Abstract
Background
Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is advocated based on oncologic superiority, but not commonly performed in North America. Many data are case series with few comparative studies. Our aim was to perform a systematic review comparing outcomes between CME and non-CME colectomy.
Methods
A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines of MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthStar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they compared conventional resection (non-CME) to CME for colon cancer. Quality was assessed using methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). The main outcome measures were short-term morbidity and oncologic outcomes. Weighted pooled means and proportions with 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model when appropriate.
Results
Out of 825 unique citations, 23 studies underwent full-text reviews and 14 met inclusion criteria. Mean MINORS score was 13.3 (range 11–15). The mean sample size in CME group was 1166 (range 45–3756) and 945 (range 40–3425) in non-CME. Four papers reported plane of dissection, with CME plane achieved in 85.8% (95% CI 79.8–91.7). Mean OR time in CME group was 167 min (163–171) and 138 min (135–142) in conventional group. Perioperative morbidity was reported in six studies, with pooled overall complications of 22.5% (95% CI 18.4–26.6) for CME and 19.6 (95% CI 13.6–25.5) for non-CME. Anastomotic leak occurred in 6.0% (95% CI 2.2–9.7) of CME resections versus 6.0% (95% CI 4.1–7.9) in non-CME. CME had more lymph nodes, longer distance to high tie, and specimen length in all studies. Nine studies compared long-term oncologic outcomes and only three reported statistically significant higher disease-free or overall survival in favor of CME. Local recurrence was lower after CME in two of four studies.
Conclusions
The quality of evidence is limited and does not consistently support the superiority of CME. Better data are needed before CME can be recommended as the standard of care for colon cancer resections.