Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection comprises the first-line treatment for large cecal polyps. With up to 14% of unresectable colonic polyps harboring malignancy, the management of endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps remains an oncologic right hemicolectomy, which can be associated with substantial postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the outcomes of patients with cecal polyps who underwent either endoscopic mucosal resection, a cecectomy, or a right hemicolectomy. DATA SOURCES: Patients undergoing either endoscopic mucosal resection, partial cecectomy, or right hemicolectomy from 2008 to 2017 at a single tertiary care institution were selected. STUDY SELECTION: This was a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the rate of malignancy, complication rate, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay between surgical cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients with cecal polyps were identified, of which 52 were referred for surgery. Nineteen underwent partial cecectomy and 33 (27.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy. Two patients undergoing cecectomy required conversion to hemicolectomy because the resected specimen did not contain the polyp. The 2 surgical cohorts did not differ significantly regarding age, sex, or ASA classification. Procedural complication rates were higher among those undergoing hemicolectomy compared with those undergoing cecectomy (37.1% versus 5.9%, p = 0.02). Estimated blood loss (50 vs 10 mL, p = 0.02), operative duration (98 vs 76 minutes, p = 0.009), and length of stay (4 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) were higher in patients undergoing hemicolectomy than in those undergoing cecectomy. No invasive malignancies were identified on final pathology within the cecectomy cohort. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution data and retrospective design were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: In tertiary centers, the majority of large cecal polyps are benign and can be addressed by using endoscopic mucosal resection. When involvement of the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve precludes endoscopic treatment, surgical resection is the standard of care. In the subset of cases not involving the ileocecal valve and without preoperative evidence of malignancy, partial cecectomy spares the ileocecal valve and can offer reduced postoperative morbidity compared with a formal right hemicolectomy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1089-1095
Number of pages7
JournalDiseases of the colon and rectum
Volume61
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Ileocecal Valve
Polyps
Length of Stay
Neoplasms
Colonic Polyps
Morbidity
Tertiary Healthcare
Standard of Care
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pathology
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{e52b07977859434ebbfb625a89ceff51,
title = "Management of large cecal polyps: When can the ileocecal valve be spared?",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection comprises the first-line treatment for large cecal polyps. With up to 14{\%} of unresectable colonic polyps harboring malignancy, the management of endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps remains an oncologic right hemicolectomy, which can be associated with substantial postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the outcomes of patients with cecal polyps who underwent either endoscopic mucosal resection, a cecectomy, or a right hemicolectomy. DATA SOURCES: Patients undergoing either endoscopic mucosal resection, partial cecectomy, or right hemicolectomy from 2008 to 2017 at a single tertiary care institution were selected. STUDY SELECTION: This was a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the rate of malignancy, complication rate, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay between surgical cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients with cecal polyps were identified, of which 52 were referred for surgery. Nineteen underwent partial cecectomy and 33 (27.3{\%}) underwent right hemicolectomy. Two patients undergoing cecectomy required conversion to hemicolectomy because the resected specimen did not contain the polyp. The 2 surgical cohorts did not differ significantly regarding age, sex, or ASA classification. Procedural complication rates were higher among those undergoing hemicolectomy compared with those undergoing cecectomy (37.1{\%} versus 5.9{\%}, p = 0.02). Estimated blood loss (50 vs 10 mL, p = 0.02), operative duration (98 vs 76 minutes, p = 0.009), and length of stay (4 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) were higher in patients undergoing hemicolectomy than in those undergoing cecectomy. No invasive malignancies were identified on final pathology within the cecectomy cohort. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution data and retrospective design were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: In tertiary centers, the majority of large cecal polyps are benign and can be addressed by using endoscopic mucosal resection. When involvement of the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve precludes endoscopic treatment, surgical resection is the standard of care. In the subset of cases not involving the ileocecal valve and without preoperative evidence of malignancy, partial cecectomy spares the ileocecal valve and can offer reduced postoperative morbidity compared with a formal right hemicolectomy.",
author = "Kulaylat, {Audrey S.} and Boltz, {Melissa M.} and Matthew Moyer and Abraham Mathew and Kevin McKenna and Evangelos Messaris",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/DCR.0000000000001159",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "1089--1095",
journal = "Diseases of the Colon and Rectum",
issn = "0012-3706",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

Management of large cecal polyps : When can the ileocecal valve be spared? / Kulaylat, Audrey S.; Boltz, Melissa M.; Moyer, Matthew; Mathew, Abraham; McKenna, Kevin; Messaris, Evangelos.

In: Diseases of the colon and rectum, Vol. 61, No. 9, 01.01.2018, p. 1089-1095.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Management of large cecal polyps

T2 - When can the ileocecal valve be spared?

AU - Kulaylat, Audrey S.

AU - Boltz, Melissa M.

AU - Moyer, Matthew

AU - Mathew, Abraham

AU - McKenna, Kevin

AU - Messaris, Evangelos

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection comprises the first-line treatment for large cecal polyps. With up to 14% of unresectable colonic polyps harboring malignancy, the management of endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps remains an oncologic right hemicolectomy, which can be associated with substantial postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the outcomes of patients with cecal polyps who underwent either endoscopic mucosal resection, a cecectomy, or a right hemicolectomy. DATA SOURCES: Patients undergoing either endoscopic mucosal resection, partial cecectomy, or right hemicolectomy from 2008 to 2017 at a single tertiary care institution were selected. STUDY SELECTION: This was a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the rate of malignancy, complication rate, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay between surgical cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients with cecal polyps were identified, of which 52 were referred for surgery. Nineteen underwent partial cecectomy and 33 (27.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy. Two patients undergoing cecectomy required conversion to hemicolectomy because the resected specimen did not contain the polyp. The 2 surgical cohorts did not differ significantly regarding age, sex, or ASA classification. Procedural complication rates were higher among those undergoing hemicolectomy compared with those undergoing cecectomy (37.1% versus 5.9%, p = 0.02). Estimated blood loss (50 vs 10 mL, p = 0.02), operative duration (98 vs 76 minutes, p = 0.009), and length of stay (4 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) were higher in patients undergoing hemicolectomy than in those undergoing cecectomy. No invasive malignancies were identified on final pathology within the cecectomy cohort. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution data and retrospective design were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: In tertiary centers, the majority of large cecal polyps are benign and can be addressed by using endoscopic mucosal resection. When involvement of the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve precludes endoscopic treatment, surgical resection is the standard of care. In the subset of cases not involving the ileocecal valve and without preoperative evidence of malignancy, partial cecectomy spares the ileocecal valve and can offer reduced postoperative morbidity compared with a formal right hemicolectomy.

AB - BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection comprises the first-line treatment for large cecal polyps. With up to 14% of unresectable colonic polyps harboring malignancy, the management of endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps remains an oncologic right hemicolectomy, which can be associated with substantial postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the outcomes of patients with cecal polyps who underwent either endoscopic mucosal resection, a cecectomy, or a right hemicolectomy. DATA SOURCES: Patients undergoing either endoscopic mucosal resection, partial cecectomy, or right hemicolectomy from 2008 to 2017 at a single tertiary care institution were selected. STUDY SELECTION: This was a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the rate of malignancy, complication rate, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay between surgical cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients with cecal polyps were identified, of which 52 were referred for surgery. Nineteen underwent partial cecectomy and 33 (27.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy. Two patients undergoing cecectomy required conversion to hemicolectomy because the resected specimen did not contain the polyp. The 2 surgical cohorts did not differ significantly regarding age, sex, or ASA classification. Procedural complication rates were higher among those undergoing hemicolectomy compared with those undergoing cecectomy (37.1% versus 5.9%, p = 0.02). Estimated blood loss (50 vs 10 mL, p = 0.02), operative duration (98 vs 76 minutes, p = 0.009), and length of stay (4 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) were higher in patients undergoing hemicolectomy than in those undergoing cecectomy. No invasive malignancies were identified on final pathology within the cecectomy cohort. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution data and retrospective design were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: In tertiary centers, the majority of large cecal polyps are benign and can be addressed by using endoscopic mucosal resection. When involvement of the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve precludes endoscopic treatment, surgical resection is the standard of care. In the subset of cases not involving the ileocecal valve and without preoperative evidence of malignancy, partial cecectomy spares the ileocecal valve and can offer reduced postoperative morbidity compared with a formal right hemicolectomy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052316039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052316039&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001159

DO - 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001159

M3 - Article

C2 - 30086058

AN - SCOPUS:85052316039

VL - 61

SP - 1089

EP - 1095

JO - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

JF - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

SN - 0012-3706

IS - 9

ER -