Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 315:2576–2594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 31:64–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fowler DL, White SA (1991) Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:183–188

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 41:1118–1127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 22:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 30:1457–1472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 1695–1686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 29:1512–1521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 3:49–57

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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:b2700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 283:2008–2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wells GA, Shea B, ‘Connell DO, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al (2015) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in the meta-analysis. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

  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:d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. Bmj 346:f2914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 33:607–617

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM et al (2010) Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 29:932–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 5 April 2018

  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 5:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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–S28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 71:97–100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lezoche E, Feliciotti F, Paganini AM et al (2002) Laparoscopic vs open hemicolectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 16:596–602

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 47:1675–1679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zheng MH, Feng B, Lu AG et al (2005) Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy with curative intent for colon carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 11:323–326

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Tong DK, Law WL (2007) Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy for carcinoma of the colon. JSLS 11:76–80

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 5:49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Chung CC, Ng DC, Tsang WW et al (2007) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 246:728–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 1014–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK et al (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:1333–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 39:1040–1045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hellan M, Anderson C, Pigazzi A (2009) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Jsls 13:312–317

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Abdel-Halim MR, Moore HM, Cohen P et al (2010) Impact of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92:211–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 212:367–372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 34:2902–2908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 89:24–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:2085–2091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 93:603–607

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 80–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:95–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:797–802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kwon JW, Kim BS, Park HC et al (2012) Surgical treatment of complicated right colonic diverticulitis: laparoscopic versus open surgery. Surg Endosc 26:2926–2930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Roscio F, Bertoglio C, De Luca A et al (2012) Totally laparoscopic versus laparoscopic assisted right colectomy for cancer. Int J Surg 10:290–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Anania G, Santini M, Scagliarini L et al (2012) A totally mini-invasive approach for colorectal laparoscopic surgery. World J Gastroenterol 18:3869–3874

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 36:58–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Deutsch GB, Sathyanarayana SA, Gunabushanam V et al (2012) Robotic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc 26:956–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:19–26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 23:418–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:1986–1990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:2613–2618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 208:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:414–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 44:868–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 30:11–17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 58:63–68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 29:2314–2320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 13:295

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 30:3823–3829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 30:3933–3942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 26:497–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 31:5275–5282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 33:291–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lujan HJ, Plasencia G, Rivera BX et al (2018) Advantages of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 28:36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A et al (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7:431–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:516–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Xu H, Li J, Sun Y et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 12:274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 57:1066–1074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 60:999–1017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 23:684–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

  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 166:1203–1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A et al (2014) Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9:e99682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan Medical School, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy

    Emanuele Rausa, Emanuele Asti, Alberto Aiolfi, Gianluca Bonitta & Luigi Bonavina

  2. Department of Surgery, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland

    Michael Eamon Kelly

Authors
  1. Emanuele Rausa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Eamon Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emanuele Asti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alberto Aiolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gianluca Bonitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luigi Bonavina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuele Rausa.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Emanuele Rausa, Michael E. Kelly, Emanuele Asti, Alberto Aiolfi, Gianluca Bonitta, and Luigi Bonavina have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rausa, E., Kelly, M.E., Asti, E. et al. Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach. Surg Endosc 33, 1020–1032 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6592-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6592-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation