Post-operative computed tomography scan – reliable tool for quality assessment of complete mesocolic excision

doi:10.4251/wjgo.v11.i3.208

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 11, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (8849)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-8) series, Tables (1-10) series.

Item

Count

PDF

391

WORD

230

HTML

3686

Figures (1-8)

386

Tables (1-10)

316

Sum=5009

Featured Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

666

Download

991

Sum=1657

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

857

Download

1326

Sum=2183

Mar 15, 2019 (publication date) through Feb 18, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (9)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology

ISSN

1948-5204

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Cohort Study

World J Gastrointest Oncol. Mar 15, 2019; 11(3): 208-226
Published online Mar 15, 2019. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i3.208

Table 1 Patient demographics

Characteristic	Group A	Group B
Age (yr)
Mean	64	59
Range	49-80	40-76
Sex
Male	14	16
Female	15	13
Type of colectomy
Right colectomy	12	10
Left-sided colectomies	17	19
Left colectomy	4	16
Sigmoidectomy	13	3
pT stage
pTis	1	3
pT2	3	17
pT3	19	9
pT4	6
pN stage
pNx	1
pN0	13	14
pN1	11	9
pN2	4	6
M stage
M0	29	29
M1	0	0

Table 2 Comparison of arterial stump length between the three observers

Observer	n	Median length, mm	IQR, mm	χ²	¹P-value
Livadaru C	58	35.70	21.38-60.30	0.01	0.999
1^st Radiologist	58	34.00	21.50-61.63
2^nd Radiologist	58	35.00	20.98-62.50

¹Reference to RESULTS text. IQR: Interquartile range.

Table 3 All colectomies: Comparison between groups A and B

	Group A, median (mean) in mm, (IQR)	Group B, median (mean) in mm, (IQR)	A – B difference, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	Statistics for A – B difference¹	P-value
All colectomies, n	29	29	-	-	-
Actual stump	22.63 (25.60), (20.16-31.04)	61.80 (61.27), (45.07-69.87)	-35.66 ±30.83, (21.24-62.26)	χ² = 27.38, η² = 0.47	< 0.001²
D₂PLL	26.00 (25.34), (20.15-30.53)	34.00 (29.13), (11.00-41.10)	-3.79 ±13.98, (-11.90–4.32)	t = -0.936, df = 56	0.353
D₂IP, mean ± SD	0.26 ± 12.18	32.14 ± 26.15	-31.88 ± 26.52, (-41.96-21.79)	χ² = 22.13, η² = 0.38	< 0.001²
Statistics for D₂IP, χ² (df), P	0.005 (1), 0.944	21.77 (1), < 0.001	-	-	-

¹χ² = Kruskal-Wallis test; η² = effect size estimate; t = t-test.

²Reference to RESULTS text. D₂IP: D2 improvement potential, calculated as difference of actual stump; D₂PLL: D2 predicted ligation level; IQR: Interquartile range.

Table 4 Right colectomies: Ileocolic artery stump comparison between groups A and B

	Group A, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	Group B, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	A – B difference, mean in mm ± SE, (95%CI)	Statistics for A – B difference, t (df)¹	P-value
Right colectomies, n	12	10	-	-	-
Actual stump	16.97 ± 4.77, (13.94-19.96)	49.93 ± 20.29, (35.40-64.44)	-32.96 ± 6.53, [-47.62-(-18.30)]	-5.02 (9.83)	0.001²
D₂PLL	11.12 ± 2.97, (9.23-13.00)	7.80 ± 6.53, (3.13-12.47)	3.32 ± 2.10, (-1.06-7.69)	1.58 (20)	0.130
D₂IP	5.85 ± 4.71, (2.85-8.84)	42.13 ± 21.50, (26.75-57.50)	-35.78 ± 6.74, [-50.83-(-20.72)]	-5.31 (9.77)	< 0.001²
Statistics for D₂IP, t (df), P	4.30 (11), 0.001²	6.20 (9), < 0.001²	-	-	-

¹t-test.

²Reference to RESULTS text. D₂IP: D2 improvement potential, calculated as difference of actual stump; D₂PLL: D2 predicted ligation level.

Table 5 Sigmoidectomies: Inferior mesenteric artery stump comparison between groups A and B

	Group A, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	Group B, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	A – B difference, mean in mm ± SE, (95%CI)	Statistics for A – B difference, t (df)	P-value
Sigmoidectomies, n	13	16	-	-	-
Actual stump	35.42 ± 1 5.62, (25.98-44.86)	69.92 ± 30.29, (53.78-86.06)	-34.50 ± 9.28, [-53.55-(-15.45)]	-3.72 (27)	< 0.001¹
D₂PLL	35.15 ± 8.85, (29.80-40.50)	40.08 ± 8.36, (35.62-44.53)	-4.93 ± 3.20, (-11.50-1.65)	-1.54 (27)	0.136
D₂IP	0.27 ± 12.90, [-7.53-(-8.06)]	29.84 ± 29.67, (14.56-45.12)	-29.57 ± 8.01, [-46.20-(-12.94)]	-3.69 (21.72)	0.001¹
D₃IP	25.42 ± 15.62, (15.98-34.86)	59.92 ± 30.29, (43.78-76.06)	-34.50 ± 9.28, [-53.55-(-15.45)]	-3.72 (27)	< 0.001¹
Statistics for D₂IP, t (df), P	0.07 (12), 0.942¹	4.16 (15), < 0.01¹	-	-	-
Statistics for D₃IP, t (df), P	5.87 (12), 0.001¹	7.91 (15), < 0.01¹	-	-	-

¹Reference to RESULTS text. D₂IP: D2 improvement potential, calculated as difference of actual stump - D₂PLL; D₃IP improvement potential, calculated as difference of actual stump – 10 mm (D3 level). D₂PLL: D2 predicted ligation level.

