Abstract
Background
Since the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, there has been a controversy between creating an intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in right hemicolectomy. The purpose is to report our experience in intracorporeal anastomosis following right hemicolectomy in both malignant and benign pathologies.
Study design
A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was conducted at Virgen de la Arrixaca Clinical University Hospital (Murcia) between January 2000 and April 2014. The study includes all surgery patients who received a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with an intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis. The criteria for exclusion were conversion to open surgery during the procedure due to technical difficulties during dissect. Tumours considered T4 were not excluded, nor were stage IV patients or those with a history of previous abdominal surgery.
Results
There were 173 patients (63 females) aged 67 (range 14–91) years, with body mass index of 27 (17–52) kg/m2 and ASA 1:2:3:4 of 12:78:68:15; 41 % had previous abdominal surgery and 70 % had a pre-existing comorbidity. Operating time was 142 (60–270) min. Specimen extraction site incision length was 8.1 (6–11.1) cm. Conversion rate was 9.2 %, and there were 39 complications (22.54 %) and 9 reoperations (5.2 %). Readmission rate was 5.2 %. Length of stay was 5.7 (1–35) days.
Conclusion
The intracorporeal procedure is a safe and feasible alternative for creating an ileocolic anastomosis. It involves a similar rate of complications and may prevent some of the drawbacks presented by extracorporeal anastomosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baixauili J, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Remzi FH, Fazio VW (2003) Portal vein thrombosis after laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 46:550–553
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
Hellan M, Anderson C, Pigazzi A (2009) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. JSLS 13:312–317
Schinkert RT (1991) Laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 34(11):1030–1031
Lacy AM, Delgado S, Castells A et al (2008) The long term results of randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg 248:1–7
The Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomized trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484
Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomized clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52
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. Cirugía Española 89:24–30
Fabozzi M, Allieta R, Contul RB et al (2010) Comparison of short- and medium-term results between laparoscopically assisted and totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case–control study. Surg Endosc 24:2085–2091
Casciola L, Ceccarelli G, Di ZittiL (2003) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Technical aspects and personal experience. Minerva Chir 58:621–627
Young-Fadok TM, Nelson H (2000) Laparoscopic right colectomy: five-step procedure. Dis Colon Rectum 43:267–271
Senagore A, Delaney C, Brady K, Fazio V (2004) Standardized approach to laparoscopic right colectomy: outcomes in 70 consecutive cases. J Am Coll Surg 5:675–679
Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Farinella E et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy–systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 22:1–13
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
Feroci F, Lenzi E, Garzi A et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1177–1186
Grams J, Tong W, Greenstein AJ, Salky B (2010) Comparison of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic-assisted hemicolectomy. Surg Endosc 24:1886–1891
Scatizzi M, Kroning K, Borrelli A et al (2010) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: a case–control study. World J Surg 34:2902–2908
Chang K, Fakhoury M, Barnajian M, Tarta C, Bergamaschi R (2013) Laparoscopic right colon resection with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 27:1730–1736
Blumberg D (2003) Laparoscopic colectomy performed using a completely intracorporeal technique is associated with similar outcomes in obese and thin patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19:57–61
Franklin ME, CW, Salzmnn MD, Russek K, Garza U (2012) Comparative study between intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses in right hemicolectomy. In: SAGES annual meeting
Causey MW, Oguntoye M, Steele SR (2011) Incidence of complications following colectomy with mesenteric closure versus no mesenteric closure: does it really matter? J Surg Res 171:571–575
Kornmann VNN, Hagendoorn J, van Koeverden S, van Rambshorst B, Smits AB (2013) Totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is a technically and oncologically safe procedure. Acta Chir Belg 113:439–443
Samia H, Lawrence J, Nobel T et al (2013) Extraction site location and incisional hernias after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: should we be avoiding the midline? Am J Surg 205(3):264–267 discussion 268
Drosdeck J, Harzman A, Suzo A et al (2013) Multivariate analysis of risk factors for surgical site infection after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 27(12):4574–4580
Lauscher JC, Grittner F, Stroux A (2012) Reduction of wound infections in laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resections by plastic wound ring drapes (REDWIL)?—a randomized controlled trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(7):1079–1085
Pereira JA, Pera M, Grande L (2013) Incidence of incisional hernia after open and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cirugía Española 91(1):44–49
Claes K, Beckers R, Heindryckx E et al (2014) Retrospective observational study on the incidence of incisional hernias after colorectal carcinoma resection with follow-up CT scan. Hernia 18(6):797–802
Winslow ER, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH et al (2002) Wound complications of laparoscopic vs open colectomy. Surg Endosc 16:1420–1425
Ihedioha U, Mackay G, Leung E et al (2008) Laparoscopic colorectal resection does not reduce incisional hernia rates when compared with open colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 22:689–692
Singh R, Omiccioli A, Hegge S et al (2008) Does the extraction—site location in laparoscopic colorectal surgery have an impact on incisional hernia rates? Surg Endosc 22:2596–2600
Lee L, Mappin-Kasirer B, Sender Liberman A et al (2012) High incidence of symptomatic incisional hernia after midline extraction in laparoscopic colon resection. Surg Endosc 26(11):3180–3185
O’Dwyer PJ, Courtney CA (2003) Factors involved in abdominal wall closure and subsequent incisional hernia. Surg J R Coll Surg Edinb Irel 1:17–22
Nieuwenhuizen J, Halm JA, Jeekel J et al (2007) Natural course of incisional hernia and indications for repair. Scand J Surg 96:293–296
Disclosures
J. Abrisqueta, N. Ibañez, J. Luján, Q, Hernández and P. Parrilla of the article do not have commercial associations (e.g. consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent-licensing arrangements, research support, speaker’s bureau, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abrisqueta, J., Ibañez, N., Luján, J. et al. Intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in patients with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Surg Endosc 30, 65–72 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4162-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4162-5