INtracorporeal Versus EXTracorpoREal anastoMOsis After Laparoscopic Right Colectomy for Cancer
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
DISEASE(S): Colorectal Cancer,Colorectal Neoplasms
PROVIDER: 2131501 | ecrin-mdr-crc |
REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR
Similar Datasets
Project description:Interventions: Experimental group:Intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis;Control group:Extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis
Primary outcome(s): Time to first flatus;Anastomosis-related complications
Study Design: Parallel
| 2760165 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis seems to be associated with several short-term benefits. It could reduce the postoperative infection rate and shorten the hospital stay.
This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) rate after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis, compared to extracorporeal anastomoses.
| 2336300 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Right colectomy (hemicolectomy) involves the removal of the cecum, the ascending colon, the hepatic flexure, the first one-third of the transverse colon, part of the terminal ileum, and the associated regional fat and lymph nodes, and is the accepted treatment for malignant neoplasms of the right colon.
A minimally invasive approach is commonly used for right colectomy, with studies reporting reduced complications, less blood loss, and hospital stay when compared to an open approach.
However, there remains controversy regarding whether robotic assistance is advantageous for this technique and whether an intracorporeal (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) is best.
MIRCAST is a prospective, observational, international, multi-center, 4-parallel-cohorts study. Sites or surgeons will select a cohort of the study for which they are qualified. Four cohorts will be the subject of study:
1. Robotic Right Colectomy with ICA
2. Robotic Right Colectomy with ECA
3. Laparoscopic Right Colectomy with ICA
4. Laparoscopic Right Colectomy with ECA
All patient assessments will be done according to the sites standard of care. Parameters routinely recorded during right colectomy surgery will be collected prospectively. Enrolled subjects will undergo assessments at the following intervals: pre-operative, operative, discharge, 30 days, 3 months, 1 year and 2 years post-surgery.
| 2282553 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundSelection of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IA compared with EA in LRC patients.MethodsLiterature was searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IA with EA in LRC patients until May 2021. The eligible studies for risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were extracted and analysed for the following outcomes of interest: operative time, length of incision, nodal harvest, bowel function recovery, postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, obstruction, reoperation), death at 30 days, duration of hospital stay and 30-day readmission.ResultsFive RCTs, including a total of 559 patients, were eligible for meta-analysis. All of the trials reported adequate random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There were significantly better outcomes in the IA group than in the EA group in time to first flatus (mean difference (MD) -0.71 (95 per cent c.i. -1.12 to -0.31), P = 0.0005), time to first passage of stool (MD -0.53 (95 per cent c.i. -0.69 to -0.37), P < 0.00001), visual analogue scale of pain on postoperative day (POD) 3 (MD -0.76 (95 per cent c.i. -1.23 to -0.28), P = 0.002), POD 4 (MD -0.83 (95 per cent c.i. -1.46 to -0.20), P = 0.01), POD 5 (MD -0.60 (95 per cent c.i. -0.95 to -0.25), P = 0.0007), length of incision (MD -1.52 (95 per cent c.i. -2.30 to -0.74), P = 0.0001) and wound infection (relative risk 0.46 (95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.91), P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in duration of hospital stay (P = 0.47), operative time (P = 0.07), number of lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.70), anastomotic leak (P = 0.88), postoperative ileus (P = 0.48), bleeding (P = 0.15), bowel obstruction (P = 0.24), reoperation (P = 0.34), readmission within 30 days (P = 0.26), and death (P = 0.70).ConclusionCompared with EA, IA shows a faster recovery of bowel function with fewer wound infections.
| S-EPMC8715734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The goal of this observational study is to explore the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis in colorectal cancer surgery. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. If intracorporeal anastomosis is safe in terms of short-term outcome? 2. If intracorporeal anastomosis can achieve the same oncological outcome as conventional extracorporeal anastomosis?
| 63955 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundThe laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is the standard surgical treatment for right-sided colon cancer. The continuity of the digestive tract is restored through ileocolic anastomosis which can be performed extracorporeally or intracorporeally. The study aimed to compare both anastomotic techniques in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.Materials and methodsA single-blinded two-armed randomized control trial with 1:1 parallel allocation carried out from 2016 to 2020 in a single center. The follow-up period was 30 days. Compared interventions involved extracorporeal and intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. The main outcome of the study was bowel recovery measured as the time to the first stool. Other outcomes involved the time to the first flatus, morbidity, and duration of surgery.ResultsOne hundred and seventeen patients undergoing a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with curative intent were eligible for the trial. Eight patients refused to participate. One hundred and two patients were analyzed, 52 in the intracorporeal group and 50 in the extracorporeal group. The groups did not differ in terms of cancer stage or body mass index, but did differ in age and sex. Intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with a shorter time to the first stool than extracorporeal, 32.8 h (26.0-43.7) vs. 41.7 (35.9-50.0), p = 0.017. There was no significant difference in the time to the first flatus, 30 h (23.2-42.3) vs. 26.6 h (21.8-37.3), p = 0.165. Similarly, overall complications did not differ (EC 12/50 vs. IC 10/52, p = 0.56). There were no differences in length of surgery, 190 min (150-230) and 190 min (180-220), p = 0.55.ConclusionIntracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis following laparoscopic right hemicolectomy results in slightly faster bowel recovery, with no differences in morbidity and duration of surgery.
