Hand-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery: Practice patterns and clinical outcomes in a minimally-invasive colorectal practice

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy in Rectal Cancer: Multi-center Comparison of Induction Chemotherapy and Long-Course Chemoradiation Versus Short-Course Radiation and Consolidative Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer may include induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation or short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal cancer who received induction chemotherapy followed by long-course chemoradiation at the University of Colorado (2016-2020) or short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidative chemotherapy at Washington University (2017-2020) were assessed.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation and 83 received short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy. Among patients with complete re-staging evaluation, clinical complete response rates were similar, 49% (18/37) and 53% (44/83), respectively (p = 0.659). In the induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation group, 80% (n = 67) underwent surgery and 28% (n = 19) achieved a pathologic complete response. In the short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy group, 44 (53%) patients underwent surgery and 11% (n = 5) had a pathologic complete response. Overall, a complete response was observed in 43% (n = 36) of patients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation compared to 53% (n = 44) who received short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy (p = 0.189). Perioperative outcomes were similar in patients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation compared to short-course radiotherapy and consolidative chemotherapy: intraoperative complications (2% vs 7%), complete mesorectal specimen (85% vs 84%), anastomotic leak (9% vs 7%), organ/space infection (9% vs 5%), readmission (19% vs 21%), and reoperation (8% vs 9%), respectively (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal cancer, total neoadjuvant therapy with either induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation or short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidative chemotherapy were associated with similar perioperative morbidity and complete response rates.

Hand Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes from a Single Tertiary Referral Centre

The aim of this study was to report overall experience, perioperative and long-term survival results in a single tertiary referral center in Lithuania with hand assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for colorectal cancer. A prospectively maintained database included 467 patients who underwent HALS for left-sided colon and rectal cancer, from April 2006 to October 2016. All those operations were performed by three consultant surgeons and nine surgical residents, in all cases assisted by one of the same consultant surgeons. There were 230 (49.25%) females, with an average age of 64 ± 9.7 years (range, 26–91 years). The procedures performed included 170 (36.4%) anterior rectal resections with partial mesorectal excision, 160 (34.26%) sigmoid colectomies, 81 (17.35%) left hemicolectomies, 45 (9.64%) low anterior rectal resections with total mesorectal excision, and 11 (2.25%) other procedures. Stage I colorectal cancer was found in 140 (29.98%) patients, 139 (29.76%) stage II, 152 (32.55%) stage III and 36 (7.71%) stage IV. There were five conversions to open surgery (1.1%). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.9 ± 3.4 days (range, 1–30 days). In total, 33 (7.06%) patients developed postoperative complications. The most common complications were small bowel obstruction (n = 6), anastomotic leakage (n = 5), intraabdominal abscess (n = 4) and dysuria (n = 4). There were two postoperative deaths (0.43%). Overall, 5-year survival for all TNM stages was 85.7%, 93.2% for stage I, 88.5% for stage II and 76.3% for stage III. Hand assisted colorectal surgery for left-sided colon and rectal cancer in a single tertiary referral center was feasible and safe, having all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, with good perioperative parameters, adequate oncological quality and excellent survival.

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

Evaluation of Operative Notes for Splenic Flexure Mobilization: Are the Key Aspects Being Reported?

Background: Given the importance of operative documentation, we reviewed operative notes for surgeries that required splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) to determine their accuracy. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 51 operative notes for complete SFMs performed at a single institution from January 2015 to June 2020. Results: None of the operative notes reported a rationale for performing SFM, use of preoperative imaging to guide technical approach, reasoning for the operative method and mobilization approach used, or specific steps taken to ensure that SFM was done safely. Most reports did not include technical details, with one-third of the notes merely reporting that "the splenic flexure was mobilized." Conclusions: Increased awareness about the lack of operative documentation of the critical aspects of the SFM could stimulate initiatives to standardize the SFM method and improve the quality of operative notes for SFM.

Suprapubic single-port approach for complicated diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy is the gold standard for elective surgical treatment of diverticulitis. A periumbilical single-port technique reduces the size of the access wound, usually to 3-4 cm. However, in the presence of large phlegmon or fistulae, the risk of conversion is higher and the extraction site might be enlarged. A suprapubic Pfannenstiel incision reduces the risk of incisional hernia compared to umbilical access and might provide the possibility to perform sigmoidectomy with a hybrid technique. The aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy through a single suprapubic transverse access for large diverticular phlegmon.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a diverticular inflammatory mass ≥ 5 cm, with or without sigmoid-vesical fistula, were considered candidates for laparoscopic sigmoidectomy through a 5-cm single-port suprapubic (SPSP) access, extended (if required) to match the size of the inflammatory mass.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent SPSP sigmoidectomy at our institution in April 2014-April 2017. All procedures were completed by SPSP access, with no intraoperative complications or need for additional trocar placement. Eight patients had a sigmoid-vesical fistula (bladder sutured in three patients). The splenic flexure was mobilized in nine patients. Median operative time was 178 min and median hospital stay was 5.5 days (iqr 4-6). Postoperative complications occurred in four patients and included one subcutaneous hematoma, one urinary tract infection, and two superficial wound infections. After a median follow-up time of 25 months (interquartile range 15-38), all patients experienced complete resolution of symptoms, with no incisional hernias reported.

CONCLUSIONS

SPSP sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis is feasible and effective, minimizing the size of the access wound and avoiding increased risk of hernia. This approach might be especially valuable for the management of large diverticular phlegmon and sigmoid-vesical fistula.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on March 31, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, conversion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and readmission), and 5-year survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine articles published between 2007 and 2016 with a total of 1307 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer length of incision. No differences were found for operative time, blood loss, transfusion, conversion, lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, mortality, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, postoperative bleeding, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, urinary complication, cardiopulmonary complication, readmission, or 5-year survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that HALS is similar to LAS for CRC surgery in terms of intraoperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes except for the longer length of incision.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and to explore the safety, feasibility of HALS for CRC surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on April 23, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first liquid diet, time to first soft diet, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, urinary complication, pulmonary infection, and mortality).

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2007 and 2017 with a total of 1962 patients with CRC were included in our meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, smaller length of incision, shorter hospital days and postoperative hospital days, less time to first flatus, less wound infection, and less postoperative complications. There was no difference in blood transfusion, lymph node harvested, time to first liquid or soft diet, time to first bowel movement, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, urinary complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that HALS in CRC surgery improves cosmesis and results in better postoperative recovery outcomes by reducing postoperative complications and hospital days. Furthermore, a large randomized control study is warranted to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of those 2 techniques for CRC treatment.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Colectomy Improves Perioperative Outcomes Without Increasing Operative Time Compared to the Open Approach: a National Analysis of 8791 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is often used in procedures too complex for completely minimally invasive approaches. However, there are concerns for whether this hybrid approach abrogates perioperative benefits of the completely minimally invasive technique.

METHODS

We queried the 2012-2013 National Surgery Quality Improvement Program for adults undergoing elective HALS or open colectomy (OC). After propensity matching, short-term outcomes were compared. Subset analysis was performed for segmental resections. Multivariate analysis was used to determine predictors of utilizing either approach.

RESULTS

This query included 8791 patients (OC 2707, HALS 6084). Predictors of HALS included male sex (OR 1.17, p = 0.006), increasing BMI (OR 1.01, p = 0.02), benign indication (OR 1.48, p < 0.001), and total abdominal colectomy (OR 10.39, p < 0.001). Younger age, black race, ASA class ≥3, inflammatory bowel disease, and low pelvic anastomosis were predictive of OC (all p < 0.05). HALS demonstrated reduced overall complications (p < 0.001), wound complications (p < 0.001), anastomotic leak (p = 0.014), transfusion (p < 0.001), postoperative ileus (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), and readmission (p < 0.001) without increased operative time. For segmental resection, HALS demonstrated reduced overall complications, wound complications, respiratory complications, postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, transfusion, length of stay, and readmissions (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to OC, HALS demonstrates improved perioperative outcomes without increased operative time.

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques

BACKGROUND

Recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP)-based evidence indicates that laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy results in improved outcomes compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy in the general population. Previous comparative studies demonstrated that the HAL technique offers distinct advantages for obese patients. The aim of this study was to perform comparative analyses of HAL and LAP colectomy and low anterior resection (LAR) in obese patients.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP public use file and targeted colectomy dataset, 2012-2014, were utilized for patients undergoing colectomy and LAR. Only obese patients (BMI > 30) and laparoscopic or hand-assisted operations were included. Patient, operation, and outcome variables were compared in two separate cohorts: colectomy and LAR. Bivariate analysis compared the approaches, followed by multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 9610 obese patients included, HAL and LAP colectomy were performed in 3126 and 3793 patients and LAR in 1431 and 1260 patients, respectively. In comparison to LAP colectomy, HAL colectomy patients had increased comorbidities including class 2 and 3 obesity. HAL colectomy was associated with higher overall morbidity (20 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), infectious complications (10.2 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (3.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.03), and ileus (11 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that overall morbidity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.44), infectious complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and ileus (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57) were each increased in the HAL colectomy cohort but not different for HAL and LAP LAR.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to LAP colectomy, the HAL technique is used more often in obese patients with an increased operative risk profile. While inherent bias and unmeasured variables limit the analysis, the available data indicate that the HAL technique is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Alternatively, HAL and LAP LAR are performed in obese patients with a similar risk profile and result in similar postoperative outcomes.

Comparison of straight vs hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: an assessment from the NSQIP procedure-targeted cohort

BACKGROUND

The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent straight laparoscopic (LAP) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) surgery were compared using a recently released procedure-targeted database.

METHODS

The 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used and patients were classified into 2 groups according to the final surgical approach: LAP vs HALS. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 7,843 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 4,656 (59%) patients in LAP colectomy and 3,187 (41%) in HALS colectomy groups. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Mean operative time was slightly longer in LAP group (178 ± 86 vs 171 ± 84 minutes, P < .001). After covariate-adjustment analysis, the overall morbidity, superficial surgical site infection, and ileus rates remained slightly higher in HALS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both straight laparoscopic and hand-assisted approaches are used in colorectal surgery and may complement each other in challenging cases. Implementing the best approach to decrease postoperative complication rates and increase use of minimally invasive techniques may play a role in improving patient care and overall quality.

Hand-Assisted versus Straight-Laparoscopic versus Open Proctosigmoidectomy for Treatment of Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study of 100 Patients

To assess the efficacy of laparoscopic proctosigmoidectomy for cancer treatment, 25 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic resection during the study period (9/2006 - 7/2012) were matched to 25 straight-laparoscopic and 50 open-surgery cases. The patients who underwent hand-assisted resection had higher rates of preoperative cardiac disease and hypertension than did the straight-laparoscopy and open-surgery groups. Straight-laparoscopic surgery seems to provide faster convalescence compared with open surgery and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Surgical Treatment of Diverticulitis: Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Resection Is Predominantly Used for Complex Cases and Is Associated With Increased Postoperative Complications and Prolonged Hospitalization

Introduction Laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy is now the "gold" standard for diverticulitis; the role of hand-assisted LAP (HAL) and Open methods today is unclear. This study assessed the elective use of these methods for diverticulitis. Methods A retrospective review of demographic, comorbidity (Carlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), resection type, and short-term outcomes was carried out. Results There were 125 (44.5%) LAP, 125 (44.5%) HAL, and 31 (11%) Open cases (overall N = 281). The mean age, body mass index, and percentage of high-risk patients (CCI score >2) of the HAL group were greater (P < .05) than the LAP group (vs Open, P = ns). The Open group's mean age and percent with CCI >2 was greater when compared with the LAP group (P < .05). More Open (P < .05) and HAL patients had complex disease (Open, 63%; HAL, 40%, LAP, 22%) and were diverted (Open, 35%; HAL, 10%; LAP, 3%). Time to bowel movement was not different; however, there was a stepwise increase in median length of stay (LOS; days) from the LAP (5 days) to HAL (6 days) to Open group (7 days) (P < .05 for all). The LAP complication rate (22.4%) was lower (P < .05) than the HAL (42.4%) or Open groups' (45.2%) rates. The LAP surgical site infection rate (5.6%) was lower (P < .05) than the HAL (12.8%) or Open groups (19.6%). Conclusion The HAL and Open groups had more high risk, complex disease, diverted, and older patients than the LAP group; likewise, the overall complication rate and LOS was higher in the HAL and Open groups. Use of HAL methods likely contributed to the high minimally invasive surgery utilization rate (89%).

Is there anything we can modify among factors associated with morbidity following elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis is widely accepted, using either endolinear staplers or traditional linear staplers under direct vision through the extraction site to transect the rectum. The aim of this study was to assess modifiable factors affecting perioperative morbidity after elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis.

METHODS

Potential associations between perioperative morbidity and demographic, disease-related, and treatment-related factors were assessed on all consecutive patients included in a prospectively collected database undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis between 1992 and 2013. Rectal transection with a linear stapler under direct vision through the extraction site was considered compatible with laparoscopic technique.

RESULTS

There were two deaths out of 1059 patients (0.19 %). Conversion rate was 13.1 %, overall morbidity 28 %, and anastomotic leak 3.7 %. Independent factors associated with morbidity in an intent-to-treat analysis were ASA 3 (OR 1.53, p = 0.006), conversion (OR 1.71, p = 0.015), and rectal transection without endolinear stapling (traditional linear stapler: OR 1.75, p = 0.003; surgical knife: OR 2.09, p = 0.002). The same factors along with complicated diverticulitis (OR 1.56, p = 0.013) were independently associated with overall morbidity among laparoscopically completed cases. BMI ≥ 35 (OR 2.3, p = 0.017), complicated diverticulitis (OR 2.37, p = 0.002), and rectal transection with a traditional linear stapler (OR 2.19, p = 0.018) were independently associated with abdomino-pelvic infections, both in an intent-to-treat analysis and among laparoscopically completed cases. The number of endolinear stapler firings was not associated with morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Most factors associated with morbidity of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis cannot be easily modified. With the limitation of a retrospective analysis, modifiable factors to minimize morbidity are laparoscopic completion and endolinear stapling.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Approach in Colon Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study sought to compare outcomes of patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy with open and laparoscopic colectomy (LP).

STUDY DESIGN

The NSQIP databases were used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent elective colectomy during 2012-2013. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches.

RESULTS

We sampled a total of 21,090 patients who underwent colectomy. Of these, 7480 (35.5 %) had open colectomy (OC), 8751 (41.5 %) had a laparoscopic colectomy, 2860 (13.6 %) had a HAL colectomy, and 1999 (9.5 %) had an open procedure converted from LC or HAL. Multivariate regression analysis revealed HAL colectomy had a similar mortality (AOR 0.53, P = 0.07) and a lower morbidity (AOR 0.37, P < 0.01) compared to OC. LC had lower mortality (AOR 0.58, P = 0.02) and morbidity (AOR 0.43, P < 0.01) compared to OC. Mortality of patients who underwent HAL was not significantly different from LC (AOR 0.90, P = 0.79); however, morbidity of such patients was significantly higher than for patients who underwent LC (AOR 1.29, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

HAL colectomy is a safe approach with significant advantages compared to open colectomy. Although the morbidity of patients who underwent HAL is higher than patients who underwent LC, the morbidity rate is still lower than OC.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Approach in Colon Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study sought to compare outcomes of patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy with open and laparoscopic colectomy (LP).

STUDY DESIGN

The NSQIP databases were used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent elective colectomy during 2012-2013. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to compare the three surgical approaches.

RESULTS

We sampled a total of 21,090 patients who underwent colectomy. Of these, 7480 (35.5 %) had open colectomy (OC), 8751 (41.5 %) had a laparoscopic colectomy, 2860 (13.6 %) had a HAL colectomy, and 1999 (9.5 %) had an open procedure converted from LC or HAL. Multivariate regression analysis revealed HAL colectomy had a similar mortality (AOR 0.53, P = 0.07) and a lower morbidity (AOR 0.37, P < 0.01) compared to OC. LC had lower mortality (AOR 0.58, P = 0.02) and morbidity (AOR 0.43, P < 0.01) compared to OC. Mortality of patients who underwent HAL was not significantly different from LC (AOR 0.90, P = 0.79); however, morbidity of such patients was significantly higher than for patients who underwent LC (AOR 1.29, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

HAL colectomy is a safe approach with significant advantages compared to open colectomy. Although the morbidity of patients who underwent HAL is higher than patients who underwent LC, the morbidity rate is still lower than OC.

A comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes and perioperative variables following conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2012, 2680 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer were analyzed. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to adjust for potential baseline confounders between groups including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor distance from the anal verge, clinical T and N categories, pathologic T and N categories, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level, and the status of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy. After matching, we analyzed 278 patients in each group (n = 556).

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 36.2 and 37.4 months in the HALS group and the conventional LAP group, respectively. Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.531). The 5-year overall survival rate was 88.8 % in the HALS group and 91.2 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.329). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.0 % in the HALS group and 79.7 % in the conventional LAP group (P = 0.591).

CONCLUSIONS

HALS is considered a safe and feasible approach for rectal cancer treatment that enables the preservation of the advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Effects of minimizing access trauma in laparoscopic colectomy in patients with IBD

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic interventions to minimize access trauma are increasingly gaining importance for both cosmetic reasons and lower postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes for different laparoscopic colectomy and proctocolectomy accesses considering IBD. A comparison was made between total laparoscopic (LR)-without an extra incision for sample--and laparoscopic-assisted resection using a small incision for retrieval of the specimen (LAR) PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2006 to 2012, 109 IBD patients underwent minimal invasive total colectomy or proctocolectomy. Patients were subdivided according to access into LR and LAR. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

86 patients with Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and 23 with Crohn's disease (CD) were included (LR: 64 UC/13 CD, LAR: 22 UC/10 CD). Among them, there were no differences in age, BMI, sex, ASA score or pre-existing immunosuppression. Patients with LR and UC had a higher disease activity score (Truelove III LR: 42 %, LAR: 5 %; p = 0.005). The Crohn's Disease Activity Index did not differ. Patients with LR had a shorter operating time (LR: 211.5, LAR: 240 min; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in hospital stay (LR: 11, LAR: 12.5 days; p ≥ 0.05), length of stay at the ICU (both 1 days; p ≥ 0.05), duration of required analgesia (LR: 7 days, LAR: 8 days; p ≥ 0.05), and nutritional build-up (both 5 days; p ≥ 0.05). Groups had the same overall complication rate, but surgical site infection rates tended to be higher in patients with LAR (LR: 9.1 %, LAR: 21.9 %, p = 0.07).

DISCUSSION

Laparoscopic procedures for colectomy and proctocolectomy are safe and effective techniques for patients with colon involvement and IBD. Minimizing the access trauma in laparoscopic colectomy offers a potential advantage of reduced surgical site infections, especially for frequently immunosuppressed IBD patients.

The role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery in a right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and standard laparoscopic surgery (SLS) and assess the role of HALS in the management of right-sided colon cancer.

Methods

The study group included 53 patients who underwent HALS and 45 patients who underwent SLS for right-sided colon cancer between April 2002 and December 2008.

Results

The patients in each group were similar in age, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, body mass index, and history of previous abdominal surgeries. Eight patients in the HALS group and no patient in the SLS group exhibited signs of tumor invasion into adjacent structures. No differences were noted in the time to return of normal bowel function, time to toleration of diet, lengths of hospital stay and narcotic usage, and rate of postoperative complications. The median incision length was longer in the HALS group (HALS: 7.0 cm vs. SLS: 4.8 cm, P < 0.001). The HALS group had a significantly higher pathologic TNM stage and significantly larger tumor size (HALS: 6.0 cm vs. SLS: 3.3 cm, P < 0.001). The 5-year overall, disease-free, and cancer-specific survival rates of the HALS and the SLS groups were 87.3%, 75.2%, and 93.9% and 86.4%, 78.0%, and 90.7%, respectively (P = 0.826, P = 0.574, and P = 0.826).

Conclusion

Although patients in the HALS group had more advanced disease and underwent more complex procedures than those in the SLS group, the short-term benefits and the oncologic outcomes between the two groups were comparable. HALS can, therefore, be considered an alternative to SLS for bulky and fixed right-sided colon cancer.

Transverse skin crease versus vertical midline incision versus laparoscopy for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review--current status of right hemicolectomy

PURPOSE

The right hemicolectomy may be conducted through laparoscopic or laparotomic surgery, transverse or midline incisions. The transverse laparotomy offers some advantages compared to the midline laparotomy and laparoscopy. A literature review was performed to evaluate the possible advantages of the transverse incision versus midline incision or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.

METHODS

A systematic research was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, BioMed Central, and the Science Citation Index.

RESULTS

Laparotomic right hemicolectomy with transverse incision is preferable to laparotomic hemicolectomy with midline incision. A transverse incision offers a lessened postoperative pain following physical activity, a lessened need to administer analgesic therapy during the post-operative time, better aesthetic results, and a better post-operative pulmonary function. Open surgery with transverse or midline incision ensured a shorter operative time, lower costs and a greater length of the incision compared to the laparoscopic. However, there are no differences in the oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

It was not possible to identify significant differences between the open right hemicolectomy with transverse incision versus the open right hemicolectomy with midline incision or laparoscopic hemicolectomy.

Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic resection following stent insertion for obstructing left-sided colon cancer

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic resection following the insertion of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) for the treatment of obstructing left-sided colon cancer.

Methods

Between October 2006 and December 2012, laparoscopic resection following SEMS insertion was performed in 54 patients with obstructing left-sided colon cancer.

Results

All 54 procedures were technically successful without the need for conversion to open surgery. The median interval from SEMS insertion to laparoscopic surgery was 9 days (range, 3-41 days). The median surgery time was 200 minutes (range, 57-444 minutes), and estimated blood loss was 50 mL (range, 10-3,500 mL). The median time to soft diet was 4 days (range, 2-8 days) and possible length of stay (hypothetical length of stay according to the discharge criteria) was 7 days (range, 4-22 days). The median total number of lymph nodes harvested was 23 (range, 8-71) and loop ileostomy was performed in 2 patients (4%). Six patients (11%) developed postoperative complications: 2 patients with anastomotic leakages, 1 with bladder leakage, and 3 with ileus. There was no mortality within 30 days.

Conclusion

The present study shows that the presence of a SEMS does not compromise the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection following stent insertion for obstructing left-sided colon cancer could be performed with a favorable safety profile and short-term outcome. Large-scale comparative studies with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate a significant benefit of this approach.

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Rectal cancer remains a common and complex surgical problem. There is growing evidence that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can provide ideal care for patients with rectal cancer. This review examines the short- and long-term benefits to MIS for rectal cancer, as well as the current techniques available, and how wider adoption of these techniques may be performed.

The evolving role of laparoscopy in colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A PubMed search of the biomedical literature was carried out to systematically review the role of laparoscopy in colonic diverticular disease. All original reports comparing elective laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and open colon resection for diverticular disease of the colon, as well as original reports evaluating outcomes after laparoscopic lavage for acute diverticulitis, were considered. Of the 21 articles chosen for final review, nine evaluated laparoscopic versus open elective resection, six compared hand-assisted colon resection versus conventional laparoscopic resection, and six considered laparoscopic lavage. Five were randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Elective laparoscopic colon resection for diverticular disease is associated with increased operative time, decreased postoperative pain, fewer postoperative complications, less paralytic ileus, and shorter hospital stay compared to open colectomy. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage appears to be a safe and effective therapy for selected patients with complicated diverticulitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease is associated with decreased postoperative morbidity compared to open colectomy, leading to shorter hospital stay and fewer costs. Laparoscopic lavage has an increasing but poorly defined role in complicated diverticulitis.

Short-term Outcomes of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery vs. Open Surgery on Right Colon Cancer: A Case-Controlled Study

Purpose

This study was designed to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes by comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for right colon cancer.

Methods

Sixteen patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (HAL-RHC group) and 33 patients who underwent a conventional open right hemicolectomy (open group) during the same period were enrolled in this study with a case-controlled design.

Results

The operation time was 217 minutes in the HAL-RHC group and 213 minutes in the open group (P = 0.389). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were similar between the two groups (31 in the HAL-RHC group and 36 in the open group, P = 0.737). Also, there were no significant difference in the incidence of immediate postoperative leukocytosis, the administration of additional pain killers, and the postoperative recovery parameters. First flatus was shown on postoperative days 3.5 in the HAL-RHC group and 3.4 in the open group (P = 0.486). Drinking water and soft diet were started on postoperative days 4.8 and 5.9, respectively, in the HAL-RHC group and similarly 4.6 and 5.6 in the open group (P = 0.402 and P = 0.551). The duration of hospital stay was shorter in the HAL-RHC group than in the open group (10.3 days vs. 13.5 days, P = 0.048). No significant difference in the complication rates was shown between the two groups, and no postoperative mortality was encountered in either group.

Conclusion

The patients with right colon cancer in the HAL-RHC group had similar pathologic and postoperative recovery parameters to those of the patients in the open group. The patients in the HAL-RHC group had shorter hospital stays than those in the open group. Therefore, hand-assisted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer is feasible.

Feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery as compared to open surgery for sigmoid colon cancer: a case-controlled study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term clinical outcomes by comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with open surgery for sigmoid colon cancer.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection (HAL-AR group) and 52 patients who underwent a conventional open anterior resection during the same period were enrolled (open group) in this study with a case-controlled design.

RESULTS

Pathologic parameters were similar between the two groups. The incidences of immediate postoperative leukocytosis were 38.5% in the HAL-AR group and 69.2% in the open group (P = 0.009). There were no significant differences between the two groups as to leukocyte count, hemoglobin, and hematocrits (P = 0.758, P = 0.383, and P = 0.285, respectively). Of the postoperative recovery indicators, first flatus, sips of water and soft diet started on postoperative days 3, 5, 7 in the HALS group and on days 4, 5, 6 in the open group showed statistical significance (P = 0.021, P = 0.259, and P = 0.174, respectively). Administration of additional pain killers was needed for 1.2 days in the HAL-AR group and 2.4 days in the open group (P = 0.002). No significant differences in the durations of hospital stay and the rates of postoperative complications were noted, and no postoperative mortality was encountered in either group.

CONCLUSION

The patients with sigmoid colon cancer who underwent a HAL-AR had a lower incidence of postoperative leukocytosis, less administration of pain killers, and faster first flatus than those who underwent open surgery. Clinical outcomes for patients' recovery and pathology status were similar between the two groups. Therefore, a HAL-AR for sigmoid colon cancer is feasible and has the same benefit as minimally invasive surgery.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus total laparoscopic right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer is associated with definite short-term benefits, and is increasingly practised worldwide. The limitations of a pure laparoscopic approach include a relative lack of tactile feedback and long procedural time. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was introduced in an attempt to facilitate operation by improving the tactile sensation. To date, there is no consensus as to which approach is better. Herein we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with total laparoscopic colectomy (TLC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer.

METHODS

Adult patients with carcinoma of the caecum and ascending colon were recruited and randomized to undergo either HALC or TLC. Measured outcomes included operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative morbidities, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, disease recurrence and patient survival.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (HALC=30, TLC=30) were recruited. The two groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, body mass index and final histopathological staging. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of operating time, conversion rate, operative blood loss, pain score and length of hospital stay. With a median follow-up of 27 to 33 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83%vs 80%, P=0.923).

CONCLUSION

HALC is safe and feasible, but it does not show any significant benefits over TLC in terms of operating time and conversion rate. Routine use of the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique in right hemicolectomy is therefore not recommended.

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) to conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MLC).

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive technique being recently applied to colorectal surgery. A number of studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC have recently been published.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies comparing SILC to conventional MLC was conducted. The primary outcome measures for meta-analysis were postoperative complications, length of stay, and operative time. Secondary outcome measures were incision length, estimated blood loss, and number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing 467 patients undergoing SILC to 539 patients undergoing conventional MLC were reviewed and the data pooled for analysis. Patients undergoing SILC had a shorter length of stay (pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.68; 95 % CI = -1.20 to -0.16; p = 0.0099), shorter incision length (pooled WMD = -1.37; 95 % CI = -2.74 to 0.000199; p = 0.05), less estimated blood loss (pooled WMD = -20.25; 95 % CI = -39.25 to -1.24; p = 0.037), and more lymph nodes harvested (pooled WMD = 1.75; 95 % CI = 0.12 to 3.38; p = 0.035), while there was no significant difference in the number of postoperative complications (pooled odds ratio = 0.83; 95 % CI = 0.57 to 1.20; p = 0.33) or operative time (pooled WMD = 5.06; 95 % CI = -2.91 to 13.03; p = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

SILC appears to have comparable results to conventional MLC in the hands of experienced surgeons. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to define the relative benefits of one procedure over the other.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery: outcomes from 224 colonic resections performed at a single center using SILS

BACKGROUND

Compared with single-incision laparoscopy, multiport laparoscopy is associated with greater risk of postoperative wound pain, infection, incisional hernias, and suboptimal cosmetic outcomes. The feasibility of minimally invasive single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal procedures is well-established, but outcome data remain limited.

METHODS

Patients with benign diverticular disease, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis admitted to Klinikum Leverkusen, Germany, for colonic resection between July 2009 and March 2011 (n = 224) underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery using the SILS port system. Surgeons had ≥7 years' experience in laparoscopic colon surgery but no SILS experience. Patient demographic and clinical data were collected prospectively. Pain was evaluated by using a visual analog scale (0-10). Data were analyzed by using the SPSS PASW Statistics 18 database.

RESULTS

The majority of patients underwent sigmoid colectomy with high anterior resection (AR) or left hemicolectomy (n = 150) for diverticulitis. Our conversion rate to open surgery was 6.3 %, half in patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy with high AR or left hemicolectomy, 95 % of whom had diverticulitis. Mean operating time was 166 ± 74 (range, 40-441) min in the overall population, with shorter times for single-port transanal tumor resection (SPTTR; 89 ± 51 min; range, 40-153 min) and longer times for proctocolectomy (325 min; range, 110-441 min). Mean hospital stay was approximately 10 days, longer after abdominoperineal rectal resection or proctocolectomy (12-16 days). Most complications occurred following sigmoid colectomy with high AR or left hemicolectomy [19/25 (76 %) of early and 4/5 (80 %) of late complications, respectively]. Pain was <4 on a scale of 0-10 in all cases on postoperative day 1, and typically decreased during the next 2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the feasibility and tolerability of colorectal surgery, conducted by experienced laparoscopic surgeons without specific training in use of the SILS port.

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: past, present, and future

A rapid progression from conventional open surgery to minimally invasive approaches in the surgical management of colorectal cancer has occurred over the last 2 decades. Initial concerns that this new approach was oncologically inferior to open surgery were ultimately refuted when several prospective randomized trials concluded that laparoscopic colectomy could achieve similar oncologic outcomes to open surgery. On the contrary, level 1 data has not yet matured regarding the oncologic safety of minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer. We review the published literature pertaining to the evolution of minimally invasive techniques used to treat colorectal cancer surgery, including barriers to adoption, and the prospects for future advances related to innovative techniques.

Controversy of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Laparoscopically assisted colorectal procedures are time-consuming and technically demanding and hence have a long steep learning curve. In the technical demand, surgeons need to handle a long mobile organ, the colon, and have to operate on multiple abdominal quadrants, most of the time with the need to secure multiple mesenteric vessels. Therefore, a new surgical innovation called hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in the mid 1990s as a useful alternative to totally laparoscopic procedures. This hybrid operation allows the surgeon to introduce the non-dominant hand into the abdominal cavity through a special hand port while maintaining the pneumoperitoneum. A hand in the abdomen can restore the tactile sensation which is usually lacking in laparoscopic procedures. It also improves the eye-to-hand coordination, allows the hand to be used for blunt dissection or retraction and also permits rapid control of unexpected bleeding. All of those factors can contribute tremendously to reducing the operative time. Moreover, this procedure is also considered as a hybrid procedure that combines the advantages of both minimally invasive and conventional open surgery. Nevertheless, the exact role of HALS in colorectal surgery has not been well defined during the advanced totally laparoscopic procedures. This article reviews the current status of hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery as a minimally invasive procedure in the era of laparoscopic surgery.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery: feasibility, short-term, and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an established alternative to laparoscopic-assisted surgery, but limited data exist regarding its applicability for colorectal cancer (CRC). We report short-term outcomes in a large series of CRC patients who underwent HALS between 2004 and 2009.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was used to identify all CRC patients. Patients with colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) were considered separately. Three patients with synchronous CC and RC were excluded. Data are frequency (%) or median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2009, 323 CRC patients underwent a HALS procedure. Median age was 65 (53-73) years, 39% were women, and the median BMI was 27 (24-31) kg/m(2). Diagnoses included 194 colon cancers (CC, 56.7% stage I/II), 129 rectal cancers (RC, 62.7% stage I/II). Operative time was less for CC than RC (157 vs 204 min; P < .0001). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in similar proportions of CC and RC cases (14% vs 10%; P = .38); lymph nodes retrieval was also similar (18 vs 18; P = .45). Overall duration of stay was 5 (4-7) days. At 30 days, postoperative complications occurred in similar proportions of CC and RC patients (28% vs 30%; P = .72). There was 1 mortality (0.5%). For the subgroup with 3 year follow-up, (73 CC and 45 RC patients), the overall survival was 80% and 88% (CC and RC, respectively), and disease free survival 79% and 85%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Colon and rectal cancer can be resected safely using HALS techniques. Conversion rates are low, complication rates expected, durations of hospital stay shorter, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved is high.

Comparison and short-term outcomes between hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for anterior resections of left-sided colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been introduced as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery. This study compared the efficacies and short-term clinical outcomes between hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection (HAL-AR) and conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CL-AR) for treating left-sided colon cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 248 patients who underwent anterior resection for colon cancer (118 HAL-AR and 128 CL-AR) between May 2000 and December 2006. The collected data included the perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the HAL-AR and CL-AR groups, except for the operation time and the size of the primary tumor. The operation time of the HAL-AR group was significantly shorter than that of the CL-AR group (p = 0.004), and the size of the primary tumor in the HAL-AR group was significantly larger than that of the CL-AR group (p = 0.019). The operating time of the HAL-AR group reached an earlier mean plateau than did that of the CL-AR group. Before and after reaching the plateau, there were no differences in the perioperative results between the two groups. The operating time for the HAL-AR group was significantly shorter than that of the CL-AR group after reaching a plateau (p = 0.012). The short-term outcomes for both groups were similar in terms of survival and recurrence (p = 0.996 and p = 0.476, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection has a shorter operative time than does CL-AR and is more successful than CL-AR for resecting larger tumors, while both procedures result in similar short-term oncologic outcomes. Hand-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is thought be a comparable operative technique for anterior resection of left-sided colon cancer.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic colectomy has not been accepted as quickly as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is because of its steep learning curve, concerns with oncological outcomes, lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and initial reports on port-site recurrence after curative resection. The aim of this review is to summarise current evidence on laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Review of literature following Medline search using key words 'laparoscopic', 'colorectal' and 'surgery'.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery proved to be safe, cost-effective and with improved short-term outcomes. However, further studies are needed to assess the role of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and the value of enhanced recovery protocols in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections.

Is laparoscopic colon surgery appropriate in patients who have had previous abdominal surgery?

Laparoscopic techniques in colon surgery reduce postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, and 30-day morbidity when compared with open surgery. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of a laparoscopic colectomy in patients who have previously undergone abdominal surgery. We performed a retrospective, single-institution review of laparoscopic colorectal procedures for benign or malignant pathology between October 2002 and September 2008. Our analysis included 55 patients who previously had laparoscopic, open, or a combination of procedures and subsequently underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery. We observed a 14.5 per cent conversion rate (n = 8). Of the patients who had previous open procedures (n = 48 [87.3%]), the conversion rate was 16.7 per cent. Only one patient (12.5%) who had a history of only laparoscopic surgery required conversion. The highest conversion rate in our study was from patients who underwent a left colectomy (60%, n = 3/5), which was the only statistically significant factor found for conversion. Since the emergence of laparoscopy, use in colon and rectal surgery nationwide has been poor as a result of multiple factors, including a frequent history of abdominal surgery. Our experience shows that laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with prior intra-abdominal surgery can be completed with an acceptable conversion rate.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: benefits of laparoscopic colectomy at no extra cost

BACKGROUND

Comparison studies of hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy have indicated that short-term outcomes are similar. Although a few of these studies have compared costs, none has reported on the costs of hand-assisted colectomy performed in the US. Our aim was to determine the short-term outcomes and direct costs associated with hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy performed in the US.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomies were matched to 100 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies performed concurrently. Matching criteria were age (+/- 10 years), gender, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, earlier abdominal operation, colectomy type, and conversion. Operative time, morbidity, length of stay, reoperation, and readmission were assessed. Direct costs for the operating room, nursing care, intensive care, anesthesia, laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, emergency services and consultations, and professional and ancillary services related to the initial hospitalization and readmissions were compared.

RESULTS

From June 2005 to August 2008, 176 hand-assisted and 845 laparoscopic-assisted segmental and total colectomies were performed. Of 100 matched hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted patients, there were no differences in body mass index (29 and 28, respectively), operating time (168 and 163 minutes, respectively), length of stay (4 days), readmission (6% and 11%, respectively), or reoperation rates (5% and 9%, respectively). Overall morbidity was 16% and 32% for hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, respectively (p = 0.009). Major morbidity, including abscess, hemorrhage, and anastomotic leak, were similar. Operating room costs were increased for hand-assisted colectomy (3,476 versus 3,167 US dollars); total costs were similar (8,521 versus 8,373 US dollars).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term outcomes and total costs of hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy are similar.

Minimally invasive subtotal colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for fulminant ulcerative colitis: a reasonable approach?

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of three-stage minimally invasive surgery for fulminant ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

Using a prospective database, we identified all patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent minimally invasive surgery for both subtotal colectomy and subsequent ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at our institution from 2000 to 2007. Demographics and short-term outcomes were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

During seven years, 50 patients underwent minimally invasive subtotal colectomy for fulminant ulcerative colitis; 50 percent were male, with a median age of 34 years. All patients had refractory colitis: 96 percent were taking steroids, 76 percent were recently hospitalized, 59 percent had >/=5 kg weight loss, 57 percent had anemia that required transfusions, 30 percent were on biologic-based therapy, and 96 percent had >/=1 severe Truelove & Witts' criteria. Of these 50 procedures, 72 percent were performed by using laparoscopic-assisted and 28 percent with hand-assisted techniques. The conversion rate was 6 percent. Subsequently, minimally invasive completion proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis was performed in 42 patients with a 2.3 percent conversion rate. Median length of stay after each procedure was four days. There was one anastomotic leak and no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

A staged, minimally invasive approach for patients with fulminant ulcerative colitis is technically feasible, safe, and reasonable operative strategy, which yields short postoperative length of stay.

Hand-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of benefits of laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted colectomies (LAC) over open procedures in gastrointestinal surgery has continued to accumulate. With its wide implementation, technical difficulties and limitations of LAC have become clear. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in an attempt to facilitate the transition from open techniques to minimally invasive procedures. Continuing debate exists about which approach is to be preferred, HALS or LAC. Several studies have compared these two techniques in colorectal surgery, but no single study provided evidence which procedure is superior. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out comparing HALS with LAC colorectal resection.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Embase Cochrane) and cross-reference search. The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Minimal outcome criteria for inclusion were operating time, conversion rate, hospital stay, and morbidity.

RESULTS

Out of 468 studies a total of 13 studies were selected for comprehensive review. Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 non-RCTs, comprising 1017 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Because of possible clinical heterogeneity two groups of procedures were created: segmental colectomies and total (procto)colectomies. In the segmental colectomy group significant differences in favor of the HALS group were seen in operating time (WMD 19 min) and conversion rate (OR of 0.3 conversions). In the total (procto)colectomy group a significant difference in favor of the HALS group was seen in operating time (WMD 61 min).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that HALS provides a more efficient segmental colectomy regarding operating time and conversion rate, particularly accounting for diverticulitis. A significant operating time advantage exists for HALS total (procto)colectomy. HALS must therefore be considered a valuable addition to the laparoscopic armamentarium to avoid conversion and speed up complicated colectomies.