Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy · 2026
Short-term impact of the 'Marginal Gains' standardised workflow for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME): a pre- and post-implementation 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.
Morales-Conde Salvador, Scammon Duran Andrea, Valdes-Hernandez Javier, Gómez-Rosado Juan Carlos, Mascagni Pietro, Cintas Catena Juan, Balla Andrea
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the implementation and clinical impact of a standardised workflow for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) with complete mesocolon excision (CME) using a cranial approach in colon cancer, the so-called 'Marginal Gains' project.
METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective before-and-after cohort study of prospectively collected data. Outcomes of 29 patients undergoing LRH from 2022 to 2023 (control group) were compared with 34 patients treated between 2023 and 2024, after implementation of a structured CME-oriented workflow (intervention group). The primary outcome was the rate of workflow application and its clinical impact (secondary outcomes) in terms of CME rate (performed when clinically indicated), intraoperative events, 30-day postoperative complications, and lymph nodes harvested.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Workflow was applied in all cases. CME, performed according to predefined clinical criteria, was more frequent in the intervention group (13/34, 38.2%) than in the control group (1/29, 3.4%; p = .001), reflecting structured workflow adoption and potentially introducing selection bias. Overall postoperative complications occurred in 6/34 (17.6%) patients in the intervention group and 13/29 (44.8%) in the control group (p = .027), mainly driven by low-grade (Clavien I-II) events, particularly paralytic ileus (0 vs. 4 cases) and minor anastomotic bleeding (0 vs. 4 cases). One anastomotic leak occurred in the intervention group (2.9%), requiring reoperation with redo anastomosis (Clavien III-b). No significant differences were observed in tumour stage. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the intervention group (22.18 ± 6 vs. 18.83 ± 6.50; p = .021).
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the standardised CME-oriented workflow was feasible and associated with lower short-term postoperative morbidity and higher lymph node harvest. Given the non-randomised before-and-after design and limited sample size, these findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of definitive improvement in surgical or oncological outcomes. Prospective multicentre validation is warranted.
METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective before-and-after cohort study of prospectively collected data. Outcomes of 29 patients undergoing LRH from 2022 to 2023 (control group) were compared with 34 patients treated between 2023 and 2024, after implementation of a structured CME-oriented workflow (intervention group). The primary outcome was the rate of workflow application and its clinical impact (secondary outcomes) in terms of CME rate (performed when clinically indicated), intraoperative events, 30-day postoperative complications, and lymph nodes harvested.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Workflow was applied in all cases. CME, performed according to predefined clinical criteria, was more frequent in the intervention group (13/34, 38.2%) than in the control group (1/29, 3.4%; p = .001), reflecting structured workflow adoption and potentially introducing selection bias. Overall postoperative complications occurred in 6/34 (17.6%) patients in the intervention group and 13/29 (44.8%) in the control group (p = .027), mainly driven by low-grade (Clavien I-II) events, particularly paralytic ileus (0 vs. 4 cases) and minor anastomotic bleeding (0 vs. 4 cases). One anastomotic leak occurred in the intervention group (2.9%), requiring reoperation with redo anastomosis (Clavien III-b). No significant differences were observed in tumour stage. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the intervention group (22.18 ± 6 vs. 18.83 ± 6.50; p = .021).
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the standardised CME-oriented workflow was feasible and associated with lower short-term postoperative morbidity and higher lymph node harvest. Given the non-randomised before-and-after design and limited sample size, these findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of definitive improvement in surgical or oncological outcomes. Prospective multicentre validation is warranted.