4.0 Article

Comparison of Extended Hemicolectomy Versus Transverse Colectomy in Patients With Cancer of the Transverse Colon

Journal

ACTA CHIRURGICA BELGICA
Volume 113, Issue 2, Pages 107-111

Publisher

ACTA MEDICAL BELGICA
DOI: 10.1080/00015458.2013.11680895

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background : Cancer of the transverse colon is rare and postoperative mortality tends to be high. Standard surgical treatment involves either extended hemicolectomy or transverse colectomy, depending on the location of the tumour. The aim of the present study was to compare postoperative mortality and five-year survival between these types of surgery. Methods : For this observational study, data on patients with a tumour of the transverse colon, treated by open resection in the Dordrecht Hospital from 1989 through 2003, were derived from the database of the regional cancer registry. Information on type of resection, tumour stage, complications, postoperative mortality (30-day) and survival was abstracted from the medical files. Patients with multi-organ surgery, (sub)total colectomy or stage IV disease were excluded from the analysis, leaving a total series of 103 patients. Results : Transverse colectomy comprised one third of operations, predominantly involving partial resections. Postoperative mortality was 6% (2/34) after transverse colectomy and 7% (5/69) after extended hemicolectomy. Five-year survival was slightly higher for the hemicolectomy group (61% versus 50%), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.34). Conclusion : Our results confirm the high postoperative risk after surgery for cancer of the transverse colon and show that this risk does not depend on the type of surgery. Considering the satisfactory results after partial transverse colectomy, segmental resections may be considered as an option for the treatment of localised tumours of the transverse colon.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available