Relaparoscopy for management of postoperative complications following colorectal surgery: ten years experience in a single center

Endoscopic Management of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps. LNPCPs more commonly contain high-grade dysplasia, covert and overt cancer. These lesions can be resected using several means, including conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (C-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This review aimed to provide a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of ER techniques. Evidence-based, selective resection algorithms should be used when choosing the most appropriate technique to ensure the safe and effective removal of LNPCPs. Due to its enhanced safety and comparable efficacy, there has been a paradigm shift towards cold-snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small polyps (<10 mm). This technique is now being applied to the management of LNPCPs; however, further research is required to define the optimal LNPCP subtypes to target and the viable upper size limit. Adjuvant techniques, such as thermal ablation of the resection margin, significantly reduce recurrence risk. Bleeding risk can be mitigated using through-the-scope clips to close defects in the right colon. Endoscopic surveillance is important to detect recurrence and synchronous lesions. Recurrence can be readily managed using an endoscopic approach.

Relaparoscopy in the management of post-operative complications after minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Laparoscopy has already been validated for treatment of early gastric cancer. Despite that, no data have been published about the possibility of a minimally invasive approach to surgical complications after primary laparoscopic surgery. In this multicentre study, we describe our experience in the management of complications following laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A chart review has been performed over data from 781 patients who underwent elective gastrectomy for gastric cancer between January 1996 and July 2020 in two high referral department of gastric surgery. A fully descriptive analysis was performed, considering all the demographic characteristics of patients, the type of primary procedure and the type of complication which required reoperation. Moreover, a logistic regression was designed to investigate if either the patients or the primary surgery characteristics could affect conversion rate during relaparoscopy. Fifty-one patients underwent reintervention after elective laparoscopic gastric surgery. Among patients who received a laparoscopic reintervention, 11 patients (34.3%) required a conversion to open surgery. Recovery outcomes were significantly better in patients who completed the reoperation through laparoscopy. Relaparoscopy is safe and effective for management of complications following laparoscopic gastric surgery and represent a useful tool both for re-exploration and treatment, in expert and skilled hands.

Comparison of the morphology and histopathology of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps in the rectum and colon: implications for endoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risk of cancer in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) in the rectum relative to the remainder of the colon is unknown. We aimed to describe differences between rectal and colonic LNPCPs to better inform treatment decisions.

METHODS

Patients with LNPCPs referred to tertiary centers for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Data recorded were participant demographics, LNPCP location, morphology, resection modality, and histopathologic data. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify those variables independently associated with rectal versus nonrectal location in the colon.

RESULTS

Patients with LNPCPs referred for endoscopic resection between July 2008 and July 2021 were included. Rectal LNPCPs (n = 618) were larger (median size, 40 mm vs 30 mm; P < .001) and more likely to be granular (79% vs 50%, P < .001) with a nodular component (53% vs 17%, P < .001) compared with nonrectal LNPCPs (n = 2787). Rectal LNPCPs were more likely to have tubulovillous histopathology (72% vs 47%, P < .001) and contain cancer (15% vs 6%, P < .001). After adjusting for the other features independently associated with location, cancer was more common in the rectum compared with the colon (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.53).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that compared with LNPCPs in the rest of the colon, rectal LNPCPs are more likely to be larger and contain more advanced pathology. These findings have implications for curative endoscopic resection techniques particularly where early cancer is present. (Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.).

Re-laparoscopy to Treat Early Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Is There a Learning Curve?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is still controversial. Moreover, its learning curve has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze whether operative outcomes were influenced by the learning curve of re-laparoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and reoperated by a laparoscopic approach during the period 2000-2019 was performed. A cumulative sum analysis was done to determine the number of operations that must be performed to achieve a stable operative time. Based on this analysis, the cohort was divided in 3 groups. Demographics and operative variables were compared between groups.

RESULTS

From a total of 1911 patients undergoing LCS, 132 (7%) were included. Based on the cumulative sum analysis, the cohort was divided into the first 50 (G1), the following 52 (G2), and the last 30 (G3) patients. Less computed tomography scans were performed in G3 (G1: 72% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 43%; P=0.03). There were no differences in the type of operation performed between the groups. The conversion rate (G1: 18% vs. G2: 4% vs. G3: 3%; P=0.02) and the mean operative time (G1: 104 min vs. G2: 80 min vs. G3: 78 min; P=0.003) were higher in G1. Overall morbidity was lower in G3 (G1: 46% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 33%; P=0.01). Major morbidity, mortality, and mean length of stay remained similar in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 50 laparoscopic reoperations might be needed to achieve an appropriate learning curve with reduced operative time and lower conversion rates. Further research is needed to determine the learning process of re-laparoscopy for treating complications after colorectal surgery.

Could Stoma Be Avoided after Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer? Experience with Transanal Tube in 195 Cases

Anastomotic leakage is the most-feared complication of rectal surgery. Transanal devices have been suggested for anastomotic protection as an alternative to defunctioning stoma, although evidence is conflicting, and no single device is widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to investigate the safety and efficacy of a transanal tube for the prevention of leakage following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. A transanal tube was used in the cases of total mesorectal excision with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis, undamaged doughnuts, and negative intraoperative air-leak test. The transanal tube was kept in place until the seventh postoperative day. A total of 195 consecutive patients were retrieved from a prospective surgical database and included in the study. Of these, 71.8% received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The perioperative mortality rate was 1.0%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 patients, accounting for an incidence rate of 9.7%. Among these, 13 patients underwent re-laparoscopy and ileostomy, while 6 patients were managed conservatively. Overall, the stoma rate was 6.7%. The use of a transanal tube may be a suitable strategy for anastomotic protection following restorative rectal cancer resection. This approach could avoid the burden of a stoma in selected patients with low anastomoses.

Anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery

The safety of colorectal surgery for oncological disease is steadily improving, but anastomotic leakage is still the most feared and devastating complication from both a surgical and oncological point of view. Anastomotic leakage affects the outcome of the surgery, increases the times and costs of hospitalization, and worsens the prognosis in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Anastomotic leakage has a wide range of clinical features ranging from radiological only finding to peritonitis and sepsis with multi-organ failure. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin have been identified as early predictors of anastomotic leakage starting from postoperative day 2-3, but abdominal-pelvic computed tomography scan is still the gold standard for the diagnosis. Several treatments can be adopted for anastomotic leakage. However, there is not a universally accepted flowchart for the management, which should be individualized based on patient's general condition, anastomotic defect size and location, indication for primary resection and presence of the proximal stoma. Non-operative management is usually preferred in patients who underwent proximal faecal diversion at the initial operation. Laparoscopy can be attempted after minimal invasive surgery and can reduce surgical stress in patients allowing a definitive treatment. Reoperation for sepsis control is rarely necessary in those patients who already have a diverting stoma at the time of the leak, especially in extraperitoneal anastomoses. In patients without a stoma who do not require abdominal reoperation for a contained pelvic leak, there are several treatment options, including laparoscopic diverting ileostomy combined with trans-anal anastomotic tube drainage, percutaneous drainage or recently developed endoscopic procedures, such as stent or clip placement or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy. We describe the current approaches to treat this complication, as well as the clinical tests necessary to diagnose and provide an effective therapy.

Transanal endoluminal repair for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection

BACKGROUND

There is still no consensus on the management of colorectal anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection. The goal was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent transanal endoluminal repair + laparoscopic drainage ± stoma vs. drainage only ± stoma.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients sustaining anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection between January 2013 and September 2020 who required laparoscopic reoperation.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included, 22 patients underwent combined laparoscopy and transanal endoluminal repair and 27 patients had drainage with a stoma (n = 16) or drainage alone (n = 11), without direct anastomotic repair. The overall morbidity rate was 30.6% and the mortality rate was 2%. Combined laparoscopic lavage/drainage and transanal endoluminal repair of anastomotic leakage was associated with a lower complication rate (13.6% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.03) and fewer intraabdominal infections (4.5% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.03) compared with no repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined laparoscopic lavage/drainage and transanal endoluminal repair is effective in the management of colorectal anastomosis leakage and was associated with lower morbidity-in particular intraabdominal infection-compared with no repair. However, our results need to be confirmed in larger, and ideally randomized, studies.

"Relaparoscopy" to treat early complications following colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Relaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy.

Re-Operative Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is becoming increasingly common. It can be a challenging procedure, but its benefits can outweigh the associated risks. Methods: A systematic review of the literature reporting re-operative laparoscopic surgery was carried out. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies and case series were included, with case reports being excluded. Results: Seventeen articles dated from 2007 to 2020 were included in the systematic review. In total, 1555 patients were identified. Five hundred and seventy-four of them had a laparoscopic procedure and 981 an open re-operation. One hundred and eighty-three women had a laparoscopic operation. The median age ranged from to 44.9 years to 68.7 years. In seven studies, the indication of the index operation was malignancy, one study regarded re-laparoscopy for excision of lateral pelvic lymph nodes, and one study looked at redo surgery of ileal J pouch anal anastomosis. There were 16 mortalities in the laparoscopic arm (2.78%) and 93 (9.4%) in the open surgery arm. One hundred and thirty-seven morbidities were recorded in the open arm and 102 in the laparoscopic arm. Thirty-nine conversions to open occurred. The median length of stay ranged from 5.8 days to 19 days in laparoscopy and 9.7 to 34 days in the open surgery arm. Conclusions: Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe when performed by experienced hands. The management of complications, recurrence of malignancy, and lateral pelvic floor dissection can be safely performed. The complication rate is low, with conversion to open procedures being relatively uncommon.

Age and comorbidities do not affect short-term outcomes after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection in elderly patients. A multi-institutional cohort study in 287 patients

Postoperative complications and mortality rates after rectal cancer surgery are higher in elderly than in non-elderly patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether, like in open surgery, age and comorbidities affect postoperative outcomes limiting the benefits of a laparoscopic approach. Between April 2011 and July 2020, data of 287 patients with rectal cancer submitted to laparoscopic rectal resection from different institutions were collected in an electronic database and were categorized into two groups: < 75 years and ≥ 75 years of age. Perioperative data and short-term outcomes were compared between these groups. Risk factors for postoperative complications were determined on multivariate analysis, including age groups and previous comorbidities as variables. Seventy-seven elderly patients had both higher ASA scores (p < 0.001) and cardiovascular disease rates (p = 0.02) compared with 210 non-elderly patients. There were no significative differences between groups in terms of overall postoperative complications (p = 0.3), number of patients with complications (p = 0.2), length of stay (p = 0.2) and death during hospitalization (p = 0.9). The only independent variables correlated with postoperative morbidity were male gender (OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.53-3.68, p < 0.01) and low-medium localization of the tumor (OR 2.12; 75% CI 1.43-4.21, p < 0.01). Although older people are more frail patients, short-term postoperative outcomes in patients ≥ 75 years of age were similar to those of younger patients after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Elderly patients benefit from laparoscopic rectal resection as well as non-elderly patient, despite advanced age and comorbidities.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Re-operations Within 30 Days After Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Surgery: a Retrospective Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Re-operations within 30 days after lower gastrointestinal tract surgery are associated to high morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic approach has been reported as feasible and safe in selected patients, but comparative data to laparotomy are scarce. The aim of this study was to review our experience in laparoscopic re-operations and compare it to laparotomy.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2016, patients undergoing a re-operation within one month after lower gastrointestinal tract surgery were included and divided into laparoscopy and laparotomy groups. The primary endpoint was successful re-operation, defined as recovery without any of the following: conversion to laparotomy, need of further invasive treatments or death. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and 30-day morbidity and mortality. Demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 114 patients who underwent a re-operation, 71 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty (42%) patients underwent laparoscopy and 41 (58%) laparotomy. Thirty (42%) patients were male and median age was 72.0 years-old. The initial operation was elective in 24 (34%) patients, and 50% of the initial operations were colorectal resections in both groups. Multivariate analyses showed that type of approach did not affect the re-operation success rate. Laparotomy was an independent predictor of prolonged hospital stay (OR 3.582, 95%CI 1.191-10.776, p = 0.023) and mortality (OR 13.123, 95%CI 1.301-131.579, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Re-operations within 30 days after lower gastrointestinal tract surgery may be safe in selected patients, as effective as laparotomy, and associated with shorter hospital stay and lower mortality rates.

Redo-laparoscopy in the management of complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has gradually become widely accepted for the treatment of both benign and malignant diseases thanks to its several advantages over the open approach. However, it is associated with the same potential postoperative complications. Some recent studies have analyzed the potential role of laparoscopy in early diagnosis and management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the outcomes of redo-laparoscopy (RL) for the management of early postoperative complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery, focusing on length of stay, morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines through MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Google Scholar from January 1990 to December 2019. The main outcomes examined were conversion rate, length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. A meta-analysis of all eligible studies was then conducted and forest plots were generated.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies involving 1394 patients who required reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal resection were included. In 539 (38.2%) of these patients, a laparoscopic approach was adopted. The most common indication for returning to the operating theater was anastomotic leakage (64.4% of all redo-surgeries, 67.7% of RL) and the most common type of intervention performed in RL was diverting stoma with or without anastomotic repair/redo (47.1%). Nine studies were included in the pooled analysis. The mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the RL group than in the redo-open one (WMD = - 0.90; 95% CI - 1.04 to - 0.76; Z =  - 12,6; p < 0.001). A significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in the RL cohort (OR =  - 0.91; 95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.23; Z = - 2.62; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is a valid and effective approach for the treatment of complications following laparoscopic primary colorectal surgery thanks to it is well-established advantages over the open approach, which remain noticeable even in redo-surgeries.

Re-laparoscopy in the treatment of anastomotic leak following laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak still represents the most feared surgical complication following colorectal resection and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic reoperation for symptomatic anastomotic leak (AL) after laparoscopic right colectomy with mechanical intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2019, 428 consecutive laparoscopic right colectomy with IA were performed. Overall symptomatic AL rate requiring reoperation was 5.8% (26/428). Data on patient demographics as well as operative findings, time elapsed from primary surgery and from the onset of symptoms of anastomotic leak, time and duration of re-laparoscopy, ICU stay, morbidity, mortality rate, length of hospital stay and readmission, were all retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic approach was attempted in 23 (88.4%) hemodynamically stable patients. Conversion rate was 21.4%. Reasons for conversion were gross fecal peritonitis (n = 2), colonic ischemia (n = 1), severe bowel distension (n = 2). Eighteen (78.2%) patients underwent successfully laparoscopic (LPS) reoperation. A repair of the anastomotic defect was done in 11 (61.1%) patients, while in 7 patients the intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis was refashioned. A diverting ileostomy was done in 22.2% of cases (n = 4). A second reoperation for leak persistence was necessary in two cases (11.1%). Median (range) length of postoperative hospital stay from re-laparoscopy was 15.5 (9-53) days. Overall morbidity rate was 38.7%. Mortality rate was 5.5% (n = 1) CONCLUSION: laparoscopic re-intervention for the treatment of anastomotic leak following LPS right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis in hemodynamically stable and highly selected patients in the experienced hands of dedicated laparoscopic surgeons, is a safe option with acceptable morbidity and mortality rate.

IS LAPAROSCOPIC REOPERATION FEASIBLE TO TREAT EARLY COMPLICATIONS AFTER LAPAROSCOPIC COLORECTAL RESECTIONS?

Background:

Recently, with the performance of minimally invasive procedures for the management of colorectal disorders, it was allowed to extend the indication of laparoscopy in handling various early and late postoperative complications.

Aim:

To present the experience with laparoscopic reoperations for early complications after laparoscopic colorectal resections.

Methods:

Patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections with postoperative surgical complications were included and re-treated laparoscopically. Selection for laparoscopic approach were those cases with early diagnosis of complications, hemodynamic stability without significant abdominal distention and without clinical comorbidities that would preclude the procedure.

Results:

In four years, nine of 290 (3.1%) patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections were re-approached laparoscopically. There were five men. The mean age was 40.67 years. Diagnoses of primary disease included adenocarcinoma (n=3), familial adenomatous polyposis (n=3), ulcerative colitis (n=1), colonic inertia (n=1) and chagasic megacolon (n=1). Initial procedures included four total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis; three anterior resections; one completion of total colectomy; and one right hemicolectomy. Anastomotic dehiscence was the most common complication that resulted in reoperations (n=6). There was only one case of an unfavorable outcome, with death on the 40^th day of the first approach, after consecutive complications. The remaining cases had favorable outcome.

Conclusion:

In selected cases, laparoscopic access may be a safe and minimally invasive approach for complications of colorectal resection. However, laparoscopic reoperation must be cautiously selected, considering the type of complication, patient’s clinical condition and experience of the surgical team.

Surgical complications in colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic sciences have allowed early diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Colorectal cancer is one of the most commonly reported cancers, particularly in elderly patients.

METHODS

Open and laparoscopic surgeries are used for the removal of the tumor, along with chemotherapy, depending on the stage of cancer. However, colorectal cancer surgery is associated with a great number of complications, that affect the efficacy of the surgery and overall health and survival of the patient.

RESULTS

Prevalence of these complications have shown discrepancies depending on the condition of the patient and disease and surgical skills of the surgeon. Preoperative evaluation, intraoperative care and postoperative measures can reduce the incidence of these complications.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights some frequently reported complications associated with colorectal cancer surgery, their risk factors and subsequent therapeutic measures to treat them.

Does a 3D laparoscopic approach improve surgical outcome of mininvasive right colectomy? A retrospective case-control study

Laparoscopy has gained wide acceptance due its benefits for patients. However, advanced laparoscopic procedures are still challenging. One critical issue is lack of stereoscopic vision. Despite its diffusion, the totally laparoscopic approach for right hemicolectomy (TLRC) is still debated due to its difficulty, particularly for fashioning of the ileocolic anastomosis. The aim of this multicenter study is to investigate whether 3D vision offers any advantages on surgical performance over 2D vision during TLRC. All data of consecutive patients who underwent elective TLRC for cancer at three Italian surgical centers with either 2D or 3D technology from January 2013 to December 2018 were retrieved from a computer-maintained database. A case-matched analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method was performed. After matching, a total of 106 patients were analyzed with 53 patients in each group. Mean operative time was significantly longer for 2D-TLRC than for 3D-TLRC (153.2 ± 52.4 vs. 131 ± 51 min, p = 0.029) and a statistically significant difference in anastomosing time (p = 0.032, 19.2 ± 5.9 min vs. 21.7 ± 6.2 min for 3D and 2D group, respectively) was also recorded. No difference in the median number of harvested nodes (23 ± 11 vs. 21 ± 7 for 3D and 2D group, respectively; p = 0.48) was found. Neither intraoperative complications nor conversions occurred in the two groups. In conclusion, 3D vision appears to improve the performance of a TLRC by reducing operative time and making intracorporeal anastomosis easier. Prospective randomized studies are required to determine the real beneficial effects.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

Colorectal Cancer in the Elderly Patient: The Role of Neo-adjuvant Therapy

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has a significant role in downstaging cancer. It improves the local control of the disease and can make conservative resection of rectal cancer possible.

Methods

We enrolled 114 patients with subperitoneal rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradio-therapy and radical excision with total mesorectal excision (TME). The primary endpoint was oncological outcomes and the secondary endpoint was surgical outcomes.We evaluate the experience of a multidisciplinary team and the role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in integrated treatment of cancer of the subperitoneal rectum.

Results

Surgical procedures performed were abdominal perineal resection in 4 cases (3.5%), anterior resection in 89 cases (78%), Hartmann’s procedure in 5 cases (4.4%), and ultralow resection with coloanal anastomosis and diverting stoma in 16 patients (14%).

Local recurrence occurred in 6 patients (5.2%), the overall survival was 71.9% at 5 years and disease-free survival was about 60%.

Conclusions

The effect of pathological downstaging amounted to 58.8%, including cPR. The pathologic complete remission occurred in 8.8% of cases.

The outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy can be achieved when this treatment is associated with correct surgical technique with TME and the prognosis is defined by an anatomopathological examination performed according to Quirke’s protocol.

Short- and long-term outcomes after colorectal anastomotic leakage is affected by surgical approach at reoperation

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is the most serious surgical complication following colorectal resection, and surgical intervention is often required. The purpose of the study was to investigate short- and long-term outcomes after reoperation for anastomotic leakage.

METHOD

Patients with a symptomatic anastomotic leakage following a laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection from January 2009 to December 2014 were identified from our local prospective database. Patients were grouped according to the management of anastomotic leaks: local, lap, or open approach. Primary outcomes were length of stay, chance of bowel continuity, and overall mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 40 months (0-82 months). Overall mortality was significantly associated with UICC stage III-VI disease (vs. UICC stage I-II disease) [adj. HR 5.35 (CI 2.32-12.4), p = 0.0001] and minimal invasive reoperation compared with open approach [local: adj. HR 0.12 (CI 0.03-0.52), p = 0.004; lap: adj. HR 0.32 (CI 0.12-0.86), p = 0.024]. Chance of bowel continuity was significantly increased in younger patients below 67 years [adj. OR 6.15 (1.76-21.5), p = 0.004] and following a local procedure [adj. OR 7.45 (1.07-51.8), p = 0.043]. Patients in the open group had significantly longer length of stay and time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those in the lap group.

CONCLUSION

Our data confirms that minimal invasive reoperation for anastomotic leakage is a safe and feasible approach associated with short- and long-term advantages and can be chosen in selected cases.

Reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Does the laparoscopic approach have any advantages?

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic approach in colorectal complications is controversial because of its difficulty. However, it has been proven that it can provide advantages over open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic approach in reoperations for complications after colorectal surgery with the open approach taking into account the severity of the patient prior to reoperation.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2006 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients requiring urgent surgical procedures for complications in the postoperative period were divided in two groups: laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). To control clinical severity prior to reoperation, The Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 763 patients were studied, 40 required urgent surgery (24 OS/16 LS). More ileostomies were performed in the LS group (68.7% vs. 29.2%) and more colostomies in the OS group (37.5% vs. 6.2%), p<0.05. MPI was higher in OS group (27.31±6.47 [19-35] vs. 18.36±7.16 [11-24], p<0.001). Hospital stay after re-intervention, oral tolerance and surgical wound infection, were favorable in LS (p<0.05 in all cases). In patients with MPI score ≤26, laparoscopic approach showed shorter hospital stay after re-intervention, less stay in the critical care unit after re-intervention, earlier start of oral tolerance and less surgical wound infection (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach in re-intervention for complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery associates a faster recovery reflected in a shorter hospital stay, earlier start of oral tolerance and a lower abdominal wall complication rate in patients with low severity index.

Primary Total Laparoscopic Sigmoid Vaginoplasty in Transgender Women with Penoscrotal Hypoplasia: A Prospective Cohort Study of Surgical Outcomes and Follow-Up of 42 Patients

BACKGROUND

In young transgender women previously treated with puberty-suppressing hormones, penoscrotal hypoplasia can make penoscrotal inversion vaginoplasty unfeasible. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess surgical outcomes and follow-up of total laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty as primary reconstruction in a cohort of transgender women with penoscrotal hypoplasia.

METHODS

Baseline demographics, surgical characteristics, and intraoperative and postoperative complications of all performed total laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty procedures were prospectively recorded.

RESULTS

From November of 2007 to July of 2015, 42 transgender women underwent total laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty as primary vaginal reconstruction. The mean age at the time of surgery was 21.1 ± 4.7 years. Mean follow-up time was 3.2 ± 2.1 years. The mean operative duration was 210 ± 44 minutes. There were no conversions to laparotomy. One rectal perforation was recognized during surgery and immediately oversewn without long-term consequences. The mean length of hospitalization was 5.7 ± 1.1 days. One patient died as a result of an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-positive necrotizing fasciitis leading to septic shock, with multiorgan failure. Direct postoperative complications that needed laparoscopic reoperation occurred in three cases (7.1 percent). In seven cases (17.1 percent), long-term complications needed a secondary correction. After 1 year, all patients had a functional neovagina with a mean depth of 16.3 ± 1.5 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Total laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty seems to have a similar complication rate as other types of elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Primary total laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty is a feasible gender-confirming surgical technique with good functional outcomes for transgender women with penoscrotal hypoplasia.

CLINICAL QUESTIO/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Laparoscopic treatment of abdominal unicentric castleman's disease: a case report and literature review

Background

Castleman’s disease is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder of unknown etiology that most commonly presents as a mediastinal nodal mass. It is exceptionally uncommon for Castleman’s disease to present in the mesentery and, only 53 cases have ever been described in the literature. Standard treatment for this lymphoproliferative disorder involving a single node is a complete “en bloc” surgical resection which has proven to be a curative approach in almost all cases without recurrence after 20 years of follow up. All 53 reported cases of mesenteric Castleman’s disease, except one, were treated with laparotomy.

Case presentation

We report on a case of mesenteric Castleman’s disease localized in the mesentery which is the second reported case if its kind and was treated by a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. Our female patient had an uneventful postoperative course and was discharged in the 5^th post-operative day. No signs of recurrence were present as evidenced by physical examination and total body CT scan 24 months after the operation. We compare our case with the other reported cases in which Castleman’s disease presented as an isolated mass in the abdomen.

Conclusion

Although a rare disease, Unicentric Castleman’s disease should always be considered when a solid asymptomatic abdominal mass is occasionally presented. The laparoscopic approach (LA) allows for the achievement of better results than open surgery, including a reduction in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. In cases of masses of an uncertain nature, LA must be considered the last diagnostic tool and the first treatment one.

Systematic review of the feasibility of laparoscopic reoperation for early postoperative complications following colorectal surgery

Background

Returning to the operating theatre for management of early postoperative complications after colorectal surgery is an important key performance indicator. Laparoscopic surgery has benefits that may be useful in surgical emergencies. This study explored the evidence for the advantages of laparoscopic reoperation.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify publications reporting the outcomes of laparoscopy as a mode of reoperation for the management of early postoperative complications of colorectal surgery. The main outcomes examined were 30-day mortality, 30-day morbidity, length of hospital stay, second reoperation rate, ICU admission and stoma formation at reoperation.

Results

After screening 3657 citations, ten non-randomized cohort studies were identified (1137 reoperations). Laparoscopic reoperation was equivalent to or better than open reoperation, with lower rates of 30-day mortality (0–4·4 versus 0–13·6 per cent), 30-day morbidity (6–40 versus 30–80 per cent), length of stay (mean(s.d.) 15·8(2·8) versus 29·1(14·5) days), ICU admission and duration of stay in the ICU. Anastomotic leak was the most common indication, after which more patients received a defunctioning loop stoma instead of an end stoma at laparoscopic than open reoperation.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic reoperation is feasible in selected patients, with the advantages of improved short-term outcomes.

Prevention of internal hernias and pelvic adhesions following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resection: the role of fibrin sealant

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has increasingly become the standard of care for patients who undergo colorectal surgery for both benign and malignant diseases. This growing experience has also resulted in more reports of postoperative complications from the minimally invasive approach to primary colorectal resection. Small bowel obstruction from internal hernias and pre-sacral adhesions is an uncommon but not negligible complication. However, there is little literature specific to this topic with recommendations for different methods to prevent it. We report our original technique of closing the mesenteric defect and covering the pre-sacral fascia by using fibrin sealant to prevent this complication.

METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2014, a total of 1079 patients underwent elective laparoscopic left colorectal resection (left hemicolectomy or anterior rectal resection) in our department. In the first 298 procedures, the mesenteric defect was left open, while in the following 781 procedures, it was closed using fibrin sealant with the aim of preventing postoperative small bowel obstruction.

RESULTS

Among the first 298 patients, three (1%) required reoperation for small bowel obstruction due to internal hernia (0.33%) or critical pre-sacral adhesions (0.66%). These complications did not occur in the subsequent series in which all 781 patients were treated with fibrin sealant prophylactic closure of the mesenteric defect.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, fibrin sealant closure of the mesenteric defect has demonstrated to be safe and effective in preventing postoperative small bowel obstruction that remains a complication both in open and in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries.

The risk of internal hernia or volvulus after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

AIM

To determine the incidence of internal hernias after laparoscopic colorectal surgery and evaluate the risk factors and strategies in the management of this serious complication.

METHOD

Two databases (MEDLINE from 1946 and Embase from 1949) were searched to mid-September 2015. The search terms included volvulus or internal hernia and laparoscopic colorectal surgery or colorectal surgery or anterior resection or laparoscopic colectomy. We found 49 and 124 articles on MEDLINE and Embase, respectively, an additional 15 articles were found on reviewing the references. After removal of duplicates, 176 abstracts were reviewed, with 33 full texts reviewed and 15 eligible for qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

The incidence of internal hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is low (0.65%). Thirty-one patients were identified. Five cases were from two prospective studies (5/648, 0.8%), 20 cases were from seven retrospective studies (20/3165, 0.6%) and six patients were from case reports. Of the 31 identified cases, 21 were associated with left-sided resection, four with right sided resection, two with transverse colectomy, one with a subtotal colectomy and in three cases the operation was not specified. The majority of cases (64.3%) were associated with a restorative left sided resection. Nearly all cases occurred within 4 months of surgery. All patients required re-operation and reduction of the internal hernia and 35.7% of cases required a bowel resection. In 52.2% of cases, the mesenteric defect was closed at the second operation and 52.6% of cases were successfully managed laparoscopically. There were three deaths (0.08%).

CONCLUSION

Mesenteric hernias are a rare but important complication of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The evidence does not support routine closure for all cases, but selective closure of the mesenteric defect during left-sided restorative procedures in high-risk patients at the initial surgery may be considered.

Management of Peritonitis After Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: Can We Stick to Laparoscopy?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy is becoming the standard of care for the treatment of colorectal disease, its application in case of postoperative peritonitis is still not widespread. The objective of this article is to evaluate the role of laparoscopy in the management of postoperative peritonitis after elective minimally invasive colorectal resection for malignant and benign diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2010 and May 2016, 536 patients received primary minimally invasive colorectal surgery at our Department. Among this series, we carried out a retrospective study of those patients who, having developed signs of peritonitis, were treated with a laparoscopic reintervention. Patient demographics, type of complication and of the main relaparoscopic treatment, and main outcomes of reoperation were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (3.7%) underwent relaparoscopy for the management of postoperative peritonitis, of which exact causes were detected by laparoscopy in 75% as follows: anastomotic leakage (n = 8, 40%), colonic ischemia (n = 2, 10%), iatrogenic bowel tear (n = 4, 20%), and other (n = 1, 5%). The median time between operations was 3.5 days (range, 2-8). The laparoscopic reintervention was tailored case by case and ranged from lavage and drainage to redo anastomosis with ostomy fashioning. Conversion rate was 10% and overall morbidity was 50%. No cases required additional surgery and 30-day mortality was nil. Three patients (15%) were admitted to intensive care unit for 24-hour surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests that in experienced hands and in hemodynamically stable patients, a prompt laparoscopic reoperation appears as an accurate diagnostic tool and an effective and safe option for the treatment of postoperative peritonitis after primary colorectal minimally invasive surgery.

