Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection after an initial open hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Repeat open hepatectomy (ROH) for recurrent liver tumors is the preferred approach especially after initial open hepatectomy (OH). The aim of this study is to assess feasibility and safety of repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (RLH) after initial OH in 2 high volume hepato-biliary hospitals.

METHODS

Patients were retrieved from prospective data bases from 2012 to 2020. The patients were divided into two groups according to the approach used for repeat hepatectomy, ROH and RLH groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients matched the criteria, 20 in RLH and 47 in ROH. Diagnoses were hepatocellular carcinoma in 52.3%, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in 7.7% and colorectal liver metastases in 40%. Median operative time and blood loss were lower in RLH (199 vs 260 min, and 100 vs 400 ml respectively), as well as overall postoperative complications (20% vs 49%). There were 2 conversions (10%) due to adhesions and one died of postoperative pancreatitis in RLH. Median hospital stay was lower in RLH (5 vs 9 days).

CONCLUSION

RLH is a feasible, safe technique and a realistic option to be considered in selected patients after previous OH. Early conversion should be considered when adhesions are more severe than expected.

Impact of Prior Abdominal Procedures on Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Outcomes: Findings From the North American Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Registry

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

A history of prior abdominal procedures may influence the likelihood of referral for peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion. To guide clinical decision making in this population, this study examined the association between prior abdominal procedures and outcomes in patients undergoing PD catheter insertion.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adults undergoing their first PD catheter insertion between November 1, 2011, and November 1, 2020, at 11 institutions in Canada and the United States participating in the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis North American Catheter Registry.

EXPOSURE

Prior abdominal procedure(s) defined as any procedure that enters the peritoneal cavity.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was time to the first of (1) abandonment of the PD catheter or (2) interruption/termination of PD. Secondary outcomes were rates of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and procedures.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Cumulative incidence curves were used to describe the risk over time, and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between the exposure and primary outcome. Models for count data were used to estimate the associations between the exposure and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 855 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 31% had a history of a prior abdominal procedure and 20% experienced at least 1 PD catheter-related complication that led to the primary outcome. Prior abdominal procedures were not associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.68-1.84). Upper-abdominal procedures were associated with a higher adjusted hazard of the primary outcome, but there was no dose-response relationship concerning the number of procedures. There was no association between prior abdominal procedures and other secondary outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Observational study and cohort limited to a sample of patients believed to be potential candidates for PD catheter insertion.

CONCLUSION

A history of prior abdominal procedure(s) does not appear to influence catheter outcomes following PD catheter insertion. Such a history should not be a contraindication to PD.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a life-saving therapy for individuals with kidney failure that can be done at home. PD requires the placement of a tube, or catheter, into the abdomen to allow the exchange of dialysis fluid during treatment. There is concern that individuals who have undergone prior abdominal procedures and are referred for a catheter might have scarring that could affect catheter function. In some institutions, they might not even be offered PD therapy as an option. In this study, we found that a history of prior abdominal procedures did not increase the risk of PD catheter complications and should not dissuade patients from choosing PD or providers from recommending it.

Does the presence of abdominal wall adhesions make gynecologic robotic surgery difficult?

This study aimed to assess the status of abdominal wall adhesions resulting from prior surgeries and their impact on the outcomes of robotic surgery. We retrospectively reviewed clinical information, surgical outcomes, and the status of abdominal wall adhesions in patients who underwent gynecologic robotic surgery at Yamanashi Central Hospital, between April 2018 and March 2023. Abdominal wall adhesions were classified into seven locations and their presence was assessed at each site. Among the 768 cases examined, 196 showed the presence of abdominal wall adhesions. Notably, patients with a history of abdominal surgery exhibited a significantly higher incidence of abdominal wall adhesions than those without such surgical history, although no significant difference was observed in the frequency of adhesions in the upper left abdomen. Patients with a history of gynecologic, gastrointestinal, or biliopancreatic surgeries were more likely to have adhesions at the umbilicus or upper abdomen sites where trocars are typically inserted during robotic surgery. Although cases with abdominal wall adhesions experienced longer operative times than those without, there was no significant difference in estimated blood loss. In 13 cases (1.7%), adjustments in trocar placement were necessary due to abdominal wall adhesions, although none of the cases required conversion to open or conventional laparoscopic surgery. Abdominal wall adhesions pose challenges to minimally invasive procedures, emphasizing the importance of predicting these adhesions based on a patient's surgical history to safely perform robotic surgery. These results suggest that the robot's flexibility proves effective in managing abdominal wall adhesions.

A nomogram to predict conversion of laparoscopic surgery to laparotomy for Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is effective for treating common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, it has high requirements for surgeons and the risk of conversion to laparotomy cannot be ignored. However, when conditions during surgery are not favorable, persisting with laparoscopic procedures blindly can lead to serious complications. Our study aimed to establish a nomogram model for predicting conversion of laparoscopic to laparotomy for choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 867 patients who were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis and underwent laparoscopic surgery were randomly divided into a training group (70%, n = 607) and a validation group (30%, n = 260). A nomogram was constructed based on the results of logistic regression analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the predictive performance of the nomogram.

RESULTS

Previous upper abdominal surgery, maximum diameter of stone ≥12 mm, medial wall of the duodenum stone, thickening of the gallbladder wall, thickening of CBD wall, stone size/CBD size ≥0.75, and simultaneous laparoscopic hepatectomy were included in the nomogram. The AUC values were 0.813 (95% CI: 0.766-0.861) and 0.804 (95% CI: 0.737-0.871) in the training and validation groups, respectively. The calibration curve showed excellent consistency between the nomogram predictions and actual observations. DCA showed a positive net benefit for the nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

We constructed a nomogram with a good ability to predict conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis, which can help surgeons to make a reasonable operation plan before surgery and timely convert to laparotomy during operation to reduce potential harm to the patient.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Individualization of the best approach for adhesive small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic postoperatives outcomes in adhesiolysis are promising but conversion and morbidity remains high. The objective of our study was to determine preoperative factors to individualize and select the most appropriate approach for each patient.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years old undergoing emergent surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction and internal hernias were evaluated. Bivariate and multivariate analysis were performed to investigate factors related to conversion to open surgery and to the type of adhesions.

RESULTS

Of 333 patients, 224 were operated by laparotomy and 109 by laparoscopy (conversion rate: 40%). Previous abdominal wall mesh, type of adhesions, bowel lesion, need for intestinal resection and laparoscopic skills were statistically related to conversion. In the multivariate analysis, complex adhesions (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.5-12.2; P = 0.006), the need for intestinal resection (OR 14.16, 95% CI 2.55-78.68; P = 0.002), and non-advanced laparoscopy surgeons (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.56-11.94; P = 0.005) were independent factors for conversion to open surgery. ASA III-IV, previous surgeries, previous abdominal mesh and previous adhesiolysis were related to complex adhesions. Previous laparoscopic surgery and internal hernia or closed loop in computed tomography were associated with simple adhesions as a cause of the obstruction. In the multivariate, previous adhesiolysis (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.23-18.3; P = 0.023) and the findings on computed tomography were significantly related with the type of adhesion.

CONCLUSION

Some preoperative factors allow to individualize the surgical approach in the adhesive small bowel obstruction improving surgical outcomes.

Nationwide analysis of inpatient laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in Italy from 2015 to 2020

Since 2010, several guidelines and consensus papers have been proposed to support surgeons in the decision-making process (Cuccurullo et al. in Hernia 17(5):557-566, 2013; Silecchia et al. in Surg Endosc 29:2463-2484, 2015; Bittner et al. in Surg Endosc 33(11):3511-3549, 2015) with the conclusion that laparoscopic repair (LR) has gained popularity in the treatment of IH.To date, however, it is not yet clear as to the uptake of LR for IH on national basis. Only dated studies encompassing of all types of incisional hernia repairs are available in literature (Bisgaard et al. in Br J Surg 96:1452-1457, 2009). The aim of our study is to present a snapshot of Italian data for LR of ventral hernias, over a 6 years period, including volume of LR, procedural features and major postoperative outcomes. Data were extracted from the Italian Hospital Information System (HIS) that collects clinical and administrative information regarding each hospital admission of every patient discharged from any hospital in Italy. Using Hospital Discharge records regional Databases (HDD), all laparoscopic ventral hernia procedures carried out in public and private hospitals between 2015 and 2020, in patients over 18 years and resident in Italy, were collected based on diagnosis and procedure codes. The National Agency for Regional Health Services (AgeNaS) oversees the management and analysis of data. All hospital admissions that occurred between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed.A total of 154,546 incisional hernia repairs were performed in Italy from 2015 to 2020. Of these, 20,789 (13.45%) were minimally invasive repairs. The number of procedures performed increased significantly over time, constituting 11.96 and 15.24% of all procedures performed in 2015 and 2020 respectively. However, considering the whole period, the mean annual change was-5.58% (CI - 28.6% to 17.44%; p < 0.0001).Urgent minimally invasive repairs were performed in 1968 cases (1.27%). The absolute rate of laparoscopically treated patients needing an urgent surgical procedure increased overtime (from 7.36% in 2015 to 13.418% in 2020). The mean annual change registered over the whole period was 7.42%. 92% (CI - 0.03 to 14.09%; p < 0.0001). However, when considering the period from 2015 to 2019, the mean annual change was 10.42% (CI 6.35 to 14.49%; p < 0.0001). To our knowledge this is the first nationwide Italian report presenting the national workload of surgical units and the main perioperative features of minimally invasive surgery for ventral hernia repairs.

Benefits of laparoscopy-assisted ileostomy in colorectal cancer patients with bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Ileostomies are commonly performed after colon and rectal surgeries. Laparoscopy-assisted ileostomy with adhesion lysis may have potential benefits over conventional open surgery.

AIM

To compare the outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted and conventional ileostomies.

METHODS

Data from 48 consecutive patients who underwent ileostomy at our institution between May 2021 and May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The groups comprised 26 and 22 patients who underwent laparoscopic ileostomy (laparoscopic group) and conventional ileostomy (conventional group), respectively, performed by a single surgeon. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and 30-d morbidities and mortality rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

The two groups had comparable mean ages, sex distributions, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, and body mass indices. However, the laparoscopic group showed similar operative time, better visualization for adhesion lysis, and lower visual analog scale scores than the conventional group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy-assisted ileostomy is a safe and efficient method that produces lower visual analog scale scores, better intraoperative visualization for effective adhesion lysis, and similar operative time compared with conventional ileostomy.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection-Selecting the Best Approach for Repeat Liver Resection

Recurrence of liver cancers after liver resection (LR), such as recurrences of hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases, is often treated with repeat LR (RLR) as the only curative treatment. However, RLR is associated with an increased risk of complications. The indications for the currently emerging laparoscopic LR and its advantages and disadvantages for repeat treatment are still under discussion. Our multi-institutional propensity-score matched analyses of laparoscopic vs. open RLRs for hepatocellular carcinoma showed the feasibility of laparoscopic RLR with comparable short- and long-term outcomes. Small blood loss and low morbidity was observed in selected patients treated using laparoscopic RLR in which total adhesiolysis can be dodged, with speculations that laparoscopic minor repeated LR can minimize functional deterioration of the liver. However, there are several disadvantages, such as easily occurring disorientation and difficulty in repeated wide-range dissection of Glissonian pedicles. Recently emerging small anatomical resection, indocyanine green fluorescence-guided surgery, and robot-assisted surgery are promising tools for the further development of laparoscopic RLR. This review discusses how laparoscopic RLR, as a powerful unique local therapy causing less damage to the residual liver and surrounding structures, could contribute to the outcomes of repeated treatments for cancers and its future perspectives.

Jain point laparoscopic entry in contraindications of Palmers point

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of the Jain point to overcome the contraindications of Palmer's point. The Jain point lies on the left side of the abdomen at the L4 level, 10-13 cm lateral to the umbilicus. Due to its anatomical location, the Jain point is free from adhesions because postsurgical adhesions are encountered usually in the midline or the right side.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted at a high-volume tertiary care referral center for advanced gynecological laparoscopic surgery, enrolling 8,586 patients who underwent laparoscopy at the center from January 2011 to March 2022. In this paper, we analyze 2,519 patients with a history of previous surgeries, who were operated using the Jain point.

RESULTS

In the 2,519 patients with a history of previous surgeries, the Jain point port was found to be adhesion free, regardless of the location of the scars, the number and type of previous surgeries, and those in whom Palmer's point was contraindicated. No major complications were reported, except for one case (0.04%) of small bowel injury, which was managed intraoperatively. The Jain point continued to function as the main ergonomic working port.

CONCLUSION

The Jain point offers an alternate safe entry port in previous surgery cases for laparoscopic surgeons of various specialties, like general surgeons, urologists, oncologists, and bariatric surgeons, to overcome the contraindications of Palmer's point. The Jain point also acts as the main ergonomic working port, whereas Palmer's point becomes redundant after initial entry.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repeat hepatectomy has been proven to be an effective treatment in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for RHCC, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is superior to conventional ones. The present meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and overall effect of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for patients with RHCC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42021257569. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before 25 April 2022. Data on operative times, bleeding volume, overall complications, 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, length of stay, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified nine studies of LRH versus ORH enrolling a total of 945 patients (460 and 485 underwent LRH and ORH, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed non-significant differences in operative time, blood transfusion, overall complications, 90-day mortality, 3-year overall survival rate, 5-year overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing LRH with ORH, LRH has less bleeding volume (p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (p = 0.005).

Conclusion

LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42021257569.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Safety Between Open and Laparoscopic Surgery for Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of a National Inpatient Database

Background: The effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) remains unclear. We aimed to compare the outcomes and safety of open and laparoscopic surgeries for ASBO. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed an inpatient database of 42 national university hospitals in Japan. Patients who underwent surgery for the first episode of ASBO between April 2013 and March 2018 were identified. Using the propensity score method, patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery were matched one-to-one with those who underwent open surgery. We investigated postoperative clinical outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and recurrence. Results: Overall, 306 and 96 patients underwent open and laparoscopic surgery, respectively (96 propensity score-matched pairs). The incidence rates of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence were comparable between the two groups. Cox regression analysis revealed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.020 (P = .959) for readmission due to ASBO in the laparoscopic surgery group relative to the open surgery group. Postoperative hospital stay was longer for open surgery than for laparoscopic surgery (13.0 days versus 10.0 days, P < .001). Cox regression analysis revealed that laparoscopic surgery was associated with earlier postoperative discharge compared with open surgery (HR 1.641, P = .002). Conclusions: The postoperative LOS was shorter with laparoscopic surgery than with open surgery for ASBO, but there were no differences between the procedures in other clinical outcomes. Laparoscopic surgery is suitable to treat patients with ASBO.

The Influence of Prior Abdominal Surgery on Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy

Background

We evaluated the influence of prior abdominal surgery on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in initial Japanese series.

Methods

We reviewed patients with small renal tumors who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy from October 2011 to September 2020 at our institution. Patients with prior abdominal surgery were compared with those without prior surgery based on perioperative outcomes. The chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analyses of variables.

Results

Of 156 patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, 90 (58%) had no prior abdominal surgery, whereas 66 patients (42%) underwent prior abdominal surgery. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes were observed between with and without prior abdominal surgery groups. In transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, 31 patients (80.4%) had prior abdominal surgery. Trocar insertion time in the with prior abdominal surgery group took longer than the without prior abdominal surgery group (32 vs. 28.5 min, P = 0.031). No significant difference was observed in the conversion rate between the two groups (P = 0.556).

Conclusion

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy appears to be a safe approach for patients with prior abdominal surgery. In transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with prior abdominal surgery, trocar insertion time was longer, but no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Transperitoneal approach robot-assisted partial nephrectomy is thus considered a safe procedure for patients with prior abdominal surgery.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Repeat Hepatectomy for Secondary Liver Neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a widely accepted alternative to an open approach. The use of this technique in repeat liver resection is limited due to technical difficulties caused by postsurgical adhesions. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hand-assisted laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (HALRH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of the medical files of patients who had undergone HALRH between 2010 and 2017 in 2 university-affiliated medical centers.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients with repeat hepatectomy were included with a median age of 67.5 years. The first liver resection was a traditional laparotomy for 9 patients and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for 7 patients. The conversion rate to open surgery was 6%. The median operative time, blood loss during surgery, and postoperative hospital stay were 166 minutes, 400 mL, and 7 days, respectively. R0 resections were achieved in 88% of patients. The median number of tumors and tumor size were 1 and of 25 mm, respectively. There were no mortalities or major complications postoperatively. For patients with colorectal liver metastases, the median follow-up and overall survival were 21 and 43 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest HALRH to be safe and feasible. Future ERAS guidelines should evaluate this approach for liver surgery.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for patients with a history of prior biliary surgery: a comparative study with an open approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is increasingly being used to treat choledocholithiasis. However, few studies have examined the treatment of recurrent common bile duct stones (CBDS) in patients with a history of prior biliary surgery. The current research aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open common bile duct exploration in patients with a history of prior biliary surgery.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and August 2019, 162 patients with recurrent CBDS after prior biliary surgery who underwent surgical management in our institution were enrolled in this study. The demographic, intraoperative and postoperative data were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Among these 162 patients, 72 underwent laparoscopic approach (LCBDE group), and 90 underwent open surgery (open common bile duct exploration group). The LCBDE group was associated with significantly lower overall complication rate, incision infection rate and blood loss compared to open common bile duct exploration group (all P < 0.05). Moreover, the laparoscopic approach significantly reduced the length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05). However, the operative time, stone clearance rate, and stone recurrence rate were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). The conversion rate of the laparoscopic approach was 6.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE is superior to open procedure in terms of blood loss, hospital stay, overall complication and incision infection in patients with a history of prior biliary surgery, and it should be considered as a safe and effective treatment if it is performed by an experienced surgeon.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Recurrence of liver cancers inside the liver are often treated with liver resection (LR). However, increased risks of complications and conversion during operation were reported in laparoscopic repeat LR (LRLR). The indication is still controversial. One multi-institutional propensity score matching analysis of LRLR vs open repeat LR for hepatocellular carcinoma, two propensity score matching analyses for colorectal metastases, and two meta-analyses including hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastases, and other tumors have been reported to date. LRLR was reported with better to comparable short-term and similar long-term outcomes. Furthermore, the shorter operation time and the smaller amount of intraoperative bleeding for LRLR was reported for the patients who had undergone laparoscopic rather than open LR as an earlier procedure. The speculations are presented, that complete dissection of adhesion can be dodged and laparoscopic minor repeated LR can minimize the liver functional deterioration in cirrhotic patients. LRLR, as a powerful local therapy, could contribute to the long-term outcomes of those with deteriorated liver function. However, the procedure is now in its developing stage worldwide and further accumulation of experiences and evaluation are needed.

A Comparative Analysis between Laparoscopic and Open Adhesiolysis at a Tertiary Care Center

Laparotomy has been the favored approach regarding surgical management of small bowel obstruction (SBO); however, laparoscopy may offer improved outcomes. Patients undergoing laparoscopic lysis of adhesions (LOA) at our institution for SBO will have lower postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality. Patients undergoing LOA at our institution, from 2000 to 2011, were reviewed. Categorical data were analyzed with χ2or Fisher's exact tests. Continuous data were analyzed with Student's t test or Wilcoxon rank sum. One hundred two (38 laparoscopic, 64 open) LOA cases were selected. Perioperative contamination and conservative management were higher in the open group. Open cases had a greater incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and longer length of stay. Stratified analysis determined a strong association between perioperative contamination and a higher incidence of ICU admission, perioperative contamination and longer LOS, and conservative management and longer LOS. Finally, patient outcome did not differ between those treated by surgeons trained in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared with those not trained in MIS. Careful consideration of surgical approach and timing is called for in all patients with SBO; however, whenever possible, laparoscopic preference should be given to most patients in an expeditious fashion irrespective of MIS training.

The use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly: the FRAILESEL Italian Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

As the world population is aging rapidly, emergency abdominal surgery for acute abdomen in the elderly represents a global issue, both in developed and developing countries. Data regarding all the elderly patients who underwent emergency abdominal surgery from January 2017 to December 2017 at 36 Italian surgical departments were analyzed with the aim to appraise the contemporary reality regarding the use of emergency laparoscopy for acute abdomen in the elderly. 1993 patients were enrolled. 1369 (68.7%) patients were operated with an open technique; whereas, 624 (31.3%) underwent a laparoscopic operation. The postoperative morbidity rate was 32.6%, with a statically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (36.2% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). The reported mortality rate was 8.8%, with a statistically significant difference between the open and the laparoscopic groups (11.2% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001). Our results demonstrated that patients in the ASA II (58.1%), ASA III (68.7%) and ASA IV (88.5%) groups were operated with the traditional open technique in most of the cases. Only a small percentage of patients underwent laparoscopy for perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer repair (18.9%), adhesiolyses with/without small bowel resection (12.2%), and large bowel resection (10.7%). Conversion to open technique was associated with a higher mortality rate (11.1% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001) and overall morbidity (38.9% versus 22.1%, p = 0.001) compared with patients who did not undergo conversion. High creatinine (p < 0.001) and glycaemia (p = 0.006) levels, low hemoglobin levels (p < 0.001), oral anticoagulation therapy (p = 0.001), acute respiratory failure (p < 0.001), presence of malignancy (p = 0.001), SIRS (p < 0.001) and open surgical approach (p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. Regardless of technical progress, elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery are at very high risk for in-hospital complications. A detailed analysis of complications and mortality in the present study showed that almost 9% of elderly patients died after surgery for acute abdomen, and over 32% developed complications.

Perioperative outcomes comparing laparoscopic with open repeat liver resection for post-hepatectomy recurrent liver cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (LRH) offers an option for recurrent tumors in liver remnants following an initial liver resection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), showing advantages in some outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LRH in comparison with repeat open hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LRH with ORH from inception to September 30, 2019. Outcomes of interest included operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, transfusion and R0 resection rate. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

10 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 767 patients with 334 undergoing LRH (43.5%) and 433 undergoing ORH (56.5%). Compared with ORH, LRH had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI: 1.48~-0.59, P < 0.001), less overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99, P = 0.048), less major complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62, P = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: 1.41~-0.54, P < 0.001) and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.39-3.81, P = 0.001). It was comparable in operation time (WMD = -7.66; 95% CI: 52.50-37.19, P = 0.738), transfusion rate (OR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.11-1.05, P = 0.060), and mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27-2.18, P = 0.615) between LRH and ORH.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LRH is a safe and effective technique. Benefits, especially less intra-operative blood loss, less complications rate, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection, might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre propensity score-based study

BACKGROUND

In the absence of randomized controlled data and even propensity-matched data, indications for, and outcomes of, laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain uncertain. This study aimed to clarify the current indications for laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC, and to evaluate outcomes.

METHODS

Forty-two liver surgery centres around the world registered patients who underwent repeat liver resection for HCC. Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumour characteristics, surgical method, and short- and long-term outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Analyses showed that the laparoscopic procedure was generally used in patients with relatively poor performance status and liver function, but favourable tumour characteristics. Intraoperative blood loss (mean(s.d.) 254(551) versus 748(1128) ml; P < 0·001), duration of operation (248(156) versus 285(167) min; P < 0·001), morbidity (12·7 versus 18·1 per cent; P = 0·006) and duration of postoperative hospital stay (10·1(14·3) versus 11·8(11·8) days; P = 0·013) were significantly reduced for laparoscopic compared with open procedures, whereas survival time was comparable (median 10·04 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·297). Propensity score matching showed that laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (268(730) versus 497(784) ml; P = 0·001) and a longer operation time (272(187) versus 232(129); P = 0·007) than the open approach, and similar survival time (12·55 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·086).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection is feasible in selected patients with recurrent HCC.

Adhesion-induced chronic abdominal pain: a case report on the diagnostic value of Carnett's test

Background

Chronic abdominal pain is a common clinical problem. However, diagnosing chronic abdominal pain often requires detailed diagnostic evaluations in addition to sufficient history taking and physical examination, owing to its uncertain etiology.

Case presentation

We report a case of a 36-year-old man with chronic abdominal pain originating from postoperative adhesions. Postoperative adhesions are common phenomena, and abdominal surgery can cause severe abdominal pain, the source of which can be difficult to detect. Carnett’s test is useful to detect abdominal wall tenderness and to determine the affected abdominal quadrant. Incorporating its use with a detailed chronological clinical history contributes to the improvement of diagnostic accuracy. In addition to the above-mentioned information, attention to subtle imaging findings may provide greater diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

Abdominal pain induced by postoperative adhesions was reduced by laparoscopic adhesiolysis. Carnett’s test is an effective tool for evaluating pain and detecting its cause.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13256-019-2026-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Gastrointestinal injuries during gynaecologic operations at a university teaching hospital in Thailand: a 10-year review

The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence of gastrointestinal injuries during gynaecologic operations, the management of such injuries and associated risk factors. This case-control study (1:4) examined patients who received gynaecologic operations from 2007 to 2016 in Ramathibodi Hospital. The study cases comprised patients who had gastrointestinal injuries, while the control cases comprised patients who had gynaecologic surgeries in the same period with matching the types of procedures. The 10-year incidence was 0.38% (104 cases of gastrointestinal injuries among a total of 27,520 cases). The most common injury site was the small bowel (43.3%). There were 102 cases (98%) of gastrointestinal injuries which were diagnosed intraoperatively and which were immediately repaired with successful outcomes. Logistic regression indicated that a pelvic adhesion, previous pelvic surgery and previous abdominal surgery were predictive risk factors associated with the injuries (odds ratios: 9.45, 3.20 and 11.84, respectively). An immediate consultation with a surgeon and surgical repair of the injury resulted in excellent outcomes. Impact statement What is already known about this subject? Gastrointestinal injury is a rare, but fatal complication of gynaecologic operations. The previous small study identified some risk factors such as surgical approach and pelvic surgery associated with the injury. What do the results of this study contribute? Our study identified the associated risk factors for gastrointestinal injury, including previous abdominal injury, pelvic adhesion and previous pelvic surgery. A previous abdominal surgery was the most associated risk factor. Patients with the history of abdominal surgery had an almost 4-fold higher odds ratio than the ones with previous pelvic surgery. Other factors, including endometriosis, ovarian cancer and subsequent oncological procedures, and surgical staging were less related to the gastrointestinal injury. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The knowledge is useful for pre-operative evaluation and preparation. Bowel preparation and consultation with surgeon are necessary for patients with these risk factors prior to their surgeries. Moreover, an immediate intra-operative surgical correction of the injury results in excellent outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy plays a key role in recurrent hepatic tumors. However, it is still unknown whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is suitable for recurrent liver cancers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH).

METHODS

Several databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Ovid, were retrieved from date of inception to 31st March 2018. All articles comparing LRH and ORH were identified. Tumor characteristics and perioperative outcomes including resection type, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, complications and hospital stay were evaluated. Data were extracted and calculated using random- or fixed-effect models.

RESULTS

A total of seven non-randomized observational clinical articles including 443 patients were analyzed. LRH was associated with significantly lower blood loss (WMD = -389.09, 95% CI -628.34 to -149.84, P = 0.001), transfusion (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.74, P = 0.019) as well as limited hospital stay (WMD = -4.00, 95% CI -6.58 to -1.42, P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in the field of tumor characteristics and other perioperative outcomes. In the sensitivity analysis of case-match studies, LRH was associated with significant limited hospital stay, but with significant longer operation time. There were 8 (1.8%, range 0-13.3%) cases of conversion in LRH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of these limited data, LRH is as feasible and efficient as ORH by expert surgeons in selected patients, whose cancer is resectable at the time of surgery and who have Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis.

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Liver resection (LR) is now actively applied to intrahepatic recurrence of liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although indications of laparoscopic LR (LLR) have been expanded, there are increased risks of intraoperative complications and conversion in repeat LLR. Controversy still exists for the indication. There are 16 reports of small series to date. These studies generally reported that repeat LLR has better short-term outcomes than open (reduced bleedings, less or similar morbidity and shorter hospital stay) without compromising the long-term outcomes. The fact that complete adhesiolysis can be avoided in repeat LLR is also reported. In the comparison of previous procedures, it is reported that the operation time for repeat LLR was shorter for the patients previously treated with LLR than open. Furthermore, it is speculated that LLR for minor repeat LR of cirrhotic liver can be minimized the deterioration of liver function by LR. However, further experience and evaluation of anatomical resection or resections exposing major vessels as repeat LLR, especially after previous anatomical resection, are needed. There should be a chance to prolong the overall survival of the patients by using LLR as a powerful local therapy which can be applied repeatedly with minimal deterioration of liver function.

Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2017 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group

Background

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency, causing high morbidity and even some mortality. The adhesions causing such bowel obstructions are typically the footprints of previous abdominal surgical procedures. The present paper presents a revised version of the Bologna guidelines to evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of ASBO. The working group has added paragraphs on prevention of ASBO and special patient groups.

Methods

The guideline was written under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery by the ASBO working group. A systematic literature search was performed prior to the update of the guidelines to identify relevant new papers on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of ASBO. Literature was critically appraised according to an evidence-based guideline development method. Final recommendations were approved by the workgroup, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusion.

Recommendations

Adhesion formation might be reduced by minimally invasive surgical techniques and the use of adhesion barriers. Non-operative treatment is effective in most patients with ASBO. Contraindications for non-operative treatment include peritonitis, strangulation, and ischemia. When the adhesive etiology of obstruction is unsure, or when contraindications for non-operative management might be present, CT is the diagnostic technique of choice. The principles of non-operative treatment are nil per os, naso-gastric, or long-tube decompression, and intravenous supplementation with fluids and electrolytes. When operative treatment is required, a laparoscopic approach may be beneficial for selected cases of simple ASBO.Younger patients have a higher lifetime risk for recurrent ASBO and might therefore benefit from application of adhesion barriers as both primary and secondary prevention.

Discussion

This guideline presents recommendations that can be used by surgeons who treat patients with ASBO. Scientific evidence for some aspects of ASBO management is scarce, in particular aspects relating to special patient groups. Results of a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for ASBO are awaited.

Factors Affecting Pregnancy Rate Following Fallopian Tube Recanalization in Women with Proximal Fallopian Tube Obstruction

Fallopian tube obstruction is a major cause of female infertility. We aimed to evaluate the factors potentially affecting pregnancy rate following fallopian tube recanalization (FTR) in infertile women with proximal fallopian tube obstruction. Data was retrospectively collected for 61 women (25, primary infertility; 36, secondary infertility) who underwent FTR at our institution. Bivariable and multivariable analyses of clinical pregnancy rates in relation to the following factors were performed: primary vs. secondary infertility, duration of infertility, age at the time of FTR, unilateral vs. bilateral obstruction, and previous pelvic interventions. All women who underwent fluoroscopically guided transcervical FTR of one or both proximally obstructed tubes were successfully recanalized (technical success rate, 100%). Within a year after FTR, 41% of women had conceived. None of the studied variables was significantly associated with pregnancy rate on bivariable analysis. Nevertheless, on multivariable analysis, the type and duration of infertility were significantly associated with pregnancy among women aged <35 years at the time of FTR. Our findings regarding pregnancy rates following FTR reflect the diversity of the patient population and suggest the presence of multiple contributing factors. Younger women with secondary infertility for <5 years are highly likely to achieve conception following FTR.

Influence of previous abdominal surgery on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy

Objective

To evaluate the potential effects of previous abdominal surgery on post-operative outcome and incidence of complications after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).

Methods

Between June 2008 and December 2016, 331 patients who underwent TLH were retrospectively reviewed. Participating patients were divided into 2 groups according to previous abdominal surgery. We compared the 2 groups based on estimated blood loss, operation time, hospital stay, surgery-related complications, and conversion to laparotomy rates.

Results

Group 1 included patients without a history of abdominal surgery (n=186), group 2 included patients with a history of abdominal surgery (n=145). The complication rate was 3.2% in group 1 and 2.8% in group 2. Other post-operative outcome and complications such as estimated blood loss, hospital stay and conversion to laparotomy rates did not differ significantly between groups. Adhesiolysis was significantly more common in group 2 (P<0.001) and operation time was significantly longer in the group 2 (P=0.004). The rate of conversion to laparotomy was higher in group 2, but this difference was not significant (P=0.115). Group 2 patients were divided into subgroups according to the number of surgery. In subgroups analysis of group 2, there were 70 patients who had one previous abdominal surgery and 75 patients who had 2 or more previous surgeries. Moreover, there were significant differences in adhesiolysis (P=0.004) and conversion to laparotomy (P=0.034). There were no significant differences in other complications observed upon subgroup analysis.

Conclusion

TLH can be conducted successfully regardless of previous abdominal surgery. Patients with previous abdominal surgery are suitable and feasible candidates for TLH.

[Optimal time of surgery for acute adhesive small bowel obstruction]

AIM

To define optimal terms of surgery for acute adhesive non-strangulatory small bowel obstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analysis included 703 publications from e-LIBRARI.RU (342 works) and NCBI (361 works) databases for acute adhesive intestinal obstruction. The vast majority of articles presented retrospective analysis of single-center experience.

RESULTS

It has been established that short course of medication is predominantly used for acute adhesive intestinal obstruction in the Russian Federation. International studies point 2-5 days for conservative treatment. The advantages and disadvantages of short and long courses of medication were analyzed. Therefore, multicenter, prospective, randomized trial 'Comparison of early operative treatment (12-hour medication) and long-term conservative treatment (48 hours) for acute adhesive small bowel obstruction' (COTACSO) was planned and registered (Unique Protocol ID: 14121729). The study protocol involves clinical, laboratory and instrumental exclusion of strangulation, randomization and conservative treatment of 2 groups of patients for 12 and 48 hours. Patients will undergo surgical interventions if obstruction will be present by that date. The main endpoint is mortality rate in both groups. The end of the study is December 2020.

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for treatment patients with previous abdominal surgery

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in patients with previous abdominal surgery (PAS). The outcomes were compared in 139 patients (103 upper and 36 lower abdominal surgeries) with PAS and 361 without PAS who underwent LCBDE. The operative time, hospital stay, rate of open conversion, postoperative complications, duct clearance, and blood loss were compared. Patients with PAS had longer operative times (P = 0.006), higher hospital costs (P = 0.043), and a higher incidence of wound complications (P = 0.011) than those without PAS. However, there were no statistically significant in the open conversion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, bile leakage, biliary strictures, residual stones, and mortality between patients with and without PAS (P > 0.05). Moreover, compared with those without PAS, patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) had longer operative times (P = 0.005), higher hospital costs (P = 0.030), and a higher open conversion rate (P = 0.043), but patients with previous lower abdominal surgery (PLAS) had a higher incidence of wound complications (P  = 0.022). LCBDE is considered safe and feasible for patients with PAS, including those with PUAS.

Impact of hospital volume on outcomes for laparoscopic adhesiolysis for small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Volume-to-outcome data have been studied in several complex surgical procedures, demonstrating improved outcomes at higher volume centers. Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions (LLOA) for small bowel obstruction (SBO) may result in better outcomes, but there is no information on the learning curve for this potentially complex case. This study evaluates the effect of institutional procedural volume on length of stay (LOS), outcomes, and costs in LLOA for SBOs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample data set between 2000 and 2013 was queried for discharges for a diagnosis of SBO involving LLOA in adult patients. Patients with intra-abdominal malignancy and evidence of any other major surgical procedure during hospitalization were excluded. The procedural volume per hospital was calculated over the period, and high-volume hospitals were designated as those performing greater than five LLOA per year. Patient characteristics were described by hospital volume status using stratified cluster sampling tabulation and linear regression methods. LOS, total charges, and costs were reported as means with standard deviation and median values. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 9111 discharges were selected, which was representative of 43,567 weighted discharges nationally between 2000 and 2013. Over the study period, there has been a 450% increase in the number of LLOA performed. High-volume hospitals had significantly shorter LOS (mean: 4.92 ± standard error (SE) 0.13 d; median: 3.6) compared to low-volume hospitals (mean: 5.68 ± 0.06 d; median: 4.5). In multivariate analysis, high-volume status was associated with a decreased LOS of 0.72 d (P < 0.0001) as compared to low-volume status. Other significant predictors for decreased LOS included decreased age, decreased comorbidity, and the absence of small bowel resection. There was no significant association between volume status and total charges in multivariate or univariate models, but high-volume hospitals were associated with lower costs in multivariate models by approximately $984 (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that high hospital volume was associated with decreased LOS for LLOA in SBO. Although volume was not associated with differences in total charges, there was a small decrease in hospital costs.

Abdominal adhesions: A practical review of an often overlooked entity

Formation of intra-abdominal adhesions is a common consequence of abdomino-pelvic surgery, radiation therapy, and inflammatory processes. In a small but clinically significant proportion of patients, adhesive disease may develop, wherein adhesions lead to a variety of chronic symptoms such as abdominal distension, pain, nausea, and abnormal bowel movement pattern which can be daily, intermittent, or episodic. Due to the chronic and troublesome nature of these symptoms, adhesive disease may be life-altering in many patients, particularly when not recognized and appropriately addressed, as is the case not infrequently. In addition, there is a paucity of literature regarding the evaluation and management of patients with suspected abdominal adhesive disease. Therefore, in this concise review, we provide a clinically practical synopsis of the etiopathogenesis, symptoms, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of abdominal adhesive disease.

Will laparoscopic lysis of adhesions become the standard of care? Evaluating trends and outcomes in laparoscopic management of small-bowel obstruction using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database

Small-bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common disorder and constitutes a significant healthcare burden. Laparoscopic lysis of adhesions (LLOA) for SBO is predicted to decrease complications, shorten hospital stay, and cut healthcare costs compared with the open lysis of adhesions (OLOA); however, large comparison studies are lacking. We evaluated the nationwide adoption of LLOA and compared outcomes with OLOA. We retrospectively analyzed data from 9920 OLOA and 3269 LLOA cases from 2005 to 2013 using the American College of Surgeons prospective National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set. Annual trends were evaluated using linear regression. Surgery outcomes were compared using two-sample t tests or Mann-Whitney tests. Post-surgical complications were compared using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for comorbidities. The proportion of SBO cases treated by LLOA increased nationwide by 1.6 percent per year (R ² 0.87), from 17.2 % in 2006 to 28.7 % in 2013. Patients undergoing OLOA had longer operations (66 vs 60 min, P < 0.001), longer hospital stay (8.9 vs 4.2 days, P < 0.001), and higher post-surgical complication rates (adjusted odds ratio 2.73 95 % CI 2.36-3.15, P < 0.001) when compared to LLOA. Despite the lack of prospective randomized trials comparing LLOA to OLOA, we found progressive nationwide adoption of LLOA for SBO treatment. Our large retrospective analysis demonstrated clinical benefit and reduced resource utilization for LLOA.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Loop Ileostomy Reversal: Is there an Advantage to a Minimally Invasive Approach?

BACKGROUND

Ileostomy reversals are commonly performed procedures after colon and rectal operations. Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (LIR) with lysis of adhesions has potential benefits over conventional open surgery. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and open ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

133 consecutive patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at our institution between June 2009 and August 2013 were analyzed using a retrospective database. The group comprised 53 laparoscopic cases and 80 open cases, performed by four surgeons at a single center. The data were analyzed for patient demographics, operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The two groups had comparable mean age, gender distribution, ASA scores, and BMI. The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer duration of surgery compared to the open reversal group (109 versus 93 min, p < 0.05). However, this group underwent more lysis of adhesions (60.4 % versus 26.3 %, p < 0.01) as well as concurrent stoma site mesh reinforcement (32.1 % versus 6.3 %, p < 0.01). In the laparoscopy group, 20.7 % of patients underwent intra-corporeal ileo-ileal anastomosis. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic and open groups with regard to estimated blood loss (31 versus 40 ml, respectively) or mean length of stay (5.3 vs. 5.7 days, respectively). The rates of overall 30-day morbidity (16.9 % for laparoscopic vs. 21.3 % for open) as well as rates of specific complications were equivalent between groups. 30-day mortalities were not noted in either group.

CONCLUSION

LIR is safe and effective with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The use of laparoscopy as an option in terms of concomitant hernia repair and lysis of adhesions may be considered in selected patients.

Jain point: A new safe portal for laparoscopic entry in previous surgery cases

INTRODUCTION

The present study was performed to assess the safety and feasibility of a new laparoscopic entry site in cases suspected of adhesions due to previous surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It is a retrospective study undertaken at a tertiary care referral center for advanced gynecological laparoscopic surgery from January 2011 to December 2014.

RESULTS

In 624 patients with a history of previous abdominal surgeries, the laparoscopic entry site was through a newly devised point. It is a point in the left paraumbilical region at the level of umbilicus, in a straight line drawn vertically upward from a point 2.5 cm medial to anterior superior iliac spine. Intra-abdominal adhesions were found in 487 (78.0%) patients, and umbilical adhesions in 404 (64.7%) patients with past abdominal surgeries.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant entry-related, intra-operative, or postoperative complications with the use of this entry point. It is also suitable as a main working port during the course of surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of small bowel obstruction: an analysis of clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparotomy is the standard surgical approach for treatment of small bowel obstruction (SBO). Laparoscopic management could be beneficial in terms of less complications and shorter hospital stay. As the minimal invasive approach is gaining more acceptances in the treatment of SBO, there is an increased need of studies to analyze outcomes. The aim of the present study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the surgical management of non-bariatric, non-malignant SBO.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients treated for SBO during 2010-2015 was made by a comprehensive search of medical records. A matched-pair review was performed on patients managed surgically for non-bariatric, non-malignant SBO at Danderyd University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Completed laparoscopic surgeries were matched against patients treated with open surgery.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy for SBO was initiated in 71 patients. Conversion to open surgery was performed in 42 %. Results from the matched-pair analysis showed that post-operative length of stay was reduced by 60 % (P < 0.001) in the laparoscopic cohort. Additionally, less major complications were reported and duration of surgery was reduced by 50 % (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic management is a safe and feasible alternative to laparotomy. Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter and morbidity rate acceptable.

[Laparoscopic adhesiolysis and prevention of abdominal adhesions by using mechanical barriers]

Adhesions commonly result from abdominal and pelvic surgical procedures and may result in intestinal obstruction, infertility, chronic pain, or complicate subsequent operations. Laparoscopy produces less peritoneal trauma than does conventional laparotomy and may result in decreased adhesion formation. We present a review of the available data on laparoscopy and adhesion formation, as well as laparoscopic adhesiolysis. We also review current adjuvant techniques that may be used by practicing laparoscopists to prevent adhesion formation.

Safety of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy for women with anterior wall adherence after cesarean section

Objective

To evaluate the safety and surgical outcomes of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) for women with anterior wall adherence after cesarean section.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 328 women with prior cesarean section history who underwent LAVH from March 2003 to July 2013. The subjects were classified into two groups: group A, with anterior wall adherence (n=49); group B, without anterior wall adherence (n=279). We compared the demographic, clinical characteristics, and surgical outcomes of two groups.

Results

The median age and parity of the patients were 46 years (range, 34 to 70 years) and 2 (1 to 6). Patients with anterior wall adherence had longer operating times (175 vs. 130 minutes, P<0.05). There were no significant differences in age, parity, number of cesarean section, body mass index, specimen weight, postoperative change in hemoglobin concentration, or length of hospital stay between the two groups. There was one case from each group who sustained bladder laceration during the vaginal portion of the procedure, both repaired vaginally. There was no conversion to abdominal hysterectomy in either group.

Conclusion

LAVH is effective and safe for women with anterior wall adherence after cesarean section.

Soft Tissue Mobilization to Resolve Chronic Pain and Dysfunction Associated With Postoperative Abdominal and Pelvic Adhesions: A Case Report

STUDY DESIGN

Case report.

BACKGROUND

Common complications from abdominal and pelvic surgery include adhesions and chronic pain. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is sometimes used to reduce adhesions and related pain. Physical therapy interventions, such as soft tissue mobilization (STM), may be used for this condition; however, evidence to support its effectiveness is lacking.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 28-year-old woman with a history of 5 abdominal/pelvic surgeries presented with right-sided lower abdominal and anterior hip pain, which had been present since she had undergone a laparoscopic appendectomy with a right ovarian cystectomy surgery 1 year earlier. As an active-duty member in the US Navy, due to pain and weakness, she was unable to perform required curl-ups for her fitness test. Though she had been previously treated both surgically with laparoscopic adhesiolysis and nonsurgically with physical therapy consisting of stretching and strengthening exercises, her pain and function did not improve. She was again evaluated and treated with physical therapy and, based on the examination findings, STM was used to address her pain and dysfunction, which were thought to be related to intra-abdominal adhesions.

OUTCOMES

Following 5 sessions of physical therapy over a 3-week period that included STM and therapeutic exercises, followed by 5 additional sessions over a 4-week period that focused on therapeutic exercises, the patient reported substantially decreased pain, improved function, and a full return to previous level of activity, including unrestricted physical training in a military setting.

DISCUSSION

The outcomes for this patient suggest that STM may be effective as a conservative treatment option for pain and dysfunction related to intra-abdominal adhesions from abdominal/pelvic surgery. Studies with a higher level of evidence, including potential comparison between STM and traditional laparoscopic adhesiolysis, are needed to further determine benefits of nonsurgical care for this condition.

[Management of more frequent complications of laparoscopic surgery. Minimally invasive or always open surgery?]

BACKGROUND

Two decades after the far-reaching establishment of elective laparoscopic surgery, the questions arise whether and when the benefits of this technology can be sufficiently and safely implemented even in cases of complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The currently available literature was analyzed in the context of recommendations for the management of complications in laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Intraoperative and postoperative complications of minimally invasive surgery necessitating treatment are extremely rare and can be expected in only 0.1–5 % of interventions, depending on the complexity of the intervention. In addition to adhesion-related and anatomical limitations, they are responsible for the necessity to convert to open surgery in approximately 40–60 % of the cases.

DISCUSSION

Due to the relative rarity and great variety of potential complications, there is no scientific evidence at the study level that can give reliable recommendations for a management strategy in every situation. It still has to be decided on an individual basis and depending on the particular clinical situation if a successful laparoscopic management can be sufficiently and safely carried out. It has been found that a number of complications can be well controlled by minimally invasive procedures; however, in addition to a high level of personal experience in laparoscopy, optimal technical, institutional and instrumental conditions must be available. If these factors are not present in total, a conventional open approach should still be given preference.

Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: updated Consensus Development Conference based guidelines [corrected]

BACKGROUND

The Executive board of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted an update of the first evidence-based Italian Consensus Conference Guidelines 2010 because a large amount of literature has been published in the last 4 years about the topics examined and new relevant issues.

METHODS

The scientific committee selected the topics to be addressed: indications to surgical treatment including special conditions (obesity, cirrhosis, diastasis recti abdominis, acute presentation); safety and outcome of intraperitoneal meshes (synthetic and biologic); fixing devices (absorbable/non-absorbable); abdominal border and parastomal hernia; intraoperative and perioperative complications; and recurrent ventral/incisional hernia. All the recommendations are the result of a careful and complete literature review examined with autonomous judgment by the entire panel. The process was supervised by experts in methodology and epidemiology from the most qualified Italian institution. Two external reviewers were designed by the EAES and EHS to guarantee the most objective, transparent, and reliable work. The Oxford hierarchy (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used by the panel to grade clinical outcomes according to levels of evidence. The recommendations were based on the grading system suggested by the GRADE working group.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The availability of recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs) allowed to recommend that not only laparoscopic repair is an acceptable alternative to the open repair, but also it is advantageous in terms of shorter hospital stay and wound infection rate. This conclusion appears to be extremely relevant in a clinical setting. Indications about specific conditions could also be issued: laparoscopy is recommended for the treatment of recurrent ventral hernias and obese patients, while it is a potential option for compensated cirrhotic and childbearing-age female patients. Many relevant and controversial topics were thoroughly examined by this consensus conference for the first time. Among them are the issue of safety of the intraperitoneal mesh placement, traditionally considered a major drawback of the laparoscopic technique, the role for the biologic meshes, and various aspects of the laparoscopic approach for particular locations of the defect such as the abdominal border or parastomal hernias.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Undiagnosed Small Bowel Obstruction in a Patient without a History of Abdominal Surgery

We herein report a 66-year-old female patient who developed an undiagnosed small bowel obstruction without a history of prior abdominal surgery and was successfully treated by single-incision laparoscopic surgery. A small bowel obstruction with unknown cause typically requires some sort of surgical treatment in parallel with a definitive diagnosis. Although open abdominal surgery has been generally performed for the treatment of small bowel obstructions, laparoscopic surgery for small bowel obstructions has been increasing in popularity due to its less invasiveness, including fewer postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay. As a much less invasive therapeutic strategy, we have performed single-incision laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of an undiagnosed small bowel obstruction. We were able to make a definitive diagnosis after sufficient intra-abdominal inspection and to perform enterotomy through a small umbilical incision. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery appears to be comparable to conventional laparoscopic surgery and provides improved cosmesis, although it is an optional strategy only applicable to selected patients.

A protocol for the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Differentiating between partial adhesive small bowel obstruction (aSBO) likely to resolve with medical management and complete obstruction requiring operative intervention remains elusive. We implemented a standardized protocol for the management of aSBO and reviewed our experience retrospectively.

METHODS

Patients with symptoms of aSBO were admitted for intravenous fluid resuscitation, bowel rest, nasogastric tube decompression, and abdominal examinations every 4 hours. Laboratory values and a computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast were obtained. Patients with peritonitis or computed tomography scan findings suggesting bowel compromise were taken to the operating room for exploration following resuscitation. All other patients received 80 mL of Gastroview (GV) and 40 mL of sterile water via nasogastric tube. Abdominal plain films were obtained at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours. If contrast did not reach the colon within 24 hours, then operative intervention was performed.

RESULTS

Over 1 year, 91 patients were admitted with aSBO. Sixty-three patients received GV, of whom 51% underwent surgery. Twenty-four patients went directly to the operating room because of clinical or imaging findings suggesting bowel ischemia. Average time to surgery was within 1 day for the no-GV group and 2 days for the GV group. Patients passing GV to the colon within 5 hours of administration had a 90% rate of resolution of obstruction. There was a direct relationship between the duration of time before passing GV to the colon and hospital length of stay (HLOS) (r = 0.459). Patients who received GV and did not require surgery had lower HLOS (3 days vs. 11 days, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The GV protocol facilitated early recognition of complete obstruction. Administration of GV had diagnostic and therapeutic value and did not increase HLOS, morbidity, or mortality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level V. Epidemiologic study, level V.

Open abdominal surgery: a risk factor for future laparoscopic surgery?

BACKGROUND

This study seeks to investigate the outcomes of laparoscopic procedures in patients with previous open abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005 to 2009), we identified patients who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Nissen fundoplication, Heller myotomy, splenectomy, Roux-en-Y, sleeve gastrectomy, gastric band, appendectomy, or colectomy. Patients were then classified as to whether adhesiolysis (AD) was also carried out. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was used to compare groups.

RESULTS

A total of 162,415 patients met our inclusion criteria, comprising 4,501 (3%) in the AD group and 157,913 (97%) in the nonadhesiolysis (NAD) group. Patient who had received lysis of adhesion were older, had 41% higher odds of overall complications, 17% higher adjusted mean lysis of adhesion (P < .001), and 26% higher adjusted mean operation duration (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A history of previous open abdominal surgery increases the potential complication rate and hospital length of stay during subsequent laparoscopic surgery. The extent of this relationship deserves further investigation.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy as repeat surgery and repeat hepatectomy

AIM: To assess clinical outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery and repeat hepatectomy.

METHODS: This study compared the perioperative courses of patients receiving LH at our institution that had or had not previously undergone upper abdominal surgery. Of the 80 patients who underwent LH, 22 had prior abdominal surgeries, including hepatectomy (n = 12), pancreatectomy (n = 3), cholecystectomy and common bile duct excision (n = 1), splenectomy (n = 1), total gastrectomy (n = 1), colectomy with the involvement of transverse colon (n = 3), and extended hysterectomy with extensive lymph-node dissection up to the upper abdomen (n = 1). Clinical indicators including operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity were compared among the groups.

RESULTS: Eighteen of the 22 patients who had undergone previous surgery had severe adhesions in the area around the liver. However, there were no conversions to laparotomy in this group. In the 58 patients without a history of upper abdominal surgery, the median operative time was 301 min and blood loss was 150 mL. In patients with upper abdominal surgical history or repeat hepatectomy, the operative times were 351 and 301 min, and blood loss was 100 and 50 mL, respectively. The median postoperative stay was 17, 13 and 12 d for patients with no history of upper abdominal surgery, patients with a history, and patients with repeat hepatectomy, respectively. There were five cases with complications in the group with no surgical history, compared to only one case in the group with a prior history. There were no statistically significant differences in the perioperative results between the groups with and without upper abdominal surgical history, or with repeat hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION: LH is feasible and safe in patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery or repeat hepatectomy.