Introduction of complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation as standardized surgical treatment for colon cancer in Greece. Results of a pilot study and bi-institutional cooperation

Bach Mai Procedure for complete mesocolic excision, central vascular ligation, and D3 lymphadenectomy in total laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a prospective study

PURPOSE

Total laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME), central vascular ligation (CVL), and D3 lymphadenectomy is still the most challenging colon procedures for gastrointestinal surgeons. We herein report the technical details and our preliminary experience of Bach Mai Procedure - a novel-combining (cranial, medial to lateral, and caudal) approach with early resection of the terminal ileum.

METHODS

The dissection stage was central vascular isolation and ligation by a combined multiple approaches in the following four steps: cranial approach, dissecting along the inferior aspect of pancreatic isthmus to reveal the middle colic vessels and the anterior aspect of the superior mesentery vein and then exposed the right gastroepiploic vein and the trunk of Henle; medial-to-lateral approach, exposing the surgical axis - the superior mesenteric vascular axis and then early resection of the terminal ileum to open the dissection from the bottom up; and caudal approach, radical ligation of the ileocecal artery and right colic artery (central vascular ligation), lymph node dissection (D3 lymphadenectomy), and resecting the Toldt fascia of the colon to release the entire right colon from the abdominal wall.

RESULTS

In 12 months, there were 32 cases of primary right-sided colon malignancies that have undergone tLRH_{D3, CME/CVL} based on the Bach Mai Procedure. In 3 cases (9.4%), the tumor site was hepatic flexure. The median of lymph node number (LNN) was 38, with the maximum number which was 101. No serious postoperative complications (grade 3 or higher) neither inhospital mortality was detected.

CONCLUSION

This Bach Mai procedure, a novel-combining approach with early resection of the terminal ileum, is technically feasible and safe for tLRH_{D3, CME/CVL}. Further investigations and follow-up must be proceeded to evaluate the long-term outcomes of our technique.

Definition and reporting of lymphadenectomy and complete mesocolic excision for radical right colectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several procedures have been proposed to reduce the rates of recurrence in patients with right-sided colon cancer. Different procedures for a radical right colectomy (RRC), including extended D3 lymphadenectomy, complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation have been associated with survival benefits by some authors, but results are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to assess the variability in definition and reporting of RRC, which might be responsible for significant differences in outcome evaluation.

METHODS

PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review to identify the definitions of RRC. Primary aims were to identify surgical steps and different nomenclature for RRC. Secondary aims were description of heterogeneity and overlap among different RRC techniques.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine articles satisfied inclusion criteria. Eight surgical steps were identified and recorded as specific to RRC: Central arterial ligation was described in 100% of the included studies; preservation of mesocolic integrity in 73% and dissection along the SMV plane in 67%. Other surgical steps were inconstantly reported. Six differently named techniques for RRC have been identified. There were 35 definitions for the 6 techniques and 40% of these were used to identify more than one technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The only universally adopted surgical step for RRC is central arterial ligation. There is great heterogeneity and consistent overlap among definitions of all RRC techniques. This is likely to jeopardise the interpretation of the outcomes of studies on the topic. Consistent use of definitions and reporting of procedures are needed to obtain reliable conclusions in future trials. PROSPERO CRD42021241650.

Complete mesocolic excision versus conventional surgery for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) lacks consistent data advocating operative superiority compared to conventional surgery for colon cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, analysing population characteristics and perioperative, pathological and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

D3 extended lymphadenectomy dissection was considered comparable to CME, and D2 and D1 dissection to be comparable to conventional surgery. Outcomes reviewed included lymph node yield, R1 resection, overall complications, overall survival and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

In all, 3039 citations were identified; 148 studies underwent full-text reviews and 31 matched inclusion criteria: total cohort 26 640 patients (13 830 CME/D3 vs. 12 810 conventional). Overall 3- and 5-year survival was higher in the CME/D3 group compared with conventional surgery: relative risk (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.93, P = 0.016) and RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95, P = 0.011) respectively. Five-year disease-free survival also demonstrated CME/D3 superiority (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.86, P < 0.001), with similar findings at 1 and 3 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the CME/D3 and conventional group in overall complications (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97-1.14, P = 0.483) or anastomotic leak (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81-1.29, P = 0.647).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis suggests CME/D3 may have a better overall and disease-free survival compared to conventional surgery, with no difference in perioperative complications. Quality of evidence regarding survival is low, and randomized control trials are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Complete Mesocolic Excision and D3 Lymphadenectomy versus Conventional Colectomy for Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Previous systematic reviews suggest that the implementation of 'complete mesocolon excision' (CME) for colon tumors entails better specimen quality but with limited long-term outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the pathological, perioperative, and oncological results of CME with conventional surgery (CS) in primary colon cancer.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings for CME and D3 lymphadenectomy. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 18,989 patients from 27 studies were included. Postoperative complications were higher in the CME group (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.22, I² = 0%), while no differences were observed in terms of anastomotic leak (I² = 0%) or perioperative mortality (I² = 49%). CME was associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested (I² = 95%), distance to high tie (I² = 65%), bowel length (I² = 0%), and mesentery area (I² = 95%). CME also had positive effects on 3- and 5-year overall survival (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.15, I² = 88%; and RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08, I² = 62%, respectively) and 3-year disease-free survival (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17, I² = 22%), as well as decreased local (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24-0.51, I² = 51%) and distant recurrences (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60-0.85, I² = 34%).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence suggests that CME improves oncological outcomes with a higher postoperative adverse events rate but no increase in anastomotic leak rate or perioperative mortality, compared with CS.

Complete mesocolic excision versus conventional hemicolectomy in patients with right colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has introduced a promising surgical approach for treatment of right colon cancer. However, benefits of CME are still a matter of debate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess safety and long-term outcomes of CME versus conventional right hemicolectomy (CRH).

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for retrieving studies comparing CME with CRH in right colon cancer. After data extraction from the included studies, meta-analysis was performed to compare postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, 30-day mortality, number of lymph node yield, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1871 patients enrolled. No difference was observed in postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.47, p = 0.34). CME was associated with significantly higher number of lymph nodes retrieved (MD 9.17, CI 4.67-13.68, p < 0.001). CME also improved 3-year OS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.17-2.11, p = 0.003), 5-year OS (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.89, p = 0.02), and 5-year DFS (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.29-3.07, p = 0.002). A sub-group analysis for patients with stage III colon cancer showed no significant impact of CME on 3-year and 5-year OS (OR 2.47, 95% CI 0.86-7.06, p = 0.09; OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.78-1.94, p = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Although with limited evidence, CME shows similar postoperative complication rates and an improved survival outcome compared with CRH.