World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 454–458 | Cite as

Emergency Laparoscopic-assisted versus Open Right Hemicolectomy for Obstructing Right-sided Colonic Carcinoma: A Comparative Study of Short-term Clinical Outcomes

  • Simon S. M. NgEmail author
  • Janet F. Y. Lee
  • Raymond Y. C. Yiu
  • Jimmy C. M. Li
  • Wing Wa Leung
  • Ka Lau Leung



The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of emergency laparoscopic-assisted versus open right hemicolectomy for obstructing right-sided colonic carcinoma.


Between July 2003 and July 2006, 43 consecutive patients with obstructing right-sided colonic carcinoma underwent emergency right hemicolectomy at our institution, 14 with the laparoscopic-assisted approach and 29 with the open approach. Clinical data were retrospectively recorded and compared between the two groups.


There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to age, gender, co-morbidities, duration of obstructing symptoms, tumor length, and tumor staging. The laparoscopic-assisted group had longer operative time than the open group (187.5 min versus 145 min; p = 0.034) but less blood loss (20 ml versus 100 ml; p = 0.020). The median time to full ambulation was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic-assisted group (4 days versus 6 days; p = 0.016), but the time to return of gastrointestinal function and the duration of hospital stay were similar between the two groups. More patients in the open group developed postoperative complications (55.2% versus 28.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant.


Emergency laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy for obstructing right-sided colonic carcinoma is feasible and safe. In comparison with the open approach, the laparoscopic-assisted procedure is associated with less blood loss, earlier ambulation, and possibly lower morbidity rate.


Early Ambulation Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection Lower Morbidity Rate Dilate Bowel Loop Colorectal Stents 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, et al. (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224–2229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leung KL, Meng WC, Lee JF, et al. (1999) Laparoscopic-assisted resection of right-sided colonic carcinoma: a case-control study. J Surg Oncol 71:97–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, et al. (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ng SS, Yiu RY, Li JC, et al. (2006) Emergency laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy for obstructing right-sided colon carcinoma. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:350–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franklin ME Jr, Gonzalez JJ Jr, Miter DB, et al. (2004) Laparoscopic diagnosis and treatment of intestinal obstruction. Surg Endosc 18:26–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonzalez R, Smith CD, Ritter EM, et al. (2005) Laparoscopic palliative surgery for complicated colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 19:43–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leung KL, Kwok SP, Lam SC, et al. (2004) Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial. Lancet 363:1187–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ng SS, Leung KL, Lee JF, et al. (2005) MRC CLASICC trial. Lancet 366:713PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gervaz P, Bucher P, Scheiwiller A, et al. (2006) The duration of postoperative ileus after elective colectomy is correlated to surgical specialization. Int J Colorectal Dis 21:542–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zorcolo L, Covotta L, Carlomagno N, et al. (2003) Toward lowering morbidity, mortality, and stoma formation in emergency colorectal surgery: the role of specialization. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1461–1468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ng SS, Yiu RY, Li JC, et al. (2006) Endolaparoscopic left hemicolectomy and synchronous laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for obstructive carcinoma of the descending colon and renal cell carcinoma. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:297–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Beyssac R, et al. (2006) One-stage laparoscopic colorectal resection after placement of self-expanding metallic stents for colorectal obstruction: a prospective study. Dig Dis Sci 51:2365–2371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shim CS, Cho JY, Jung IS, et al. (2004) Through-the-scope double colonic stenting in the management of inoperable proximal malignant colonic obstruction: a pilot study. Endoscopy 36:426–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soto S, Lopez-Roses L, Gonzalez-Ramirez A, et al. (2006) Endoscopic treatment of acute colorectal obstruction with self-expandable metallic stents: experience in a community hospital. Surg Endosc 20:1072–1076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khot UP, Lang AW, Murali K, et al. (2002) Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of colorectal stents. Br J Surg 89:1096–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon S. M. Ng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Janet F. Y. Lee
    • 1
  • Raymond Y. C. Yiu
    • 1
  • Jimmy C. M. Li
    • 1
  • Wing Wa Leung
    • 1
  • Ka Lau Leung
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales HospitalShatinChina

Personalised recommendations