ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate whether the mixed approach is a safe and advantageous way to operate laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 316 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in our center. They were assigned to the middle approach group (n = 158) and the mixed approach group (n = 158) according to the surgical approaches. The baseline data like genderãage and body mass index as well as the intraoperative and postoperative conditions including operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, ASA grade and tumor characteristics between the two groups. Compared with the middle approach group, the mixed approach group was significantly lower in terms of operation time (217.61 min vs 154.31 min, p < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (73.8 ml vs 37.97 ml, p < 0.001) and postoperative drainage volume. There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications like postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative infection and postoperative intestinal obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the middle approach, the mixed approach is a safe and advantageous way that can significantly shorten the operation time, reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage volume, and does not prolong the length of hospital stay or increase the morbidity postoperative complications.
Subject(s)
Colectomy , Colonic Neoplasms , Laparoscopy , Operative Time , Postoperative Complications , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Colectomy/methods , Male , Female , Laparoscopy/methods , Colonic Neoplasms/surgery , Middle Aged , Aged , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , Blood Loss, Surgical/statistics & numerical data , AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common postoperative complication of rectal cancer, and transanal drainage tube (TDT) efficacy is still contentious. This study aimed to evaluate the TDT effect on AL prevention. METHODS: All relevant papers were searched by using a predefined search strategy (two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one prospective study, and four retrospective studies). Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate AL and re-operation pooled rates. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies (1556 patients) were included: No significant statistic difference was found between two groups on AL rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, P = 0.11) and re-operation rate (OR 0.52, P = 0.10). For subgroup analysis, significant statistic difference was found between two groups on AL rate (OR 0.29, P = 0.002) and re-operation rate (OR 0.15, P = 0.04) in patients without neoadjuvant therapy. As for patients without diverting stoma, the AL rate (OR 0.35, P = 0.002) was significantly lower than that in patients without TDT. CONCLUSIONS: TDT may reduce AL morbidity and re-operation rate for patients without high risk of AL, but may be useless for those in high-risk situations.