Comparison of Minimally Invasive Colectomy Between Intra- Versus Extra-Corporeal Anastomosis Technique (COMMIT Study): Short-Term Analysis.

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Takuya Takami, Takehito Yamamoto, Yoshiro Itatani, Ryosuke Mizuno, Kae Okoshi, Yasunori Deguchi, Keiji Nagata, Tomoaki Okada, Rei Mizuno, Kazutaka Obama
{"title":"Comparison of Minimally Invasive Colectomy Between Intra- Versus Extra-Corporeal Anastomosis Technique (COMMIT Study): Short-Term Analysis.","authors":"Takuya Takami, Takehito Yamamoto, Yoshiro Itatani, Ryosuke Mizuno, Kae Okoshi, Yasunori Deguchi, Keiji Nagata, Tomoaki Okada, Rei Mizuno, Kazutaka Obama","doi":"10.1002/ags3.70252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the operative and short-term outcomes between intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in minimally invasive colectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter cohort study used data from the Kyoto Colorectal Surgery Study Group database. Patients who underwent minimally invasive colectomy between 2018 and 2025 were included. Primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 mL. Secondary outcomes included continuous intraoperative blood loss, the incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 100 and ≥ 300 mL, intraoperative blood transfusion, operative time, resection margins, harvested lymph node yield, and postoperative complications. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3213 eligible patients, 928 and 2285 underwent IA and EA, respectively. After the propensity score matching, 650 matched pairs were identified. The incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 mL was significantly lower in the IA group than that in the EA group (2.5% vs. 4.9%; risk difference, -2.46%; 95% confidence interval, -4.65% to -0.43%), whereas continuous intraoperative blood loss was comparable. Although operative time was generally longer for IA, subgroup analysis demonstrated significant effect modification according to surgical approach, with operative time tending to favor IA. The incidence of adequate resection margins tended to be higher in IA, although the difference was not statistically significant. Harvested lymph nodes and postoperative complications were generally comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IA was associated with a lower incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 mL during minimally invasive colectomy. These findings indicate that IA may reduce the occurrence of relatively high blood loss events.</p>","PeriodicalId":8030,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13402651/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.70252","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare the operative and short-term outcomes between intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in minimally invasive colectomy.

Methods: This multicenter cohort study used data from the Kyoto Colorectal Surgery Study Group database. Patients who underwent minimally invasive colectomy between 2018 and 2025 were included. Primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 mL. Secondary outcomes included continuous intraoperative blood loss, the incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 100 and ≥ 300 mL, intraoperative blood transfusion, operative time, resection margins, harvested lymph node yield, and postoperative complications. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline characteristics.

Results: Of 3213 eligible patients, 928 and 2285 underwent IA and EA, respectively. After the propensity score matching, 650 matched pairs were identified. The incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 mL was significantly lower in the IA group than that in the EA group (2.5% vs. 4.9%; risk difference, -2.46%; 95% confidence interval, -4.65% to -0.43%), whereas continuous intraoperative blood loss was comparable. Although operative time was generally longer for IA, subgroup analysis demonstrated significant effect modification according to surgical approach, with operative time tending to favor IA. The incidence of adequate resection margins tended to be higher in IA, although the difference was not statistically significant. Harvested lymph nodes and postoperative complications were generally comparable.

Conclusion: IA was associated with a lower incidence of intraoperative blood loss ≥ 200 mL during minimally invasive colectomy. These findings indicate that IA may reduce the occurrence of relatively high blood loss events.

微创结肠切除术体内与体外吻合技术的比较(COMMIT研究):短期分析。
目的:比较微创结肠切除术中体内吻合术(IA)与体外吻合术(EA)的手术及近期疗效。方法:这项多中心队列研究使用来自京都结直肠外科研究组数据库的数据。纳入了2018年至2025年间接受微创结肠切除术的患者。主要终点为术中出血量≥200 mL的发生率。次要结局包括术中持续出血量、术中出血量≥100和≥300 mL的发生率、术中输血量、手术时间、切除边缘、淋巴结清扫量和术后并发症。进行倾向评分匹配以平衡基线特征。结果:在3213例符合条件的患者中,分别有928例和2285例接受了IA和EA。倾向评分匹配后,共识别出650对匹配的配对。IA组术中出血量≥200 mL的发生率显著低于EA组(2.5% vs. 4.9%;风险差-2.46%;95%可信区间-4.65% ~ -0.43%),而术中持续出血量具有可比性。虽然IA的手术时间普遍较长,但亚组分析显示,根据手术入路,手术时间倾向于IA。充分切除边缘的发生率在IA中趋于较高,尽管差异无统计学意义。切除的淋巴结和术后并发症一般具有可比性。结论:IA与微创结肠切除术术中出血量≥200 mL发生率较低相关。这些发现表明,IA可能会减少相对高失血事件的发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书