Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 27;14(6):e0218829.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218829. eCollection 2019.

Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy in colon carcinoma: A propensity score analysis of the DGAV StuDoQ|ColonCancer registry

Affiliations

Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy in colon carcinoma: A propensity score analysis of the DGAV StuDoQ|ColonCancer registry

Christian Jurowich et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether laparoscopy has any advantages over open resection for right-sided colon cancer.

Summary background data: Right hemicolectomy can be performed using either a conventional open or a minimally invasive laparoscopic technique. It is not clear whether these different access routes differ with regard to short-term postoperative outcomes.

Methods: Patients documented in the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery StuDoQ|ColonCancer registry who underwent right hemicolectomy were analyzed regarding early postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo (primary endpoint), operation (OP) time, length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS), MTL30 and number of lymph nodes retrieved (secondary endpoints).

Results: A total of 4.997 patients were identified as undergoing oncological right hemicolectomy without additional interventions. Of these, 4.062 (81.3%) underwent open, 935 (18.7%) laparoscopic surgery. Propensity score analysis showed a significantly shorter LOS (OR: 0.55 CI 95%0.47-.64) and a significantly longer OP time (OR2.32 CI 1.98-2.71) for the laparoscopic route. Risk factors for postoperative complications, anastomotic insufficiency, ileus, reoperation and positive MTL30 were higher ASA status, higher age and increasing BMI. The surgical access route (open / lap) had no influence on these factors, but the laparoscopic group did have markedly fewer lymph nodes retrieved.

Conclusion: The present registry-based analysis could detect no relevant advantages for the minimally invasive laparoscopic access route. Further oncological analyses are needed to clarify the extent to which the smaller lymph node harvest in the laparoscopic group is accompanied by a poorer oncological outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Adjusted odds ratios for outcomes by type of surgical approach.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, Ahnen DJ, Meester RGS, Barzi A, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(3):177–93. 10.3322/caac.21395 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, Papadopoulos T, Merkel S. Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation—technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(4):354–64; discussion 64–5. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01735.x . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(3):CD003145 10.1002/14651858.CD003145.pub2 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):210–8. Epub 2013/02/12. 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carnuccio P, Jimeno J, Pares D. Laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing two types of anastomosis. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18(1):5–12. Epub 2013/05/21. 10.1007/s10151-013-1029-4 . - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms