Safety, quality and effect of complete mesocolic excision vs non‐complete mesocolic excision in patients with colon cancer: a systemic review and meta‐analysis

AIM: The application of complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety, quality and effect of CME with non-complete mesocolic excision (NCME) in patients with colon cancer. METHOD: We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library and Scopus to identify studies comparing CME with NCME in colon cancer. We focused on three study outcome areas: safety (operation time, blood loss, complications, mortality); quality (large bowel length, distance from the tumour to the high vascular tie, area of mesentery, total lymph nodes); and effect (long-term survival). RESULTS: A total of 8586 patients from 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. CME was associated with greater intra-operative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) 79.87, 95% CI: 65.88-93.86], more postoperative surgical complications (relative risk 1.23, 95% CI: 1.08-1.40), longer large bowel resection (WMD 47.06, 95% CI: 10.49-83.62), greater distance from the tumour to the high vascular tie (WMD 17.51, 95% CI: 15.16-19.87), larger area of mesentery (WMD 36.09, 95% CI: 18.06-54.13) and more lymph nodes (WMD 6.13, 95% CI: 1.97-10.28) than NCME. CME also had positive effects on 5-year survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13-0.81], 3-year survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.86) and 3-year survival for Stage III disease (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.80) compared with NCME. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that CME is a more effective strategy for improving specimen quality and survival but with a higher complication rate.