Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST)

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Gómez Ruiz M, Cagigas Fernández C] Grupo de Investigación e Innovación en Cirugía, IDIVAL, Colorectal Surgery Unit, Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital, Santander, Spain. [Espin-Basany E] Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. [Spinelli A] Humanitas Research Hospital, Milano, Italy. [Bollo Rodriguez J] Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. [María Enriquez Navascués J] Hospital Universitario Donostia, San Sebastian, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2023-09-08T09:09:28Z

2023-09-08T09:09:28Z

2023-09



Abstract

Anastomosis; Colectomy


Anastomosi; Colectomia


Anastomosis; Colectomía


Background The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours. Methods This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy—absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy. Results Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures. Conclusion No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.


The MIRCAST Study Group has received research intensification grants from the Regional Government of Cantabria, Spain, and a research grant from Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, CA, USA). MIRCAST was designed and conducted independently at the Valdecilla Biomedical Research Institute (IDIVAL). The funding institutions had no influence in the design or conduct of the study.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Related items

British Journal of Surgery;110(9)

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad077

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)