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

Ng, Lawrence W.C.; Tung, Lily; Cheung, Hester Yui Shan; Wong, James; Chung, C. C.; Li, M. K. W.

doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03028.x

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to its rapid utilization in recent years, a number of studies have reported on pure LACS in comparison with CL and HALS (8,9,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). When surgical procedures are reviewed at a single center, CL is often selected as the control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.In recent years, the use of laparoscopic surgery has been expanded to include radical curative resection. In a previous study, 212 patients with primary colorectal cancer (stages I-III) underwent radical curative resection by hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (n=98) or conventional laparotomy (CL) (n=114) and were compared with respect to 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS). The study included 210/212 patients who were followed up to 5 years, including 96 patients who underwent HALS and 114 treated with CL. The two groups were matched for stage, clinical background, and postoperative management. Patient characteristics were compared and the 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS were determined. The 5-year follow-up rate was 97.6%. In stage I-III patients, 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS showed no significant differences between HALS and CL. The patients with stage I disease accounted for 41.7% (40/96) of the patients undergoing HALS, while stage I patients only accounted for 23.7% (27/114) of the patients undergoing CL, and the difference was significant (P= 0.005). Stage II patients undergoing CL were older than those treated with HALS (P=0.017). However, there were no differences in the characteristics of stage III patients undergoing HALS or CL. In conclusion, HALS achieved a similar survival to CL in patients with stage I to III colorectal cancer. Compared with CL, HALS was performed more safely and achieved superior cosmetic results. IntroductionIn recent years, the indications for laparoscopic surgery have been expanded to include radical curative resection of early to advanced colorectal cancer and palliative surgery for stage IV disease (1-6). In Japan, laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgery (pure LACS) is widely used. However, pure LACS has several disadvantages, such as requiring at least 2 physicians who are familiar with the procedure and prolonging the operating time, as well as needing more staff and limiting the availability of operating theaters. Previously, it was reported that pure LACS achieves the same or better outcomes as conventional laparotomy (CL) with regard to wound infection, hospital stay, and survival, together with superior cosmetic results (7-10). In Europe and the USA, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (HH) is more widely used than pure LACS. HH is characterized by: i) Providing the operator with palpation/tactile sensation, and allowing full grasping manipulation with the left hand and the possibility of smoothly removing even large and heavy tumors; ii) a shorter operating time than for pure LACS; and iii) a more rapid learning curve than for pure LACS (8,9,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17].In Japan, various surgical procedures are employed for colorectal cancer, including pure LACS (30-40%), CL (~50%), and other methods such as HALS and microincisional surgery (18). HALS is often regarded as being an optimal medium between CL and pure LACS (8,9,(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). In Japan, HALS initially became popular for a short period of time during the introdu...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…HALS is often regarded as being an optimal medium between CL and pure LACS (8,9,(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). In Japan, HALS initially became popular for a short period of time during the introduction of pure LACS in 2000, possibly as a method of training for other procedures, prior to showing a marked decline in this function.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the hand-access device incision serves as the specimen extraction site. 7,9,12,15,16,30 Moreover, through clinical practice we found HALS may be an interesting alternative to conventional laparoscopic or open surgery in therapy of acute obstructive right-sided colon cancer as it incorporates elements of both the laparoscopic and the traditional open techniques. It simplifies the performance of difficult procedures for experienced surgeons and can initiate less experienced surgeons in advanced laparoscopic surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…15 The laparoscopic operation not only has obvious advantages in the treatment of colorectal cancer, but also is a relatively early operation to carry out in this field. 5,16,17 But, along with the technical development, clinicians have encountered some new problems in daily work, including the longer operative time, risk of port-site cancer recurrences, the procedural complexity, the loss of tactile feedback, the lack of optimal retracting devices, and the need for more expensive instrumentation. Laparoscopic resections can be technically demanding and difficult to learn and teach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study on Therapeutic Efficacy Between Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery and Conventional Laparotomy for Acute Obstructive Right-Sided Colon Cancer

Jie

et al. 2015

Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, compared with conventional laparotomy for acute obstructive right-sided colon neoplasm, HALS is associated with less blood loss, shorter incision, and earlier ambulation. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy can be safely performed in patients with obstructing right-sided colonic carcinoma. If practiced more, it might be advocated as a bridge between the conventional open approach and traditional laparoscopic surgery.

show abstract

“…Ng et al [3] reported that a HALS right colectomy did not confer additional advantages over a laparoscopic right colectomy in terms of clinical, operative or oncological outcomes. For this reason, the routine use of the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique for treating right colonic cancers cannot be recommended.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: Is It Useful?

Kim

2014

Ann Coloproctol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

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

Cited by 32 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy in patients with colorectal cancer: Final results from a single center

Comparative Study on Therapeutic Efficacy Between Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery and Conventional Laparotomy for Acute Obstructive Right-Sided Colon Cancer

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: Is It Useful?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About