Search

Aim: Recently, the accessory middle colic artery (AMCA) has been recognized as the vessel that supplies blood to the splenic flexure. However, the positional relationship between the AMCA and inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) has not been evaluated. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the anatomy of the AMCA and the splenic flexure vein (SFV). Method: Two hundred and five patients with colorectal cancer who underwent enhanced CT preoperatively were enrolled in the present study. The locations of the AMCA and IMV were evaluated, focusing on the positional relationship between the vessels and pancreas – below the pancreas or to the dorsal side of the pancreas. Results: The AMCA was observed in 74 (36.1%) patients whereas the SFV was found in 177 (86.3%) patients. The left colic artery (LCA) was the major artery accompanying the SFV in 87 (42.4%) of patients. The AMCA accompanied the SFV in 65 (32.7%) patients. In 15 (7.8%) patients, no artery accompanied the SFV. The origin of the AMCA was located on the dorsal side of the pancreas in 15 (20.3%) of these 74 patients. Similarly, the destination of the IMV was located on the dorsal side of the pancreas in 65 (31.7%) of patients. Conclusion: The SFV was observed in most patients, and the LCA or AMCA was the common accompanying artery. In some patients these vessels were located on the dorsal side of the pancreas and not below it. Preoperative evaluation of this anatomy may be beneficial for lymph node dissection during left‐sided hemicolectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Pelvic lymphocele is a common complication that develops after pelvic lymph node dissection. The incidence of pelvic lymphocele formation has been reported to be 10.5–51% after gynaecological or urological procedures. However, no evidence has been reported thus far with regard to the development of pelvic lymphocele following lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) for low rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of and risk factors for lymphocele formation after LPND for low rectal cancer and to examine its clinical management. Method: We retrospectively analysed the incidence of and risk factors for pelvic lymphocele formation after LPND for rectal cancer in our hospital between January 2012 and December 2017. We also compared the size of the lymphocele between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients by using CT volumetry and examined its clinical management. Results: A total of 30 out of 98 patients (30.8%) developed pelvic lymphocele after rectal LPND. The number of resected nodes was significantly higher in patients with a pelvic lymphocele (P < 0.01). The median volume was significantly higher in patients with symptomatic pelvic lymphocele (P = 0.011). Among the nine symptomatic patients, two underwent CT‐guided drainage, one underwent transurethral ureteral stent placement and one underwent laparoscopic marsupialization. Conclusion: It is essential to keep in mind the possibility of pelvic lymphocele formation during follow‐up of patients who undergo LPND, and to consider an appropriate treatment when these patients are symptomatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]