Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgical Endoscopy
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 4/2019

19.11.2018 | Review Article

Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach

verfasst von: Emanuele Rausa, Michael Eamon Kelly, Emanuele Asti, Alberto Aiolfi, Gianluca Bonitta, Luigi Bonavina

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 4/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

There are a variety of surgical approaches for the management of right-sided colonic neoplasms. To date, no method has been shown superior in terms of surgical and perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis compared open (ORH), laparoscopic-assisted (LRH), total laparoscopic (TLRH), and robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) to assess surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Study design

We conducted an electronic systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science that compared RRH, TLRH, LRH, and ORH. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 25 retrospective, and 18 prospective studies totalling 5652 patients were included.

Results

The overall complication rate was similar between RRH and TLRH (RR 1.0; Crl 0.66–1.5). The anastomotic leak rate was higher in LRH and ORH compared to RRH (RR 1.9; Crl 0.99–3.6 and RR 1.2; Crl 0.55–2.6, respectively), whereas it was lower in TLRH compared to RRH (RR 0.88 Crl 0.41–1.9). The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in ORH compared to TLRH (RR 3.3; Crl 1.3–8.0). Operative time was similar in RRH compared to LRH (RR − 27.0; Crl − 61.0 to 5.9), and to TLRH (RR − 24.0; Crl − 70.0 to 21.0). The hospital stay was significantly longer in LRH compared to RRH (RR 3.7; Crl 0.7–6.7).

Conclusion

The surgical management of right-sided colonic disease is evolving. This network meta-analysis observed that short-term outcomes following RRH and TLRH were superior to standard LRH and ORH. The adoption of more advanced minimally invasive techniques can be costly and have associated learning phases, but will ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Literatur
1.
Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA et al (2016) Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA 315:2576–2594CrossRefPubMed
2.
van Oostendorp S, Elfrink A, Borstlap W et al (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:64–77CrossRefPubMed
3.
Fowler DL, White SA (1991) Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:183–188PubMed
4.
Schiphorst AH, Verweij NM, Pronk A et al (2015) Non-surgical complications after laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer—a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Surg Oncol 41:1118–1127CrossRefPubMed
5.
Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Farinella E et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy - systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 22:1–13CrossRefPubMed
6.
Arezzo A, Passera R, Ferri V et al (2015) Laparoscopic right colectomy reduces short-term mortality and morbidity. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:1457–1472CrossRefPubMed
7.
Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A et al (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694; discussion 1695–1686CrossRefPubMed
8.
Trastulli S, Coratti A, Guarino S et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc 29:1512–1521CrossRefPubMed
9.
Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y et al (2012) A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy-assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. J Cancer 3:49–57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. Bmj 346:f2914CrossRefPubMed
15.
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE et al (2013) Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 33:607–617CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
17.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM et al (2010) Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 29:932–944CrossRefPubMed
18.
Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing, Vienna, 20–22 March 2003
19.
20.
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Bokey EL, Moore JW, Chapuis PH et al (1996) Morbidity and mortality following laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy for cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 39:S24–S28CrossRefPubMed
22.
Leung KL, Meng WC, Lee JF et al (1999) Laparoscopic-assisted resection of right-sided colonic carcinoma: a case-control study. J Surg Oncol 71:97–100CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lezoche E, Feliciotti F, Paganini AM et al (2002) Laparoscopic vs open hemicolectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 16:596–602CrossRefPubMed
24.
Baker RP, Titu LV, Hartley JE et al (2004) A case-control study of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy vs. open right hemicolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1675–1679CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zheng MH, Feng B, Lu AG et al (2005) Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy with curative intent for colon carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 11:323–326CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
27.
Lohsiriwat V, Lohsiriwat D, Chinswangwatanakul V et al (2007) Comparison of short-term outcomes between laparoscopically-assisted vs. transverse-incision open right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer: a retrospective study. World J Surg Oncol 5:49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Chung CC, Ng DC, Tsang WW et al (2007) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 246:728–733CrossRefPubMed
29.
Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A et al (2007) Open right colectomy is still effective compared to laparoscopy: results of a randomized trial. Ann Surg 246:1010–1014; discussion 1014–1015CrossRefPubMed
30.
Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK et al (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708CrossRefPubMed
31.
Tan WS, Chew MH, Ooi BS et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy: a comparison of short-term outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:1333–1339CrossRefPubMed
32.
Nakamura T, Onozato W, Mitomi H et al (2009) Retrospective, matched case-control study comparing the oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in patients with right-sided colon cancer. Surg Today 39:1040–1045CrossRefPubMed
33.
Hellan M, Anderson C, Pigazzi A (2009) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Jsls 13:312–317PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
35.
Vogel JD, Lian L, Kalady MF et al (2011) Hand-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy: how does it compare to conventional laparoscopy? J Am Coll Surg 212:367–372CrossRefPubMed
36.
Scatizzi M, Kroning KC, Borrelli A et al (2010) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: a case-control study. World J Surg 34:2902–2908CrossRefPubMed
37.
Chaves JA, Idoate CP, Fons JB et al (2011) A case-control study of extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis in patients subjected to right laparoscopic hemicolectomy. Cir Esp 89:24–30CrossRefPubMed
38.
Fabozzi M, Allieta R, Brachet Contul R et al (2010) Comparison of short- and medium-term results between laparoscopically assisted and totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 24:2085–2091CrossRefPubMed
39.
deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006CrossRefPubMed
40.
Khan JS, Hemandas AK, Flashman KG et al (2011) Clinical outcome of laparoscopic and open colectomy for right colonic carcinoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93:603–607CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Papaconstantinou HT, Sharp N, Thomas JS (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a case-matched comparison with standard laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques. J Am Coll Surg 213:72–80; discussion 80–72CrossRefPubMed
42.
Li JC, Leung KL, Ng SS et al (2012) Laparoscopic-assisted versus open resection of right-sided colonic cancer—a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:95–102CrossRefPubMed
43.
Tanis E, van Geloven AA, Bemelman WA et al (2012) A comparison of short-term outcome after laparoscopic, transverse, and midline right-sided colectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:797–802CrossRefPubMed
44.
Kwon JW, Kim BS, Park HC et al (2012) Surgical treatment of complicated right colonic diverticulitis: laparoscopic versus open surgery. Surg Endosc 26:2926–2930CrossRefPubMed
45.
Roscio F, Bertoglio C, De Luca A et al (2012) Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic assisted right colectomy for cancer. Int J Surg 10:290–295CrossRefPubMed
46.
Ng LW, Tung LM, Cheung HY et al (2012) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus total laparoscopic right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 14:e612–e617CrossRefPubMed
47.
Anania G, Santini M, Scagliarini L et al (2012) A totally mini-invasive approach for colorectal laparoscopic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 18:3869–3874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Erguner I, Aytac E, Baca B et al (2013) Total laparoscopic approach for the treatment of right colon cancer: a technical critique. Asian J Surg 36:58–63CrossRefPubMed
49.
Deutsch GB, Sathyanarayana SA, Gunabushanam V et al (2012) Robotic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc 26:956–963CrossRefPubMed
50.
Shin JY (2012) Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between a robotic colectomy and a laparoscopic colectomy during early experience. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28:19–26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Marchesi F, Pinna F, Percalli L et al (2013) Totally laparoscopic right colectomy: theoretical and practical advantages over the laparo-assisted approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23:418–424CrossRefPubMed
52.
Lee KH, Ho J, Akmal Y et al (2013) Short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 27:1986–1990CrossRefPubMed
53.
Magistro C, Lernia SD, Ferrari G et al (2013) Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy for colon cancer: is there any advantage in short-term outcomes? A prospective comparative assessment in our center. Surg Endosc 27:2613–2618CrossRefPubMed
54.
Casillas MA Jr, Leichtle SW, Wahl WL et al (2014) Improved perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations. Am J Surg 208:33–40CrossRefPubMed
55.
Morpurgo E, Contardo T, Molaro R et al (2013) Robotic-assisted intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a case control study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23:414–417CrossRefPubMed
56.
Han DP, Lu AG, Feng H et al (2014) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic-assisted right-hemicolectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy versus open surgery for colon carcinoma. Surg Today 44:868–874CrossRefPubMed
57.
Bae SU, Park JS, Choi YJ et al (2014) The role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in a right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer. Ann Coloproctol 30:11–17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Vergis AS, Steigerwald SN, Bhojani FD et al (2015) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastamosis: a comparison of short-term outcomes. Can J Surg 58:63–68CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Milone M, Elmore U, Di Salvo E et al (2015) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Results from a multicentre comparative study on 512 right-sided colorectal cancers. Surg Endosc 29:2314–2320CrossRefPubMed
60.
de’Angelis N, Alghamdi S, Renda A et al (2015) Initial experience of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a matched case-control study. World J Surg Oncol 13:295CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Shapiro R, Keler U, Segev L et al (2016) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: short- and long-term benefits in comparison with extracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 30:3823–3829CrossRefPubMed
62.
Hanna MH, Hwang GS, Phelan MJ et al (2016) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 30:3933–3942CrossRefPubMed
63.
Kang J, Park YA, Baik SH et al (2016) A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:497–502CrossRefPubMed
64.
Biondi A, Santocchi P, Pennestri F et al (2017) Totally laparoscopic right colectomy versus laparoscopically assisted right colectomy: a propensity score analysis. Surg Endosc 31:5275–5282CrossRefPubMed
65.
Martinek L, You K, Giuratrabocchetta S et al (2018) Does laparoscopic intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis decreases surgical site infection rate? A propensity score-matched cohort study. Int J Colorectal Dis 33:291–298CrossRefPubMed
66.
Lujan HJ, Plasencia G, Rivera BX et al (2018) Advantages of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 28:36–41CrossRefPubMed
67.
Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226CrossRefPubMed
68.
Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A et al (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7:431–440CrossRefPubMed
69.
Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W et al (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg 19:516–526CrossRefPubMed
70.
71.
Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS et al (2014) Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons from a single surgeon’s experience. Dis Colon Rectum 57:1066–1074CrossRefPubMed
72.
Vogel JD, Eskicioglu C, Weiser MR et al (2017) The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 60:999–1017CrossRefPubMed
73.
Spinoglio G, Marano A, Bianchi PP et al (2016) Robotic right colectomy with modified complete mesocolic excision: long-term oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 23:684–691CrossRefPubMed
74.
75.
Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ et al (2007) Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol 166:1203–1209CrossRefPubMed
76.
Metadaten
Titel
Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach
verfasst von
Emanuele Rausa
Michael Eamon Kelly
Emanuele Asti
Alberto Aiolfi
Gianluca Bonitta
Luigi Bonavina
Publikationsdatum
19.11.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6592-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2019

Surgical Endoscopy 4/2019 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Incidence of pediatric metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia and the relationship with contralateral patent processus vaginalis

OriginalPaper

The learning curve of endoscopic thyroid surgery for papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: CUSUM analysis of a single surgeon’s experience

Review Article

Internal hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an under-reported potentially severe complication. A systematic review and meta-analysis

New Technology

Technique for endoscopic thyroidectomy with selective lateral neck dissection via a chest–breast approach

OriginalPaper

Three-way comparative study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural gallbladder drainage using lumen-apposing metal stents versus endoscopic transpapillary drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: clinical outcomes and success in an International, Multicenter Study

OriginalPaper

Correlation between laparoscopic transection of an indirect inguinal hernial sac and postoperative seroma formation: a prospective randomized controlled study

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.