The retrocolic fascial system revisited for right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision based on anatomical terminology: do we need the eponyms Toldt, Gerota, Fredet and Treitz?

AIM: Right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) requires the removal of an intact mesocolic envelope. The study aimed to determine, on the basis of macroscopic and microscopic anatomical studies, the optimal surgical dissection planes for CME to preserve fascial integrity. Unequivocal anatomical nomenclature was applied to describe the retrocolic fascial system and compared to frequently used eponyms (Toldt, Gerota, Fredet, Treitz). METHOD: Stepwise macroscopic dissections, cross-section studies and histological analysis were performed on body donors to identify the components of the retrocolic fascial system. Based on these anatomical findings, the optimal surgical dissection planes for CME were validated in laparoscopic training courses on body donors and in robot-assisted surgical procedures in patients. RESULTS: The mesocolic tissue and lymphovascular pedicles were enveloped by the ventral and dorsal mesocolic leaf (mesocolic fascia). The mesocolic fascia was attached to the parietal peritoneal fascia ('fascia of Toldt') along the parieto-mesocolic interface, and further cranially to the pre-duodenopancreatic fascia along the mesocolic-duodenopancreatic interface ('space of Fredet'). Dorsally, the parietal peritoneal fascia was separated from the anterior renal fascia ('fascia of Gerota') by the parieto-renal interface. Dissection along this interface in front of the anterior renal fascia followed by incision of the parietal peritoneal fascia at the duodenal border and opening the mesocolic-duodenopancreatic interface yielded the best macroscopic appearance of specimens and was considered optimal for CME. CONCLUSION: The retrocolic fascial system as well as the surgical dissection planes for CME can be described by clearly defined anatomical terms rather than potentially confusing eponyms.

Development of a procedure-specific tool for skill assessment in left- and right-sided laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision.

AIM: To (1) develop an assessment tool for laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) and (2) report evidence of its content validity. METHOD: Assessment statements were revealed through (1) semi-structured expert interviews and (2) consensus by the Delphi method, both involving an expert panel of five LCME surgeons. All experts were interviewed and then asked to rate LCME describing statements from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were returned anonymously to the panel until consensus was reached. Statements were directly included as content in the assessment tool if ≥60% of the experts responded "agree" or "strongly agree" (ratings 4 and 5), with the remaining responses being "neither agree nor disagree" (rating 3). Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for expert agreement evaluation. All included statements were subsequently reformulated as tool items and approved by the experts. RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were performed to reach consensus. Disagreement was reported for statements describing instrument handling around pancreas; visualisation of landmarks before inferior mesenteric artery ligation; lymphadenectomy around the inferior mesenteric artery, and division of the terminal ileum and transverse colon. ICC in the last Delphi-round was 0.84. The final tool content included 73 statements, converted to 48 right- and 40 left-sided items for LCME assessment. CONCLUSION: A procedure-specific, video-based tool, named complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool (CMECAT), has been developed for LCME skill assessment. In the future, we hope it can facilitate assessment of LCME surgeons, resulting in improved patient outcome after colon cancer surgery.

Technical assessment in minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision: Is the complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool valid and reliable?

AIM: The complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool (CMECAT) is a novel tool designed to assess technical skills in minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision (CME) surgery. The aim of this study was to assess construct validity and reliability of CMECAT in a clinical context. METHOD: Colorectal surgeons were asked to submit video recorded laparoscopic CME resections for independent assessment of their technical abilities. The videos were grouped by surgeons' training level, and four established CME experts were recruited as CMECAT assessors. Extended reliability analysis (G-theory) was applied to describe assessor agreement. RESULTS: A total of 19 videos and 72 assessments were included in the analysis. Overall, technical skills assessed by CMECAT improved with increased training level: the experts scored significantly better than the untrained surgeons (3.3 vs. 2.5 points; p < 0.01). On right-sided resections, significantly higher scores were reported with increased training level for all categories and sections, while for left-sided resections, the variance across groups was smaller and significantly higher scores were only reported for oncological safety describing items. Overall, assessor agreement was high (G-coefficient: 0.81). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that CMECAT can be applied to video recorded CME cases for technical skill assessment. Further, it can reliably assess technical performance in right sided CME surgery, where construct validity has now been established. More videos are required to evaluate its validity on left colonic CME. In the future, we hope CMECAT can improve feedback during CME training, serve as a tool in certification processes and contribute to distinguishing CME from conventional surgery in future research.

[Routine Practice Data for Health Care Analyses: Part 3 of the Manual]. / Versorgungsnahe Daten für Versorgungsanalysen ­ Teil 3 des Manuals.

Analyses of health and health care (hereafter referred to as "health care analyses") usually aim to make transparent the structures, processes, results and interrelationships of health care and to record the degree to which health care systems and their actors have achieved their goals. Health care-related data are an indispensable source of data for many health care analyses. A prerequisite for the examination of a degree of goal achievement is first of all an agreement on those goals that are to be achieved by the system and its substructures, as well as the identification of the determinants of the achievement of the objectives. Primarily it must be examined how safely, effectively and patient-centred systems, facilities and service providers are operating. It also addresses issues of need, accessibility, utilisation, timeliness, appropriateness, patient safety, coordination, continuity, and health economic efficiency and equity of health care. The results of health care include system services (outputs), on the one hand, and results (outcomes), on the other, whereby the results (patient-reported outcomes) and experiences (patient-reported experiences) reported are of particular importance. Health care analyses answer basic questions of health care research: who does what, when, how, why and with which resources and effects in routine health care. Health care analyses thus provide the necessary findings and key figures to further develop health care in order to improve the quality of health care. The applications range from capacity analyses to following innovations up to the concept of regional and supra-regional monitoring of the quality of care given to the population. Given the progress of digitalisation in Health Care, direct data from the care processes will be increasingly available for health care research. This can support care givers significantly if the findings of the studies are applied precisely and correctly within an adequate methodological frame. This can lead to measurable improved health care quality for patients. Data from the process of health care provision have a high potential. Their use needs the same scientific scrutiny as in all other scientific studies.

Complete mesocolic excision for right colonic cancer: prospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right colonic cancer is a more complex operation than standard right hemicolectomy but evidence to support its routine use is still limited. This prospective multicentre study evaluated the effect of CME on long-term survival in colorectal cancer centres in Germany (RESECTAT trial). The primary hypothesis was that 5-year disease-free survival would be higher after CME than non-CME surgery. A secondary hypothesis was that there would be improved survival of patients with a mesenteric area greater than 15 000 mm2. METHODS: Centres were asked to continue their current surgical practices. The surgery was classified as CME if the superior mesenteric vein was dissected; otherwise it was assumed that no CME had been performed. All specimens were shipped to one institution for pathological analysis and documentation. Clinical data were recorded in an established registry for quality assurance. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival for stages I-III. Multivariable adjustment for group allocation was planned. Using a primary hypothesis of an increase in disease-free survival from 60 to 70 per cent, a sample size of 662 patients was calculated with a 50 per cent anticipated drop-out rate. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients from 53 centres were recruited for the final analysis (496 CME, 508 no CME). Most operations (88.4 per cent) were done by an open approach. Anastomotic leak occurred in 3.4 per cent in the CME and 1.8 per cent in the non-CME group. There were slightly more lymph nodes found in CME than non-CME specimens (mean 55.6 and 50.4 respectively). Positive central mesenteric nodes were detected more in non-CME than CME specimens (5.9 versus 4.0 per cent). One-fifth of patients had died at the time of study with recorded recurrences (63, 6.3 per cent), too few to calculate disease-free survival (the original primary outcome), so overall survival (not disease-specific) results are presented. Short-term and overall survival were similar in the CME and non-CME groups. Adjusted Cox regression indicated a possible benefit for overall survival with CME in stage III disease (HR 0.52, 95 per cent c.i. 0.31 to 0.85; P = 0.010) but less so for disease-free survival (HR 0.66; P = 0.068). The secondary outcome (15 000 mm2 mesenteric size) did not influence survival at any stage (removal of more mesentery did not alter survival). CONCLUSION: No general benefit of CME could be established. The observation of better overall survival in stage III on unplanned exploratory analysis is of uncertain significance.

[Routine Practice Data for Evaluating Intervention Effects: Part 2 of the Manual]. / Versorgungsnahe Daten zur Evaluation von Interventionseffekten: Teil 2 des Manuals.

The evaluation of intervention effects is an important domain of health services research. The ad hoc commission for the use of routine practice data of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF) therefore provides this second part of its manual focusing on the use of routine practice data for the evaluation of intervention effects. First, we discuss definition issues and the importance of contextual factors. Subsequently, general requirements for planning, data collection and analysis as well as concrete examples for the evaluation of intervention effects for the 3 fields of application regarding pharmacotherapy, nonpharmaceutical interventions as well as complex interventions are elaborated. We consider scenarios in which no information from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two groups directly is yet available or in which RCTs are already available but an extension of the research question is required. In all examples either with or without randomization, the first and foremost question is always whether the data source is suitable for the specific research question. Most of the examples chosen are from oncology trials, because the necessary data are already available for Germany, at least in some form. Finally, the manual discusses possible challenges for future use of these data.

Oncological colorectal surgery during the COVID-19pandemic-a national survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to clarify the surgical supply situation of oncological colorectal patients in Germany during limitations of the OR caseload due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between 11th and 19th April 2020, all members of a consortium of German colorectal cancer centers were invited to participate in a web-based survey on the current status of surgical care situation of colorectal cancer patients in Germany. RESULTS: A total of 112 colorectal surgeons of 101 German hospitals participated in the survey. Eighty-seven percent of the participating hospitals had to reduce their total surgical caseload and 34% their surgical volume for oncological colorectal patients during COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions of the surgical caseload were independent of the size of the hospital and the number of cases of COVID-19 in the federal state of the hospital. Sixteen percent of colorectal surgeons consider surgical limitations to be not justified and 78% to be justified only if the care of oncological patients is ensured. Ninety-five percent of the colorectal surgeons interviewed stated that all oncological colorectal patients with an indication for surgery should be operated in time, despite the current reservations for COVID-19 patients. For the majority of the respondents (63% and 51%, respectively), an extended waiting time for surgery of up to 2 weeks was acceptable for non-metastatic and metastatic patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: In Germany, there is a temporarily relevant reduction of surgical volume in oncological colorectal patients. Most colorectal surgeons stated that oncological colorectal surgery should not be compromised despite the measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Correction to: Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort.

The article, "Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long­term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort," written by Valentin Schnitzbauer, Michael Gerken, Stefan Benz, Vinzenz Völkel,, Teresa Draeger, Alois Fürst, and Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 30 May 2019 without open access. With the author(s)' decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on September 18, 2019 to © The Author(s) [Year] and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is frequent in Germany and worldwide. Several studies have assessed laparoscopic surgery as a treatment option and most have shown favorable results. However, long-term oncologic safety remains a controversial issue. METHODS: The current dataset derives from 30 clinical cancer registries in Germany and includes 16,378 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016. Outcomes were 90-day mortality, overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (RFS) and relative survival of patients treated with either open or laparoscopic surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors that affected the probability of a patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery as well as to evaluate short-term mortality. OS and RFS were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression conducted separately for UICC stages I-III, tumor location, and sex as well as by propensity score matching followed by univariable and multivariable survival analysis. RESULTS: Of 16,378 patients, 4540 (27.7%) underwent laparoscopic surgery, a trend which increased during the observation period. Patients undergoing laparoscopy attained better results for 90-day mortality (odds ratio, OR 0.658, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.526-0.822). The 5-year OS rate in the laparoscopic group was 82.6%, vs. 76.6% in the open surgery group, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.819 in multivariable Cox regression (95% CI 0.747-0.899, p < 0.001). The laparoscopic group showed a better 5-year RFS, with 81.8 vs. 74.3% and HR 0.770 (95% CI 0.705-0.842, p < 0.001). The 5-year relative survival rates were also in favor of laparoscopy, with 93.1 vs. 88.4% (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and, according to this study, is associated with an oncological outcome superior to that of the open procedure. Therefore, in the absence of individual contraindications, it should be considered as a standard approach.

