AIM: Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is standard practice in anterior resections. No previous studies have compared outcomes with and without SFM in laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to determine whether routine or selective SFM should be advised. METHOD: Data were collected prospectively on all elective anterior resections for cancer in our unit between October 2006 and November 2009. RESULTS: Of 263 resections, SFM data were recorded in 216; 138 were laparoscopic (32% with SFM, 3.6% converted) and 78 open (68% with SFM). Eighty-eight were low anterior resections (LARs) for mid-low rectal cancers, with 54 laparoscopic (50% with SFM) and 34 open (91% with SFM). Comparing laparoscopic with SFM to without, differences were found in the proportion of LARs (61%vs 29%, P<0.001), defunctioning ileostomy rates (75%vs 46%, P=0.001) and operative time (median 255 vs 185 min, P<0.001), with no differences in age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, preoperative treatment, length of stay, lymph node yield, conversion rate, mortality, anastomotic leakage, reoperation, readmission and R0 resection. No differences in outcomes were seen between laparoscopic LARs with and without SFM or between open resections with and without SFM. CONCLUSION: Our results show no disadvantage in short-term clinical or oncological outcomes when SFM was avoided. Laparoscopic anterior resections with SFM take longer. A selective approach to SFM is safe during anterior resection (open or laparoscopic), including mid-low rectal cancers.
AIM: Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is standard practice in anterior resections. No previous studies have compared outcomes with and without SFM in laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery. This study aimed to determine whether routine or selective SFM should be advised. METHOD: Data were collected prospectively on all elective anterior resections for cancer in our unit between October 2006 and November 2009. RESULTS: Of 263 resections, SFM data were recorded in 216; 138 were laparoscopic (32% with SFM, 3.6% converted) and 78 open (68% with SFM). Eighty-eight were low anterior resections (LARs) for mid-low rectal cancers, with 54 laparoscopic (50% with SFM) and 34 open (91% with SFM). Comparing laparoscopic with SFM to without, differences were found in the proportion of LARs (61%vs 29%, P<0.001), defunctioning ileostomy rates (75%vs 46%, P=0.001) and operative time (median 255 vs 185 min, P<0.001), with no differences in age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, preoperative treatment, length of stay, lymph node yield, conversion rate, mortality, anastomotic leakage, reoperation, readmission and R0 resection. No differences in outcomes were seen between laparoscopic LARs with and without SFM or between open resections with and without SFM. CONCLUSION: Our results show no disadvantage in short-term clinical or oncological outcomes when SFM was avoided. Laparoscopic anterior resections with SFM take longer. A selective approach to SFM is safe during anterior resection (open or laparoscopic), including mid-low rectal cancers.
Authors: R M Carlson; P L Roberts; J F Hall; P W Marcello; D J Schoetz; T E Read; R Ricciardi Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Michał Nowakowski; Piotr Małczak; Magdalena Mizera; Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Anna Lasek; Mateusz Wierdak; Piotr Major; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-10-27 Impact factor: 4.241