BACKGROUND: The cranial-caudal-medial approach (CCMA) has been proposed for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy nowadays. This study aimed to investigate the safety and oncological efficacy of CCMA in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer compared to the medial-lateral approach (MLA).
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with right-sided colon cancer were included from February 2015 to June 2018, retrospectively, dividing into the CCMA group and the MLA group. We compared the basic characteristics and the short-term and long-term outcomes in two groups.
RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-six patients were included in this study. The baseline characteristics were similar in two groups. Compared with MLA group, CCMA group exhibited shorter operation time (136.3 ± 25.3 min vs. 151.6 ± 21.5 min, P < 0.001), lower estimated blood loss (44.1 ± 15.2 ml vs. 51.4 ± 26.9 min, P = 0.010), and more harvested lymph nodes (18.5 ± 7.1 vs. 16.5 ± 5.7, P = 0.021). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the CCMA group was 76.5%, and the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 72.3%, both of which were not inferior to the MLA group. No significant difference was found between two groups in terms of other clinical parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The CCMA in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is safe and feasible, making the anatomical plane clearer. This approach can shorten the operation time, reduce intraoperative blood loss, harvest more lymph nodes, and yield satisfactory oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials support the safety of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer (RSCC). Few studies, however, examine the learning curve of this operation and its impact on safety during an implementation period. We aim to evaluate the learning curve and safety of the implementation of laparoscopic CME with intracorporeal anastomosis for RSCC.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing a laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for RSCC between January 2016 and June 2023 were included. Clinical, perioperative, and histopathological variables were collected. Correlation and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses between the operating time and case number were performed. Breakpoints of the learning curve were estimated using the broken-line model. CME and conventional laparoscopic right colectomy outcomes were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).
RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety patients underwent laparoscopic right colectomy during study period. One hundred and eight met inclusion criteria. After PSM, 56 non-CME and 28 CME patients were compared. CME group had a non-statistically significant tendency to a longer operating time (201 versus 195 min; p = 0.657) and a shorter hospital stay (3 versus 4 days; p = 0.279). No significant differences were found in total complication rates or their profile. Correlation analysis identified a significant trend toward operating time reduction with increasing case numbers (Pearson correlation coefficient =  - 0.624; p = 0.001). According to the CUSUM analysis, an institutional learning curve was deemed completed after 13 cases and the broken-line model identified three phases: learning (1-6 cases), consolidation (7-13 cases), and mastery (after 13 cases).
CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve of laparoscopic CME for RSCC can be achieved after 13 cases in centers with experience in advanced laparoscopic surgery and surgeons with familiarity with this technique. Its implementation within this setting seems to be as safe as performing a conventional right colectomy.

Introduction: Right colon cancer often requires surgical intervention, and complete mesocolic excision (CME) has emerged as a standard procedure. The study aims to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic CME for patients with right colon cancer and 5-year survival rates examined to determine the outcomes. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent CME for right-sided colon cancer between 2014 and 2021 were included in this study. Group differences of age, body mass index, operation time, bleeding amount, total harvested lymph nodes, and postoperative stay were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Group differences of sex, American Society of Anesthesiology, and tumor, node, and metastasis stage were analyzed by the Chi-squared test. Disease-free and overall survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves with the log-rank Mantel-Cox test. Results: From 109 patients, 74 of them were 1:1 propensity score matched and used for analysis. Total harvested lymph node (P ≤ .001) and estimated blood loss (P = .031) were found to be statistically significant between the groups. We found no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of disease-free and overall survival (P = .27, .86, respectively), and the mortality rate was 9.17%, with no deaths directly attributed to the surgery. Conclusions: Study shows that minimally invasive surgery is a feasible option for CME in right colon cancers, with acceptable overall survival rates. Although the robotic approach has a higher lymph node yield, there was no significant difference in survival rates. Further randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical significance of both approaches.

The robotic approach is rapidly gaining momentum in colorectal surgery. Its benefits in pelvic surgery have been extensively discussed and are well established amongst those who perform minimally invasive surgery. However, the same cannot be said for the robotic approach for colonic resection, where its role is still debated. Here we aim to provide an extensive debate between selective and absolute use of the robotic approach for colonic resection by combining the thoughts of experts in the field of robotic and minimally invasive colorectal surgery, dissecting all key aspects for a critical view on this exciting new paradigm in colorectal surgery.

Quality assurance in surgery has been one of the most important topics of debate among colorectal surgeons in the past decade. It has produced new surgical standards that led in part to the impressive oncological outcomes we see in many units today. Total mesorectal excision, complete mesocolic excision (CME), and the Japanese D3 lymphadenectomy are now benchmark techniques embraced by many surgeons and widely recommended by surgical societies. However, there are still ongoing discrepancies in outcomes largely based on surgeon performance. This is one of the main reasons why many countries have shifted colorectal cancer surgery only to high volume centers. Defining markers of surgical quality is thus a perquisite to ensure that standards and oncological outcomes are met at an institutional level. With the evolution of CME surgery, various quality markers have been described, mostly based on measurements on the surgical specimen and lymph node yield, while others have proposed radiological markers (i.e. arterial stumps) measured on postoperative scans as part of the routine cancer follow-up. There is no ideal marker; however, taken together and assembled into a new score or set of criteria may become a future point of reference for reporting outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery in research studies and defining subspecialization requirements both at an individual and hospital level.

Since the early1990s, laparoscopic right colon resections have been the most performed advanced laparoscopic procedures just after laparoscopic left colectomies and sigmoid resections. Indications for laparoscopic right colectomies are either benign or malignant diseases. Despite its many indications, a laparoscopic right or extended right colectomy is mostly performed for cancer of the caecum, the ascending colon, the hepatic flexure or the proximal transverse colon. Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer: an estimated 1,880,725 people were diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2020, out of which 1,148,515 were colon cancer cases and 40% were located in the right colon. These figures make an oncologic sound surgery for right colon cancer of the utmost relevance. More recently, complete mesocolic excision has been advocated as the optimal choice in term of radicality, especially in node-positive patients with right colon cancer. Laparoscopic standard right colectomy and extended right colectomy with or without CME should be performed according to defined principles based on a close knowledge of key anatomical landmarks. This knowledge will allow to trace anatomical structures and drive instruments along the correct surgical planes and has its foundations in teachings from surgeons and scientists of past and present time.

BACKGROUND: Debate exists concerning the impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) on long-term oncological outcomes. The aim of this review was to condense the updated literature and assess the effect of CME on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through July 2023. The included studies evaluated the effect of CME on survival. The primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. GRADE methodology was used to summarize the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: Ten studies (3665 patients) were included. Overall, 1443 (39.4%) underwent CME. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, stage I-III CME patients lived 2.5 months (95% CI 1.1-4.1) more on average compared with noCME patients. Similarly, stage III patients that underwent CME lived longer compared to noCME patients at 55-month follow-up (6.1 months; 95% CI 3.4-8.5). The time-dependent HRs analysis for CME vs. noCME (stage I-III disease) shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with noCME at 6 months (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.71), 12 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.73), and 24 months (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92) up to 27 months.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CME is associated with unclear OS benefit in stage I-III disease. Caution is recommended to avoid overestimation of the effect of CME in stage III disease since the marginal benefit of a more extended resection may have been influenced by tumor biology/molecular profile and multimodal adjuvant treatments.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision is an advanced procedure mainly because of the great variability in anatomy. Phantoms can be used for simulation-based training and assessment of competency when learning new surgical procedures. However, no phantoms for robotic complete mesocolic excision have previously been described. This study aimed to develop an anatomically true-to-life phantom, which can be used for training with a robotic system situated in the clinical setting and can be used for the assessment of surgical competency.
METHODS: Established pathology and surgical assessment tools for complete mesocolic excision and specimens were used for the phantom development. Each assessment item was translated into an engineering development task and evaluated for relevance. Anatomical realism was obtained by extracting relevant organs from preoperative patient scans and 3D printing casting moulds for each organ. Each element of the phantom was evaluated by two experienced complete mesocolic excision surgeons without influencing each other\'s answers and their feedback was used in an iterative process of prototype development and testing.
RESULTS: It was possible to integrate 35 out of 48 procedure-specific items from the surgical assessment tool and all elements from the pathological evaluation tool. By adding fluorophores to the mesocolic tissue, we developed an easy way to assess the integrity of the mesocolon using ultraviolet light. The phantom was built using silicone, is easy to store, and can be used in robotic systems designated for patient procedures as it does not contain animal-derived parts.
CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed phantom could be used for training and competency assessment for robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision surgery in a simulated setting.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: We evaluated the safety of robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer in Japan.
UNASSIGNED: This was a prospective, open-label, single-arm phase II trial conducted at two institutions. Patients ≥20 years old with stage I-III right-sided colon cancer and scheduled for radical resection with ≥D2 lymph node dissection were eligible. The criterion for surgeons was experience performing robot-assisted rectal resection in ≥40 cases. The primary endpoint was the postoperative complication rate ≤30 days after surgery.
UNASSIGNED: From August 2021 to February 2023, 42 patients were enrolled; three were excluded, with 39 analyzed as the full analysis set. The median age was 72 years, and the median body mass index was 23.2. The tumor was located in the cecum in 13 cases (33.3%), ascending colon in 20 cases (51.3%), and transverse colon in six cases (15.4%). Ileocolic resection was performed in 17 cases (43.5%) and right hemicolectomy in 22 cases (56.5%), both with D3 lymph node dissection. The median console time was 109 min, and the operative time was 170 min. The mean blood loss was 7.7 mL. Intracorporeal anastomosis was performed in 28 patients (71.8%). There were no conversions and no intraoperative adverse events. The median postoperative stay was 5 days. Postoperative complications occurred in four patients (10.2%; paralytic ileus [n = 3] and pneumonia [n = 1]). All postoperative complications were grade 1 or 2, with no mortalities noted. R0 resection was achieved in all patients.
UNASSIGNED: This study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer.