BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2018 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 9123912 |

Kai-Lung Tsai, Wei-Hung Lai, Ko-Chao Lee, Shung-Eing Lin, Chia-Lo Chang, Chien-Chang Lu, Wan-Hsiang Hu, Seng-Kee Chuah, Hong-Hwa Chen, "Long-Term Consequences of Nonclosure of Mesenteric Defects after Traditional Right Colectomy", BioMed Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 9123912, 6 pages, 2018.

Long-Term Consequences of Nonclosure of Mesenteric Defects after Traditional Right Colectomy

Academic Editor: Christian Schwentner
Received14 Jul 2018
Accepted12 Sep 2018
Published26 Sep 2018


Background. There are still discrepancies among general/colorectal surgeons regarding closure of mesenteric defect in scientific literature. This study aimed to assess the long-term consequences of nonclosure of the mesenteric defect after open right colectomy. Methods. A 7-year retrospectively collected and continuous database revealed 212 consecutive patients who had undergone traditional right colectomy without closing the mesenteric defects at Kaohsiung Chung-Gung Memorial Hospital; all patients were operated by a single surgeon. Among these patients, 17 were excluded (those who died within 30 days after surgery or those who received an end ileostomy). The mean age of the 195 patients (58% men and 42% women) was 61.6 ± 12.6 years, and the follow-up period was 4.1 ± 2.8 years (interquartile range 0.09 ~ 10.4). Results. Forty-four patients (22.5%) encountered intestinal obstruction. Nine (20.4%) required surgical intervention. The cause of intestinal obstruction was adhesion (n=1), ventral hernia (n=1), and cancer recurrence (n=7). Conservative treatment was successful in 35 patients. The intestinal obstruction group (n = 44) were similar to the no-intestinal obstruction group (n = 151) in terms of the following parameters: age, sex, previous abdominal surgery, indication for colectomy, and procedure related complications. Carcinomatosis was found to increase the incidence of intestinal obstruction. No patient developed intestinal obstruction because of the nonclosure of mesenteric defects after right colectomy. Conclusion. This study suggested that routine procedure of closing the mesenteric defect after open right colectomy might not be beneficial. Additional studies with extended long-term follow-up periods are needed to confirm the benefits of the nonclosure.

1. Introduction

Intestinal obstruction is an uncommon complication of open mesenteric defects and, due to internal herniation, is even rarer [14]. Nonetheless, intestinal obstruction as a complication should always be kept in mind. Nonclosure of the mesenteric defect may cause internal herniation, which in turn can cause intestinal obstruction [59]. However, the occurrence of such obstruction has not been well documented, and closure of mesenteric defects remains in debate [1012]. In the past, there were case reports on the issues regarding repair of the mesenteric defect of right colectomy as the standard procedure [1315]. However, large-scale studies investigating and comparing the consequences of repair or nonclosure of the mesenteric defect during operation are scarce. This study aimed to assess the long-term consequences of nonclosure of the mesenteric defect after open right colectomy.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Ethics Statement

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board and the Ethics Committee of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. The Ethics Committee waived the requirement for informed consent for this study, and all the data were analyzed anonymously.

2.2. Patients

A total of 212 patients had undergone right side colectomy for the treatment of various conditions at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Kaohsiung. Patient data were obtained from a 7-year, retrospectively collected, continuous, single-institution database, which included data of patients who underwent elective or emergent right colon resection; all patients were operated by a single surgeon. The sources of the collected data were questionnaires survey, systematic review of charts, office records, radiographic imaging data, and patient interviews. In our institute, the presence of intestinal obstruction is mainly determined on the basis of clinical presentation and patient complaints; for example, the absence of passage of flatus and/or feces and vomiting are the most common presenting symptoms.

The operative reports were studied to determine the technical aspects with regard to the mesenteric defect; all reports documented whether the defect was closed. Five patients who died within the first postoperative month and twelve patients who underwent resection with end ileostomy were excluded from this study. Therefore, the study population comprised the remaining 195 patients. The following information was recorded for each patient: age, sex, intraoperative and postoperative courses, incidence and treatment of intestinal obstruction, and follow-up period. Information regarding the incidence of intestinal obstruction was gathered from office charts and hospital records. Intestinal obstruction was determined by clinical assessment, operative findings, and imaging findings.

2.3. Surgical Techniques of Right Colectomy

A liberal midline incision centered about the umbilicus was made to start the operation and the incision was carried down into abdominal cavity layer by layer. The wound was protected with wet pads and the retractor was put to provide the optimal operation view. The position of the nasogastric tube was checked to assure its appropriate site. Liver, peritoneum, and entire bowel were inspected and palpated. The small bowel was walled off with warm pads. An incision was then made in the peritoneal reflection close to the lateral wall of the bowel from the tip of the cecum upward to the region of the hepatic flexure. The hepatocolic ligament was divided and ligated. With the lateral peritoneal attachment divided, the large bowel was lifted with hand and the loose areolar tissue lying under lifted large bowel was dissected off with a moist gauze sponge. After we made sure the gonadal vessels, the ureter, and the secondary part of duodenum were visualized, the dissection distal to hepatic flexure was continued by entering the lesser sac to avoid injury to these structures. The stomach was then grasped and put on traction by pulling the omentum downward so that the greater omentum could be divided beyond the gastroepiploic arcade to the point at which the bowel could be divided. This part of the mobilization was continued approximately to the proximal third of the transverse colon. At this point, the remaining raw surface of the right colon was freed to be brought outside the peritoneal cavity and covered with warm, moist gauze pads.

The mesentery was then divided by transillumination so that the main vessels such as ileocolic, right colic and right branch of middle colic artery could be ligated as near to their origin as possible. The mesenteric division was continued to the point on the ileum at which it was intended to be resected at approximately 5 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve. Subsequently, the mesentery was divided close to the transverse colon in order to securely ligate the marginal vessel between the two branches of the middle colic artery.

Division of terminal ileum and transverse colon was performed by using linear staple. Then the lesion was successfully removed and closure of both bowel ends achieved. Transverse incisions were made near the ends of terminal ileum and transverse colon to ensure a matched length was achieved. The contents of the open ileum and transverse colon were then swabbed with 40% alcohol. After aligning the above two incisions, full-thickness suture through the posterior walls was then performed by tying on the inner side of the anastomosis. Then we proceeded with another continuous suture for the anterior wall by the same method plus second layers interrupted seromuscular sutures. A final careful check for bleeding ligated vessels and cauterization was applied if it occurred. Eventually, a drain tube was inserted to the subphrenic space. Small bowel was put back in its anatomic position and covered with omentum. The surgery ended by continuous sutures approximate to the peritoneum and linea alba from the upper end of the incision downward followed by skin closure.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test. All statistical analyses were conducted using the statistical software package SPSS (IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The P value was not adjusted for multiple tests.

3. Results

All the 195 patients had undergone right colectomy with nonclosure of the mesenteric defect and without use of adhesion barriers. The baseline data of these patients were demonstrated in Table 1. Of these, 113 (58%) were men and 82(42%) women, and the mean age was 61.6 ± 12.6 years. The indications for right colectomy were as follows: cancer (80%), benign tumor or polyp (7.7%), or other conditions including diverticulitis or appendicitis (12.3%). A total of 45 patients (23%) had a history of abdominal surgery for other indications. The median follow-up period was 4.23 years (interquartile range, 0.09–10.35). The office charts and hospital records of all of the patients were reviewed. The details of the complication reported in the 16 patients (8%) were summarized in Table 2. Ten of the 16 patients developed wound infection and all of them were cured by wound care and antibiotics. Two patients had postoperative chyloperitoneum and gradually recovered after diet education and total parenteral nutrition support. One patient encountered delayed gastric emptying and was initially treated by nasogastric tube decompression and was recovered eventually. There were only two patients who required additional surgical interventions. One of them suffered from anastomosis leakage and received Hartmann’s operation. The other one experienced wound dehiscence and received surgical repair. Both of them recovered from the second surgical treatment. There was only one mortality in this study which occurred in an 88-year-old male patient with ascending colon cancer who expired due to sepsis.


Age, years62.9 ± 13.2
Sex, male  : female (No, %)113:82 (58:42)
Previous abdominal surgery (No, %)45 (23)
Complications (No, %)16 (8)
Indication for surgery (No, %)
 Cancer (No, %)156 (80)
 Benign tumor (No, %)15 (7.7)
 Others (No, %)24 (12.3)
Surgery for intestinal obstruction (No, %)9 (4.6)
Intestinal obstruction (No, %)44 (22.6)
 Visit emergency department (No, %)18 (41)
 Admission (No, %)17 (38.6)
 Operation (No, %) 9 (29.4)
Intestinal obstruction due to mesenteric defect (No, %) 0
Mean follow-up time, years4.1 ± 2.8

PatientsClinical manifestationsAge (years) 
Location of the lesionUnderlying diseasesTherapyOutcome

1Wound infection76/MaleCecal cancerPulmonary tuberculosisWound care 
2Delay gastric empty82/MaleHepatic flexure colon cancerDiabetes mellitus, hypertension, prostate cancerNasogastric tube decompression and 
total parenteral nutrition support
3Wound infection52/MaleHepatic flexure colon cancerLiver cirrhosisWound care 
4Respiratory failure, sepsis, intra-abdominal abscess88/MaleAscending colon cancerCardiac arrhythmiaAntibioticsExpired
5Chyloperitoneum83/MaleHepatic flexure colon cancerLiver cirrhosis, moderate atrial regurgitationDiet education and total parenteral nutrition supportRecovery
6Chyloperitoneum66/MaleHepatic flexure colon cancerNoneDiet education and total parenteral nutrition supportRecovery
7Wound infection63/FemaleTransverse colon cancerGastric ulcer 
Diabetes mellitus
Surgical debridementRecovery
8Wound infection70/FemaleCecal cancerNoneWound care 
9Anastomosis leakage77/FemaleHepatic flexure colonic cancerGall stoneHartmann’s operationRecovery
10Wound infection32/MaleAppendix lymphomaNoneWound care 
11Wound infection66/MaleCecal cancerNoneWound care 
12Wound infection70/MaleAscending colon polypNoneWound care 
13Wound dehiscence74/MaleCecal tumorBenign prostate hypertrophySurgical repairRecovery
14Wound infection51/MaleAscending colon ischemic colitisDiabetes mellitusWound care 
15Wound infection47/FemaleRupture appendicitisNoneWound care 
16Wound infection41/MaleCecocutaneous fistulaStatus post appendectomyWound care 

Intestinal obstruction was detected in 44 patients (22.6%) during the follow-up; these patients were admitted to our emergency room for treatment of abdominal distension, abdominal cramps, nausea, and vomiting; 18 patients were discharged after the symptoms subsided, 17 patients were admitted for further conservative treatment, and 9 patients required surgical intervention. Intestinal obstruction developed in 3 patients within the first postoperative month in 14 patients within the first postoperative year. The longest interval between right colectomy and the occurrence of intestinal obstruction was 4.73 years. Thirty-five patients successfully responded well to conventional nonoperative treatment. Their symptoms subsided about 2 days of admission in our ward, and the mean hospital stay was about 4 days. Nine patients either did not respond to nonoperative therapies and therefore required surgery or primarily require urgent surgical intervention. The causes of obstruction in this group were adhesion (1 patient), ventral hernia (1 patient), and recurrent tumor (7 patients) (Table 3). Among the patients with intestinal obstruction, a significantly higher percentage of patients had carcinomatosis. No statistically significant differences were found in any of the other parameters examined between the groups of patients with and without intestinal obstruction (Table 4).

