Top

Published in:

01-02-2018 | Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Recovery after intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Marco Milone, Ugo Elmore, Andrea Vignali, Nicola Gennarelli, Michele Manigrasso, Morena Burati, Francesco Milone, Giovanni Domenico De Palma, Paolo Delrio, Riccardo Rosati

Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Although intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) appears to guarantee a faster recovery compared to extracorporeal anastomosis (EA), the data are still unclear. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis to evaluate the recovery benefits of intracorporeal anastomosis.

Materials and methods

A systematic search was performed in electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE) using the following search terms in all possible combinations: “laparoscopic,” “right hemicolectomy,” “right colectomy,” “intracorporeal,” “extracorporeal,” and “anastomosis.” According to the pre-specified protocol, all studies evaluating the impact of choice of intra- or extracorporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy on time to first flatus and stools, hospital stay, and postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification were included.

Results

Sixteen articles were included in the final analysis, including 1862 patients who had undergone right hemicolectomy: 950 cases (IA) and 912 controls (EA). Patients who underwent IA reported a significantly shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.445, p = 0.013, Z = − 2.494, 95% CI − 0.795, 0.095), to first stools (MD = − 0.684, p < 0.001, Z = − 4.597, 95% CI − 0.976, 0.392), and a shorter hospital stay (MD = − 0.782, p < 0.001, Z = −3.867, 95% CI − 1.178, − 0.385) than those who underwent EA. No statistically significant differences in complications between the IA and EA patients were observed in the Clavien-Dindo I-II group (RD = − 0.014, p = 0.797, Z = − 0.257, 95% CI − 0.117, 0.090, number needed to treat (NNT) 74) or in the Clavien-Dindo IV-V (RD = − 0.005, p = 0.361, Z = − 0.933, 95% CI − 0.017, 0.006, NNT 184). The IA procedure led to fewer complications in the Clavien-Dindo III group (RD = − 0.041, p = 0.006, Z = − 2.731, 95% CI − 0.070, 0.012, NNT 24).

Conclusions

Although intracorporeal anastomosis appears to be safe in terms of postoperative complications and is potentially more effective in terms of recovery after surgery, further ad hoc randomized clinical trials are needed, given the heterogeneity of the data available in the current literature.

Available only for authorised users

Tinmouth J, Tomlinson G (2004) Laparoscopically assisted versus open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 351(9):933–934. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200408263510919 CrossRefPubMed

Jamali FR, Soweid AM, Dimassi H, Bailey C, Leroy J, Marescaux J (2008) Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 143(8):762–767. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.143.8.762 CrossRefPubMed

Chang K, Fakhoury M, Barnajian M, Tarta C, Bergamaschi R (2013) Laparoscopic right colon resection with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 27(5):1730–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2665-x CrossRefPubMed

Tarta CM, Bishawi M, Bergamaschi R (2013) Intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis: a review. Tech Coloproct 17(5):479–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-0998-7 CrossRef

Simorov A, Shaligram A, Shostrom V, Boilesen E, Thompson J, Oleynikov D (2012) Laparoscopic colon resection trends in utilization and rate of conversion to open procedure: a national database review of academic medical centers. Ann Surg 256(3):462–468. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182657ec5 CrossRefPubMed

Carnuccio P, Jimeno J, Parés D (2014) Laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing two types of anastomosis. Tech Coloproctol 18(1):5–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1029-4 CrossRefPubMed

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range and the size of sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-13 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R et al (1999) The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282(11):1054–1060. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Messori A, Maratea D, Fadda V, Trippoli S (2013) Using risk difference as opposed to odds-ratio in meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 20(1):127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.06.078 CrossRef

11.

Citrome L, Ketter TA (2013) When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed. Int J Clin Pract 67(5):407–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12142 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 323(7304):101–105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56(2):455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x CrossRefPubMed

14.

Scatizzi M, Kroning KC, Borrelli A, Andan G, Lenzi E, Feroci F (2010) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: a case-control study. World J Surg 34(12):2902–2908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0743-6 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Milone M, Elmore U, Di Salvo E, Delrio P, Bucci L, Ferulano GP, Napolitano C, Angiolini MR, Bracale U, Clemente M, D’Ambra M, Luglio G, Musella M, Pace U, Rosati R, Milone F (2015) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Results from a multicentre comparative study on 512 right-sided colorectal cancers. Surg Endosc 29(8):2314–2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3950-7 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Shapiro R, Keler U, Segev L, Sarna S, Hatib K, Hazzan D (2015) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: short- and long-term benefits in comparison with extracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 30(9):3823–3829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4684-x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Vignali A, Bissolati M, De Nardi P, Di Palo S, Staudacher C (2016) Extracorporeal vs. extracorporeal ileocolic stapled anastomoses in laparoscopic right colectomy: an interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26(5):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0547 CrossRef

18.

Magistro C, Lernia SD, Ferrari G, Zullino A, Mazzola M, De Martini P, De Carli S, Forgione A, Bertoglio CL, Pugliese R (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(7):2613–2618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2799-5 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Marchesi F, Pinna F, Percalli L, Cecchini S, Riccó M, Costi R, Pattonieri V, Roncoroni L (2013) Totally laparoscopic right colectomy: theoretical and practical advantages over the laparo-assisted approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23(5):418–424. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0420 CrossRef

20.

Fabozzi M, Allieta R, Contul RB, Grivon M, Millo P, Lale-Murix E, Nardi M (2010) Comparison of short- and medium-term results between laparoscopically assisted and totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 24(9):2085–2091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0902-8 CrossRefPubMed

21.

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(1):24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2010.10.003 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Roscio F, Bertoglio C, De Luca A, Frattini P, Scandroglio I (2012) Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic assisted right colectomy for cancer. Int J Surg 10(6):290–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2012.04.020 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hanna MH, Hwang GS, Phelan MJ, Bui TL, Carmichael JC, Mills SD, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2016) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 30(9):3933–3942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4704-x CrossRefPubMed

24.

Vergis AS, Steigerwald SN, Bhojani FD, Sullivan PA, Hardy KM (2015) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastamosis: a comparison of short-term outcomes. Can J Surg 58(1):63–68. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.001914 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Lee KH, Ho J, Akmal Y, Nelson R, Pigazzi A (2013) Short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 27(6):1986–1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2698-1 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Anania G, Santini M, Scagliarini L, Marzetti A, Vedana L, Marino S, Gregorio C, Resta G, Cavallesco G (2012) A totally mini invasive approach for colorectal laparoscopic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 18(29):3869–3874. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i29.3869. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Jian-Cheng T, Shu-Sheng W, Bo Z, Jian F, Liang Z (2016) Total laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with 3-step stapled intracorporeal isoperistaltic ileocolic anastomosis for colon cancer: an evaluation of short-term outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(48):e5538CrossRef

28.

Trastulli S, Coratti A, Guarino S, Piagnerelli R, Annecchiarico M, Coratti F, di Marino M, Ricci F, Desiderio J, Cirocchi R, Parisi A (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc 29(6):1512–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3835-9 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Erguner I, Aytac E, Baca B, Hamzaoglu I, Karahasanoglu T (2013) Total laparoscopic approach for the treatment of right colon cancer: a technical critique. Asian J Surg 36(2):58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2012.09.004 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Feroci F, Lenzi E, Garzi A, Vannucchi A, Cantafio S, Scatizzi M (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis 28(9):1177–1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1651-7 CrossRef

31.

Rondelli F, Trastulli S, Avenia N, Schillaci G, Cirocchi R, Gullà N, Mariani E, Bistoni G, Nova G (2012) Laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than open resection? A meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies. Color Dis 14(8):e447–e469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03054.x CrossRef

32.

Ricci C, Casadei R, Alagna V, Zani E, Taffurelli G, Pacilio CA, Minni F (2017) A critical and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402(3):417–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1509-x CrossRef

33.

Van Oostendorp S, Elfrink A, Borstlap W, Schoonmade L, Sietses C, Meijerink J, Tuynman J (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31(1):64–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4982-y CrossRefPubMed

34.

Wu Q, Jin C, Hu T, Wei M, Wang Z (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(4):348–357. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0485 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lu X-Y, Zhao C-F, Zhang T-T et al (2003) The practicability of the Changhai Pain Scale in the clinical pain assessment. N J Chin HA 20:6–7

36.

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Recovery after intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Marco Milone
Ugo Elmore
Andrea Vignali
Nicola Gennarelli
Michele Manigrasso
Morena Burati
Francesco Milone
Giovanni Domenico De Palma
Paolo Delrio
Riccardo Rosati
Publication date: 01-02-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Electronic ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-017-1645-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Recovery after intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Use of methylene blue and near-infrared fluorescence in thyroid and parathyroid surgery

Postoperative outcome and quality of life after surgery for FAP-associated duodenal adenomatosis

Pure laparoscopic anatomical segment VI resection using the Glissonian approach, Rouviere’s sulcus as a landmark, and a modified liver hanging maneuver (with video)

Predictors of multiglandular disease in primary hyperparathyroidism

Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy after bile duct injury

Indication of extrahepatic bile duct resection for gallbladder cancer