Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis of medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation during laparoscopic colorectal surgery

  • Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate comparative outcomes of medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists. Perioperative mortality and morbidity, procedure time, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open procedure, and number of harvested lymph nodes were the outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models.

Results

We identified eight comparative studies reporting a total of 1477 patients evaluating outcomes of medial-to-lateral (n = 626) and lateral-to-medial (n = 851) approaches in laparoscopic colorectal resection. The medial-to-lateral approach was associated with significantly lower rate of conversion to open (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, P = 0.001), shorter procedure time (mean difference (MD) − 32.25, P = 0.003) and length of hospital stay (MD − 1.54, P = 0.02) compared to the lateral-to-medial approach. However, there was no significant difference in mortality (risk difference (RD) 0.00, P = 0.96), overall complications (OR 0.78, P = 0.11), wound infection (OR 0.84, P = 0.60), anastomotic leak (OR 0.70, P = 0.26), bleeding (OR 0.60, P = 0.50), and number of harvested lymph nodes (MD − 1.54, P = 0.02) between two groups. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that the lateral-to-medial approach may harvest more lymph nodes in left-sided colectomy (MD − 1.29, P = 0.0009). The sensitivity analysis showed that overall complications were lower in the medial-to-lateral group (OR 0.72, P = 0.49).

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis (level 2 evidence) showed that medial-to-lateral approach during laparoscopic colorectal resection may reduce procedure time, length of hospital stay and conversion to open procedure rate. Moreover, it may probably reduce overall perioperative morbidity. However, both approaches carry similar risk of mortality, and have comparable ability to harvest lymph nodes. Future high-quality randomised trials are required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surgical Laparoscopy & Endoscopy 1:144–150

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ et al (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350(20):2050–2059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10(1):44–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fujii S, Tsukamoto M, Fukushima Y, Shimada R, Okamoto K, Tsuchiya T, Nozawa K, Matsuda K, Hashiguchi Y (2016 Jul 15) Systematic review of laparoscopic vs open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients. World J Gastrointest Oncol 8(7):573–582

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Jamali FR, Soweid AM, Dimassi H, Bailey C, Leroy J, Marescaux J (2008) Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 143:762–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242:83–91

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK (2006) Systematic review on the short-term outcome of laparoscopic resection for colon and rectosigmoid cancer. Color Dis 8:375–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Milsom JW, Böhm B, Decanini C, Fazio VW (1994) Laparoscopic oncologic proctosigmoidectomy with low colorectal anastomosis in a cadaver model. Surg Endosc 8(9):1117–1123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Milsom JW, Böhm B, Hammerhofer KA, Fazio V, Steiger E, Elson P (1998) A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 187(1):46–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoffman GC, Baker JW, Fitchett CW, Vansant JH (1994) Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Initial experience Ann Surg 219(6):732–740

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Elftmann TD, Nelson H, Ota DM, Pemberton JH, Beart RW Jr (1994) Laparoscopic-assisted segmental colectomy: surgical techniques. Mayo Clin Proc 69(9):825–833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Veldkamp R, Gholghesaei M, Bonjer HJ, Meijer DW, Buunen M, Jeekel J, Anderberg B, Cuesta MA, Cuschierl A, Fingerhut A, Fleshman JW, Guillou PJ, Haglind E, Himpens J, Jacobi CA, Jakimowicz JJ, Koeckerling F, Lacy AM, Lezoche E, Monson JR, Morino M, Neugebauer E, Wexner SD, Whelan RL, European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) (2004) European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) laparoscopic resection of colon cancer: consensus of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 18:1163–1185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JP, Altman DG, editors. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. Available at: http://hiv.cochrane.org/sites/hiv. cochrane.org/files/uploads/Ch08_Bias.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2018

  15. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/ programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. November 28, 2018

  16. Liang JT, Lai HS, Huang KC, Chang KJ, Shieh MJ, Jeng YM, Wang SM (2003) Comparison of medial-to-lateral versus traditional lateral-to-medial laparoscopic dissection sequences for resection of rectosigmoid cancers: randomized controlled clinical trial. World J Surg 27:190–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rotholtz NA, Bun ME, Tessio M, Lencinas SM, Laporte M, Aued ML, Peczan CE, Mezzadri NA (2009) Laparoscopic colectomy: medial vs lateral approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19:43–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Poon JT, Law WL, Fan JK, Lo OS (2009) Impact of the standardized medial-to-lateral approach on outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection. World J Surg 33:2177–2182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Day W, Lau PY (2010) Impact of the standardized medial-to-lateral approach on outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection. Is it a fair comparison? World J Surg 34:1146–1147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yan J, Ying MG, Zhou D, Chen X, Chen LC, Ye WF et al (2010) A prospective randomized control trial of the approach for laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy: medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial. Chin J Gastrointest Surg 13:403

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kim HJ, Kim CH, Lim SW, Huh JW, Kim YJ, Kim HR (2013) An extended medial to lateral approach to mobilize the splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection. Color Dis 15(2):e93–e98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Honaker M, Scouten S, Sacksner J, Ziegler M, Wasvary H (2016) A medial to lateral approach offers a superior lymph node harvest for laparoscopic right colectomy. Int J Color Dis 31(3):631–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hussain A, Mahmood F, Torrance AW, Tsiamis A (2017) Impact of medial-to-lateral vs lateral-to-medial approach on short-term and cancer-related outcomes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 26:19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ding J, Liao GQ, Xia Y, Zhang ZM, Pan Y, Liu S (2013) Medial versus lateral approach in laparoscopic colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 37(4):863–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shahin Hajibandeh and Shahab Hajibandeh equally contributed to this paper and joined first authorship is proposed.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK

    Shahin Hajibandeh, Ahmad Navid, Diwakar Ryali Sarma, Mokhtar Eltair, Rajnish Mankotia, Christopher Vaun Thompson, Andrew W. Torrance & Rajeev Peravali

  2. Department of General Surgery, The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, UK

    Shahab Hajibandeh

Authors
  1. Shahin Hajibandeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shahab Hajibandeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmad Navid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diwakar Ryali Sarma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mokhtar Eltair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rajnish Mankotia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christopher Vaun Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andrew W. Torrance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rajeev Peravali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Shahin Hajibandeh and Shahab Hajibandeh equally contributed to this paper and joined first authorship is proposed.

Conception and design: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Literature search and study selection: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Data collection: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Analysis and interpretation: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Writing the article: Shahin H, Shahab H.

Critical revision of the article: All authors.

Final approval of the article: All authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahin Hajibandeh.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 14.4 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hajibandeh, S., Hajibandeh, S., Navid, A. et al. Meta-analysis of medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 34, 787–799 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03281-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03281-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation