Re-establish pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection? Randomized trial

Surgical treatment of diverticulitis and its complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

PURPOSE

The surgical interventions of diverticulitis vary according to its grade and severity. There is a controversy about the best of these different surgical procedures. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes and complications between different surgical approaches for acute diverticulitis and its complications.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs comparing different surgical procedures for different grades of diverticulitis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015032290).

RESULTS

Outcome data were analyzed from five RCTs comparing laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) (n = 247) versus open sigmoid resection (OSR) (n = 237) for treatment of acute complicated diverticulitis with minimal heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in short-term postoperative overall morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-1.31; P = 0.56) and long-term postoperative major morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46-1.31, P = 0.34). In other six RCTs compared laparoscopic lavage with resection for treatment of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis, the postoperative mortality rate was non-significant in both short-term (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.79-3.04; P = 0.21) and long-term (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29-1.58; P = 0.36) follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

LSR is not superior over OSR regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality for acute symptomatic diverticulitis. Furthermore, laparoscopic lavage was proved to be as safe as resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis. Further RCTs are still needed to make an accurate decision regarding these and other procedures.

The present status and developments of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been shown to be less invasive than open surgery, while maintaining a similar safety level in many clinical trials. Furthermore, there are no significant differences between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery with respect to the long-term outcomes in colon cancer. Thus, laparoscopic surgery has been accepted as one of the standard treatments for colon cancer. In addition, laparoscopic surgery has also achieved favorable outcomes in the treatments of rectal cancer, with many reports showing long-term outcomes comparable to those of open surgery. Furthermore, the magnification in laparoscopy improves visualization in the pelvic cavity and facilitates precise manipulation, as well as providing an excellent educational opportunity. Laparoscopic surgery may be an ideal approach for the treatment of rectal cancer and colon cancer. Recently, two trials showed that, among patients with advanced rectal cancer, the use of laparoscopic surgery as compared with open surgery confirmed to meet the criterion for non-inferiority for long-term outcomes. In addition, new techniques such as single-port and robotic surgery have been introduced for laparoscopic surgery in recent years.

Present laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in Japan

In many clinical studies, laparoscopic surgery (LS) for colon cancer has been shown to be less invasive than open surgery (OS) while maintaining similar safety. Furthermore, there are no significant differences between LS and OS in long-term outcomes. Thus, LS has been accepted as one of the standard treatments for colon cancer. In the treatments of rectal cancer as well, LS has achieved favorable outcomes, with many reports showing long-term outcomes comparable to those of OS. Furthermore, the magnification in laparoscopy improves visualization in the pelvic cavity and facilitates precise manipulation, as well as providing excellent educational effects. For these reasons, rectal cancer has seemed to be well indicated for LS, as has been colon cancer. The indication for LS in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, which is relatively unresectable (e.g., cancer invading other organs), remains an open issue. In recent years, new techniques such as single-port and robotic surgery have begun to be introduced for LS. Presently, various clinical studies in our country as well as in most Western countries have demonstrated that LS, with these new techniques, are gradually showing long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic-assisted or laparoscopic-facilitated sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease? A prospective randomized trial on postoperative pain and analgesic consumption

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic-assisted sigmoidectomy is an attractive but sometimes challenging operative technique for the treatment of diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon. The aim of this study was to compare, with respect to early postoperative analgesic demand and postoperative pain, laparoscopic-assisted sigmoidectomy with a laparoscopic-facilitated technique. In the laparascopic-facilitated technique, the sigmoid colon is removed conventionally via a cosmetically inconspicuous incision after prior laparoscopic mobilization.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients subjected to elective sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis were randomized to either laparoscopic-assisted or laparoscopic-facilitated sigmoidectomy. All patients had piritramide-based, patient-controlled analgesia. The cumulative postoperative consumption over 96 hours was defined as the primary end point. Postoperative pain, fatigue, pulmonary function, and resumption of bowel function were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

: Forty-five patients were randomized according to the protocol to laparoscopic-assisted sigmoidectomy (n = 22) or laparoscopic-facilitated sigmoidectomy (n = 23). The analgesic consumption between the two groups was equivalent (61.3 (9-171) mg piritramide/96 hours vs. 64.3 (18-150) mg piritramide/96 hours; P = 0.827). Patients with laparoscopic-assisted sigmoidectomy had lower pain levels on Day one and Day two. Cumulative pain levels over 96 hours and over the whole 7-day observation period, however, were not significantly different, although postoperative fatigue and pulmonary function were significantly different. Duration of surgery was slightly shorter for laparoscopic-assisted sigmoidectomy (127 (47-200) vs. 135 (60-239) minutes; P = 0.28), but recovery of bowel activity was faster after laparoscopic-facilitated surgery. There was no significant difference in morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the postoperative outcome was roughly equivalent after both techniques of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. Therefore, laparoscopic-facilitated sigmoidectomy could be considered as an alternative to laparoscopic-assisted sigmoidectomy in technically difficult cases of diverticulitis subjected to laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic- vs. hand-assisted ultralow anterior resection: a prospective study

PURPOSE

A standard laparoscopic-assisted operation can be conducted with colorectal anastomosis performed after extraction of specimen and insertion of a pursestring via a small left iliac fossa or suprapubic incision, or completed via hand-assisted laparoscopic technique with a 7-cm to 8-cm suprapubic incision. This study compares the short-term outcomes of either technique.

METHODS

Sixty-three consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted ultralow anterior resection or total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were examined. The laparoscopic-assisted group (n = 31) had standard laparoscopic-assisted resection, whereas the hand-assisted laparoscopic group (n = 32) had a 7-cm to 8-cm suprapubic incision to allow an open colorectal anastomosis. In patients who were obese or have had multiple abdominal surgeries, the hand-assisted approach was generally favored. All patients had a diverting ileostomy.

RESULTS

There was no conversion in either group. Mean operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic-assisted group (188.2 vs. 169.8 minutes; P < 0.0001). Mean duration for narcotic analgesia (1.65 vs. 3.38 days, P < 0.0001), mean time to flatus (1.97 vs. 3.19 days, P < 0.0001), and mean duration of intravenous hydration (2.45 vs. 3.88 days, P < 0.0001) were longer in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group. However, the mean length of hospital stay (5.8 vs. 5.9 days, P = 0.379) was similar. There was no major surgical complication in either group; chest infection, wound infection, and thrombophlebitis were similar between the laparoscopic-assisted group and the hand-assisted laparoscopic group. Adequacy of specimen harvest (distal tumor margins, P = 0.995; circumferential resection margin, P = 0.946; number of lymph nodes, P = 0.845) was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries are safe and feasible for ultralow anterior resection, the hand-assisted technique significantly shortens operating time.

Laparoscopic approach to colonic cancer: critical appraisal of the literature

BACKGROUND/AIMS

As laparoscopic colectomy finds its place in the surgical armamentarium, the literature concerning the safety, efficacy, and oncological rational for treatment of colonic cancer is also enriched. A review and critical appraisal of the literature on this subject was the aim of this paper.

METHODS

A systematic research and a hand search were conducted to gain access to all controlled studies involving laparoscopic colectomy using the Medline, Embase, HealthSTAR, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, CancerLit data bases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991-2006.

RESULTS

Over 40 controlled randomized trials and ten systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were found. Several of the completed controlled randomized trials have published either short- or long-term results; only partial and short-term results are available in rectal cancer. The principal conclusions are that the laparoscopic approach affords better short-term outcomes including surgical site morbidity, but with increased operative times and direct costs. Among the proven long-term outcomes, cancer recurrence and survival do not seem to be worse. Whether conversion, a source of increased operative time and costs, is responsible for poorer outcomes or whether specific settings associated with poorer outcomes are among the causes of conversion remains to be shown. However, there are still concerns as regards specific laparoscopic-related complications.

CONCLUSION

There seems to no real safety problems in performing laparoscopic colectomy for cancer; improvement in operative times, conversion rates, and complications should make laparoscopy the best cost-effective approach to colectomy.

[Meta-analysis on minimally invasive surgical therapy of sigmoid diverticulitis]

The bowel diverticulitis is a complication of diverticulosis, occuring in 35% patients in 20 years after diagnosis. The study purpose was analysis of the results published in world literature.

METHOD

Double blind electronic search of several databases using key words: diverticulitis, laparoscopy.

RESULTS

11 studies with 415 patients that satisfy the criteria were selected. AGE: 62.7 + 14.2. Hinchey stadiums: I, IIa i IIb of these 44% I and 28% IIa i Iib each. Operative time: 197.4 +/- 49.6 min. Conversions: 11.7 +/- 10.1 (0 - 38.9%). Protective stoma: 5.5%. Bowel sounds: 2.3 - 3.2 postoperative day. Oral feeding: 2.6-5 postoperative day. Hospitalization: 6.1 2.1 dana. Anastomotic dehiscence: 2.8%, wound infection: 7.3%, iatrogen rectum perforation with stapler: 3.3%, bleeding: 3.5%, ileus: 4.4%, reoperation rate: 4.7%.

CONCLUSION

Sigmoid resection with or without a protective "loop" ileostomy is technically feasable by minimally invasive surgical technique, with an acceptable ratio of benefits and complications.

Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Colorectal resections are common surgical procedures all over the world. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is technically feasible in a considerable amount of patients under elective conditions. Several short-term benefits of the laparoscopic approach to colorectal resection (less pain, less morbidity, improved reconvalescence and better quality of life) have been proposed.

OBJECTIVES

This review compares laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resection with regards to possible benefits of the laparoscopic method in the short-term postoperative period (up to 3 months post surgery).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991 to 2004. We also handsearched the following journals from 1991 to 2004: British Journal of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, Annals of Surgery, Surgery, World Journal of Surgery, Disease of Colon and Rectum, Surgical Endoscopy, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, Der Chirurg, Zentralblatt für Chirurgie, Aktuelle Chirurgie/Viszeralchirurgie. Handsearch of abstracts from the following society meetings from 1991 to 2004: American College of Surgeons, American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, Royal Society of Surgeons, British Assocation of Coloproctology, Surgical Association of Endoscopic Surgeons, European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons, Asian Society of Endoscopic Surgeons.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised-controlled trial were included regardless of the language of publication. No- or pseudorandomised trials as well as studies that followed patient's preferences towards one of the two interventions were excluded, but listed separately. RCT presented as only an abstract were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Results were extracted from papers by three observers independently on a predefined data sheet. Disagreements were solved by discussion. 'REVMAN 4.2' was used for statistical analysis. Mean differences (95% confidence intervals) were used for analysing continuous variables. If studies reported medians and ranges instead of means and standard deviations, we assumed the difference of medians to be equal to the difference of means. If no measure of dispersion was given, we tried to obtain these data from the authors or estimated SD as the mean or median. Data were pooled and rate differences as well as weighted mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

25 RCT were included and analysed. Methodological quality of most of these trials was only moderate and perioperative treatment was very traditional in most studies. Operative time was longer in laparoscopic surgery, but intraoperative blood was less than in conventional surgery. Intensity of postoperative pain and duration of postoperative ileus was shorter after laparoscopic colorectal resection and pulmonary function was improved after a laparoscopic approach. Total morbidity and local (surgical) morbidity was decreased in the laparoscopic groups. General morbidity and mortality was not different between both groups. Until the 30th postoperative day, quality of life was better in laparoscopic patients. Postoperative hospital stay was less in laparoscopic patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Under traditional perioperative treatment, laparoscopic colonic resections show clinically relevant advantages in selected patients. If the long-term oncological results of laparoscopic and conventional resection of colonic carcinoma show equivalent results, the laparoscopic approach should be preferred in patients suitable for this approach to colectomy.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: helping hand or hindrance?

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy has been introduced as an alternative to the standard laparoscopic technique, but it has not yet been established whether it offers the same benefits. Therefore, we compared the outcome of patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid resection (HALSR) to that of those undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR).

METHODS

The study population comprised a sequential series of consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoid/left colectomy. Values are reported as mean (range).

