Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 161–167 | Cite as

Comparison of conventional access routes for right hemicolectomy in colon cancer—data from the DGAV StuDoQ registry

  • Christian Jurowich
  • Sven Lichthardt
  • Niels Matthes
  • Caroline Kastner
  • Imme Haubitz
  • Andre Prock
  • Jörg Filser
  • Stefan Löb
  • Christoph-Thomas Germer
  • Armin WiegeringEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Access for right hemicolectomy can be gained by median or transverse incision laparotomy. It is not known whether these routes differ with regard to short-term postoperative outcomes.

Methods

Patients in the DGAV StuDoQ|ColonCancer registry who underwent open oncological right hemicolectomy by median (n = 2389) or transverse laparotomy (n = 1311) were compared regarding Clavien–Dindo classification (CDC) complications (primary endpoint) as well as specific postoperative complications, operation time, length of stay, and MTL30 status (secondary endpoints).

Results

A total of 3700 StuDoQ registry patients underwent open oncological right hemicolectomy by median (n = 2389) or transverse laparotomy (n = 1311) without additional interventions. The median and transverse access routes did not differ regarding CDC complication rates (CDC > =3a: 13.1% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.90). However, univariate and multivariate analyses showed that operation times (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62–0.81; p < 0.001), length of stay (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.6–079; p < 0.001), and MTL30 (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61–0.81, p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the transverse laparotomy group.

Conclusions

For oncological right hemicolectomy, open transverse upper abdominal laparotomy appears to be superior to median laparotomy in short-term course.

Keywords

Abdominal laparotomy Complete mesocolic excision Colon cancer Tranverse incision Midline incision Right side hemicolectomie 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

384_2018_3188_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, Papadopoulos T, Merkel S (2009) Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation--technical notes and outcome. Color Dis 11(4):354–364 discussion 364-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertelsen CA, Neuenschwander AU, Jansen JE, Kirkegaard-Klitbo A, Tenma JR, Wilhelmsen M, Rasmussen LA, Jepsen LV, Kristensen B, Gögenur I, the Copenhagen Complete Mesocolic Excision Study (COMES), the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) (2016) Short-term outcomes after complete mesocolic excision compared with ‘conventional’ colonic cancer surgery. Br J Surg 103(5):581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kunzli BM, Friess H, Shrikhande SV (2010) Is laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery equal to open surgery? An evidence based perspective. World J Gastrointest Surg 2(4):101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study, G et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10(1):44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Athanasiou CD, Markides GA, Kotb A, Jia X, Gonsalves S, Miskovic D (2016) Open compared with laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision with central lymphadenectomy for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis 18(7):O224–O235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fabozzi M, Cirillo P, Corcione F (2016) Surgical approach to right colon cancer: from open technique to robot. State of art. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(8):564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinkney T et al (2017) Relationship between method of anastomosis and anastomotic failure after right hemicolectomy and ileo-caecal resection: an international snapshot audit. Color Dis 19(8):O296–O311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halm JA, Lip H, Schmitz PI, Jeekel J (2009) Incisional hernia after upper abdominal surgery: a randomised controlled trial of midline versus transverse incision. Hernia 13(3):275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tanis E, van Geloven AAW, Bemelman WA, Wind J (2012) A comparison of short-term outcome after laparoscopic, transverse, and midline right-sided colectomy. Int J Color Dis 27(6):797–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Santoro A et al (2014) Transverse skin crease versus vertical midline incision versus laparoscopy for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review--current status of right hemicolectomy. Biomed Res Int 2014:643685Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirchhoff P, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D (2010) Complications in colorectal surgery: risk factors and preventive strategies. Patient Saf Surg 4(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Rooijen SJ et al (2017) Definition of colorectal anastomotic leakage: a consensus survey among Dutch and Chinese colorectal surgeons. World J Gastroenterol 23(33):6172–6180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiegering A, Wellner U, Seyfried F, Hardt J, Klinger C, Buhr H, Post S (2017) MTL30 as surrogate parameter for quality of surgically treated diseases: establishment based on the StuDoQ register of the German society for general and visceral surgery. Chirurg 88(11):977–982.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0479-z
  15. 15.
    Bruce J, Krukowski ZH, al-Khairy G, Russell EM, Park KGM (2001) Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 88(9):1157–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bosker RJI, Van’t Riet E, de Noo M, Vermaas M, Karsten TM, Pierie JP (2018) Minimally invasive versus open approach for right-sided colectomy: a study in 12,006 patientsfrom the Dutch surgical colorectal audit. Dig Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000486400
  17. 17.
    Pelz JOW, Wagner J, Lichthardt S, Baur J, Kastner C, Matthes N, Germer CT, Wiegering A (2018) Laparoscopic right-sided colon resection for colon cancer-has the control group so far been chosen correctly? World J Surg Oncol 16(1):117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dindo D, Hahnloser D, Clavien PA (2010) Quality assessment in surgery: riding a lame horse. Ann Surg 251(4):766–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown SR, Goodfellow PB (2005) Transverse verses midline incisions for abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD005199.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005199.pub2
  20. 20.
    Saeed MJ, Dubberke ER, Fraser VJ, Olsen MA (2015) Procedure-specific surgical site infection incidence varies widely within certain National Healthcare Safety Network surgery groups. Am J Infect Control 43(6):617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Jurowich
    • 1
  • Sven Lichthardt
    • 2
  • Niels Matthes
    • 2
  • Caroline Kastner
    • 2
  • Imme Haubitz
    • 2
  • Andre Prock
    • 1
  • Jörg Filser
    • 1
  • Stefan Löb
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christoph-Thomas Germer
    • 2
    • 3
  • Armin Wiegering
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author return OK on get
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic SurgeryKreiskliniken Altötting / BurghausenAltöttingGermany
  2. 2.Department of General, Visceral, Transplantation, Vascular and Pediatric SurgeryUniversity Hospital, University of WuerzburgWürzburgGermany
  3. 3.Comprehensive Cancer Centre MainfrankenUniversity of Wuerzburg Medical CenterWürzburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyUniversity of WuerzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations