4.4 Review

Right colic artery anatomy: a systematic review of cadaveric studies

期刊

TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY
卷 21, 期 12, 页码 937-943

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-017-1717-6

关键词

Oncosurgery; Right colic artery; Complete mesocolic excision

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer may offer an oncologically superior excision compared to traditional right hemicolectomy through high vascular tie and adherence to embryonic planes during dissection, supported by preoperative scanning to accurately define the tumour lymphovascular supply and drainage. The authors support and recommend precision oncosurgery based on these principles, with an emphasis on the importance of understanding the vascular anatomy. However, the anatomical variability of the right colic artery (RCA) has resulted in significant discord in the literature regarding its precise arrangement. We systematically reviewed the literature on the incidence of the different origins of the RCA in cadaveric studies. An electronic search was conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses recommendations up to October 2016 using the MESH terms 'right colic artery' and 'anatomy' (PROSPERO registration number CRD42016041578). Ten studies involving 1073 cadavers were identified as suitable for analysis from 211 articles retrieved. The weighted mean incidence with which the right colic artery arose from other parent vessels was calculated at 36.8% for the superior mesenteric artery, 31.9% for the ileocolic artery, 27.7% for the root of the middle colic artery and 2.5% for the right branch of the middle colic artery. In 1.1% of individuals the RCA shared a trunk with the middle colic and ileocolic arteries. The weighted mean incidence of 2 RCAs was 7.0%, and in 8.9% of cadavers the RCA was absent. This anatomical information will add to the technical nuances of precision oncosurgery in right-sided colon resections.

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

4.4
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