| S-EPMC9160080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours.MethodsThis was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy-absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy.ResultsSome 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures.ConclusionNo difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.
| S-EPMC10416692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe primary aim was to investigate the operative outcomes of intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis in left-sided minimally-invasive colectomy.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and follow-up data of IA versus EA in minimally-invasive left colectomy. Studies that investigated recto-sigmoid resections using transanal circular staplers were excluded. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsEight studies with a total of 750 patients were included (IA n = 335 versus EA n = 415). IA was associated with significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.61, p < 0.0001) and less frequent surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.61, p = 0.002) as primary outcomes compared to EA. Of the secondary outcomes, length of incision (SMD -2.51, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.81, p = 0.004), time to first oral diet intake (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.22, p = 0. 0004) and time to first bowel movement (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09, p = 0.01) were significantly in favor of IA, while operative time was significantly shorter in the EA group (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59, p = 0.001).ConclusionsIA proves to be a safe and feasible option as it demonstrates benefits in terms of lower overall morbidity, fewer rates of SSI, smaller incision length, and faster postoperative gastrointestinal recovery despite a longer operative time compared to EA.
| S-EPMC10837220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotally laparoscopic right colectomy has been demonstrated to be safe and feasible. Two manners of anastomosis, namely, antiperistaltic and isoperistaltic stapled side-to-side anastomosis, have been described before. However, research concerning the influence of different peristaltic orientations on anastomosis is rare and, if there is, included relatively small cases without long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis and antiperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis for right colectomy.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 214 consecutive patients who underwent totally laparoscopic right colectomy from January 2017 to December 2020 at our medical center. Two modalities of anastomosis were used: isoperistaltic totally side-to-side anastomosis and antiperistaltic totally side-to-side anastomosis. Data on demographics, disease features, pathological characteristics, operative details, and short-term outcomes were collected and analyzed.ResultsWe found that operative features such as operating time, intraoperative bleeding, length of resected intestine, number of harvested lymph nodes, and length of incision, as well as measures of postoperative recovery such as time to first flatus, time to first defecation, and length of stay, were statistically comparable between the 2 groups. The postoperative complication rate was also similar between the 2 groups. The median follow-up time was 35.6 months, and no differences were observed in the long-term outcomes.ConclusionIntracorporeal isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis can achieve short- and long-term outcomes similar to those of antiperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis. Both techniques are safe and feasible.
| S-EPMC9048079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe investigated the current practices and perceptions of colorectal surgeons in South Korea regarding intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (RHC).MethodsMembers of the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP) participated in an online survey encompassing demographic information, surgical experiences, methods for IIA, and advantages, barriers, and perceptions of IIA. We performed a statistical analysis of survey results.ResultsAmong the 1,074 KSCP members contacted, 178 responded to the survey. Most respondents were males aged 40-49 years with >10 years of experience who were affiliated with a tertiary healthcare facility. One hundred fifty-six respondents had performed <100 colorectal cancer surgeries annually. Fifty-nine respondents reported experiences of the IIA technique in minimally invasive RHC. Most respondents favored the isoperistaltic side-to-side (S-S) anastomosis and stapled S-S anastomosis, hand-sewn closure for the common channel, and the periumbilical area for primary specimen extraction. Respondents with IIA experience emphasized the reduction in postoperative complications as the primary reason for performing IIA, whereas respondents without IIA experience cited the lack of benefits as the main deterrent. Respondents commonly cited concerns regarding anastomotic leakage and intraabdominal contamination as the primary reasons for not performing IIA. Respondents with IIA experience demonstrated a more positive response towards attempting or transitioning to IIA than those without. Respondents with IIA experience prioritized self-sufficiency, whereas respondents without IIA experience prioritized proctorship and discussions of the initial cases.ConclusionMeasures to standardize the IIA technique and appropriate training programs must be implemented to enhance its use in minimally invasive RHC.
| S-EPMC11317360 | biostudies-literature