Total no. of cases44 (22.6%)
No. of surgically treated9 (20.4%)
 Adhesion1 (11.1%)
 Ventral hernia1 (11.1%)
 Cancer recurrence7 (77.8%)

Patients with Intestinal obstruction (n = 44 patients)Patients with no intestinal obstruction (n = 151 patients)p-value

Age, y62.1 ± 12.8163.1 ± 13.40.663
Sex (male)22220.225
Previous abdominal surgery13320.247
Peritoneal seeding20350.004
Indication for surgery
 Benign tumor1140.125

4. Discussion

Intestinal obstruction is diagnosed mainly on the basis of clinical manifestations rather than on laboratory data or imaging findings; therefore we determined cases of intestinal obstruction by using the data from chart records and the patient’s description [16, 17]. Intestinal obstruction was considered present if the patient visited our hospital complaining of abdominal cramps, abdominal distension, nausea, and vomiting. The high percentage of cases of intestinal obstruction in our study series may be because, in our hospital, we admitted patients with intestinal obstruction if they stayed in the emergency room for > 1 day or if the time predicted for the symptoms to subside was > 1 day.

Internal hernia of the small bowel through a mesenteric defect following colorectal cancer surgery is a serious complication with limited reports in the literature. Lee reported 0.2% patients who presented with symptomatic internal hernia after surgical procedures such as laparoscopic anterior resection which included low anterior resection and intersphincteric resection [18]. Although laparoscopic colorectal surgery create fewer adhesion compared with open colorectal resection, small bowel obstruction may still be caused by internal herniation of the small bowel through a colonic mesenteric defect, probably related to a lack of adhesion formation. This is seen especially after left colonic resections. It is still in debate whether nonclosure of the mesenteric defect increases internal herniation, which in turn can cause intestinal obstruction. Cabot et al. reported a 7-year database of 530 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic right colectomy for neoplasia without mesenteric defects [10]. The data did not support routinely closing the mesenteric defect after laparoscopic right colectomy for neoplasia. Kim reported that early postoperative small bowel obstruction following laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer occurred in 5.9% of patients [19]. In our study, most patients with early postoperative small bowel obstruction improved with conservative treatment, and surgical treatment was rarely needed. On the other hand, Sugiyama et al. supported the closure of mesenteric defects after laparoscopic right colectomy because serious complications requiring reoperation occurred only in the nonclosure group [20]. Moreover, the procedure for closing the defect did not extend the operation time or increase the bleeding. In addition, there were other case reports indicating serious complications as a result of internal hernia and subsequent obstruction [7, 21].

From our experience, nonclosure of the mesenteric defects caused abdominal distension, cramps, nausea, and vomiting in most patients, and symptoms subside after conservative treatment; only some of the patients required hospitalization for close observation, and only a few patients required surgical intervention. This was quite similar to the report of Cabot et al. In our study, the only parameter that affected the incidence of intestinal obstruction was carcinomatosis, which was the expected outcome. Moreover, mesenteric defects were not associated with a significant incidence of clinically relevant internal herniation. Forty-four out of the 195 patient had symptoms/signs of intestinal obstruction, but internal herniation or adhesion to the mesenteric defect was not evident in any of these patients. These data support the practice of not closing the mesenteric defect after right colectomy performed for any condition.

With respect to the limitation of our study, apart from the inherent shortcomings of a retrospective study, study was limited by our inability to accurately determine the cause of intestinal obstruction in patients who responded well to conservative treatment or in asymptomatic patients. Therefore, the incidence of internal herniation may have been underestimated in these patients. The results of the study on laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer without mesenteric repair do not support the routine closure of the mesenteric defect after laparoscopic right colectomy [10]. Importantly, in these studies, the mean follow-up period was < 2 years whereas in our study, the mean follow-up period was 4.1 years. In our study, it was because many patients were diagnosed at the advanced malignancy stage (carcinomatosis) that could affect the mean follow-up time. Therefore, studies with extended long-term follow-up periods are needed to further evaluate the practice of whether or not to close the mesenteric defect in right colectomy.

5. Conclusion

This study suggested that the routine procedure of closing the mesenteric defect after open right colectomy might not be beneficial. Additional studies with an extended long-term follow-up period are still needed to confirm the benefits of the nonclosure, as literature has numerous small series.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.


This study was presented as an abstract by the first author in the annual meeting of the Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Taiwan.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have no disclosure of any financial involvement or funds in any organization with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.


  1. O. Salar, A. M. El-Sharkawy, R. Singh, and W. Speake, “Internal hernias: a brief review,” Hernia, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 373–377, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. K. P. Murphy, O. J. O'Connor, and M. M. Maher, “Adult abdominal hernias,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 202, no. 6, pp. W506–W511, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. Tepeš, I. Kirac, E. Glavan, and M. Doko, “Internal Hernias in Acute Abdomen: Review of Literature and Report of four Cases,” Collegium Antropologicum, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 475–479, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  4. K. Taniguchi, R. Iida, K. Ota, M. Asakuma, K. Uchiyama, and A. Takasu, “Single-port surgery (SPS) strategy for small bowel obstruction (SBO) caused by postoperative internal hernia,” Medicine, vol. 97, no. 13, p. e0269, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. A. Saklani, N. Naguib, N. Tanner, S. Moorhouse, C. E. Davies, and A. G. Masoud, “Internal herniation following laparoscopic left hemicolectomy: An underreported event,” Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 496–500, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. K. Mukherjee and P. E. Wise, “Internal hernia through the gastrohepatic ligament after laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy,” The American Surgeon, vol. 79, no. 6, pp. e236–e237, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  7. S. Masubuchi, J. Okuda, K. Tanaka et al., “An internal hernia projecting through a mesenteric defect following laparoscopic-assisted partial resection of the transverse colon to the lesser omental cleft: Report of a case,” Surgery Today, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 814–817, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. T. Yoshida, T. Kinugasa, Y. Oka et al., “Bowel obstruction caused by an internal hernia that developed after laparoscopic subtotal colectomy: a case report,” Journal of Medical Case Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. Daskalaki, G. Kaimasidis, S. Xenaki, E. Athanasakis, and G. Chalkiadakis, “Internal-mesocolic hernia after laparoscopic left colectomy report of case with late manifestation,” International Journal of Surgery Case Reports, vol. 6, pp. 88–91, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. C. Cabot, S. A. Lee, J. Yoo, A. Nasar, R. L. Whelan, and D. L. Feingold, “Long-term consequences of not closing the mesenteric defect after laparoscopic right colectomy,” Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 289–292, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. J. W. T. Toh, R. Lim, A. Keshava, and M. J. F. X. Rickard, “The risk of internal hernia or volvulus after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review,” Colorectal Disease, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1133–1141, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. C. LaMattina, J. M. Powell, N. A. Costa et al., “Surgical complications of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a retrospective study,” Transplant International, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1132–1139, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. S. Hosono, H. Ohtani, Y. Arimoto, and Y. Kanamiya, “Internal hernia with strangulation through a mesenteric defect after laparoscopy-assisted transverse colectomy: Report of a case,” Surgery Today, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 330–334, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S.-I. Jimi, M. Hotokezaka, T.-A. Eto et al., “Internal herniation through the mesenteric opening after laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy: Report of a case,” Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 339–341, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. A. Sadatomo, Y. Miyakura, T. Zuiki et al., “Sigmoid volvulus after laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon cancer.,” Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 217–219, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. J. Izumi, K. Satoh, W. Iwasaki, T. Miura, and S. Fujimori, “Small bowel obstruction caused by the ingestion of a wooden toothpick: The ct findings and a literature review,” Internal Medicine, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 657–660, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. L. Santangelo, C. Grifasi, C. Criscitiello et al., “Bowel obstruction and peritoneal carcinomatosis in the elderly. A systematic review,” Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 73–78, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. S. Y. Lee, C. H. Kim, Y. J. Kim, and H. R. Kim, “Internal hernia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a rare but fatal complication,” Hernia, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 299–304, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. C. H. Kim, J. K. Joo, H. R. Kim, and Y. J. Kim, “The incidence and risk of early postoperative small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer,” Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 543–549, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. M. Sugiyama, Y. Sakaguchi, E. Oki et al., “Clinical Significance of Closure of Mesenteric Defects in Laparoscopic Colectomy,” Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 82–85, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. F. Abarca, T. J. Saclarides, and M. I. Brand, “Laparoscopic colectomy: Complications causing reoperation or emergency room/hospital readmissions,” The American Surgeon, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 65–69, 2011. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Kai-Lung Tsai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles