Implementation of intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy is safe and associated with a shorter hospital stay

Updates in Surgery volume 73, pages93–100(2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Reconstruction after laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) can be achieved by performing an intracorporeal (IA) or an extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). This study aims to assess the safety of implementing IA in LRC, and to compare its perioperative outcomes with EA during an institution’s learning curve. Patients undergoing elective LRC with IA or EA in a teaching university hospital between January 2015 and December 2018 were included. Demographic, clinical, perioperative and histopathological data were collated and outcomes investigated. One hundred and twenty-two patients were included; forty-three (35.2%) had an IA. The main indication for surgery was cancer in both groups (83.7% for IA and 79.8% for EA; p = 0.50). Operative time was longer for IA (180 [150–205] versus 150 [120–180] minutes; p < 0.001). A Pfannenstiel incision was used as extraction site in 97.7% of patients receiving an IA; while a midline incision was used in 97.5% of patients having an EA (p < 0.001). Hospital stay was significantly shorter for IA (3 [3, 4] versus 4 [3–6] days; p = 0.003). There were no differences in postoperative complications rates between groups. There was a 4.7% and 3.8% anastomotic leak rate in the IA and EA group, respectively (p = 1). Re-intervention and readmission rates were similar between groups, and there was no mortality during the study period. The implementation of IA in LRC is safe. Despite longer operative times, IA is associated with a shorter hospital stay when compared to EA in the setting of an institution’s learning curve.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data availability

Datasets are available upon editors’ request.

References

  1. 1.

    Kuhry E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R et al (2008) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev 34:498–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker JJ, Müller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003145.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jamali FR, Soweid AM, Dimassi H et al (2008) Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 143:762–767. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.143.8.762

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ricci C, Casadei R, Alagna V et al (2017) A critical and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402:417–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1509-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wu Q, Jin C, Hu T et al (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27:348–357. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Feroci F, Lenzi E, Garzi A et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1177–1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1651-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Milone M, Elmore U, Vignali A et al (2018) Recovery after intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 403:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-017-1645-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Vignali A, Bissolati M, De Nardi P et al (2016) Extracorporeal vs intracorporeal ileocolic stapled anastomoses in laparoscopic right colectomy: an interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:343–348. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    van Oostendorp S, Elfrink A, Borstlap W et al (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 31:64–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4982-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Farinella E et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy-Systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 22:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2012.09.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Carnuccio P, Jimeno J, Parés D (2014) Laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing two types of anastomosis. Tech Coloproctol 18:5–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1029-4

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Allaix ME, Degiuli M, Bonino MA et al (2019) Intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 270:762–767. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bollo J, Turrado V, Rabal A et al (2020) Randomized clinical trial of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy (IEA trial). Br J Surg 107:364–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11389

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Marchesi F, Pinna F, Percalli L et al (2013) Totally laparoscopic right colectomy: theoretical and practical advantages over the laparo-assisted approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23:418–424. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    UICC (2010) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 7th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J et al (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Castillo R, Buckel E, León F et al (2015) Effectiveness of learning advanced laparoscopic skills in a brief intensive laparoscopy training program. J Surg Educ 72:648–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.01.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Varas J, Mejía R, Riquelme A et al (2012) Significant transfer of surgical skills obtained with an advanced laparoscopic training program to a laparoscopic jejunojejunostomy in a live porcine model: feasibility of learning advanced laparoscopy in a general surgery residency. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 26:3486–3494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2391-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Reggio S, Sciuto A, Cuccurullo D et al (2015) Single-layer versus double-layer closure of the enterotomy in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a single-center study. Tech Coloproctol 19:745–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1378-2

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bracale U, Merola G, Cabras F et al (2018) The use of barbed suture for intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis during a totally laparoscopic right colectomy: is it safe? A retrospective nonrandomized comparative multicenter study. Surg Innov 25:267–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350618765871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Benlice C, Stocchi L, Costedio MM et al (2016) Impact of the specific extraction-site location on the risk of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 59:743–750. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Biondi A, Santocchi P, Pennestrì F et al (2017) Totally laparoscopic right colectomy versus laparoscopically assisted right colectomy: a propensity score analysis. Surg Endosc 31:5275–5282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5601-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Mari GM, Crippa J, Costanzi ATM et al (2018) Intracorporeal anastomosis reduces surgical stress response in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 28:77–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Orcutt ST, Balentine CJ, Marshall CL et al (2012) Use of a pfannenstiel incision in minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery is associated with a lower risk of wound complications. Tech Coloproctol 16:127–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0808-7

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    DeSouza A, Domajnko B, Park J et al (2011) Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 25:1031–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1309-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Rausa E, Kelly ME, Asti E et al (2019) Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach. Surg Endosc 33:1020–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6592-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mr Peadar S. Waters for language editing and reviewing the manuscript

Funding

No sources of support.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Fourth Floor, Santiago, Chile

    Cristián Jarry, Leonardo Cárcamo, Felipe Bellolio, Rodrigo Miguieles, Gonzalo Urrejola, Alvaro Zúñiga, Fernando Crovari, María Elena Molina & José Tomás Larach

  2. Intern, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Juan José González

Authors
  1. Cristián Jarry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonardo Cárcamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan José González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Felipe Bellolio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rodrigo Miguieles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gonzalo Urrejola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alvaro Zúñiga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fernando Crovari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. María Elena Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. José Tomás Larach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MEM, RM, GU, FC, FB and JTL were the surgeons involved in the cases. CJ, LC, JJG and JTL collected data and drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript. All authors read the final manuscript and approved the revised final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Tomás Larach.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

No informed consent was required for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jarry, C., Cárcamo, L., González, J.J. et al. Implementation of intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy is safe and associated with a shorter hospital stay. Updates Surg 73, 93–100 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00840-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intracorporeal anastomosis
  • Laparoscopic right colectomy
  • Right hemicolectomy
  • Implementation
  • Learning curve