2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

          Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without data from large-scale randomised trials to support its use. We compared short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer to predict long-term outcomes. Between July, 1996, and July, 2002, we undertook a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 794 patients with colorectal cancer from 27 UK centres. Patients were allocated to receive laparoscopic-assisted (n=526) or open surgery (n=268). Primary short-term endpoints were positivity rates of circumferential and longitudinal resection margins, proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours, and in-hospital mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial has been assigned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN74883561. Six patients (two [open], four [laparoscopic]) had no surgery, and 23 had missing surgical data (nine, 14). 253 and 484 patients actually received open and laparoscopic-assisted treatment, respectively. 143 (29%) patients underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Proportion of Dukes' C2 tumours did not differ between treatments (18 [7%] patients, open vs 34 [6%], laparoscopic; difference -0.3%, 95% CI -3.9 to 3.4%, p=0.89), and neither did in-hospital mortality (13 [5%] vs 21 [4%]; -0.9%, -3.9 to 2.2%, p=0.57). Apart from patients undergoing laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer, rates of positive resection margins were similar between treatment groups. Patients with converted treatment had raised complication rates. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cancer of the colon is as effective as open surgery in the short term and is likely to produce similar long-term outcomes. However, impaired short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum do not yet justify its routine use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.

            Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer. Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842. During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]). Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group.

              The aim of the current study is to report the long-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with conventional open surgery within the context of the UK MRC CLASICC trial. Results from randomized trials have indicated that laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in the short term. Few data are available on rectal cancer, and long-term data on survival and recurrence are now required. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC; clinical trials number ISRCTN 74883561) trial study comparing conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with cancer of the colon and rectum. The randomization ratio was 2:1 in favor of laparoscopic surgery. Long-term outcomes (3-year overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], local recurrence, and quality of life [QoL]) have now been determined on an intention-to-treat basis. Seven hundred ninety-four patients were recruited (526 laparoscopic and 268 open). Overall, there were no differences in the long-term outcomes. The differences in survival rates were OS of 1.8% (95% CI, -5.2% to 8.8%; P = .55), DFS of -1.4% (95% CI, -9.5% to 6.7%; P = .70), local recurrence of -0.8% (95% CI, -5.7% to 4.2%; P = .76), and QoL (P > .01 for all scales). Higher positivity of the circumferential resection margin was reported after laparoscopic anterior resection (AR), but it did not translate into an increased incidence of local recurrence. Successful laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colon cancer is as effective as open surgery in terms of oncological outcomes and preservation of QoL. Long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer were similar in those undergoing abdominoperineal resection and AR, and support the continued use of laparoscopic surgery in these patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Surg Treat Res
                Ann Surg Treat Res
                ASTR
                Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
                The Korean Surgical Society
                2288-6575
                2288-6796
                July 2024
                28 June 2024
                : 107
                : 1
                : 42-49
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
                [2 ]Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Woo Ram Kim. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06273, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2019-3378, Fax: +82-2-3462-5994, wrkim81@ 123456yuhs.ac
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7034-6996
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9315-8058
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1651-3778
                Article
                10.4174/astr.2024.107.1.42
                11227917
                38978687
                d649e653-0c3d-4427-af25-5a71a6c07a92
                Copyright © 2024, the Korean Surgical Society

                Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 March 2024
                : 08 May 2024
                : 08 May 2024
                Categories
                Original Article
                Colorectal

                surgical anastomosis,laparoscopy,hemicolectomy
                surgical anastomosis, laparoscopy, hemicolectomy

                Comments

                Comment on this article