RESUMO
Objective: In laparoscopic-assisted left hemicolectomy, previous studies have suggested that preserving the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) may improve intestinal blood flow and reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage. However, whether IMA should be retained is controversial currently. This study aims to investigate the short-term efficacy of the inferior mesenteric artery preservation (IMAP) and the inferior mesenteric artery resection (IMAR) on the laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of left hemicolon cancer. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to collect the clinical data of 195 patients with left colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery in the Colorectal Surgery Department of Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from October 2012 to February 2019. After D3 radical resection for left semicolon cancer, they were divided into the IMAR group (91 cases), and the IMAP group (104 cases). In IMAR group, the left colon artery (LCA) and 1-2 branches of sigmoid artery (SA) were identified about 5 cm away from the root of the IMA, then the main IMA trunk was transected at the distal end. In IMAP group, the main trunk of IMA was dissected and the lymph nodes around IMA were cleaned. After the LCA and the first branch of SA (SA1) were separated, the LCA and SA1 were closed and cut off at the root. The intraoperative and postoperative data were compared between two groups, including the morbidity of complications within 30 days after operation, postoperative follow-up recovery, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of specimens, postoperative passage of gas and hospital stay. Results: The operation was successfully completed in all the cases without any death related to the operation. Compared with the IMAP group, the operation time was shorter [(161.8±48.0) minutes vs. (182.9±49.4) minutes, t=2.985, P=0.003], the intraoperative blood loss was less [(38.5±30.8) ml vs.(52.9±32.2) ml, t=2.088, P=0.038], the length of the resected bowel was longer [(19.2±6.0) cm vs.(17.2±5.4) cm, t=-2.447, P=0.015] in the IMAR group, whose differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the number of harvested lymph nodes, time of postoperative passage of gas and postoperative hospital stay between two groups (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity of postoperative complications between the two group [6/91 (6.6%) vs. 7/104 (6.7%), χ(2)=0.001, P=0.969]. In the IMAR group, one case developed postoperative abdominal infection, two cases developed incision infection, one case developed lung infection, two cases developed intestinal obstruction, and no anastomotic bleeding occurred. In IMAP group, one case developed postoperative lung infection, one case developed incision infection, one case developed abdominal bleeding, two cases developed intestinal obstruction and two cases developed anastomotic bleeding. There was no anastomotic leakage in either group. All complications were treated by conservative treatment successfully. After a median follow-up of 12 (range 3-24) months, patients in the two groups had good intestinal blood supply after surgery, and there was no clear manifestation of congestive or ischemic enteritis under colonoscopy. Conclusion: Laparoscopic-assisted left hemicolectomy with IMA resection in patients with left hemicolon cancer provides better short-term efficacy safely and feasibly, including shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding and without increasing postoperative complications.