Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Kim, Min Hyun
• Kang, Sung Il
• Cho, Jung Rae
• Lee, Jeehye
• Yang, In Jun
• Suh, Jung Wook
• Oh, Heung-Kwon
• Kim, Duck-Woo
• Kang, Sung-Bum

Titel

Objective recovery time with end-to-side versus side-to-side anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: a randomized controlled trial

Ist Teil von

• Surgical endoscopy, 2022-04, Vol.36 (4), p.2499-2506

Ort / Verlag

New York: Springer US

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background Despite reports of the short-term benefits of end-to-side versus side-to-side anastomosis, we are aware of no prospective studies in which these methods were compared. We hypothesized the superiority of end-to-side over side-to-side anastomosis in terms of recovery after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer under an enhanced recovery program. Methods From September 2016 to August 2019, 130 patients were randomly allocated to receive end-to-side or side-to-side anastomosis at a single tertiary hospital in Korea. The primary outcome was the cumulative recovery rate seven days after surgery, defined as the percentage of patients who met all four recovery criteria: diet tolerance, no analgesia, safe ambulation, and an afebrile status. Student’s t test, the Mann–Whitney U test, the χ 2 test, and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare variables, as applicable. Results The cumulative recovery rate at seven days did not differ between patients receiving end-to-side (92.3%, 60/65) or side-to-side anastomosis (92.3%, 60/65; P  ≥ 0.999). The end-to-side and side-to-side groups had similar cumulative recovery rates at postoperative days 4, 5, and 6 (end-to-side vs. side-to-side: 41.5% vs 35.4%, P  = 0.589; 73.8% vs 63.1%, P  = 0.257; and 86.2% vs 81.5%, P  = 0.634, respectively). None of the secondary endpoints differed for end-to-side vs. side-to-side anastomosis: the median length of postoperative hospitalization (5 [IQR 5–7] vs. 6 [IQR 5–7] days, respectively, P  = 0.376), the 30-day complication rate (16.9% vs. 12.3%, respectively, P  = 0.620), the enhanced recovery protocol failure rate (10.8% vs. 7.7%, respectively, P  = 0.763), and the 30-day readmission rate (4.6% vs. 3.1%, respectively, P  ≥ 0.999). Conclusions End-to-side anastomosis was not superior to side-to-side anastomosis in terms of recovery criteria after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. These findings do not provide evidence for a functional advantage of end-to-side compared to side-to-side anastomosis.