Minimally invasive management of anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery

Anastomotic leakage is an unfortunate complication of colorectal surgery. This distressing situation can cause severe morbidity and significantly affects the patient’s quality of life. Additional interventions may cause further morbidity and mortality. Parenteral nutrition and temporary diverting ostomy are the standard treatments of anastomotic leaks. However, technological developments in minimally invasive treatment modalities for anastomotic dehiscence have caused them to be used widely. These modalities include laparoscopic repair, endoscopic self-expandable metallic stents, endoscopic clips, over the scope clips, endoanal repair and endoanal sponges. The review aimed to provide an overview of the current knowledge on the minimally invasive management of anastomotic leaks.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Reoperative Abdomen or Pelvis

Laparoscopy has become widely accepted as the preferred surgical approach in the management of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Once considered a relative contraindication in patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS), as surgeons have continued to gain expertise in advanced laparoscopy, minimally invasive approaches have been increasingly incorporated in the reoperative abdomen and pelvis. Although earlier studies have described conversion rates, most contemporary series evaluating the impact of PAS in laparoscopic colorectal resection have reported equivalent conversion and morbidity rates between reoperative and non-reoperative cases, and series evaluating the impact of laparoscopy in reoperative cases have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopy. The data overall highlight the importance of case selection, careful preoperative preparation and planning, and the critical role of surgeons' expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques. Challenges to the widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in reoperative colorectal cases include the longer learning curve and longer operative time. However, with the steady increase in adoption of minimally invasive techniques worldwide, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is likely to continue to be applied in the management of increasingly complex reoperative colorectal cases in an effort to improve patient outcomes. In the hands of experienced MIS surgeons and in carefully selected cases, laparoscopy is both safe and efficacious for reoperative procedures in the abdomen and pelvis, with measurable short-term benefits.

"Relaparoscopic" management of surgical complications: The experience of an Emergency Center

BACKGROUND/AIM

Laparotomy has been the approach of choice for re-operations in patients with surgical complications. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and the safety of laparoscopic approach for the management of general abdominal surgery complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report a retrospective review of 75 patients who underwent laparoscopic evaluation for postoperative complications over a 4-year period. Primary outcomes (resolution rate by exclusive laparoscopic approach, conversion rate, further surgery rate) and secondary outcomes (mortality, hospitalization, prolonged ileus, wounds problems and median operative time) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (88 %) were managed with laparoscopic approach without conversion; of these, sixty-three patients (84 %) had no more or further complications and were discharged from hospital between 4 ± 3 days after "second-look" surgery; three patients (4 %) developed postoperative complications requiring a third surgery. Nine cases (12 %) underwent conversion in open surgery after laparoscopic approach. Two elderly patients (2.7 %) died in intensive care unit, because of multi-organ failure syndrome. Median time elapsed between an intervention and another was about 2.5 ± 9.5 days. Mean operative time was 90 ± 150 min. Postoperative hospital stay was between 4.5 and 18 days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy has begun to be the preferred method to manage postoperative problems, but only few reports are available actually. Our experience in "relaparoscopic" management of surgical complications seems to suggest that laparoscopy "second look" is an effective tool after open or laparoscopic surgery for the management of postoperative complications and it may avoid diagnostic delay and further laparotomy and related problems.

Minimal invasive management of anastomosis leakage after colon resection

The gold standard of surgical treatment of colorectal anastomotic leak is abdominal drainage of collected fluid and stoma formation. Conventional laparotomy has been the preferred approach for treatment. However, both laparoscopic surgical techniquesand endoscopic stenting have gained popularity over the past years as minimal invasive approaches, especially in the management and treatment of perforations of the gastrointestinal system. We present here a successful treatment with a minimal invasive management of anastomosis leak in the early postoperative period after colon resection in a 62-year-old female patient who had undergone urgent laparoscopic intra-abdominal lavage and drainage followed by endoscopic stenting.