Segmental resection of splenic flexure colon cancers provides an adequate lymph node harvest and is a safe operative approach – an analysis of the ACS-NSQIP database

Introduction Fewer than 10% of colon cancers are found at the splenic flexure. A standard surgical approach to these cancers has not been defined. The goal of this study was to compare lymph node harvest and post-operative morbidity between segmental resection and formal left hemicolectomy for splen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2022-08, Vol.36 (8), p.5652-5659
Hauptverfasser: Pang, Allison J., Marinescu, Daniel, Morin, Nancy, Vasilevsky, Carol-Ann, Boutros, Marylise
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Fewer than 10% of colon cancers are found at the splenic flexure. A standard surgical approach to these cancers has not been defined. The goal of this study was to compare lymph node harvest and post-operative morbidity between segmental resection and formal left hemicolectomy for splenic flexure colon cancers. Method Patients diagnosed with a splenic flexure cancer were identified from the 2012–2018 ACS-NSQIP colectomy-targeted database. Patients were categorized based on type of surgical resection – left hemicolectomy with colorectal anastomosis or segmental colectomy with colocolonic anastomosis. Demographic, clinicopathologic, and post-operative outcomes were compared between groups. Factors independently associated with lymph node harvest, operative time, and post-operative morbidity were investigated by linear and binomial logistic regression models. Results A total of 3,049 patients underwent colectomy for a splenic flexure cancer. Of these, 83.6% had a segmental colectomy and 73% were performed by a minimally invasive approach. T- and N-stage did not differ between segmental and left hemicolectomy groups ( p  = 0.703 and p  = 0.429, respectively). Inadequate nodal harvest (
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-021-08926-9