Abstract

IntroductionFewer than 10% of colon cancers are found at the splenic flexure. A standard surgical approach to these cancers has not been defined. The goal of this study was to compare lymph node harvest and post-operative morbidity between segmental resection and formal left hemicolectomy for splenic flexure colon cancers.MethodPatients diagnosed with a splenic flexure cancer were identified from the 2012–2018 ACS-NSQIP colectomy-targeted database. Patients were categorized based on type of surgical resection – left hemicolectomy with colorectal anastomosis or segmental colectomy with colocolonic anastomosis. Demographic, clinicopathologic, and post-operative outcomes were compared between groups. Factors independently associated with lymph node harvest, operative time, and post-operative morbidity were investigated by linear and binomial logistic regression models.ResultsA total of 3,049 patients underwent colectomy for a splenic flexure cancer. Of these, 83.6% had a segmental colectomy and 73% were performed by a minimally invasive approach. T- and N-stage did not differ between segmental and left hemicolectomy groups (p = 0.703 and p = 0.429, respectively). Inadequate nodal harvest (< 12 nodes) was infrequent and similar between the two procedures (7.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.13). Operative time was significantly shorter for segmental colectomy (213 ± 83.5 min vs. 193 ± 84.1 min, p < 0.0001) and major morbidity was similar between the two surgical techniques (8.4% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.75). After accounting for demographic, clinicopathologic, and operative factors, binomial logistic regression showed that type of procedure was not significantly associated with LN harvest (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.54–1.17) or major morbidity (OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.36–3.81). However, on linear regression, segmental splenic flexure resection was associated with shorter operative time (estimate 20.29, 95%CI 12.61–27.97, p < 0.0001).ConclusionSplenic flexure resection for colon cancer is associated with an adequate lymph node harvest. Compared to a formal left hemicolectomy, a segmental resection also has a shorter operative time with equivalent post-operative morbidity.

Highlights

  • Fewer than 10% of colon cancers are found at the splenic flexure

  • 499 (16.4%) underwent a left hemicolectomy and 2,550 (83.6%) patients underwent a segmental splenic flexure resection. Between these two surgical groups, there was a similar distribution of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA classification), and medical comorbidities (Table 1)

  • Our study showed that compared to a formal left hemicolectomy, a segmental colectomy for SFC provides an oncologically adequate lymph node harvest and does not lead to any worse morbidity

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Fewer than 10% of colon cancers are found at the splenic flexure. A standard surgical approach to these cancers has not been defined. The goal of this study was to compare lymph node harvest and post-operative morbidity between segmental resection and formal left hemicolectomy for splenic flexure colon cancers. Factors independently associated with lymph node harvest, operative time, and post-operative morbidity were investigated by linear and binomial logistic regression models. Operative time was significantly shorter for segmental colectomy (213 ± 83.5 min vs 193 ± 84.1 min, p < 0.0001) and major morbidity was similar between the two surgical techniques (8.4% vs 8.9%, p = 0.75). After accounting for demographic, clinicopathologic, and operative factors, binomial logistic regression showed that type of procedure was not significantly associated with LN harvest (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.54–1.17) or major morbidity (OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.36–3.81). Compared to a formal left hemicolectomy, a segmental resection has a shorter operative time with equivalent post-operative morbidity

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.