two groups showed similarities in terms of postoperative complications (P = .093), hospital readmission (P = .999), and the rate of reoperation within 30 days (P = .461). Conclusions: The ICA technique was associated with a reduced risk of incisional hernias compared with the ECA technique, with similar outcomes in short-term postoperative complications and overall patient recovery.

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.

Current status and trend of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) is utilized worldwide as one of the standard surgical treatments for right-sided colon cancer. However, there have been issues concerning its applicability, techniques, and trend. The present study aimed to elucidate the current status and trend of LRH by reviewing literature focusing on important issues associated with this surgery. Based on previous studies, LRH most likely provides better short-term outcomes and similar oncological outcomes compared to open surgery. Despite the increasing use of robotic approach in this surgery, it seems to have always been associated with longer operative times and greater hospital cost with limited advantage. Intracorporeal anastomosis seems to improve short-term outcomes, such as quicker recovery of bowel function, compared to extracorporeal anastomosis. However, it does not contribute to shorter hospital stay. With regard to dissection technique, various approaches, and landmarks have been advocated to overcome the technical difficulty in LRH. This difficulty is likely to be caused by anatomical variation, especially in venous structures. The superiority of one approach or landmark over another is still argued about due to the lack of large-scale prospective studies. However, deep understanding both of anatomical variation and characteristics of each approach would be of extreme importance to minimize adverse effects and maximize patient benefit after LRH.