Safety of Single-Site Laparoscopic Surgery Requiring Perioperative Heparinization in Colorectal Cancer: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

  • Kazuya Iwamoto
  • Hidekazu TakahashiEmail author
  • Makoto Fujii
  • Naotsugu Haraguchi
  • Taishi Hata
  • Chu Matsuda
  • Hirofumi Yamamoto
  • Tsunekazu Mizushima
  • Masaki Mori
  • Doki Yuichiro
Colorectal Cancer



We assessed the feasibility and safety of single-site laparoscopic surgery for patients with colorectal cancer who required perioperative heparinization.


This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 390 patients who underwent single-site laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer from January 2010 to December 2016. Antithrombotic drugs were stopped preoperatively and heparin was administered according to the operative risk of each patient, based on consultation with the cardiologist physician or neurosurgeon. Propensity score modeling was utilized to adjust for baseline characteristics.


Of 390 patients, 29 were treated with standard bridging intravenous heparin therapy. Propensity matching identified 119 patients: 22 patients in the heparinization group and 97 in the control group. The matched groups were not significantly different in operation times, bleeding volumes, or conversion rate. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 17.9 days in the heparinization group and 9.5 days in the control group (p = 0.034). Postoperative bleeding was observed in 4 patients (18.2%) in the heparinization group and 11 patients (11.4%) in the control group (p = 0.646), while other complications were similar in the two study groups (p = 0.502). Of these other complications, thromboembolic events were observed in two patients in the heparinization group and one patient in the control group.


We found that single-site laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer with heparinization was feasible and safe. Heparinization did not increase the risk of postoperative bleeding complications, but postoperative hospital stay was prolonged.





Kazuya Iwamoto, Hidekazu Takahashi, Makoto Fujii, Naotsugu Haraguchi, Taishi Hata, Chu Matsuda, Hirofumi Yamamoto, Tsunekazu Mizushima, Masaki Mori, and Doki Yuichiro declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7794_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)
10434_2019_7794_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 16 kb)
10434_2019_7794_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.3 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 1 Representative case of laparoscopic surgery for advanced ascending colon cancer. (a) A 3 cm, single laparotomy was performed; (b) the CME was definitively completed; and (c) a central vascular ligation was performed at the root of the ileocolic artery and vein. (d) The resected specimen also shows that CME was properly completed. CME complete mesocolic excision (TIFF 1298 kb)


  1. 1.
    Colvin H, Mizushima T, Eguchi H, et al. Gastroenterological surgery in Japan: the past, the present and the future. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017;1:5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takemasa I, Doki Y, Mori M, et al. Feasibility of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: a prospective case-control comparison. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1110–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hiraki M, Takemasa I, Mori M, et al. Evaluation of invasiveness in single-site laparoscopic colectomy, using “the PainVision™ system” for quantitative analysis of pain sensation. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3216–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miyo M, Takemasa I, Mori M, et al. Long-term outcomes of single-site laparoscopic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer: comparison with conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy using propensity score matching. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60:664–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nishizawa Y, Hata T, Mori M, et al. Clinical benefits of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for postoperative delirium in elderly colon cancer patients. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1434–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    West NP, Hohenberger W, Weber K, et al. Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation produces an oncologically superior specimen compared with standard surgery for carcinoma of the colon. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:272–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertelsen CA, Neuenschwander AU, Jansen JE, et al. Disease-free survival after complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional colon cancer surgery: a retrospective, population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, et al. Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation—technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:354–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takahashi H, Takemasa I, Mori M, et al. The single-center experience with the standardization of single-site laparoscopic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer. Surg Today. 2017;47:966–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varkarakis IM, Rais-Bahrami S, Allaf ME, et al. Laparoscopic renal-adrenal surgery in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy. J Urol. 2005;174:1020–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ercan M, Bostanci EB, Ozer I, et al. Postoperative hemorrhagic complications after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients receiving long-term anticoagulant therapy. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010;395:247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mita K, Ito H, Murabayashi R, et al. Postoperative bleeding complications after gastric cancer surgery in patients receiving anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet agents. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3745–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fujikawa T, Tanaka A, Abe T, et al. Effect of antiplatelet therapy on patients undergoing gastroenterological surgery: thromboembolic risks versus bleeding risks during its perioperative withdrawal. World J Surg. 2015;39:139–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wakasugi M, Tei M, Suzuki Y, et al. Single-incision totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair is feasible and safe in patients on antithrombotic therapy: a single-center experience of 92 procedures. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2017;10:301–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamamoto S, Inomata M, Katayama H, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes from a randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic and open D3 dissection for stage II/III colon cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG 0404. Ann Surg. 2014;260:23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ, et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:262–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, et al. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:280–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leite W. Practical propensity score methods using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 2017Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang C, Gao Z, Shen K, et al. Safety, quality and effect of complete mesocolic excision vs non-complete mesocolic excision in patients with colon cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:962–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuya Iwamoto
    • 1
  • Hidekazu Takahashi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Makoto Fujii
    • 2
  • Naotsugu Haraguchi
    • 1
  • Taishi Hata
    • 1
  • Chu Matsuda
    • 1
  • Hirofumi Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Tsunekazu Mizushima
    • 1
  • Masaki Mori
    • 1
    • 3
  • Doki Yuichiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical Health ScienceOsaka University Graduate School of Medicine Division of Health SciencesOsakaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Surgery and ScienceKyushu University Graduate School of Medical SciencesOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations