Right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision is safe, leads to an increased lymph node yield and to increased survival: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.


Journal

Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1128-045X
Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9613614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2021
Historique:
received: 22 07 2020
accepted: 30 05 2021
pubmed: 14 6 2021
medline: 22 9 2021
entrez: 13 6 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The introduction of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colon cancer has raised an important discussion in relation to the extent of colic and mesenteric resection, and the impact this may have on lymph node yield. As uncertainty remains regarding the usefulness of and indications for right hemicolectomy with CME and the benefits of CME compared with a traditional approach, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the two procedures in terms of safety, lymph node yield and oncological outcome. We performed a systematic review of the literature from 2009 up to March 15th, 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two hundred eighty-one publications were evaluated, and 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included. Primary endpoints analysed were anastomotic leak rate, blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, 3- and 5-year oncologic outcomes. Secondary outcomes were operating time, conversion, intraoperative complications, reoperation rate, overall and Clavien-Dindo grade 3-4 postoperative complications. In terms of safety, right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to the standard procedure when comparing rates of anastomotic leak (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38-1.79), blood loss (MD -32.48, 95% CI -98.54 to -33.58), overall postoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.00), Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV postoperative complications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82-2.28) and reoperation rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26-1.75). Traditional surgery is associated with a shorter operating time (MD 16.43, 95% CI 4.27-28.60) and lower conversion from laparoscopic to open approach (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00-2.96). In terms of oncologic outcomes, right hemicolectomy with CME leads to a higher lymph node yield than traditional surgery (MD 7.05, 95% CI 4.06-10.04). Results of statistical analysis comparing 3-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were better in the CME group, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.66 and RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.56, respectively. Right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to traditional surgery in terms of safety and has a greater lymph node yield when compared with traditional surgery. Moreover, right-sided CME is associated with better overall and disease-free survival.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The introduction of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colon cancer has raised an important discussion in relation to the extent of colic and mesenteric resection, and the impact this may have on lymph node yield. As uncertainty remains regarding the usefulness of and indications for right hemicolectomy with CME and the benefits of CME compared with a traditional approach, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the two procedures in terms of safety, lymph node yield and oncological outcome.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature from 2009 up to March 15th, 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two hundred eighty-one publications were evaluated, and 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included. Primary endpoints analysed were anastomotic leak rate, blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, 3- and 5-year oncologic outcomes. Secondary outcomes were operating time, conversion, intraoperative complications, reoperation rate, overall and Clavien-Dindo grade 3-4 postoperative complications.
RESULTS
In terms of safety, right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to the standard procedure when comparing rates of anastomotic leak (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38-1.79), blood loss (MD -32.48, 95% CI -98.54 to -33.58), overall postoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.00), Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV postoperative complications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82-2.28) and reoperation rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26-1.75). Traditional surgery is associated with a shorter operating time (MD 16.43, 95% CI 4.27-28.60) and lower conversion from laparoscopic to open approach (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00-2.96). In terms of oncologic outcomes, right hemicolectomy with CME leads to a higher lymph node yield than traditional surgery (MD 7.05, 95% CI 4.06-10.04). Results of statistical analysis comparing 3-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were better in the CME group, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.66 and RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.56, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Right hemicolectomy with CME is not inferior to traditional surgery in terms of safety and has a greater lymph node yield when compared with traditional surgery. Moreover, right-sided CME is associated with better overall and disease-free survival.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34120270
doi: 10.1007/s10151-021-02471-2
pii: 10.1007/s10151-021-02471-2
pmc: PMC8419145
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Review Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1099-1113

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Surg Endosc. 2019 Nov;33(11):3842-3850
pubmed: 31140004
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 May;24(5):1312-1313
pubmed: 27995452
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 May;29(5):671-676
pubmed: 30807257
Rozhl Chir. 2016 Fall;95(10):359-364
pubmed: 27879141
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Nov;15(11):2023-8
pubmed: 21845511
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Feb 27;8(2):106-14
pubmed: 26981184
World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jan 12;17(1):16
pubmed: 30636641
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Minerva Chir. 2018 Feb;73(1):1-12
pubmed: 29154513
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):161-8
pubmed: 25555421
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Aug;26(8):606-13
pubmed: 27183112
Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;12(5):272-5
pubmed: 9401840
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Sep;61(9):1063-1072
pubmed: 30086055
Scand J Surg. 2015 Dec;104(4):219-26
pubmed: 25391978
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Jun;21 Suppl 3:S398-404
pubmed: 24566862
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Jan;33(1):113-114
pubmed: 29214343
Singapore Med J. 2019 May;60(5):247-252
pubmed: 30644524
J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 Feb;25(2):475-483
pubmed: 32026336
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Aug;18(8):773-8
pubmed: 26896151
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Jul;16(7):874-901
pubmed: 30006429
Br J Surg. 2016 Aug;103(9):1220-9
pubmed: 27222317
ANZ J Surg. 2018 Oct;88(10):E698-E702
pubmed: 29895094
Tech Coloproctol. 2014 Jun;18(6):557-64
pubmed: 24357446
Cancer Manag Res. 2019 Sep 25;11:8647-8656
pubmed: 31576169
Surg Endosc. 2019 Apr;33(4):1020-1032
pubmed: 30456506
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014 Jan;29(1):89-97
pubmed: 23982425
Res Synth Methods. 2021 Jan;12(1):55-61
pubmed: 32336025
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jul;18(7):O224-35
pubmed: 27187520
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Nov;20(11):1556-1565
pubmed: 31526695
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Sep;31(9):1577-94
pubmed: 27469525
Colorectal Dis. 2009 May;11(4):354-64; discussion 364-5
pubmed: 19016817
BMC Surg. 2019 Jul 1;19(1):72
pubmed: 31262302
Surg Endosc. 2018 Dec;32(12):5021-5030
pubmed: 30324463
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2012 Jan;15(1):19-23
pubmed: 22287344
Tech Coloproctol. 2019 Mar;23(3):251-257
pubmed: 30838463
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):272-8
pubmed: 19949013
World J Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct 30;16(1):214
pubmed: 30376849
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Jul;20(7):445-53
pubmed: 27137207
Cancer Control. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):205-11
pubmed: 12794618
Br J Surg. 2016 Apr;103(5):581-9
pubmed: 26780563
Gastroenterology Res. 2018 Aug;11(4):264-273
pubmed: 30116425
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep;25(3):252-62
pubmed: 27566031
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Nov;19(11):962-972
pubmed: 28949060
Trials. 2017 Jul 26;18(1):355
pubmed: 28747220
Colorectal Dis. 2011 Oct;13(10):1123-9
pubmed: 20969719
Magy Seb. 2020 Mar;73(1):23-28
pubmed: 32172577
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Apr;47(4):732-737
pubmed: 32951936
Trials. 2016 Dec 8;17(1):582
pubmed: 27931247
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2016 Oct 25;19(10):1101-1106
pubmed: 27781244
Zentralbl Chir. 2020 Feb;145(1):17-23
pubmed: 31791092
Br J Surg. 2020 Jul;107(8):1070-1078
pubmed: 32246469

Auteurs

G Anania (G)

Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

R J Davies (RJ)

Cambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

F Bagolini (F)

Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

N Vettoretto (N)

Montichiari Surgery, ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy.

J Randolph (J)

Georgia Baptist College of Nursing. Mercer University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

R Cirocchi (R)

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. roberto.cirocchi@unipg.it.
Azienda Ospedaliera Di Terni, 05100, Terni, Italy. roberto.cirocchi@unipg.it.

A Donini (A)

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH