These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Randomized controlled trial comparing cosmetic results of midline incision versus off-midline incision for specimen extraction in laparoscopic colectomy.
    Author: Iwamoto H, Matsuda K, Takifuji K, Tamura K, Mitani Y, Mizumoto Y, Nakamura Y, Sakanaka T, Yokoyama S, Hotta T, Yamaue H.
    Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg; 2023 Jul 18; 408(1):281. PubMed ID: 37460849.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: A notable advantage of laparoscopic colorectal surgery is that only a small incision at the extraction site is necessary, which is considered to be cosmetically beneficial. Meanwhile, the optimal extraction site for the resected specimen in laparoscopic colectomy is controversial in terms of cosmetic benefit. This randomized controlled trial compares midline and off-midline extraction sites in laparoscopic colectomy in patients with colon cancer, with consideration of cosmetic benefits as the primary endpoint. METHODS: Included were patients that underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy at WMUH between October 2014 and February 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to either midline incision group or off-midline incision group. Prospectively collected data included cosmetic results (patients and observer assessment scale) and complications including incidence of incisional hernia, SSI, and pain. This trial was registered with UMIN Clinical Trials (UMIN000028943). RESULTS: Finally, 98 patients with colorectal cancer were analyzed. No significant differences were found between the two groups in patient and observer assessment scales of cosmetic results (midline 8 ± 1.1 vs off-midline 11 ± 5.9 p = 0.16, midline 13.5 ± 6.6 vs off-midline 15 ± 11 p = 0.58, respectively) or in postoperative pain. However, incisional hernia occurred in four cases in the midline group (8%), which was significantly higher than that in the off-midline group (no cases, 0%). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in terms of cosmetic benefit, the primary endpoint, between the two groups. In this study, only the extraction site location was compared; future studies will examine differences depending on the incisional direction, including the incidence of incisional hernia.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]