4.5 Review

Complete mesocolic excision in colorectal cancer: a systematic review

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 7-16

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/codi.12793

关键词

Complete mesocolic excision; complete mesocolic resection; total mesocolic excision; total mesocolic resection

资金

  1. Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) [AMS-SGCL8-Kinross] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2008-21-005, NF-SI-0507-10161] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimSeveral studies have suggested an increased lymph node yield, reduced locoregional recurrence and increased disease-free survival after complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colorectal cancer. This review was undertaken to assess the use of CME for colon cancer by evaluating the technique and its clinical outcome. MethodA literature search of publications was performed using PubMed and Medline. Only studies published in English were included. Studies assessed for quality and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. End-points included number of lymph nodes per patient, quality of the plane of mesocolic excision, postoperative mortality and morbidity, 5-year locoregional recurrence and 5-year cancer-specific survival. ResultsThere were 34 articles comprising 12 retrospective studies, nine prospective studies and 13 original articles including case series, observational studies and editorials. Of the prospective studies, four reported an increased lymph node harvest and a survival benefit. The others reported an improvement in the quality of the specimen as assessed by histopathological examination. Laparoscopic CME has the same oncological outcome as open surgery but completeness of excision during laparoscopy may be compromised for tumours in the transverse colon. ConclusionStudies demonstrate that CME removes significantly more tissue around the tumour including maximal lymph node clearance. There is little information on serious adverse events after CME and a long-term survival benefit has not been proved.

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