Ileocecal Valve Sparing Resection for the Treatment of Benign Cecal Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy.
Colorectal cancer
Ileocecal valve
Morbidity
Polyps
Surgery
Journal
JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
ISSN: 1938-3797
Titre abrégé: JSLS
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884618
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
28
7
2021
pubmed:
29
7
2021
medline:
5
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Not all benign-appearance polyps are amenable to endoscopic removal and colectomy is required in some cases. This study aims to compare the early outcomes of cecal wedge resection with ileocecal valve sparring versus standard right colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps referred for surgery. From Apr 2010 to Aug 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent cecal wedge resection or right colectomy in ten European centers for a presumed endoscopically benign polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was morbidity. Secondary endpoints were operative time and length of hospital stay. One hundred and ten patients were included: 25 patients underwent cecal wedge resection and 85 a right colectomy. There were 56 men (51%) and 90% of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. 29 lesions were located at the appendix orifice (26.4%). Mortality was nil. There were no significant differences between both procedures for morbidity rate (20% versus 24.7%) or reoperation (4% versus 4.7%). Cecal wedge was related to shorter operative time (63 min versus 150 min, For benign-appearance cecal polyps unsuitable for endoscopic ablation, cecal wedge resection is safe and should be considered as an attractive alternative to right colectomy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Not all benign-appearance polyps are amenable to endoscopic removal and colectomy is required in some cases. This study aims to compare the early outcomes of cecal wedge resection with ileocecal valve sparring versus standard right colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps referred for surgery.
METHODS
METHODS
From Apr 2010 to Aug 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent cecal wedge resection or right colectomy in ten European centers for a presumed endoscopically benign polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was morbidity. Secondary endpoints were operative time and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred and ten patients were included: 25 patients underwent cecal wedge resection and 85 a right colectomy. There were 56 men (51%) and 90% of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. 29 lesions were located at the appendix orifice (26.4%). Mortality was nil. There were no significant differences between both procedures for morbidity rate (20% versus 24.7%) or reoperation (4% versus 4.7%). Cecal wedge was related to shorter operative time (63 min versus 150 min,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
For benign-appearance cecal polyps unsuitable for endoscopic ablation, cecal wedge resection is safe and should be considered as an attractive alternative to right colectomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34316245
doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2021.00023
pii: JSLS.2021.00023
pmc: PMC8280722
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2021 by SLS, Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Tech Coloproctol. 2013 Oct;17(5):525-36
pubmed: 23605189
Surg Endosc. 2009 Apr;23(4):688-93
pubmed: 19169747
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002 Dec;12(6):449-52
pubmed: 12590728
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Sep;61(9):1089-1095
pubmed: 30086058
Endoscopy. 2003 Sep;35(9):785-7
pubmed: 12929032
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Aug;19(8):e288-e295
pubmed: 28622448
Endoscopy. 2019 Oct;51(10):961-972
pubmed: 31330557
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
CA Cancer J Clin. 1997 Mar-Apr;47(2):93-112
pubmed: 9074488
Endoscopy. 2018 Jul;50(7):684-692
pubmed: 29370584
Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Jul;53(7):1017-22
pubmed: 20551753
N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 23;366(8):687-96
pubmed: 22356322
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Dec;73(12):988-95
pubmed: 14632888
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Jan;16(1):165-71; discussion 171-2
pubmed: 22058042
Surg Endosc. 2008 Dec;22(12):2576-82
pubmed: 18626704
Dis Colon Rectum. 2020 May;63(5):606-618
pubmed: 32032201
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Nov;18(11):O405-O413
pubmed: 27647736
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Mar;21(3):411-6
pubmed: 22219318
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Nov;18(11):1050-1056
pubmed: 27038277
Colorectal Dis. 2012 Jan;14(1):79-86
pubmed: 22145739
Dis Colon Rectum. 2012 Nov;55(11):1111-6
pubmed: 23044670
Surg Today. 2011 Sep;41(9):1200-6
pubmed: 21874415
Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Nov;20(11):781-784
pubmed: 27704228
Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;12(5):267-71
pubmed: 9401839
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2008 Nov;21(4):286-90
pubmed: 20011440
Int J Surg. 2013;11 Suppl 1:S58-60
pubmed: 24380555
Am J Surg. 1999 May;177(5):384-7
pubmed: 10365875
Dig Dis Sci. 2017 Nov;62(11):3138-3148
pubmed: 28936593
J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Sep;223(3):478-84
pubmed: 27374941
Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016 Jan;18(1):3
pubmed: 26714965
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019 Apr;34(4):711-718
pubmed: 30701384
Gut. 2016 May;65(5):806-20
pubmed: 25681402