Laparoscopic Colectomy vs Laparoscopic CME: a Retrospective Study of Two Hospitals with Comparable Laparoscopic Experience

Purpose To compare laparoscopic non-CME colectomy with laparoscopic CME colectomy in two hospitals with similar experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods Data was collected retrospectively from Päijät-Häme Central Hospital (PHCH, NCME group) and Central Finland Central Hospital (CFCH, CME group) records. Elective laparoscopic resections performed during 2007–2016 for UICC stage I–III adenocarcinoma were included to assess differences in short-term outcome and survival. Results There were 340 patients in the NCME group and 325 patients in the CME group. CME delivered longer specimens ( p < 0.001), wider resection margins ( p < 0.001), and more lymph nodes ( p < 0.001) but did not result in better 5-year overall or cancer-specific survival (NCME 77.9% vs CME 72.9%, p = 0.528, NCME 93.2% vs CME 88.9%, p = 0.132, respectively). Thirty-day morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups. Conversion to open surgery was associated with decreased survival. Discussion Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is reported to improve survival. Most previous studies have compared open CME with open non-CME (NCME) or open CME with laparoscopic CME. NCME populations have been historical or heterogeneous, potentially causing bias in the interpretation of results. Studies comparing laparoscopic CME with laparoscopic NCME are few and involve only small numbers of patients. In this study, diligently performed laparoscopic non-CME D2 resection delivered disease-free survival results comparable with laparoscopic CME but was not safer.