Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus total laparoscopic right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Statistical Fragility in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Studies: A Review of Randomized Trials

Purpose: The P value has been used as a statistical tool in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish significance but does not provide information on the robustness of a study when used alone. The fragility index (FI) provides a supplemental approach for demonstrating robustness in RCTs that report dichotomous outcomes. This study aims to determine the statistical fragility of RCTs that compare minimally invasive techniques with open techniques in managing benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Methods: Dichotomous outcomes of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in RCTs from 2000 to 2023 were assessed. The overall FI and fragility quotient (FQ) of each study were calculated. Results: Of the 1377 screened studies, 50 met the inclusion criteria. In total, 820 outcomes were recorded with 747 outcomes reported as not significant (P ≥ .05) and 73 as significant (P < .05). The overall FI for all studies including all outcomes was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) with a FQ of 0.031 (IQR 0.014-0.062). Of the 50 RCTs, 6 (12%) reported a loss to follow-up that was greater than the overall FI of 5. Conclusions: As RCTs are judged increasingly beyond just the P value, practicing colorectal surgeons will benefit from using and interpreting the FI, FQ, and the P value of studies both in analyzing future RCTs and in determining whether or not to make a change in their clinical practice if there is an efficiently true discovery.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of surgical approaches for the management of right-sided colonic neoplasms. To date, no method has been shown superior in terms of surgical and perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis compared open (ORH), laparoscopic-assisted (LRH), total laparoscopic (TLRH), and robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) to assess surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted an electronic systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science that compared RRH, TLRH, LRH, and ORH. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 25 retrospective, and 18 prospective studies totalling 5652 patients were included.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was similar between RRH and TLRH (RR 1.0; Crl 0.66-1.5). The anastomotic leak rate was higher in LRH and ORH compared to RRH (RR 1.9; Crl 0.99-3.6 and RR 1.2; Crl 0.55-2.6, respectively), whereas it was lower in TLRH compared to RRH (RR 0.88 Crl 0.41-1.9). The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in ORH compared to TLRH (RR 3.3; Crl 1.3-8.0). Operative time was similar in RRH compared to LRH (RR - 27.0; Crl - 61.0 to 5.9), and to TLRH (RR - 24.0; Crl - 70.0 to 21.0). The hospital stay was significantly longer in LRH compared to RRH (RR 3.7; Crl 0.7-6.7).

CONCLUSION

The surgical management of right-sided colonic disease is evolving. This network meta-analysis observed that short-term outcomes following RRH and TLRH were superior to standard LRH and ORH. The adoption of more advanced minimally invasive techniques can be costly and have associated learning phases, but will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries in elderly patients with right colon cancers: A case-control study

An increasing proportion of patients aged more than 70 years old are suffering from colorectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-terms outcomes between open surgery (OS) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in treatment of these elderly patients with right colon cancers.We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent right colon resections for cancers in our institution between June, 2009 and December, 2014. Short- and long-terms outcomes including surgical endpoints, postsurgical recovery data, postoperative morbidity and mortality, overall survival and disease-free survival were compared among OS, LS, and HALS groups. All data were analyzed by SPSS 22.0.Finally, 69 consecutive patients (OS = 26, LS = 24, HALS = 19) with right colon cancers were included in the analysis. Compared with OS, HALS was associated with less time to first anus exhaust (P = .013), first liquid diet (P = .045), and first soft diet (P = .036). Meanwhile, there were significant less operative time (P = .0027), blood loss (P < .001), and less time to first liquid diet (P = .009) in HALS, compared with LS. In regards to long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in overall survival and disease-free survival among the 3 groups.Compared with OS or LS, HALS may be more favorable in the treatment of elderly right colon cancers with decreased surgical time and postoperative recovery, and comparable cancer-specific survivals.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopy: Expensive but Considerable Step Between Laparoscopic and Open Colectomy

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) have been shown to have comparable short-term outcomes while there are limited data regarding costs. The aim of our study was to compare the short-term outcomes and costs of HALC and LAC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 46 patients who underwent HALC or LAC for benign or malignant disease between January 2011 and December 2014 at our institution were included in the study. Patients were randomized into HALC or LAC group. Patients' demographics and characteristics, operative details, short-term outcomes, and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 25 patients in LAC group and 21 patients in HALC group. Patient's demographics and characteristics and short-term outcomes were comparable between the LAC and HALC groups. Conversion rate was significantly lower in the HALC group (4.7% vs. 28%, P=0.03) while surgical costs ($1706.83±203.70 vs. $1304.93±305.67, P=0.038) and total costs ($2427.18±254.27 vs. $2044.03±215.22, P=0.021) were significantly higher in HALC group.

CONCLUSIONS

HALC is associated with increased surgical and total hospital costs, and decreased rate of conversion. Although it is more expensive, HALC may be helpful by providing a step between LAC and open surgery before considering conversion.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis

Objective

The objective of this study is to systematically assess the clinical efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).

Methods

The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were collected by searching electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). The outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using of RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

A total of five studies involving 438 patients were finally included, with 202 cases in HALS group and 236 cases in LRC group. Results of meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between HALS and LRC in terms of conversion rate, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. The operative time was 6.5 min shorter in HALS group; however, it was not a clinically significant difference. Although the incision length was longer in HALS, it did not influence the postoperative recovery.

Conclusions

HALS can be considered an alternative to LRC which combines the advantages of open as well as laparoscopic surgery.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on March 31, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, conversion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and readmission), and 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine articles published between 2007 and 2016 with a total of 1307 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer length of incision. No differences were found for operative time, blood loss, transfusion, conversion, lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, readmission, or 5-year survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that HALS is similar to LAS for CRC surgery in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes except for the longer length of incision.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and to explore the safety, feasibility of HALS for CRC surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on April 23, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first liquid diet, time to first soft diet, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, urinary complication, pulmonary infection, and mortality).

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2007 and 2017 with a total of 1962 patients with CRC were included in our meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, smaller length of incision, shorter hospital days and postoperative hospital days, less time to first flatus, less wound infection, and less postoperative complications. There was no difference in blood transfusion, lymph node harvested, time to first liquid or soft diet, time to first bowel movement, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, urinary complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that HALS in CRC surgery improves cosmesis and results in better postoperative recovery outcomes by reducing postoperative complications and hospital days. Furthermore, a large randomized control study is warranted to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of those 2 techniques for CRC treatment.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

In recent years, the use of laparoscopic surgery has been expanded to include radical curative resection. In a previous study, 212 patients with primary colorectal cancer (stages I-III) underwent radical curative resection by hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (n=98) or conventional laparotomy (CL) (n=114) and were compared with respect to 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS). The study included 210/212 patients who were followed up to 5 years, including 96 patients who underwent HALS and 114 treated with CL. The two groups were matched for stage, clinical background, and postoperative management. Patient characteristics were compared and the 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS were determined. The 5-year follow-up rate was 97.6%. In stage I-III patients, 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS showed no significant differences between HALS and CL. The patients with stage I disease accounted for 41.7% (40/96) of the patients undergoing HALS, while stage I patients only accounted for 23.7% (27/114) of the patients undergoing CL, and the difference was significant (P=0.005). Stage II patients undergoing CL were older than those treated with HALS (P=0.017). However, there were no differences in the characteristics of stage III patients undergoing HALS or CL. In conclusion, HALS achieved a similar survival to CL in patients with stage I to III colorectal cancer. Compared with CL, HALS was performed more safely and achieved superior cosmetic results.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Standard Laparoscopic Colectomy: Are Outcomes and Operative Time Different?

BACKGROUND

HAL colectomy is a technique perceived to provide the benefits of laparoscopic surgery while improving tactile feedback and operative time. Published data are largely limited to small, single-institution studies.

METHODS

The 2012-2013 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Data Use File was queried for patients undergoing elective SL or HAL colectomy. Patients underwent 1:1 propensity matching and had outcomes compared. An additional subgroup analysis was performed for patients undergoing segmental resections only.

RESULTS

13,949 patients were identified, of whom 6084 (43.6 %) underwent HAL colectomy. Patients undergoing HAL versus SL colectomy had higher rates of postoperative ileus (8.7 vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001), wound complication (8.8 vs. 6.8 %, p = 0.006), and 30-day readmission (7.5 vs. 6.0 %, p = 0.002), without any differences in operative time (156 vs. 157 min, p = 0.713). Amongst segmental colectomies, HAL remained associated with higher rates of wound complications (8.6 vs. 6.5 %, p = 0.016), postoperative ileus (8.9 vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001), and 30-day readmission (7.1 vs. 5.9 %, p = 0.041) with no difference in operative time between HAL and SL (145 vs. 145 min, p = 0.334).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of HAL colectomy is associated with increased risk of wound complications, postoperative ileus, and readmissions. Importantly, this technique is not associated with any decrease in operative time.

Comparison of straight vs hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: an assessment from the NSQIP procedure-targeted cohort

BACKGROUND

The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent straight laparoscopic (LAP) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) surgery were compared using a recently released procedure-targeted database.

METHODS

The 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used and patients were classified into 2 groups according to the final surgical approach: LAP vs HALS. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 7,843 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 4,656 (59%) patients in LAP colectomy and 3,187 (41%) in HALS colectomy groups. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Mean operative time was slightly longer in LAP group (178 ± 86 vs 171 ± 84 minutes, P < .001). After covariate-adjustment analysis, the overall morbidity, superficial surgical site infection, and ileus rates remained slightly higher in HALS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both straight laparoscopic and hand-assisted approaches are used in colorectal surgery and may complement each other in challenging cases. Implementing the best approach to decrease postoperative complication rates and increase use of minimally invasive techniques may play a role in improving patient care and overall quality.

Comparative Study on Therapeutic Efficacy Between Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery and Conventional Laparotomy for Acute Obstructive Right-Sided Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aims to compare open colectomy and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in the management of acute obstructive right-sided colon cancer and to analyze and evaluate the feasibility and safety of HALS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy due to acute obstructive right-sided colon cancer were retrospectively well matched with 25 patients scheduled for a conventional laparotomy during the same time. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were assessed.

RESULTS

The HALS group had the advantage in the length of incision (5.8±0.7 cm) over the conventional group (16±2.3 cm) (P<.05), and the mean blood loss during the operations was significantly less in the HALS group (30±15.2 mL) than in the laparotomy group (90±29.4 mL) (P<.05). Moreover, the time of postoperative ambulation was earlier (2.5±0.8 days versus 3.2±0.9 days) (P<.05). Seven cases underwent intestinal decompression for severe intestinal dilatation and had a satisfactory result. The hand-assisted device can fairly meet the demands of a minimally invasive operation and can protect the abdominal incision and avoid infection. There was no intergroup difference in complication rate, although the conventional group had a higher rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, compared with conventional laparotomy for acute obstructive right-sided colon neoplasm, HALS is associated with less blood loss, shorter incision, and earlier ambulation. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy can be safely performed in patients with obstructing right-sided colonic carcinoma. If practiced more, it might be advocated as a bridge between the conventional open approach and traditional laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for rectal cancer: Interim results from a single center

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has become widespread and the indications for such surgery have recently been extended to various conditions, including rectal cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy (CL) in patients with rectal cancer. Patients who underwent radical resection of stage I-III primary rectal cancer (n=111) were classified into those receiving HALS (n=57) and those receiving CL (n=54); the two groups were matched for stage and postoperative treatment. The 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS) were calculated and compared between the two groups. Intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative hospital stay and complications were also compared between the two groups. There were no significant differenceS in 3Y-RFS or 3Y-OS between the HALS and CL groups for patients with all-stage (I, II and III) rectal cancer. The mean (median) intraoperative blood loss was 344.0 (247.0) ML in the HALS group vs. 807.5 (555.5) ML in the CL group (P<0.001). The mean (median) postoperative hospital stay was 19.8 (17) and 25.5 (18.3) days, respectively (P=0.039). There were no significant differences in the operating time or the incidence of complications between the two groups. Based on these results, HALS was found to be comparable to CL regarding survival, while achieving less blood loss and a superior cosmetic outcome. However, longer follow-up is required to confirm these findings.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy: a prospective study

BACKGROUD

The feasibility and safety of Hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy (HALG) have been seldom reported, also, benefits and outcomes are not defined.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive and in-depth comparative analysis of the general information, the intraoperative data and postoperative data in the Group HALG and the Group laparoscopy-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy (LAG).

RESULTS

The general data of HALG and LAG were no differences (P > 0.05); the blood loss and unexpected injury were similar(P > 0.05); the operative time, the incision length, the number of lymph nodes recovered, the rate of procedure conversion, the amount of postoperative complications, and the length of postoperative hospital stay of Group HALG were prior to that of Group LAG(P < 0.05); there were no differences for the pain score after day 2, the recovery time of intestinal function, the rate of reoperation, the 30-day hospital and readmission rate(P > 0.05); and there were significant linear correlations between the length of postoperative hospital stay and the operative time for both groups(P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Compared with LAG, HALG had similar features of being minimally invasive and radical in treating gastric cancers, and HALG was safer than LAG.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for colorectal cancer: Interim results from a single institution

The present study aimed to compare the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy (CL) at a single institution in Japan. Of the 212 patients with stage I/II/III colorectal cancer who received a curative resection, 98 patients underwent HALS and 114 patients underwent CL. The clinical background and post-operative management did not differ between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the 3-year relapse-free and 3-year overall survival rates between the HALS and CL groups for the patients in any stage. Blood loss during surgery was 250.1 and 135.5 ml (mean and median; the same hereafter) in stage I patients receiving HALS versus 608.2 and 315.5 ml in stage I CL patients (P=0.006), while it was 277.6 and 146 ml in stage II patients receiving HALS versus 548.6 and 347 ml in stage II CL patients (P=0.004). Post-operative hospital stay was recorded at 16.8 and 15 days in stage III patients receiving HALS versus 23.1 and 21 days in stage III CL patients (P=0.001). There were no significant differences in the operating time or complications between the two groups. These results indicate that the survival rate was comparable for HALS and CL, while HALS caused less surgical stress and achieved a better cosmetic outcome. The results of the final analysis of this cohort are awaited.

Transverse skin crease versus vertical midline incision versus laparoscopy for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review--current status of right hemicolectomy

PURPOSE

The right hemicolectomy may be conducted through laparoscopic or laparotomic surgery, transverse or midline incisions. The transverse laparotomy offers some advantages compared to the midline laparotomy and laparoscopy. A literature review was performed to evaluate the possible advantages of the transverse incision versus midline incision or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.

METHODS

A systematic research was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, BioMed Central, and the Science Citation Index.

RESULTS

Laparotomic right hemicolectomy with transverse incision is preferable to laparotomic hemicolectomy with midline incision. A transverse incision offers a lessened postoperative pain following physical activity, a lessened need to administer analgesic therapy during the post-operative time, better aesthetic results, and a better post-operative pulmonary function. Open surgery with transverse or midline incision ensured a shorter operative time, lower costs and a greater length of the incision compared to the laparoscopic. However, there are no differences in the oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

It was not possible to identify significant differences between the open right hemicolectomy with transverse incision versus the open right hemicolectomy with midline incision or laparoscopic hemicolectomy.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy - systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since 2005, after an initial scanty spreading, the vast majority of surgeons advice against the intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis following right hemicolectomies. In the subsequent years, greater interest was re-discovered for the intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis formed after video-assisted right hemicolectomies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the intra-abdominal versus extra-abdominal anastomosis after right laparoscopic colectomy.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, BioMed Central and the Science Citation Index.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 191 publications were identified; seven non-randomized studies published between 2004 and 2012 with a total of 945 patients, who underwent laparoscopic right colectomy for malignant and benign disease, were included in this systematic review.

INTERVENTION

Intra-abdominal versus extra-abdominal confectioning of ileo-coloc anastomosis after right laparoscopic colectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Anastomotic leak, overall post-operative morbidity and overall 30-days post-operative mortality.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leak rate resulted similar in IA (1.13%) and EA (1.84%) group (P=0.81, OR of 0.90, 95% CI 0.24-3.10) (Chi(2)=3.90, P=0.42, I(2)=0%). The mortality rate was lower in the IA group (0.34% versus 1.32%), although no statistically difference was demonstrated between the two groups (P = 0.48, OR of 0.52 95% CI 0.09-3.10). It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis of post-operative morbidity as the data reported in the included studies were too heterogeneous.

LIMITATIONS

The weakness in our results was due to the lack of evidence in current published literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review of literature and meta-analysis failed to solve the controversies between intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Future randomized, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate different surgical anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.