4.5 Article

Is complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation safe and effective in the surgical treatment of right-sided colon cancers? A prospective study

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-013-1766-x

关键词

Complete mesocolic excision; Central vascular ligation; Right colon cancers; Surgical procedures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) has been proposed for treatment of colon cancers based on the same principles as total mesorectal excision. Impressive outcomes have been reported, however, direct comparisons with the classic procedure are lacking. Forty-five consecutive patients operated on in the last 5 years with CME and CVL right hemicolectomy entered the study. Fifty-eight right-sided colon cancer patients operated in the previous 5 years with classic approach constituted the control group. Intra- and postoperative course assessed the safety of the procedure. Primary end-points for oncological adequacy were recurrence and survival rate. All operations were successful with no increase in postoperative complications (p = 0.85). Number of harvested nodes and length of vascular ligation were shown to be significantly better in the CME group (p < 0.01). A higher number of tumor deposits were harvested thus allowing chemotherapy in newly upstaged patients. Locoregional recurrences were never experienced in CME patients (p = 0.03). The risk of cancer-related death was reduced by over one half in all CME patients, and even by three quarters in node-positive tumors. The classic operation was significantly associated with poor outcome (p < 0.01). This study shows that CME with CVL is a safe and effective surgical approach for right colon cancer, thus confirming the previously reported oncological adequacy. The procedure was shown to significantly decrease local recurrences and to improve the survival rate, particularly in node-positive patients. Urgent diffusion of this technique is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据