Global benchmarks for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for cancer - Scorecard - MDSpire

Global benchmarks for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for cancer

  • By

  • Fariba Abbassi

  • Michaela Ramser

  • Matthias Pfister

  • Roxane D Staiger

  • Sun J Kim

  • Ji W Park

  • Bart C T van de Laar

  • Marcos Gonzalez

  • Vittoria Perano

  • Georgette Camilleri

  • David Merino

  • Justin Dourado

  • Anjelli Wignakumar

  • Kohei Shigeta

  • Tomás Mansur Duarte de Miranda Marques

  • Daniel Leonard

  • Kai-Yin Lee

  • Avanish Saklani

  • Kilian G M Brown

  • Fabio Butti

  • Ivana Raguz

  • Carlo Alberto Schena

  • Daichi Kitaguchi

  • Desmond C Winter

  • Masaaki Ito

  • Nicola de’Angelis

  • Dieter Hahnloser

  • Jennifer Vu

  • Ashwin Desouza

  • Bei-En Siew

  • Ker-Kan Tan

  • Alex Kartheuser

  • Samuel Aguiar

  • Koji Okabayashi

  • Carl J Brown

  • Steven Wexner

  • Sebastiano Biondo

  • Danilo Miskovic

  • Antonino Spinelli

  • Carlos A Vaccaro

  • Esther C J Consten

  • Byung S Min

  • Milo A Puhan

  • Matthias Turina

  • December 16, 2025

  • 0 min

Share

Clinical Scorecard: International Standards for Minimally Invasive Right Hemicolectomy in Cancer Treatment

At a Glance

CategoryDetail
ConditionRight-sided colon adenocarcinoma
Key MechanismsComplete mesocolic excision (CME) and central (D3) lymphadenectomy via minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopy or robotic surgery)
Target PopulationAdult patients (≥18 years) with adenocarcinoma of the cecum or ascending colon undergoing elective minimally invasive right hemicolectomy
Care SettingSpecialist colorectal centers with high surgical volume and multidisciplinary tumor boards

Key Highlights

  • Right hemicolectomy quality is improved by meticulous dissection achieving CME and D3 lymphadenectomy.
  • Benchmarking uses ideal low-risk patients from high-volume centers to establish best achievable surgical outcomes.
  • No prior international benchmark cut-offs existed for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy; this study establishes them for 19 key outcome parameters.

Guideline-Based Recommendations

Diagnosis

  • Confirm adenocarcinoma location in right hemicolon (cecum or ascending colon).
  • Exclude other pathologies and synchronous colorectal cancers requiring additional resections.

Management

  • Perform elective minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (laparoscopic or robotic) following oncological principles including CME and D3 lymphadenectomy.
  • Centralize surgery in high-volume colorectal specialist centers with multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Monitoring & Follow-up

  • Collect prospective data on perioperative, oncological, and complication outcomes.
  • Assess morbidity and mortality at hospital discharge, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively using Clavien–Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index®.
  • Benchmark outcomes against established cut-offs derived from ideal patient cohorts.

Risks

  • Higher complication risk in non-ideal patients with established risk factors for postoperative morbidity.
  • Potential quality gaps in low-volume centers or non-specialist surgeons.

Patient & Prescribing Data

Elective minimally invasive right hemicolectomy patients with right-sided colon adenocarcinoma, stratified into ideal (low-risk) and non-ideal (high-risk) groups.

Benchmark cut-offs derived from ideal patients enable identification of quality gaps and guide improvements in surgical outcomes.

Clinical Best Practices

  • Centralize right hemicolectomy procedures in high-volume colorectal specialist centers.
  • Use minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopy or robotic) adhering to oncological principles of CME and D3 lymphadenectomy.
  • Implement continuous prospective data collection and multidisciplinary tumor board discussions.
  • Apply standardized outcome measures including Clavien–Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index® for morbidity assessment.
  • Utilize benchmarking against international cut-offs to monitor and improve surgical quality.

References

Original Source(s)

Related Content