Aim: In colorectal cancer, ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) is a standard surgical approach. In contrast, ligation of the IMA is not mandatory during treatment of diverticular disease. The object of this meta-analysis was to assess if preservation of the IMA reduces the risk of anastomotic leakage. Method: A search was performed up to August 2018 using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. The measures of treatment effect utilized risk ratios for dichotomous variables with calculation of the 95% CI. Data analysis was performed using the meta-analysis software Review Manager 5.3. Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis: two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six non-RCTs with 2190 patients (IMA preservation 1353, ligation 837). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher in the IMA ligation group (6%) than the IMA preservation group (2.4%), but this difference was not statistically significant [risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.26–1.33, I2 = 55%]. The conversion to laparotomy was significantly lower in the IMA ligation group (5.1%) than in the IMA preservation group (9%) (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.14–2.65, I2 = 0%). Regarding the other outcomes (anastomotic bleeding, bowel injury and splenic damage), no significant differences between the two techniques were observed. Conclusion: This meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the anastomotic leakage rate when comparing IMA preservation with IMA ligation. Thus, to date there is insufficient evidence to recommend the IMA-preserving technique as mandatory in resection for left-sided colonic diverticular disease.
Sigmoid resection for diverticular disease – to ligate or to preserve the inferior mesenteric artery? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis
Cirocchi, Roberto;
2019
Abstract
Aim: In colorectal cancer, ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) is a standard surgical approach. In contrast, ligation of the IMA is not mandatory during treatment of diverticular disease. The object of this meta-analysis was to assess if preservation of the IMA reduces the risk of anastomotic leakage. Method: A search was performed up to August 2018 using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. The measures of treatment effect utilized risk ratios for dichotomous variables with calculation of the 95% CI. Data analysis was performed using the meta-analysis software Review Manager 5.3. Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis: two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six non-RCTs with 2190 patients (IMA preservation 1353, ligation 837). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher in the IMA ligation group (6%) than the IMA preservation group (2.4%), but this difference was not statistically significant [risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.26–1.33, I2 = 55%]. The conversion to laparotomy was significantly lower in the IMA ligation group (5.1%) than in the IMA preservation group (9%) (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.14–2.65, I2 = 0%). Regarding the other outcomes (anastomotic bleeding, bowel injury and splenic damage), no significant differences between the two techniques were observed. Conclusion: This meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the anastomotic leakage rate when comparing IMA preservation with IMA ligation. Thus, to date there is insufficient evidence to recommend the IMA-preserving technique as mandatory in resection for left-sided colonic diverticular disease.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.