S H Emile1, H Elfeki2,3, M Shalaby2, A Sakr2,4, M Bassuni2,5, P Christensen3, S D Wexner6. 1. Colorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 Elgomhuoria Street, PO: 35516, Mansoura, Egypt. sameh200@hotmail.com. 2. Colorectal Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University Hospitals, Mansoura University, 60 Elgomhuoria Street, PO: 35516, Mansoura, Egypt. 3. Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Colorectal Surgery Department, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Surgery, King's College London, London, UK. 6. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive colectomy has become the standard for treatment of colonic disease in many centers. Restoration of bowel continuity following resection can be achieved by intracorporeal (IC) or extracorporeal (EC) anastomosis. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes of IC compared to EC anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic literature search for studies assessing the outcome of IC and EC anastomosis in laparoscopic and robot-assisted right colectomy was conducted. The primary outcome of this review was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, length of stay, conversion to open surgery, and bowel recovery. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies including 4450 patients were evaluated. 47.7% of patients had IC anastomosis and 52.3% had EC anastomosis. The weighted mean length of extraction site incision in the IC group was shorter than the EC group. The EC group had significantly higher odds of conversion to open surgery (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1-3.45, p = 0.046), total complications (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.11, p = 0.007), anastomotic leakage (AL) (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.4-2.7, p = 0.003), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.4-2.6, p = 0.002), and incisional hernia (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85-5.33, p < 0.001) compared to the IC group. Both groups had similar rates of ileus, small bowel obstruction, bleeding, and intra-abdominal infection. CONCLUSION: IC anastomosis was associated with significantly shorter extraction site incisions, earlier bowel recovery, fewer complications, and lower rates of conversion, AL, SSI, and incisional hernia than has the EC anastomosis.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive colectomy has become the standard for treatment of colonic disease in many centers. Restoration of bowel continuity following resection can be achieved by intracorporeal (IC) or extracorporeal (EC) anastomosis. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes of IC compared to EC anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic literature search for studies assessing the outcome of IC and EC anastomosis in laparoscopic and robot-assisted right colectomy was conducted. The primary outcome of this review was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, length of stay, conversion to open surgery, and bowel recovery. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies including 4450 patients were evaluated. 47.7% of patients had IC anastomosis and 52.3% had EC anastomosis. The weighted mean length of extraction site incision in the IC group was shorter than the EC group. The EC group had significantly higher odds of conversion to open surgery (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1-3.45, p = 0.046), total complications (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.11, p = 0.007), anastomotic leakage (AL) (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.4-2.7, p = 0.003), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.4-2.6, p = 0.002), and incisional hernia (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85-5.33, p < 0.001) compared to the IC group. Both groups had similar rates of ileus, small bowel obstruction, bleeding, and intra-abdominal infection. CONCLUSION: IC anastomosis was associated with significantly shorter extraction site incisions, earlier bowel recovery, fewer complications, and lower rates of conversion, AL, SSI, and incisional hernia than has the EC anastomosis.
Authors: Marco Milone; Ugo Elmore; Enrico Di Salvo; Paolo Delrio; Luigi Bucci; Giuseppe Paolo Ferulano; Carmine Napolitano; Maria Rachele Angiolini; Umberto Bracale; Marco Clemente; Michele D'ambra; Gaetano Luglio; Mario Musella; Ugo Pace; Riccardo Rosati; Francesco Milone Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: A Vallance; S Wexner; M Berho; R Cahill; M Coleman; N Haboubi; R J Heald; R H Kennedy; B Moran; N Mortensen; R W Motson; R Novell; P R O'Connell; F Ris; T Rockall; A Senapati; A Windsor; D G Jayne Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.788
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
Authors: Marco Scatizzi; Katrin C Kröning; Andrea Borrelli; Gordon Andan; Elisa Lenzi; Francesco Feroci Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Pietro Achilli; William Perry; Fabian Grass; Mohamed A Abd El Aziz; Scott R Kelley; David W Larson; Kevin T Behm Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-05-15
Authors: Giacomo Calini; Solafah Abdalla; Mohamed A Abd El Aziz; Hamedelneel A Saeed; Anne-Lise D D'Angelo; Kevin T Behm; Sherief Shawki; Kellie L Mathis; David W Larson Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-07-27