Skip to main content

12.09.2018 | Review Article | Ausgabe 1/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2019

Comparison between conventional colectomy and complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a systematic review and pooled analysis

A review of CME versus conventional colectomies

Surgical Endoscopy > Ausgabe 1/2019
Noura Alhassan, Mei Yang, Nathalie Wong-Chong, A. Sender Liberman, Patrick Charlebois, Barry Stein, Gerald M. Fried, Lawrence Lee
Wichtige Hinweise
Accepted as an iPoster presentation for the SAGES 2018 Annual Meeting and World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, April 11–14, 2018, Seattle, WA.



Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is advocated based on oncologic superiority, but not commonly performed in North America. Many data are case series with few comparative studies. Our aim was to perform a systematic review comparing outcomes between CME and non-CME colectomy.


A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines of MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthStar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they compared conventional resection (non-CME) to CME for colon cancer. Quality was assessed using methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). The main outcome measures were short-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes. Weighted pooled means and proportions with 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model when appropriate.


Out of 825 unique citations, 23 studies underwent full-text reviews and 14 met inclusion criteria. Mean MINORS score was 13.3 (range 11–15). The mean sample size in CME group was 1166 (range 45–3756) and 945 (range 40–3425) in non-CME. Four papers reported plane of dissection, with CME plane achieved in 85.8% (95% CI 79.8–91.7). Mean OR time in CME group was 167 min (163–171) and 138 min (135–142) in conventional group. Perioperative morbidity was reported in six studies, with pooled overall complications of 22.5% (95% CI 18.4–26.6) for CME and 19.6 (95% CI 13.6–25.5) for non-CME. Anastomotic leak occurred in 6.0% (95% CI 2.2–9.7) of CME resections versus 6.0% (95% CI 4.1–7.9) in non-CME. CME had more lymph nodes, longer distance to high tie, and specimen length in all studies. Nine studies compared long-term oncologic outcomes and only three reported statistically significant higher disease-free or overall survival in favor of CME. Local recurrence was lower after CME in two of four studies.


The quality of evidence is limited and does not consistently support the superiority of CME. Better data are needed before CME can be recommended as the standard of care for colon cancer resections.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Chirurgie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.