RESULTS

There were 85 LSR patients and 66 HALSR patients, with no differences in patient demographics or diagnoses. There were slight differences in operative time favoring HALSR (LSR 205 min (90-380) vs HALSR 189 min (120-290); p = 0.07), and the extraction incision was larger in the HALSR group (LSR 6.2 cm (3-25) vs HALSR 8.1 cm (7-12); p < 0.01). There was no difference in time for return of bowel function (LSR 2.8 days (1-15) vs HALSR 2.5 days (1-8); p = 0.31) or length of hospital stay (LSR 5.0 days (2-17) vs HALSR 5.2 days (3-22); p = 0.73). Complications were similar in the two groups (LSR 23% vs HALSR 21%), but there were fewer conversions in the hand-assisted group (HALSR 0% vs LSR 13%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid resection yields the same outcomes as standard laparoscopic techniques, but with fewer conversions. Hand-assistance is a helpful innovation that may expand the application of laparoscopic colectomy.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: a helping hand?

Adoption of laparoscopic colectomy to date has been slow because of its technical complexity and prolonged operative times. Most surgeons do not have the skill sets or colectomy volume to overcome the learning curve. The options for the future are limited. Either surgeons not skilled in laparoscopic colectomy will have to forfeit this procedure to expert laparoscopists as some have recommended or we need to find a way to simplify the procedure while maintaining the benefits of a minimally invasive approach. This article reviews the hurdles to laparoscopic colectomy and the potential benefits of the introduction of the hand to laparoscopic colectomy. In the end, the reader will have a clearer understanding of the controversy surrounding hand-assisted colectomy and why it should be expanded in its application if the majority of surgeons are to offer minimally invasive colectomy to their patients.

Laparoscopic colectomy for recurrent and complicated diverticulitis: a prospective study of 396 patients

BACKGROUND

It was the aim of this prospective study to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease.

METHODS

All patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease within a 10-year period were prospectively entered into a PC database registry. Indications for laparoscopic surgery were acute complicated diverticulitis (Hinchey stages I and IIa), chronically recurrent diverticulitis, sigmoid stenosis or outlet obstruction caused by chronic diverticulitis. Surgical procedures (sigmoid and anterior resection, left colectomy and resection rectopexy) included intracorporeal dissection and colorectal anastomosis. Parameters studied included age, gender, stage of disease, procedure, duration of surgery, intraoperative technical variables, transfusion requirements, conversion rate, total complication rate including major (requiring re-operation), minor (conservative treatment) and late-onset (post-discharge) complication rates, stay on ICU, hospitalisation, mortality, and recurrence. For objective evaluation, only laparoscopically completed procedures were analysed. Comparative outcome analysis was performed with respect to stage of disease and experience.

RESULTS

A total of 396 patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy. Conversion rate was 6.8% ( n=27), so that laparoscopic completion rate was 93.2% ( n=369). Most common reasons for conversion were directly related to the inflammatory process, abscess or fistulas. The most common procedure was sigmoid resection ( n=279), followed by anterior resection ( n=36) and left colectomy ( n=29). Total complication rate was 18.4% ( n=68). Major complication rate was 7.6% ( n=28), whereas the most common complication requiring re-operation was haemorrhage in 3.3% ( n=12). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1.6% ( n=6). Minor complications were noted in 10.7% ( n=40), late-onset complications occurred in 2.7% ( n=10). Mortality was 0.5% ( n=2). Mean duration of surgery was 193 (range 75-400) min, return to normal diet was completed after 6.8 (range 3-19) days. Mean hospital stay was 11.8 (range 4-71) days. No recurrence of diverticulitis occurred.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease is safe, feasible and effective. Therefore, laparoscopic colectomy has replaced open resection as standard surgery for recurrent and complicated diverticulitis at our institution.

Nonrestoration of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic-assisted left colon resection

Laparoscopic-assisted left colon resection entails reestablishing pneumoperitoneum and laparoscopic colorectal anastomosing, if performed through a left lower-quadrant incision. A horizontal suprapubic incision allows direct view of the colorectal anastomosis obviating the need for reestablishing pneumoperitoneum. Performing colorectal anastomoses in an open fashion via a suprapubic incision and with nonrestoration of pneumoperitoneum will contain operating time in laparoscopic-assisted left colectomy.