Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus total laparoscopic right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background:

Laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer is associated with definite short-term benefits, and is increasingly practiced world-wide. The limitations of a pure laparoscopic approach include a relative lack of tactile feedback and long procedural time. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was introduced in an attempt to facilitate operation by improving the tactile sensation. To date, there is no consensus as to which approach is better. Herein we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with total laparoscopic colectomy (TLC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer.

Methods:

Adult patients with carcinoma of caecum and ascending colon were recruited and randomized to undergo either HALC or TLC. Measured outcomes included operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative morbidities, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, disease recurrence and patient survival.

Results:

Sixty patients (HALC=30, TLC=30) were recruited. The two groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, body mass index and final histopathological staging. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of operative time, conversion rate, operative blood loss, pain score and length of hospital stay. With a median follow up of 27 to 33 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83% vs. 80%, p = 0.923).

Conclusion:

HALC is safe and feasible, but it does not show any significant benefits over TLC in terms of operative time and conversion rate. Routine use of hand-assisted laparoscopic technique in right hemicolectomy is therefore not recommended.

© 2012 The Authors Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland