Outcomes of medial to lateral vs. lateral to medial approaches in laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections

Author:

Iqbal Muhammad Rafaih1ORCID,Ari Kaso2,Probert Spencer1,Cai Wenyi1,Ramadan Wafaa1,Walton Sarah-Jane1

Affiliation:

1. Colorectal Surgery, Basildon University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon

2. General Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Hospital Foundation Trust

Abstract

Introduction: Bowel cancer is a significant global health concern, ranking as the third most prevalent cancer worldwide. Laparoscopic resections have become a standard treatment modality for resectable colorectal cancer. This study aimed to compare the clinical and oncological outcomes of medial to lateral (ML) vs lateral to medial (LM) approaches in laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a UK district general hospital from 2015 to 2019, including 402 patients meeting specific criteria. Demographic, clinical, operative, postoperative, and oncological data were collected. Participants were categorised into LM and ML groups. The primary outcome was 30-day complications, and secondary outcomes included operative duration, length of stay, lymph node harvest, and 3-year survival. Results: A total of 402 patients (55.7% males) were included: 102 (51.6% females) in the lateral mobilisation (LM) group and 280 (58.9% males) in the medial mobilisation (ML) group. Right hemicolectomy (n=157, 39.1%) and anterior resection (n=150, 37.3%) were the most performed procedures. The LM group had a shorter operative time for right hemicolectomy (median 165 vs. 225 min, P<0.001) and anterior resection (median 230 vs. 300 min, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of wound infection (P=0.443), anastomotic leak (P=0.981), postoperative ileus (P=0.596), length of stay (P=0.446), lymph node yield (P=0.848) or 3-year overall survival rate (Log-rank 0.759). Discussion: The study contributes to the limited evidence on ML vs LM approaches. A shorter operative time in the LM group was noted in this study, contrary to some literature. Postoperative outcomes were comparable, with a non-significant increase in postoperative ileus in the LM group. The study emphasises the safety and feasibility of both approaches.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3