Display options
Share it on

World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017 Dec 15;9(12):475-491. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v9.i12.475.

Laparoscopic .

World journal of gastrointestinal oncology

Ionut Negoi, Sorin Hostiuc, Ruxandra Irina Negoi, Mircea Beuran

Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Emergency Hospital of Bucharest, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Bucharest 014461, Romania. [email protected].
  2. National Institute of Legal Medicine Mina Minovici, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Bucharest 014461, Romania.
  3. Department of Anatomy, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Bucharest 014461, Romania.
  4. Emergency Hospital of Bucharest, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Bucharest 014461, Romania.

PMID: 29290918 PMCID: PMC5740088 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v9.i12.475

Abstract

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (L-CME) with its open (O-CME) counterpart.

METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trails, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SciELO, and Korean Journal databases from their inception until May 2017. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that included patients with colonic cancer comparing L-CME and O-CME. Primary outcomes included the quality of the resected specimen (lymph nodes retrieved, complete mesocolic plane excision, tumor to arterial high tie, resected mesocolon surface). Secondary outcomes included the three-year and five-year overall and disease-free survival rates, recurrence of the disease, surgical data, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Two authors of the review screened the methodological quality of the eligible trials and independently extracted data from individual studies.

RESULTS: A total of one RCT and eleven CCTs (four from Europe and seven from Asia) met the inclusion criteria for the current meta-analysis. These studies involved 1619 patients in L-CME and 1477 patients in O-CME. The L-CME was associated with the same quality of the resected specimen, with no differences regarding the retrieved lymphnodes (MD = -1.06, 95%CI: -3.65 to 1.53,

CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach offers the same quality of the resected specimen as the open approach in complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation for colon cancer. The laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation is superior in all perioperative results and at least non-inferior in long-term oncological outcomes.

Keywords: Central vascular ligation; Colon cancer; Complete mesocolic excision; D3 lymphadenectomy

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

  1. Br J Surg. 2006 Mar;93(3):300-8 - PubMed
  2. Lancet Oncol. 2005 Jul;6(7):477-84 - PubMed
  3. Ann Surg. 2007 Oct;246(4):655-62; discussion 662-4 - PubMed
  4. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jan;10(1):44-52 - PubMed
  5. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 13;350(20):2050-9 - PubMed
  6. ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Nov;40(11):1494-501 - PubMed
  8. Surg Endosc. 2004 Apr;18(4):577-81 - PubMed
  9. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014 Apr;57(4):415-22 - PubMed
  10. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2014 Jan;23(1):35-47 - PubMed
  11. Ann Surg. 2008 Nov;248(5):728-38 - PubMed
  12. Dig Surg. 2016;33(2):114-20 - PubMed
  13. Colorectal Dis. 2012 Nov;14(11):1357-64 - PubMed
  14. Lancet. 2005 May 14-20;365(9472):1718-26 - PubMed
  15. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb;17(1):1-29 - PubMed
  16. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88 - PubMed
  17. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2004 Dec;14(6):329-34 - PubMed
  18. Stat Med. 2011 May 20;30(11):1183-98 - PubMed
  19. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Aug;26(8):606-13 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1763-9 - PubMed
  21. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 20;25(21):3061-8 - PubMed
  22. Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):455-63 - PubMed
  23. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700 - PubMed
  24. Ann Surg. 2014 Jul;260(1):23-30 - PubMed
  25. Am J Surg. 2016 Sep;212(3):511-26 - PubMed
  26. Int J Surg. 2015 Nov;23(Pt A):12-7 - PubMed
  27. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2012 Jan;15(1):24-7 - PubMed
  28. Ann Surg. 2007 Nov;246(5):728-33 - PubMed
  29. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):272-8 - PubMed
  30. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep;44(9):799-806 - PubMed
  31. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2017 Apr;16(2):127-138 - PubMed
  32. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun 28;20(24):7926-32 - PubMed
  33. Colorectal Dis. 2009 May;11(4):354-64; discussion 364-5 - PubMed
  34. Br J Surg. 2013 Jan;100(1):75-82 - PubMed
  35. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008 Aug;23(8):795-800 - PubMed
  36. Lancet. 2002 Jun 29;359(9325):2224-9 - PubMed
  37. Int J Surg. 2016 Mar;27:151-7 - PubMed
  38. Ann Surg. 2008 Jul;248(1):1-7 - PubMed
  39. Surg Endosc. 2016 Apr;30(4):1508-18 - PubMed
  40. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13 - PubMed
  41. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 - PubMed
  42. Chirurg. 2007 Mar;78(3):217-25 - PubMed
  43. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012 Jan;55(1):42-50 - PubMed
  44. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Jul;21(7):2288-94 - PubMed
  45. Chir Ital. 2008 Jan-Feb;60(1):1-7 - PubMed
  46. Surg Today. 2014 May;44(5):868-74 - PubMed
  47. Dig Surg. 2013;30(4-6):317-27 - PubMed
  48. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Jan;14(1):109-17 - PubMed

Publication Types