Meta-analysis of medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation during laparoscopic colorectal surgery

  • Shahin HajibandehEmail author
  • Shahab Hajibandeh
  • Ahmad Navid
  • Diwakar Ryali Sarma
  • Mokhtar Eltair
  • Rajnish Mankotia
  • Christopher Vaun Thompson
  • Andrew W. Torrance
  • Rajeev Peravali



To evaluate comparative outcomes of medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.


We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists. Perioperative mortality and morbidity, procedure time, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open procedure, and number of harvested lymph nodes were the outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models.


We identified eight comparative studies reporting a total of 1477 patients evaluating outcomes of medial-to-lateral (n = 626) and lateral-to-medial (n = 851) approaches in laparoscopic colorectal resection. The medial-to-lateral approach was associated with significantly lower rate of conversion to open (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, P = 0.001), shorter procedure time (mean difference (MD) − 32.25, P = 0.003) and length of hospital stay (MD − 1.54, P = 0.02) compared to the lateral-to-medial approach. However, there was no significant difference in mortality (risk difference (RD) 0.00, P = 0.96), overall complications (OR 0.78, P = 0.11), wound infection (OR 0.84, P = 0.60), anastomotic leak (OR 0.70, P = 0.26), bleeding (OR 0.60, P = 0.50), and number of harvested lymph nodes (MD − 1.54, P = 0.02) between two groups. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that the lateral-to-medial approach may harvest more lymph nodes in left-sided colectomy (MD − 1.29, P = 0.0009). The sensitivity analysis showed that overall complications were lower in the medial-to-lateral group (OR 0.72, P = 0.49).


Our meta-analysis (level 2 evidence) showed that medial-to-lateral approach during laparoscopic colorectal resection may reduce procedure time, length of hospital stay and conversion to open procedure rate. Moreover, it may probably reduce overall perioperative morbidity. However, both approaches carry similar risk of mortality, and have comparable ability to harvest lymph nodes. Future high-quality randomised trials are required.


Lateral-to-medial Medial-to-lateral Laparoscopic colorectal surgery Colorectal mobilisation 


Author contribution

Shahin Hajibandeh and Shahab Hajibandeh equally contributed to this paper and joined first authorship is proposed.

Conception and design: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Literature search and study selection: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Data collection: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Analysis and interpretation: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Writing the article: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Critical revision of the article: All authors.

Final approval of the article: All authors.

Supplementary material

384_2019_3281_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 14.4 kb)


  1. 1.
    Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surgical Laparoscopy & Endoscopy 1:144–150Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ et al (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350(20):2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E 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
  4. 4.
    Fujii S, Tsukamoto M, Fukushima Y, Shimada R, Okamoto K, Tsuchiya T, Nozawa K, Matsuda K, Hashiguchi Y (2016 Jul 15) Systematic review of laparoscopic vs open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients. World J Gastrointest Oncol 8(7):573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jamali FR, Soweid AM, Dimassi H, Bailey C, Leroy J, Marescaux J (2008) Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 143:762–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tjandra JJ, Chan MK (2006) Systematic review on the short-term outcome of laparoscopic resection for colon and rectosigmoid cancer. Color Dis 8:375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Milsom JW, Böhm B, Decanini C, Fazio VW (1994) Laparoscopic oncologic proctosigmoidectomy with low colorectal anastomosis in a cadaver model. Surg Endosc 8(9):1117–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milsom JW, Böhm B, Hammerhofer KA, Fazio V, Steiger E, Elson P (1998) A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 187(1):46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffman GC, Baker JW, Fitchett CW, Vansant JH (1994) Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Initial experience Ann Surg 219(6):732–740Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elftmann TD, Nelson H, Ota DM, Pemberton JH, Beart RW Jr (1994) Laparoscopic-assisted segmental colectomy: surgical techniques. Mayo Clin Proc 69(9):825–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veldkamp R, Gholghesaei M, Bonjer HJ, Meijer DW, Buunen M, Jeekel J, Anderberg B, Cuesta MA, Cuschierl A, Fingerhut A, Fleshman JW, Guillou PJ, Haglind E, Himpens J, Jacobi CA, Jakimowicz JJ, Koeckerling F, Lacy AM, Lezoche E, Monson JR, Morino M, Neugebauer E, Wexner SD, Whelan RL, European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) (2004) European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) laparoscopic resection of colon cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 18:1163–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 339:b2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, editors. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. Available at: Accessed November 28, 2018
  15. 15.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. November 28, 2018
  16. 16.
    Liang JT, Lai HS, Huang KC, Chang KJ, Shieh MJ, Jeng YM, Wang SM (2003) Comparison of medial-to-lateral versus traditional lateral-to-medial laparoscopic dissection sequences for resection of rectosigmoid cancers: randomized controlled clinical trial. World J Surg 27:190–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rotholtz NA, Bun ME, Tessio M, Lencinas SM, Laporte M, Aued ML, Peczan CE, Mezzadri NA (2009) Laparoscopic colectomy: medial vs lateral approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poon JT, Law WL, Fan JK, Lo OS (2009) Impact of the standardized medial-to-lateral approach on outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection. World J Surg 33:2177–2182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Day W, Lau PY (2010) Impact of the standardized medial-to-lateral approach on outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection. Is it a fair comparison? World J Surg 34:1146–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yan J, Ying MG, Zhou D, Chen X, Chen LC, Ye WF et al (2010) A prospective randomized control trial of the approach for laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy: medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial. Chin J Gastrointest Surg 13:403Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim HJ, Kim CH, Lim SW, Huh JW, Kim YJ, Kim HR (2013) An extended medial to lateral approach to mobilize the splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection. Color Dis 15(2):e93–e98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Honaker M, Scouten S, Sacksner J, Ziegler M, Wasvary H (2016) A medial to lateral approach offers a superior lymph node harvest for laparoscopic right colectomy. Int J Color Dis 31(3):631–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hussain A, Mahmood F, Torrance AW, Tsiamis A (2017) Impact of medial-to-lateral vs lateral-to-medial approach on short-term and cancer-related outcomes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 26:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ding J, Liao GQ, Xia Y, Zhang ZM, Pan Y, Liu S (2013) Medial versus lateral approach in laparoscopic colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 37(4):863–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahin Hajibandeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shahab Hajibandeh
    • 2
  • Ahmad Navid
    • 1
  • Diwakar Ryali Sarma
    • 1
  • Mokhtar Eltair
    • 1
  • Rajnish Mankotia
    • 1
  • Christopher Vaun Thompson
    • 1
  • Andrew W. Torrance
    • 1
  • Rajeev Peravali
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General SurgerySandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS TrustBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryThe Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General HospitalManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations