International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 201–207 | Cite as

Short- and long-term outcomes after transverse versus extended colectomy for transverse colon cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Marco MiloneEmail author
  • Michele Manigrasso
  • Ugo Elmore
  • Francesco Maione
  • Nicola Gennarelli
  • Fabio Rondelli
  • Nunzio Velotti
  • Giovanni Domenico De Palma



Provide the surgeon with a tool to decide the best surgical approach to transverse colon cancer.


To compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between transverse colectomy and extended hemicolectomy for patients with tumours of the transverse colon.

Data sources

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms and/or MeSH terms in all possible combinations: transverse, transversus, colectomy, hemicolectomy, segmental resection, transverse colon cancer. The last search was performed on 10 May 2018.

Study selection

Two independent authors (Mi.M. and N.V.) analysed each article and performed the data extraction independently. In case of disagreement, a third investigator was consulted (Ma.M.). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data regarding sample size, major clinical and demographic variables, oncologic outcomes and postoperative recovery and complications were extracted.

Main outcome measures

Main outcomes analysed were anastomotic leakage, early mortality, hospital stay, operative time, overall complications rate, wound infection, harvested nodes and disease-free survival.


No statistical differences were found between transverse colectomy and extended hemicolectomy in short- and long-term outcomes; our results revealed no differences in disease-free survival between the two surgical approaches. As expected, a statistically significant difference was found in favour of extended hemicolectomy in terms of number of harvested lymph nodes.


This systematic review with meta-analysis focus on the two major approaches to transverse colon cancer. The reviewed evidence suggests that a conservative approach to transverse colon cancer is feasible and safe and oncological outcomes are comparable between a conservative and an extended surgical procedure.


Transverse colectomy Extended colectomy Transverse colon cancer 


Author contributions

Milone M: conception, design, interpretation of the data and drafting of the article; Manigrasso M, Elmore U, Rondelli F, Maione F, Velotti N: acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data; De Palma GD: interpretation of the data and critical revisions; De Palma GD: critical revisions and final approval.

Supplementary material

384_2018_3186_MOESM1_ESM.docx (44 kb)
Appendix 1 . PRISMA flowchart of the include studies. (DOCX 43 kb)
384_2018_3186_MOESM2_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Appendix 2 . NOS quality assessment of the included studies. (DOCX 12 kb)
384_2018_3186_MOESM4_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Study populations characteristics. (DOCX 16 kb)
384_2018_3186_Fig5_ESM.png (46 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1

Funnel plot analysis of a) anastomotic leak, b) 5-year disease freed survival, c) operative time, d) number of harvested nodes, e) wound infection. (PNG 45 kb)

384_2018_3186_MOESM3_ESM.tif (473 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 472 kb)


  1. 1.
    Lê P, Mehtari L, Billey C (2006) Carcinoma of the transverse colon. J Chir (Paris) 143(5):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee YS, Lee IK, Kang WK, Cho HM, Park JK, Oh ST, Kim JG, Kim YH (2008) Surgical and pathological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for transverse colon cancer. Int J Color Dis 23:669–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D et al Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available from: Accessed 2 Oct 2005
  5. 5.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 323:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leijssen LGJ, Dinaux AM, Amri R, Kunitake H, Bordeianou LG, Berger DL (2018) A transverse colectomy is as safe as an extended right or left colectomy for mid-transverse colon cancer. World J Surg 42:3381–3389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matsuda T, Sumi Y, Yamashita K, Hasegawa H, Yamamoto M, Matsuda Y, Kanaji S, Oshikiri T, Nakamura T, Suzuki S, Kakeji Y (2018) Optimal surgery for mid-transverse colon cancer: laparoscopic extended right hemicolectomy versus laparoscopic transverse colectomy. World J Surg 42:3398–3404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chong CS, Huh JW, Oh BY, Park YA, Cho YB, Yun SH, Kim HC, Lee WY (2016) Operative method for transverse colon carcinoma: transverse colectomy versus extended colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 59(7):630–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Rongen I, Damhuis RA, van der Hoeven JA, Plaisier PW (2013) Comparison of extended hemicolectomy versus transverse colectomy in patients with cancer of the transverse colon. Acta Chir Belg 113(2):107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guan X, Zhao Z, Yang M et al (2017) Whether partial colectomy is oncologically safe for patients with transverse colon cancer: a large population-based study. Oncotarget 8(54):93236–93244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sjo OH, Lunde OC, Nygaard K, Sandvik L, Nesbakken A (2008) Tumour location is a prognostic factor for survival in colonic cancer patients. Color Dis 10:33–40Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim CW, Shin US, Yu CS, Kim JC (2010) Clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical treatment and outcomes for splenic flexure colon cancer. Cancer Res Treat 42:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morikawa E, Yasutomi M, Shindou K, Matsuda T, Mori N, Hida J, Kubo R, Kitaoka M, Nakamura M, Fujimoto K, Inufusa H, Hatta M, Izumoto G (1994) Distribution of metastatic lymph nodes in colorectal cancer by the modified clearing method. Dis Colon Rectum 37:219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marchet A, Mocellin S, Ambrosi A et al (2007) Italian research Group for Gastric Cancer (IRGGC). The ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes (N ratio) is an independent prognostic factor in gastric cancer regardless of the type of lymphadenectomy: results from an Italian multicentric study in 1853 patients. Ann Surg 245(4):543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Medicine and SurgeryFederico II University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific InstituteVita Salute UniversityMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Surgery and Advanced TechnologiesFederico II University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Department of Surgical and Biomedical SciencesUniversity of PerugiaPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations