Complete mesocolic excision in right hemicolectomy: comparison between hand-assisted laparoscopic and open approaches

Complete mesocolic excision for right hemicolectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Complete mesocolic excision improves lymphadenectomy for right hemicolectomy and respects the embryological planes. However, its effect on cancer-free and overall survival is questioned. Therefore, we aimed to determine the potential benefits of the technique by performing a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the available evidence.

METHODS

Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, and Embase were searched on February 22, 2023. Original studies on short- and long-term oncological outcomes of adult patients undergoing right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision as a treatment for primary colon cancer were considered for inclusion. Outcomes were extracted and pooled using a model with random effects.

RESULTS

A total of 586 publications were identified through database searching, and 18 from citation searching. Exclusion of 552 articles left 24 articles for inclusion. Meta-analysis showed that complete mesocolic excision increased the lymph node harvest (5 studies, 1479 patients, MD 9.62, 95% CI 5.83-13.41, p > 0.0001, I2 84%), 5-year overall survival (5 studies, 2381 patients, OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.14-3.09, p = 0.01, I2 66%), 5-year disease-free survival (4 studies, 1376 patients, OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.51-3.23, p < 0.0001, I2 0%) and decreased the incidence of local recurrence (4 studies, 818 patients, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.79, p = 0.02, I2 0%) when compared to standard right hemicolectomy. Perioperative morbidity was similar between the techniques (8 studies, 3899 patients, OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89-1.22, p = 0.97, I2 0%).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of observational and randomised studies showed that right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision for primary right colon cancer improves oncologic results without increasing morbidity/mortality. These results need to be confirmed by high-quality evidence and randomised trials in selected patients to assess who may benefit from the procedure.

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.

Reduced port versus open right hemicolectomy for colorectal cancer: a retrospective comparison study of two centers

PURPOSE

The concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) in right-sided colorectal cancer is well known for open and laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of reduced port and open surgery for right-sided colorectal cancer.

METHODS

One hundred forty-one patients received elective surgery for right-sided colonic cancer between January 2015 and December 2019 and were included in a retrospective database.

RESULTS

We observed longer operation time in the RP-CME group (145 min vs. 119.43 min, p<0.01). Hospital stay (8 days vs. 14 days, p<0.01) and time to first intestinal passage (42 h. vs. 59 h, p<0.01) were significantly shorter in the reduced port group. Postoperative complications were more likely to be observed in the O-CME group (7.2% vs. 14.1%, p=0.28); anastomotic leakage rate was low in both groups (1.8% vs. 2.4%, p=1.00). Specimen scores (score 1= good: 93.8% vs. 91.7%, p=1.00) and average number of retrieved lymph nodes were comparable (24 vs. 23 p=0.69). In O-CME patients, we observed more advanced tumor stages (UICC III: 21.4% vs. 45.9%, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing reduced port to open surgery for right-sided colorectal cancer. We could demonstrate that this technique is feasible for oncological right hemicolectomy with observation of shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates compared to open surgery. The oncological outcome did not differ in the present study.

Complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymphadenectomy with central vascular ligation in right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review of postoperative outcomes, tumor recurrence and overall survival

BACKGROUND

In right-sided colon cancer surgery, currently there is a great deal of discussion and debate regarding complete mesocolic excision (CME) versus conventional right hemicolectomy (CRH) on postoperative outcomes and oncological results. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of the short- and long-term outcomes of CME to standardize surgical approach in patients with right-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed examining available data on randomized and non-randomized studies evaluating the role of CME and D3 lymphadenectomy in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards.

RESULTS

After literature search, 919 studies have been recorded, 110 studies underwent full-text reviews and 30 studies met inclusion criteria. The total number of CME procedures was 5931. Postoperative complications was reported in 28 studies with pooled overall complications of 1.88% for CME surgery. Six studies reported 0% of overall postoperative complications and they demonstrated a low incidence of complications following CME procedure. Anastomotic leak was reported in 27 studies with pooled proportion of 0.92% after CME resections. There were 16 papers reporting overall survival following CME procedure, with a mean of 85% of patients survived at 5 years. Mean 5-year overall survival was 93.05% in stage I patients, 89.76% in stage II patients and 79.65% in stage III patients. Local and distant recurrence were included in 21 studies, reporting tumor recurrence rate of 12.25% following CME. 5-year tumor recurrence was 5.8% in stage I patients, 7.68% in stage II patients and 15.69% in stage III patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CME does not increase the risk of postoperative complications and significantly improves the long-term oncological impact. Prospective multicentre studies results are needed to verify if CME could be considered standard surgery for right colon cancer.

Laparoscopic versus Open Complete Mesocolic Excision for Right Colon Cancer

Results

The mean operative time was significantly longer in the LCME group than that in the OCME group with less mean intraoperative blood loss. Conversion was required in 4 patients (8.3%) in the LCME group. The use of laparoscopy increased the number of harvested lymph nodes compared to the open approach (39.81 ± 16.74 vs. 32.65 ± 12.28, respectively, P=0.010). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a shorter time interval to first flatus as well as shorter time interval to liquid and normal diet after surgery. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LCME group. The complication rate was slightly lower in the LCME (14.7%) than in the OCME group (27.2%) (P=0.252). The 3-year OS in the LCME group was similar to that in OCME (78.2% vs. 63.2%, respectively, P value = 0.423). The three-year DFS in the laparoscopic group was higher (74.5%) than the open group (60.0%), but did not reach statistical significance (P value = 0.266).

Conclusions

In conclusion, laparoscopic CME right hemicolectomy is a technically feasible and safe procedure if surgeon expertise is present. LCME has long-term oncologic outcomes (recurrence and survival) comparable to open surgery for management of patients with stage II or III colon cancer.

A global systematic review and meta-analysis on laparoscopic vs open right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of right hemicolectomy with CME performed with laparoscopic and open surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Google Scholar and the ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched. Primary outcome was the overall number of harvested lymph nodes. Secondary outcomes were short and long-term course variables. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were identified with 5038 patients enrolled. The difference in number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically significant (MD 0.68, - 0.41-1.76, P = 0.22). The only RCT shows a significant advantage in favour of laparoscopy (MD 3.30, 95% CI - 0.20-6.40, P = 0.04). The analysis of CCTs showed an advantage in favour of the laparoscopic group, but the result was not statically significantly (MD - 0.55, 95% CI - 0.57-1.67, P = 0.33). The overall incidence of local recurrence was not different between the groups, while systemic recurrence at 5 years was lower in laparoscopic group. Laparoscopy showed better short-term outcomes including overall complications, lower estimated blood loss, lower wound infections and shorter hospital stay, despite a longer operative time. The rate of anastomotic and chyle leak was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the several limitations of this study, we found that the median number of lymph node harvested in the laparoscopic group is not different compared to open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with a lower incidence of systemic recurrence.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Complete Mesocolon Excision in Right Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic complete mesocolon excision (LCME) for right colonic cancer improves oncological outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes after LCME and open total mesocolon excision (OCME) for right-sided colonic cancers.

METHODS

Literature searches of electronic databases and manual searches up to January 31, 2019, were performed. Random-effects meta-analysis model was used. Review Manager Version 5.3 was used for pooled estimates.

RESULTS

After screening 1334 articles, 10 articles with a total of 2778 patients were eligible for inclusion. Compared to OCME, LCME improves results in terms of overall morbidity (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.80, p = 0.0001), blood loss (MD = 56.56, 95% CI 19.05 to 94.06, p = 0.003), hospital stay (MD = 2.18 day, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.83, p = 0.009), and local (OR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.12, p = 0.03) and distant recurrence (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.23-2.16, p = 0.0008). There was no significant difference regarding mortality, anastomosis leakage, number of harvested lymph nodes, and 3-year disease-free survival. Open approach was significantly better than laparoscopy in terms of operative time (MD = - 34.76 min, 95% CI - 46.01 to - 23.50, p < 0.00001) and chyle leakage (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that LCME in right colon cancer surgery is superior to OCME in terms of overall morbidity, blood loss, hospital stay, and local and distant recurrence with a moderate grade of recommendation due to the retrospective nature of the included studies.

A meta-analysis comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and open right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer

Background

Mini-invasive colorectal cancer surgery was adopted widely in recent years. This meta-analysis aimed to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open right hemicolectomy (OS) for malignant disease.

Methods

PRISMA guidelines with random effects model were adopted using Review Manager Version 5.3 for pooled estimates.

Results

Seven studies that involved 506 patients were included. Compared to OS, HALS improved results in terms of blood loss (MD = 53.67, 95% CI 10.67 to 96.67, p = 0.01), time to first flatus (MD = 21.11, 95% CI 14.99 to 27.23, p < 0.00001), postoperative pain score, and overall hospital stay (MD = 3.47, 95% CI 2.12 to 4.82, p < 0.00001). There was no difference as concerns post-operative mortality, morbidity (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.7, p = 0.12), wound infection (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.76, p = 0.32), operative time (MD = − 16.10, 95% CI [− 36.57 to 4.36], p = 0.12), harvested lymph nodes (MD = 0.59, 95% CI − 0.18 to 1.36, p = 0.13), and recurrence (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.15, p = 0.96).

Conclusions

HALS is an efficient alternative to OS in right colectomy which combines the advantages of OS with the mini-invasive surgery.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of daikenchuto on improving intestinal dysfunction after abdominal surgery

Purpose

Intestinal dysfunction is one of the most common complications in patients after abdominal surgery. Daikenchuto (DKT), a traditional herbal medicine, is recently employed to improve postoperative intestinal dysfunction. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of DKT in improving intestinal dysfunction after abdominal surgery.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trails (RCTs) in adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery, who were randomly distributed to administrate DKT and placebo. The primary outcomes included the time to first postoperative flatus or bowel movement. We used random-effects models to calculate summary mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Nine RCTs totaling 1,212 patients (618 in DKT, 594 in control group) were included in our study. Compared with control group, DKT can effectively improve postoperative intestinal dysfunction by shortening the time to first postoperative flatus (MD, −0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.66 to −0.16; P = 0.001) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 71%, P = 0.004), and bowel movement (MD, −0.65; 95% CI, −0.97 to −0.32; P < 0.001) without significant heterogeneity (I² = 40%, P = 0.14). Sensitivity analyses by indication of surgery and type of surgery yielded similar results.

Conclusion

These data provide limited evidence that DKT shows efficacy on improving intestinal dysfunction after abdominal surgery. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously, due to the heterogeneity of the studies included. Thus, the efficacy of DKT on improving postoperative intestinal dysfunction warrants further investigation.

Implementing complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer - mission completed?

The definition of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon carcinomas revolutionized the way of colon surgery. This technique conquered the world starting from Erlangen. Nevertheless, currently new developments especially in minimally invasive surgery challenge CME to become settled as a standard of care. To understand the evolution of CME, anatomical details occurring during embryogenesis and their variations have to be considered. This knowledge is indispensable to transfer CME from an open to a minimally invasive setting. Conventional surgery for colon cancer (non-CME) has a morbidity of 12.1–28.5% and a 3.7% mortality risk vs. 12–36.4% morbidity and 2.1–3% mortality for open CME. The morbidity of laparoscopic CME is between 4 and 31% with a mortality of 0.5–0.9%. In robotic assisted surgery, morbidity between 10 and 25% with a mortality of 1% was published. The cancer-related survival after 3 and 5 years for open CME is respectively 91.3–95% and 90% vs. 87% and 74% for non-CME. For laparoscopic CME the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 87.8–97% and 79.5–80.2%. In stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 83.9% and 80.8% in the Erlangen data of open technique vs. 75.4% and 65.5–71.7% for laparoscopic surgery. For stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year local tumor recurrence is 3.8%. The published data and the results from Erlangen demonstrate that CME is safe in experienced hands with no increased morbidity. It offers an obvious survival benefit for the patients which can be achieved solely by surgery. Teaching programs are needed for minimally invasive CME to facilitate this technique in the same quality compared to open surgery. Passing these challenges CME will become the standard of care for patients with colon carcinomas offering all benefits of minimally invasive surgery and oncological outcome.

The current status of treatment for colorectal cancer in China: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers all over the world, but its epidemiology is obviously different in various regions.

METHODS

The treatment of CRC also has varying characteristics due to differences in economy, geography, disease onset, chemotherapy, and other factors, although international guidelines are used to guide the treatment of CRC in China.

RESULTS

This paper summarizes the current status of CRC treatment, including surgical therapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy, postoperative chemotherapy, targeted therapy, maintenance therapy, and immunotherapy, according to the clinical situation in China, so as to provide better therapy and improve clinical practice for patients with CRC.

CONCLUSION

This research shows that the treatment of colorectal cancer continues to progress, and the patient's efficacy and quality of life have improved.

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.