학술논문

Splenic flexure mobilization for sigmoid and low anterior resections in the minimally invasive era: How often and at what cost?
Document Type
Report
Source
The American Journal of Surgery. July 2020, Vol. 220 Issue 1, 191
Subject
Analysis
Medical schools
Surgery
Medical colleges -- Analysis
Surgery -- Analysis
Language
English
ISSN
0002-9610
Abstract
Keywords Splenic flexure mobilization; Sigmoid colectomy; Left colectomy; Low anterior resection Highlights * Splenic flexure mobilization increases left colonic reach for a better vascularized and tension-free anastomosis. * Open splenic flexure mobilization is challenging due to anatomic position. * Minimally invasive splenic flexure mobilization improves visualization and minimizes splenic traction. * Splenic flexure mobilization is more likely to be performed with minimally invasive compared to open procedures. Abstract Background Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) increases left colonic reach for a better vascularized and tension-free anastomosis. Open SFM is challenging due to anatomic position. Minimally invasive SFM improves visualization and minimizes splenic traction. Methods We retrospectively reviewed all sigmoid and low anterior resections (LAR) by a colorectal surgical group over 10-year period. We analyzed indications, surgical methods and perioperative outcomes of open and MIS SFM cohorts. Results 793 patients were included; 122 (15.5%) open, 671 (84.5%) MIS (60% laparoscopic-assisted (LA), 40% hand-assisted (HA)). Overall, indications were cancer (56%), diverticulitis (31%), and other benign diseases (13%). Compared to MIS, open cases had more complex disease (45% vs. 18%, p < 0.01), with fewer SFM performed (40% vs. 86%, p < 0.01), required more frequent diversion (30% vs. 21%, p = 0.02) and were complicated by higher leak/abscess (7% vs. 3%, p = 0.06) and reoperation rates (10% vs. 6%, p = 0.11). 1% of SFM required conversion (LA to HA 0.5%, MIS to open 0.5%). There were no open SFM complications. There were 26 (5%) MIS SFM complications; bleeding (18; 12 splenic capsular tears (0 splenectomy/splenorraphy), 6 mesenteric) and organ injury (bowel (3), pancreatic (4), renal (1)). Conclusions Our SFM rate was high in the MIS group, with a low overall complication rate. Of note, the anastomotic leak/abscess rate was 3%, and may be related to the high SFM rate. It is the authors' opinion that a major advantage of MIS is to facilitate SFM, hence SFM is more likely to be performed with these methods compared to open procedures.