Gender comparison of clinical, histopathological, therapeutic and outcome factors in 185,967 colon cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal carcinomas represent the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Germany. Although the incidence is significantly higher in men compared with women and gender is a well-established crucial factor for outcome in other diseases, detailed gender comparisons for colon cancer are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study included all patients diagnosed with colon cancer in Germany between 2000 and 2016 who were included in the common dataset of colorectal cancer patients from the quality conference of the German Cancer Society. We compared clinical, histopathological, and therapeutic characteristics as well as overall and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 185,967 patients were included in the study, of which 85,685 were female (46.1%) and 100,282 were male (53.9%). The proportion of women diagnosed with colon cancer decreased from 2000 to 2016 (f: 26.6 to 40.1%; m: 24.9 to 41.9%; p < 0.001), and the proportion of very old patients was especially high in women (f: 27.3%; m: 15.6%; p < 0.001). The localization in women was more right-sided (f: 45.0%, m: 36.7%; p < 0.001), and women had a higher tumor grading and a higher UICC stage (especially stage III nodal-positive) at diagnosis of primary colon cancer (UICC III: f: 22.7%, m: 21.0%; p < 0.001). We could detect a significantly better overall (hazard ratio: 0.853, lower 95%: 0.841, upper 95%: 0.864; p < 0.001) and recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.857, lower 95%: 0.845, upper 95%: 0.868; p < 0.001) in women compared with men, even though women received chemotherapy less frequently compared with men (f: 26.1%, m: 28.1%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We could detect several variables that differed significantly between men and women regarding clinical, histopathological, therapeutic, and outcome factors. We believe that it is crucial to consider gender as a key factor in the diagnosis and treatment of colon cancer. Sex-specific diagnostic tools could lead to an earlier diagnosis of colon cancer in women, and ways to increase the rate of chemotherapy in women should be evaluated. Furthermore, we recommend stratifying randomized trials by gender.

[Manual for Methods and Use of Routine Practice Data for Knowledge Generation]. / Manual für Methoden und Nutzung versorgungsnaher Daten zur Wissensgenerierung.

" There are more and more good reasons for using existing care data, with the focus in particular on the use of register data. The associated, clearly structured methodological procedure has so far been insufficiently combined, prepared and presented transparently. The German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF) has therefore set up an ad hoc commission for the use of routine practice data (RWE/RWD). The rapid report prepared by IQWiG on the scientific development of concepts for "generation of care-related data and their evaluation for the purpose of benefit assessment of medicinal products according to § 35a SGB V" is an essential step for the use of register data for the generation of evidence. The "Memorandum Register - Update 2019" published by DNVF 2020 also describes the requirements and methodological foundations of registers. Best practice examples from oncology, which are based on the uniform oncological basic data set for clinical cancer registration (§ 65c SGB V), show, for example, that guidelines can be checked and recommendations for guidelines and necessary interventions can be derived in the sense of knowledge-generating health services research using register data. At the same time, however, there are no clear quality requirements and structured formal and content-related procedures in the areas of data consolidation, data verification and the use of specific methods depending on the question at hand. The previously inconsistent requirements are to be revised and a method guide for the use of suited data is to be developed and published. The first chapter of the manual on methods of care-related data explains the objective and structure of the manual. It explains why the use of the term "routine practice data" is more effective than the use of the terms Real Word Data (RWD) and Real World Evidence (RWE). By avoiding the term "real world" it should be emphasized in particular that high-quality research can also be based on routine practice data (e. g. register-based comparative studies).

Laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer-is age an effect modifier for short- and long-term survival?

INTRODUCTION: Rectal cancer is a frequently diagnosed tumor worldwide. Various studies have shown the noninferiority or even slight superiority of laparoscopic resection. However, there is no clear recommendation on whether age should influence the choice of surgical approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study compared outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients. Perioperative mortality and 5-year overall, relative, and recurrence-free survival rates were analyzed separately for three age groups. Data originate from 30 regional German cancer registries that cover approximately one quarter of the German population. All primary nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma cases with surgery between 2005 and 2014 were eligible for inclusion. To compare survival rates, Kaplan-Meier analysis, a relative survival model, and multivariable Cox regression were used; a sensitivity analysis assessed bias by exclusion. RESULTS: Ten thousand seven hundred fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. The mean laparoscopy rate was 23.0% and increased over time. Analysis of 30-day postoperative mortality rates revealed advantages for laparoscopically treated patients, although the significance level was not reached in any age group. Regarding 5-year overall survival, laparoscopy generally seems to be the superior approach, whereas for recurrence-free survival, an age-dependent gradient in effect size was observed: with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.703 for laparoscopy, patients under 60 years benefitted more from the minimally invasive approach than older patients (septuagenarians, HR 0.923). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy shows similar results to the open approach in terms of postoperative survival in all age groups. Concerning long-term outcomes, younger patients benefitted most from the minimally invasive approach.

Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Research Involvement in Cancer Centers: A Survey of Colorectal Cancer Center Coordinators in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Improvements in health care depend on research involving health-care providers (HCPs) and health-care organizations (HCOs). Existing research suggests that involvement in research studies is still much lower than it could be. This study investigates factors that may impede or facilitate research involvement. A standardized online questionnaire was used to carry out a survey, in 3 countries, of key informants in colorectal cancer centers that hold certification in accordance with the requirements of the German Cancer Society. A total of 184 individuals responded (response rate 65%). The respondents found it difficult to identify studies suitable for their patients (40% agreement), criticized the small overall number of studies available (48%), and found that many studies are not worthwhile financially (56%). Among respondents who were not involved in studies as the principal investigators (PIs), 66% agreed they lacked the research infrastructure needed and 81% that they did not have enough staff. Among respondents who were involved as PIs, only 22% indicated that their hospital management encouraged them to initiate and conduct clinical trials. Eighty-five percent of the respondents agreed that the general population lacks information about the importance of studies. Five recommendations for health policy makers are derived from these findings for ways of increasing the involvement of HCPs and HCOs in research, and in cancer research in particular.

Retromesenteric course of the middle colic artery-challenges and pitfalls in D3 right colectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The middle colic artery (MCA) is of crucial importance in abdominal surgery, for laparoscopic or open right and transverse colectomies. Against this background, a high number of reports concerning anatomical variations of the MCA have been published intended to contribute to the improvement of operative techniques for the treatment of colon cancer. Despite this extensive literature, briefly reviewed in the present paper, a course of the MCA posterior to the superior mesenteric vein, called a retromesenteric trajectory, has been related to only once, to the best of our knowledge. METHODS: A total series of 507 patients included in two prospective trials concerning laparoscopic or open right colectomy for cancer between 2011 and 2017 are reported. The investigation included preoperative or postoperative multidetector-computed tomography angiography. RESULTS: We found four (0.79%) cases of retromesenteric MCA. They all underwent meticulous image analysis with mesenteric vessels' road mapping, detailed morphometry, and surgical validation which revealed that, apart from their course, those cases did not differ significantly from the rest of the series. CONCLUSION: This paper therefore documents the worth-knowing behavior causing considerable confusion for the operating surgeon unaware of the abnormality and shows its concrete impact on patient-tailored surgical practice, in particular for laparoscopic D3 colectomy (including the "uncinated process first" approach).

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME: standardization using the "critical view" concept.

BACKGROUND: Complete mesocolic excision is gradually becoming an established oncologic surgical principle for right hemicolectomy. However, the procedure is technically demanding and carries the risk of serious complications, especially when performed laparoscopically. A standardized procedure that minimizes technical hazards and facilitates teaching is, therefore, highly desirable. METHODS: An expert group of surgeons and one anatomist met three times. The initial aim was to achieve consensus about the surgical anatomy before agreeing on a sequence for dissection in laparoscopic CME. This proposal was evaluated and discussed in an anatomy workshop using post-mortem body donors along with videos of process-informed procedures, leading to a definite consensus. RESULTS: In order to provide a clear picture of the surgical anatomy, the "open book" model was developed, consisting of symbolic pages representing the corresponding dissection planes (retroperitoneal, ileocolic, transverse mesocolic, and mesogastric), vascular relations, and radicality criteria. The description of the procedure is based on eight preparative milestones, which all serve as critical views of safety. The chosen sequence of the milestones was designed to maximize control during central vascular dissection. Failure to reach any of the critical views should alert the surgeon to a possible incorrect dissection and to consider converting to an open procedure. CONCLUSION: Combining the open-book anatomical model with a clearly structured dissection sequence, using critical views as safety checkpoints, may provide a safe and efficient platform for teaching laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME.

Laparoscopic surgery in patients with colon cancer: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer remain debatable, as randomized trials have reported similar outcomes for open and laparoscopic surgery but population-based data are scarce. Thus, it is unclear whether, outside of clinical trials, laparoscopic surgery that is performed as a standard clinical treatment has detrimental effects on patients' long-term survival. METHODS: This study examined a unified database of 30 German regional cancer registries for patients with colorectal cancer who were diagnosed between 2003 and 2011. Among 216,682 patients with colorectal carcinoma, we identified 37,068 patients with Union for International Cancer Control stage I-III colon carcinoma (>12 cm from the anal verge), including 3825 patients (10.38 %) who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were also used to evaluate factors that influenced the likelihood of a patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Kaplan-Meier analysis with the log-rank test was used to analyse differences in short- and long-term survival outcomes after open or laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Younger age, lower T-stage, and left-sided surgery were independent predictors of the patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery (all, p < 0001). The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for left-sided tumours (odds ratio [OR] 0.49; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.77). Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was a significant and independent predictor of prolonged long-term survival for right- and left-sided surgeries (right-side, OR 0.67; 95 % CI 0.56-0.82; left-sided, OR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.62-0.78). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that laparoscopic surgery provides favourable outcomes even when used outside controlled trials and should be considered as a standard treatment for patients with colon cancer.

The uncinate process first approach: a novel technique for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer could be beneficial in terms of long-term survival. However, CME is a considerably more complex operation than standard right hemicolectomy; this is especially true for the laparoscopic approach. Consequently, we have explored a new laparoscopic approach that provides surgical radicality at the mesenteric root on the one hand and maximum safety on the other hand. METHODS: The key feature of the uncinate process first approach (UFA) is the commencement of the dissection at the fourth part of the duodenum using a medial to lateral approach, thus mobilizing the whole mesenteric root posteriorly before the central parts of the mesenteric vessels are accessed. Twenty-eight selected patients with right-sided colon cancer underwent surgery using the UFA and were compared with 51 patients who underwent an open CME procedure (CON). In 11/28 and 51/51 patients in the UFA and CON groups, respectively, a planimetric assessment of the specimen was performed. RESULTS: Surgical time was longer (144.8 vs. 202.5 min; p < 0.000) and postoperative stay shorter (8.0 vs. 10.5 days; p < 0.01) for the laparoscopic approach. The area of the resected mesentery (UFA, 15,097 mm(2); CON, 15,788 mm(2); p = 0.47) and the lymph node count (UFA, 59.0; CON, 51.0; p = 0.09) was not significantly different; additionally, no difference was observed regarding anastomotic leakage (both n = 0) and postoperative mortality (UFA, 0/28; CON, 1/51; p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME using the UFA provides adequate radicality according to the CME principles and seems feasible and as safe as an open technique. However, future trails will have to demonstrate whether the theoretical advantages of the UFA, with a higher degree of mobility and accessibility of the mesenteric root, translate into a significant clinical benefit, especially relative to the other laparoscopic techniques.