Table 6 Left colectomies: Inferior mesenteric artery stump comparison between groups A and B

	Group A, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	Group B, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	A – B difference, mean in mm ± SE, (95%CI)	Statistics for A – B difference, t (df)	P-value
Left colectomy, n	4	3	-	-	-
Actual stump	19.60 ± 9.22, (4.94-34.27)	52.93 ± 13.15, (20.27-85.60)	-33.33 ± 8.37, [-54.85-(-11.81)]	-3.98 (5)	0.011¹
D₂PLL	36.12 ± 3.52, (30.52-41.73)	40.17 ± 8.25, (19.67-60.66)	-4.04 ±4.50, (-15.60-7.52)	-0.90 (5)	0.410
D₂IP	-16.52 ± 11.71, (-35.16-2.12)	12.77 ± 19.79, [-36.40-(-61.93)]	-29.29 ± 11.8, [-59.64-(-1.06)]	-2.48 (5)	0.056
D₃IP	9.60 ± 9.21, (-5.06-24.27)	42.93 ± 13.15, (10.27-75.60)	-33.33 ± 8.37, [-54.85-(-11.81)]	-3.98 (5)	0.011¹
Statistics for D₂IP, t (df), P	-2.82 (3), 0.067¹	1.12 (2), 0.38	-	-	-
Statistics for D₃IP, t (df), P	2.08 (3), 0.129¹	5.66 (2), 0.03¹	-	-	-

¹Reference to RESULTS text. D₂IP: D2 improvement potential, calculated as difference of actual stump; D₃IP improvement potential, calculated as difference of actual stump – 10 mm (D3 level). D₂PLL: D2 predicted ligation level.

Table 7 Left colectomies and sigmoidectomies: Overview of all the inferior mesenteric artery stumps between groups A and B

	Group A, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	Group B, mean in mm ± SD, (95%CI)	A – B difference, mean in mm ± SE, (95%CI)	Statistics for A – B difference, t (df)	P-value
Left colectomy, n	17	19	-	-	-
Actual stump	31.70 ± 15.71, (23.62-39.77)	67.24 ± 28.71, (53.40-81.07)	-35.54 ± 7.85, [-51.48-(-19.59)]	-4.53 (34)	< 0.001
D₂PLL	35.38 ± 7.83, (31.36-39.41)	40.09 ± 8.11, (36.18-44.00)	-4.71 ± 2.66, (-10.13-0.70)	-1.77 (34)	0.086
D₂IP	-3.68 ± 14.30, (-11.04-3.67)	27.14 ± 27.74, (13.77-40.51)	-30.83 ± 7.25, [-45.68-(-15.97)]	-4.25 (27.5)	< 0.001
D₃IP	21.70 ± 15.71, (13.62-29.78)	57.24 ± 28.71, (43.40-71.07)	-35.54 ± 7.85, [-51.48-(-19.59)]	-4.53 (34)	< 0.001
Statistics for D₂IP, t (df), P	-1.06 (16), ^l0.304	4.26 (18), < 0.01¹	-	-	-
Statistics for D₃IP, t (df), P	5.69 (16), < 0.001	8.68 (18), < 0.001	-	-	-

Table 8 Group A: Correlation of lymph node count and specimen length with stump length

	n	Mean (median)	SD	IQR	*r_s*	P-value
LN count	29	34.83 (36.00)	16.75	(20.50-43.00)	-0.40	0.032¹
Specimen length in cm	29	26.26 (23.00)	9.90	(18.00-34.00)	-0.44	0.016¹

¹Reference to RESULTS text. IQR: Interquartile range; LN: Lymph node.

Table 9 Computed tomography evaluated ileocolic artery stumps in the literature

Study, year	n	Actual ileocolic stump in mm	Presumed D2 ileocolic stump in mm
Group A - our study, 2018, mean ± SD (95%CI)	12	17.69 ± 4.77 (13.94-19.96)	11.12 ± 2.97 (9.23-13.00)
Munkedal et al[22] 2017, mean (95%CI)	32	31.0 (25-37)	10.0¹
Kaye et al[26] 2015, mean, (range)	128	28.1 (2.5–74.3)	14.4 (6.4)
Spasojevic et al[25] 2011, mean ± SD	11	28.0 ± 9.3	18.1 ± 4.0

¹Chosen as reference value from the complete mesocolic excision guideline[2,21].

Table 10 Computed tomography evaluated inferior mesenteric artery stumps in the literature

Study, year	n	Actual IMA stump in mm	Presumed IMA stump in mm
Group A from our study, mean ± SD (95%CI)	17	31.70 ± 15.6 (26.0-44.9)	35.38 ± 7.83 (31.36-39.41)
Munkedal et al[22] 2017, mean (95%CI)	20	49.0 (40-57)	35.0
Prevot et al[42] 2013, mean (range)	26	30.3 (0.3–60)	-

IMA: Inferior mesenteric artery.

Citation: Livadaru C, Morarasu S, Frunza TC, Ghitun FA, Paiu-Spiridon EF, Sava F, Terinte C, Ferariu D, Lunca S, Dimofte GM. Post-operative computed tomography scan – reliable tool for quality assessment of complete mesocolic excision. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2019; 11(3): 208-226
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v11/i3/208.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v11.i3.208