Gastroenterology report · 2024
Laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing vs traditional right hemicolectomy for cancer of the hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon: a dual-center propensity score-matched study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
He Jinjie, Cao Yue, Kong Xiangxing, Dai Siqi, Li Jun, Xu Dong, Song Yongmao, Wang Jianwei, Sun Lifeng, Wang Zhanhuai, Xiao Qian, Ding Lei, Chen Lihao, Lei Cheng, Wang Jian, Wang Haijiang, Ding Kefeng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Traditional right hemicolectomy (TRH) is the standard treatment for patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. However, the ileocecum, a vital organ with mechanical and immune functions, is removed in these patients regardless of the tumor location. This study aimed to evaluate the technical and oncological safety of laparoscopic ileocecal-sparing right hemicolectomy (LISH).
METHOD: Patients who underwent LISH at two tertiary medical centers were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent TRH by propensity score matching based on sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and disease stage. Data on surgical and perioperative outcomes were collected. Oncological safety was evaluated in a specimen-oriented manner. Lymph nodes (LNs) near the ileocolic artery (ICA) were examined independently in the LISH group. Disease outcomes were recorded for patients who completed one year of follow-up.
RESULTS: In all, 34 patients in the LISH group and 68 patients in the TRH group were matched. LISH added 8 minutes to the dissection of LNs around the ileocolic vessels (groups 201/201d, 202, and 203 LNs), without affecting the total operation time, blood loss, or perioperative adverse event rate. Compared with TRH, LISH had a comparable lymphadenectomy quality, specimen quality, and safety margin while preserving a more functional bowel. The LISH group had no cases of LN metastasis near the ICA. No difference was detected in the recurrence rate at the 1-year follow-up time point between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: In this dual-center study, LISH presented comparable surgical and oncological safety for patients with hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon cancer.
METHOD: Patients who underwent LISH at two tertiary medical centers were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent TRH by propensity score matching based on sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and disease stage. Data on surgical and perioperative outcomes were collected. Oncological safety was evaluated in a specimen-oriented manner. Lymph nodes (LNs) near the ileocolic artery (ICA) were examined independently in the LISH group. Disease outcomes were recorded for patients who completed one year of follow-up.
RESULTS: In all, 34 patients in the LISH group and 68 patients in the TRH group were matched. LISH added 8 minutes to the dissection of LNs around the ileocolic vessels (groups 201/201d, 202, and 203 LNs), without affecting the total operation time, blood loss, or perioperative adverse event rate. Compared with TRH, LISH had a comparable lymphadenectomy quality, specimen quality, and safety margin while preserving a more functional bowel. The LISH group had no cases of LN metastasis near the ICA. No difference was detected in the recurrence rate at the 1-year follow-up time point between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: In this dual-center study, LISH presented comparable surgical and oncological safety for patients with hepatic flexure or proximal transverse colon cancer.