Emanuele Rausa1, Michael Eamon Kelly2, Emanuele Asti3, Alberto Aiolfi3, Gianluca Bonitta3, Luigi Bonavina3. 1. Division of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. emarausa@yahoo.it. 2. Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Division of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost analysis; Laparoscopy; Postoperative complications; Right hemicolectomy; Robotic surgery
Authors: Jennifer S Lin; Margaret A Piper; Leslie A Perdue; Carolyn M Rutter; Elizabeth M Webber; Elizabeth O'Connor; Ning Smith; Evelyn P Whitlock Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Cristián Jarry; Leonardo Cárcamo; Juan José González; Felipe Bellolio; Rodrigo Miguieles; Gonzalo Urrejola; Alvaro Zúñiga; Fernando Crovari; María Elena Molina; José Tomás Larach Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2020-06-30
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: Giuseppe Giuliani; Francesco Guerra; Diego Coletta; Antonio Giuliani; Lucia Salvischiani; Angela Tribuzi; Giuseppe Caravaglios; Alfredo Genovese; Andrea Coratti Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Julie Flynn; Jose T Larach; Joseph C H Kong; Satish K Warrier; Alexander Heriot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Marco Milone; Antonella Desiderio; Nunzio Velotti; Michele Manigrasso; Sara Vertaldi; Umberto Bracale; Michele D'Ambra; Giuseppe Servillo; Giuseppe De Simone; Fatima Domenica Elisa De Palma; Giuseppe Perruolo; Gregory Alexander Raciti; Claudia Miele; Francesco Beguinot; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.379