BACKGROUND: Although nowadays considered as feasible and effective surgery in terms of short- and long-term results and oncological radicality, laparoscopic right colectomy is performed by a small number of surgeons, and in the vast majority of cases, this technique was performed with an extracorporeal anastomosis. Current literature failed to solve the controversies between intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS: A multicenter case-controlled study has been designed, including 286 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) compared with 226 matched patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in terms of age, sex, BMI, and ASA score between the two groups. Surgical post history, tumor localization, and stage of disease according to AJCC/UICC TNM were similar too. Although similar oncologic radicality in term of number of lymph nodes harvested (25.7 ± 10.7 of IA group vs. 24.8 ± 8.7 of EA group; p = 0.3), as well as similar operative time (166 ± 43.7 min. in IA group vs. 157.5 ± 67.2 min in EA group) have been registered, time to flatus was statistically lower after intracorporeal anastomosis (40.8 ± 24.3 h in TLRC group vs. 55.2 ± 19.2 h in LARC group; p < 0.001) Laparoscopic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with a lower rate of post-operative complications (OR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.44, 0.95, p = 0.027). However, when stratifying according to clavien classification, the difference was consistently confirmed for less severe (class I and II) complications (OR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.42, 0.94, p = 0.025), but not for class III, IV, and V complications (OR 1.015, 95 % CI 0.64, 1.6, p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Our results are encouraging to consider the intracorporeally approach the better way to fashion the anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy. This study clearly provides the rationale for a randomized clinical trial, which would be useful to give definitive conclusion.
BACKGROUND: Although nowadays considered as feasible and effective surgery in terms of short- and long-term results and oncological radicality, laparoscopic right colectomy is performed by a small number of surgeons, and in the vast majority of cases, this technique was performed with an extracorporeal anastomosis. Current literature failed to solve the controversies between intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS: A multicenter case-controlled study has been designed, including 286 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) compared with 226 matched patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in terms of age, sex, BMI, and ASA score between the two groups. Surgical post history, tumor localization, and stage of disease according to AJCC/UICC TNM were similar too. Although similar oncologic radicality in term of number of lymph nodes harvested (25.7 ± 10.7 of IA group vs. 24.8 ± 8.7 of EA group; p = 0.3), as well as similar operative time (166 ± 43.7 min. in IA group vs. 157.5 ± 67.2 min in EA group) have been registered, time to flatus was statistically lower after intracorporeal anastomosis (40.8 ± 24.3 h in TLRC group vs. 55.2 ± 19.2 h in LARC group; p < 0.001) Laparoscopic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with a lower rate of post-operative complications (OR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.44, 0.95, p = 0.027). However, when stratifying according to clavien classification, the difference was consistently confirmed for less severe (class I and II) complications (OR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.42, 0.94, p = 0.025), but not for class III, IV, and V complications (OR 1.015, 95 % CI 0.64, 1.6, p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Our results are encouraging to consider the intracorporeally approach the better way to fashion the anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy. This study clearly provides the rationale for a randomized clinical trial, which would be useful to give definitive conclusion.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Milone; U Elmore; M E Allaix; P P Bianchi; A Biondi; L Boni; U Bracale; E Cassinotti; G Ceccarelli; F Corcione; D Cuccurullo; M Degiuli; Nicolò De Manzini; D D'Ugo; G Formisano; M Manigrasso; M Morino; S Palmisano; R Persiani; R Reddavid; F Rondelli; N Velotti; R Rosati; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J Bollo; P Salas; M C Martinez; P Hernandez; A Rabal; E Carrillo; E Targarona Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: David Parés; Awad Shamali; Sam Stefan; Karen Flashman; Daniel O'Leary; John Conti; Asha Senapati; Amjad Parvaiz; Jim Khan Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: L Martinek; K You; S Giuratrabocchetta; M Gachabayov; K Lee; R Bergamaschi Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 2.571