Intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study (the Hemi-D-TREND study).

IntroductionRight-sided colon cancer is a prevalent malignancy. The standard surgical treatment for this condition is laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, with ileocolic anastomosis being a crucial step in the procedure. Recently, intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis has garnered attention for its minimally invasive benefits. However, there remains a paucity of rigorously designed, large-scale, international multicenter randomized controlled trials to definitively assess the safety and efficacy of intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer.MethodsThis study is an international, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial designed to compare the safety and efficacy of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer undergoing right hemicolectomy. The primary endpoint is the anastomotic leakage rate within 30 days post-surgery. The main secondary endpoint is the 3-year disease-free survival rate post-surgery. A comprehensive quality assurance protocol will be established before the trial begins, including CT review, pathological evaluation, and the standardization and assessment of surgical techniques.DiscussionThis study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis following right hemicolectomy in patients with right-sided colon cancer. The anticipated outcome is that intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis will show an anastomotic leakage rate and a 3-year disease-free survival rate comparable to those of extracorporeal anastomosis, while offering the added benefit of faster postoperative recovery.Graphical abstract

Objectives The aim of the study was to determine whether there are clinically relevant differences in outcomes between laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) and LRC with extracorporeal IA (EIA). Background IIA and EIA are 2 well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after LRC. There are no high-quality studies demonstrating the superiority of one anastomotic technique over the other. Methods This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a benign or malignant right-sided colon neoplasm. Primary endpoint was length of hospital stay (LOS). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03045107. Results A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Median operative time was comparable in IIA versus EIA group {130 [interquartile range (IQR) 105-195] vs 130 (IQR 110-180) min; P = 0.770} and no intraoperative complications occurred. The quicker recovery of bowel function after IIA than EIA [gas: 2 (IQR 2-3) vs 3 (IQR 2-3) days, P = 0.003; stool: 4 (IQR 3-5) vs 4.5 (IQR 3-5) days, P = 0.032] was not reflected in any advantage in the primary endpoint: median LOS was similar in the 2 groups [6 (IQR 5-7) vs 6 (IQR 5-8) days; P = 0.839]. No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, length of skin incision, 30-day morbidity (17.1% vs 15.7%, P = 0.823), reoperation rate, and readmission rate between the 2 groups. Conclusions LRC with IIA is associated with earlier recovery of postoperative bowel function than LRC with EIA; however, it does not reflect into a shorter LOS.

Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. [email protected]. No funds, grants, or support were received to complete the study. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Minimally invasive colectomy has become the standard for treatment of colonic disease in many centers. Restoration of bowel continuity following resection can be achieved by intracorporeal (IC) or extracorporeal (EC) anastomosis. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes of IC compared to EC anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic literature search for studies assessing the outcome of IC and EC anastomosis in laparoscopic and robot-assisted right colectomy was conducted. The primary outcome of this review was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, length of stay, conversion to open surgery, and bowel recovery. Twenty-five studies including 4450 patients were evaluated. 47.7% of patients had IC anastomosis and 52.3% had EC anastomosis. The weighted mean length of extraction site incision in the IC group was shorter than the EC group. The EC group had significantly higher odds of conversion to open surgery (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1-3.45, p = 0.046), total complications (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.11, p = 0.007), anastomotic leakage (AL) (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.4-2.7, p = 0.003), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.4-2.6, p = 0.002), and incisional hernia (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85-5.33, p < 0.001) compared to the IC group. Both groups had similar rates of ileus, small bowel obstruction, bleeding, and intra-abdominal infection. IC anastomosis was associated with significantly shorter extraction site incisions, earlier bowel recovery, fewer complications, and lower rates of conversion, AL, SSI, and incisional hernia than has the EC anastomosis.

Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) is associated with reduced surgical site infection (SSI) and other postoperative complications in laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). However, evidence is inadequate for IA in laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC). This study aimed to determine the effect of IA and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) on SSI and other short-term postoperative complications in LLC. In this retrospective multicenter propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort study, we enrolled consecutive patients who underwent LLC with IA (TLLC/IA) and laparoscopic-assisted left colectomy with EA (LALC/EA) at two medical centers between January 2015 and September 2021. Propensity score matching with a 1:2 ratio was employed. The primary outcome was SSI occurrence. Secondary outcomes were operating time, intraoperative hemorrhage, other postoperative complications, and pathological outcomes. Overall, 574 and 99 patients received LALC/EA and TLLC/IA, respectively. After PSM, 84 patients with TLLC/IA were matched with 141 patients with LALC/EA. Thirty patients (13.3%) patients experienced SSI (17.0% in LALC/EA vs 7.1% in TLLC/IA). IA was associated with a reduced risk of overall SSI and superficial/deep SSI compared with EA after PSM, with OR of 0.375 (95% CI, 0.147-0.959, P = 0.041). and 0.148 (95% CI, 0.034-0.648, P = 0.011), respectively. Multivariate analysis of unmatched patients indicated similar results. In the analysis of secondary outcomes, LALC/EA may have a shorter operating time (absolute mean difference -13.41 [95% CI, -23.76 to -3.06], P = 0.002) and a higher risk of intraoperative hemorrhage (absolute risk difference 4.96 [95% CI, -0.09 to 9.89], P = 0.048). IA in LLC is associated with a reduced risk of overall SSI and superficial/deep SSI. However, it may require a longer operating time.

We investigated the current practices and perceptions of colorectal surgeons in South Korea regarding intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (RHC). Members 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. Among 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. Measures to standardize the IIA technique and appropriate training programs must be implemented to enhance its use in minimally invasive RHC.

Since the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, there has been a controversy between creating an intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in right hemicolectomy. The purpose is to report our experience in intracorporeal anastomosis following right hemicolectomy in both malignant and benign pathologies. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was conducted at Virgen de la Arrixaca Clinical University Hospital (Murcia) between January 2000 and April 2014. The study includes all surgery patients who received a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with an intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis. The criteria for exclusion were conversion to open surgery during the procedure due to technical difficulties during dissect. Tumours considered T4 were not excluded, nor were stage IV patients or those with a history of previous abdominal surgery. There were 173 patients (63 females) aged 67 (range 14-91) years, with body mass index of 27 (17-52) kg/m(2) and ASA 1:2:3:4 of 12:78:68:15; 41% had previous abdominal surgery and 70% had a pre-existing comorbidity. Operating time was 142 (60-270) min. Specimen extraction site incision length was 8.1 (6-11.1) cm. Conversion rate was 9.2%, and there were 39 complications (22.54%) and 9 reoperations (5.2%). Readmission rate was 5.2%. Length of stay was 5.7 (1-35) days. The intracorporeal procedure is a safe and feasible alternative for creating an ileocolic anastomosis. It involves a similar rate of complications and may prevent some of the drawbacks presented by extracorporeal anastomosis.

The aim of the study was to determine whether there are clinically relevant differences in outcomes between laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IIA) and LRC with extracorporeal IA (EIA). IIA and EIA are 2 well-established techniques for restoration of bowel continuity after LRC. There are no high-quality studies demonstrating the superiority of one anastomotic technique over the other. This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of LRC with IIA and LRC with EIA in patients with a benign or malignant right-sided colon neoplasm. Primary endpoint was length of hospital stay (LOS). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03045107. A total of 140 patients were randomized and analyzed. Median operative time was comparable in IIA versus EIA group {130 [interquartile range (IQR) 105-195] vs 130 (IQR 110-180) min; P = 0.770} and no intraoperative complications occurred. The quicker recovery of bowel function after IIA than EIA [gas: 2 (IQR 2-3) vs 3 (IQR 2-3) days, P = 0.003; stool: 4 (IQR 3-5) vs 4.5 (IQR 3-5) days, P = 0.032] was not reflected in any advantage in the primary endpoint: median LOS was similar in the 2 groups [6 (IQR 5-7) vs 6 (IQR 5-8) days; P = 0.839]. No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, length of skin incision, 30-day morbidity (17.1% vs 15.7%, P = 0.823), reoperation rate, and readmission rate between the 2 groups. LRC with IIA is associated with earlier recovery of postoperative bowel function than LRC with EIA; however, it does not reflect into a shorter LOS.

Introduction: Anastomotic leak after ileocolic anastomosis influences morbidity and mortality of a patient. Therefore, protection of ileocolic anastomosis is of paramount importance in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Methods: A retrospective study of seventy-nine patients who belong to American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification class 1 and 2 who had undergone laparoscopic right hemicolectomy due to caecal or ascending colonic pathologies were selected for the study. A comparison between the two groups of patients who had undergone intracorporeal vs extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis was done with regards to occurrence of anaestomotic leaks, paralytic ileus, duration of hospital stay and duration taken to tolerate a soft tissue. All patients were managed in high dependency units with optimum facilities under fast-track category. Every patient was under patient-controlled analgesia for pain control. Results: Of the 79 patients studied, 40 had intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) whereas 39 had extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). Age range of the patients was 40 - 75 years. Out of the 40 patients who had ICA, only one patient developed anastomotic leak and out of those who had ECA, 3 patients had anastomotic leaks (p=0.36). Two out of 3 patients who had anaestomotic leaks following the ECA, underwent lower midline laparotomies to rectify the leak. Four (4/40, 40%) patients in ICA group and 6 (6/39, 60%) patients in the ECA group had developed post op paralytic ileus (p=0.52). Average durations of hospital stay were 4 and 5 respectively for ICA and ECA groups and both groups were able to tolerate a soft diet on post operative day 2. Conclusions: ICA has improved the outcome of ileocolic anastomosis in the studied group of patients compare to ECA, although the observed differences between the two groups were not statistically significant.

AimThe aim of the study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) for colon cancer, to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the robotic surgery system.Material and methodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases regarding the comparison of RRC vs. LRC for colon cancer in the last 5 years. Studies were included as per the PICOS criteria, and relevant event data were extracted.ResultsFifteen studies (RRC: 1116 patients; LRC: 4036 patients) were evaluated. RRC demonstrated lower conversion to laparotomy (p = 0.03) and shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.01), compared with LRC. However, operation times were longer in RRC than in LRC (p < 0.001). The estimated blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, and overall postoperative complications were similar between RRC and LRC (p > 0.05).ConclusionsRRC can be regarded as a feasible and safe technique for colon cancer.

We assessed the short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (IA) in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer compared with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). A retrospective chart review of 86 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from March 2005 to June 2010 was performed. There were 51 and 35 patients who underwent intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis, respectively. The two groups were demographically comparable. The conversion rate to open surgery was 8.6 % in the EA group, but none in the IA group (p = 0.064). There was no significant difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, complications (intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, ileus, and wound infection), and length of hospital stay between the groups. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. There was no significant difference in median number of retrieved lymph node. The overall survival and the disease-free survival at 3 years were not different between the groups. Compared with the extracorporeal anastomosis technique, intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis produces comparable short- and long-term outcomes in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.

Background: Laparoscopic right colectomy (LRHC) is a procedure which has been getting more popular compared to traditional open right colectomy (ORHC) over the last three decades. This study compares the post-operative outcomes in laparoscopic and open right colectomy for colon cancer.&#x0D; Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study of right colectomy at a single institution from January 2018 to December 2021. The factors that were studied included postoperative HDU admission, the incidence of post-operative ileus (POI) and the length of hospital stay.&#x0D; Results: During the study period, 161 patients underwent right hemicolectomy. Sixty-seven (42%) underwent LRHC, 73 (45%) ORHC, and 21 (13%) laparoscopic converted to open procedure. The overall incidence of POI was 56 (35%), 14 (21%) among the LRHC and 28 (38%) among the ORHC group (p=0.024). The length of hospital stay was 7.1 (±4.8) days after the laparoscopic procedure compared to 8.7 (±4.4) in the open group (p=0.048). Forty-two patients out of 161 (26%) needed post-operative HDU admissions; out of these 11 (16%) were in the laparoscopic group and 29 (40%) among the open group (p=0.023).&#x0D; Conclusion: Post-operative recovery was significantly quicker among the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy group incomparison to the open right hemicolectomy group.

Introduction This study aimed at assessing the long-term oncological outcomes of intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis (ICA) for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer compared with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). Material and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 149 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer between January 2006 and December 2012. Results Eighty and 69 patients underwent intracorporeal and ECA, respectively. The two groups were demographically comparable. ICA exhibited a significantly shorter operative time (p < .0001), while local relapse and length of hospital stay did not significantly differ among the groups (p = .724 and .310, respectively). There was no significant difference in median number of retrieved lymph node. The overall survival and the disease-free survival at five years did not significantly differ among the groups. Conclusions Intracorporeal ICA can reduce operative time and is associated with similar postoperative and long-term oncological outcomes compared to the ECA technique.

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.

Laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) remains the most widely adopted technique despite mounting evidence that intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) offers several advantages. This study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of ICA and ECA and to investigate the effect of ICA on postoperative ileus after LRC. This retrospective study included 45 patients who underwent ICA and 63 who underwent ECA in LRC for right-sided colonic diseases between January 2015 and December 2019. There were no significant differences in total operation time, blood loss, total length of incisions, tolerance of diet, postoperative pain score on postoperative days 1 and 2, or length of hospital stays between the 2 groups. However, the ICA group had a significantly shorter time to first flatus passage (3.0 ± 0.9 days vs. 3.8 ± 1.9 days, P = 0.013). The rate of postoperative ileus was significantly higher in the ECA group (2.2% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.033); however, there was no significant difference in the overall morbidity within 30 days after surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the ECA technique (odds ratio [OR], 0.098; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.011-0.883, P = 0.038) and previous abdominal operation (OR, 5.269; 95% CI, 1.193-23.262; P = 0.028) were independent risk factors for postoperative ileus. The postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent LRC with ICA or ECA were comparable, and ICA could reduce the incidence of postoperative ileus after LRC compared with ECA.