CC vs. CC-Plus: A Comparison between Two Cranial-to-Caudal Approaches for Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with approximately 1.9 million new cases and over 935,000 deaths in 2020. Right-sided colon cancer, a subset of colorectal cancer, represents a significant health burden. Laparoscopic colon surgery has significantly improved postoperative recovery. The superiority of one approach or landmark over another is still argued about due to the lack of large-scale prospective studies. However, deep understanding both of the anatomical variation and characteristics of each approach is of extreme importance to minimizing adverse effects and maximizing patient benefit after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Among these, the cranial-to-caudal approach offers advantages such as reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time, and decreased risk of vascular injury. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of two cranial-to-caudal approaches for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). Specifically, the study aims to evaluate the differences between the conventional cranial-to-caudal approach with medial ligation of the middle colic vein (MCV), and the cranial-to-caudal approach with cranial MCV ligation and surgical trunk sheath opening (CC-plus). The goal is to determine which method offers superior outcomes in terms of intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and overall patient recovery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study compared two cranial-to-caudal approaches for LRH. The study included 51 patients who underwent LRH between January 2021 and November 2023 at the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (26 patients) used the cranial-to-caudal approach with medial ligation of the middle colic vein (MCV), and Group B (25 patients) used the cranial-to-caudal approach with cranial MCV ligation and surgical trunk sheath opening (CC-plus). General characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0, with significance set at < 0.05.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups regarding age, gender, tumor location, or clinical staging. All patients achieved R0 resection with no perioperative deaths. The CC-plus group had significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time compared to the CC group ( < 0.05). No significant differences were found in first postoperative exhausting time, first postoperative defecation time, and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were evaluated in postoperative complications (surgical site infection (SSI), ileus or bowel obstruction, refractory diarrhea, anastomotic leakage, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), hemorrhage) between the two groups on a median follow up of 12.6 months. Pathological examination showed no significant differences in total lymph nodes dissected and tumor stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The cranial-to-caudal approach with MCV ligation via the cranial approach (CC-plus) is a safe and effective method for LRH, offering advantages in terms of reduced operation time and intraoperative blood loss. This study's findings suggest that the CC-plus approach may be superior to the conventional cranial-to-caudal approach.