Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Colectomy

Chung, C. C.; Ng, Dominic C. M.; Tsang, W.W.C.; Tang, Wai Lun; Yau, Kevin; Cheung, Hester Yui Shan; Wong, James Cheuk Hoo; Li, Michael Ka Wah

doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318123fbdf

Cited by 87 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned earlier, laparoscopy and transverse laparotomy might have various advantages on short-and longterm outcome compared to a midline laparotomy. Patients might experience less postoperative pain, have possibly a better pulmonary function, less wound dehiscence, and significantly less incisional hernias [3,5,7,9,13]. Also two meta-analyses [4,8] have suggested a transverse approach is superior to the midline incision, because of its better anatomical and physiological principles and therefore less prone to develop short-or long-term abdominal wall complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A comparison of short-term outcome after laparoscopic, transverse, and midline right-sided colectomy

Tanis

Geloven

Bemelman

et al. 2012

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the results of this study need to be interpreted with care, our study shows that laparoscopic and transverse right hemicolectomy are equivalent and have a significant better short-term outcome compared to an open midline approach. In particular, laparoscopy and transverse laparotomy result in >50% reduction in 30-day morbidity, no reoperations, and a shorter median total hospital stay of 2 days.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A comparison of short-term outcome after laparoscopic, transverse, and midline right-sided colectomy

Tanis

Geloven

Bemelman

et al. 2012

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, pure LACS has several disadvantages, such as requiring at least 2 physicians who are familiar with the procedure and prolonging the operating time, as well as needing more staff and limiting the availability of operating theaters. Previously, it was reported that pure LACS achieves the same or better outcomes as conventional laparotomy (CL) with regard to wound infection, hospital stay, and survival, together with superior cosmetic results (7)(8)(9)(10). In Europe and the USA, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (HH) is more widely used than pure LACS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.In recent years, the use of laparoscopic surgery has been expanded to include radical curative resection. In a previous study, 212 patients with primary colorectal cancer (stages I-III) underwent radical curative resection by hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (n=98) or conventional laparotomy (CL) (n=114) and were compared with respect to 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS). The study included 210/212 patients who were followed up to 5 years, including 96 patients who underwent HALS and 114 treated with CL. The two groups were matched for stage, clinical background, and postoperative management. Patient characteristics were compared and the 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS were determined. The 5-year follow-up rate was 97.6%. In stage I-III patients, 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS showed no significant differences between HALS and CL. The patients with stage I disease accounted for 41.7% (40/96) of the patients undergoing HALS, while stage I patients only accounted for 23.7% (27/114) of the patients undergoing CL, and the difference was significant (P= 0.005). Stage II patients undergoing CL were older than those treated with HALS (P=0.017). However, there were no differences in the characteristics of stage III patients undergoing HALS or CL. In conclusion, HALS achieved a similar survival to CL in patients with stage I to III colorectal cancer. Compared with CL, HALS was performed more safely and achieved superior cosmetic results. IntroductionIn recent years, the indications for laparoscopic surgery have been expanded to include radical curative resection of early to advanced colorectal cancer and palliative surgery for stage IV disease (1-6). In Japan, laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgery (pure LACS) is widely used. However, pure LACS has several disadvantages, such as requiring at least 2 physicians who are familiar with the procedure and prolonging the operating time, as well as needing more staff and limiting the availability of operating theaters. Previously, it was reported that pure LACS achieves the same or better outcomes as conventional laparotomy (CL) with regard to wound infection, hospital stay, and survival, together with superior cosmetic results (7-10). In Europe and the USA, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (HH) is more widely used than pure LACS. HH is characterized by: i) Providing the operator with palpation/tactile sensation, and allowing full grasping manipulation with the left hand and the possibility of smoothly removing even large and heavy tumors; ii) a shorter operating time than for pure LACS; and iii) a more rapid learning curve than for pure LACS (8,9,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17].In Japan, various surgical procedures are employed for colorectal cancer, including pure LACS (30-40%), CL (~50%), and other methods such as HALS and microincisional surgery (18). HALS is often regarded as being an optimal medium between CL and pure LACS (8,9,(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). In Japan, HALS initially became popular for a short period of time during the introdu...

show abstract

“…Large randomized trials have demonstrated oncologically equivalent outcomes for laparoscopic and open colon resection. [1][2][3] Laparoscopy has the additional benefits of improved postoperative recovery, reduced analgesia requirements and shorter length of hospital stay. 2,[4][5][6] There is also evolving evidence for long-term benefits, including reduced bowel obstructions and ventral hernias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3] Laparoscopy has the additional benefits of improved postoperative recovery, reduced analgesia requirements and shorter length of hospital stay. 2,[4][5][6] There is also evolving evidence for long-term benefits, including reduced bowel obstructions and ventral hernias. 4,[7][8][9] There is wide variation among laparoscopic colon resection techniques, including the approach for mobilization (medial-to-lateral v. lateral-to-medial) and the extent of intracorporeal vessel ligation, bowel division or anastamosis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastamosis: a comparison of short-term outcomes

Vergis

Steigerwald

Bhojani

et al. 2015

cjs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Colectomy

Cited by 87 publications

References 29 publications

A comparison of short-term outcome after laparoscopic, transverse, and midline right-sided colectomy

A comparison of short-term outcome after laparoscopic, transverse, and midline right-sided colectomy

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastamosis: a comparison of short-term outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About