ANZ journal of surgery · 2018
Method of pedicle division during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy affects lymph node yield and short-term outcomes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Pal Atanu, Stearns Adam T, Kapur Sandeep, Speakman Christopher T M, Wharton Richard Q, Shaikh Irshad, Hernon James M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several ways of performing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (RHC) have evolved. The vascular pedicle can be divided into extracorporeal (RHC-EC) or intracorporeal (RHC-IC). It is not known whether vessel ligation during RHC-EC is as central as during RHC-IC. We compare these approaches in terms of pathological and short-term clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic RHC in a single centre (July 2013-September 2016) were identified. Data collection included operative details, length of stay, complications, specimen parameters including number and involvement of lymph nodes and recurrence.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-nine patients were included (94 RHC-IC, 75 RHC-EC). For caecal and ascending colon cancers, mesocolic width was greater after RHC-IC than RHC-EC (7.9 cm versus 6.6 cm, P < 0.05), as was lymph node yield (19.5 versus 17.3, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in length of colon resected, distal resection margin, number of positive nodes, proportion of node-positive tumours and R1 rate. Operative duration was higher for RHC-IC (163 min versus 91 min, P < 0.001), as was incidence of ileus (35% versus 15%, P < 0.05). Length of stay also tended to be higher (7.4 days versus 6.0 days, P = 0.19). There was no difference in disease recurrence (follow-up 12 months). Body mass index was positively correlated with lymph node yield for RHC-EC, but not for RHC-IC.
CONCLUSION: Lymph node yield after laparoscopic RHC is adequate, whether the vascular pedicle is taken intracorporeal or extracorporeal, supporting the use of both approaches. RHC-IC yields more lymph nodes and greater mesocolic width, but involves a longer operation and higher incidence of ileus.
METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic RHC in a single centre (July 2013-September 2016) were identified. Data collection included operative details, length of stay, complications, specimen parameters including number and involvement of lymph nodes and recurrence.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-nine patients were included (94 RHC-IC, 75 RHC-EC). For caecal and ascending colon cancers, mesocolic width was greater after RHC-IC than RHC-EC (7.9 cm versus 6.6 cm, P < 0.05), as was lymph node yield (19.5 versus 17.3, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in length of colon resected, distal resection margin, number of positive nodes, proportion of node-positive tumours and R1 rate. Operative duration was higher for RHC-IC (163 min versus 91 min, P < 0.001), as was incidence of ileus (35% versus 15%, P < 0.05). Length of stay also tended to be higher (7.4 days versus 6.0 days, P = 0.19). There was no difference in disease recurrence (follow-up 12 months). Body mass index was positively correlated with lymph node yield for RHC-EC, but not for RHC-IC.
CONCLUSION: Lymph node yield after laparoscopic RHC is adequate, whether the vascular pedicle is taken intracorporeal or extracorporeal, supporting the use of both approaches. RHC-IC yields more lymph nodes and greater mesocolic width, but involves a longer operation and higher incidence of ileus.