Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease

Laparoscopy for Benign Diseases of the Colon

Laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized the delivery of care to the surgical patient undergoing colorectal resection. Since the first laparoscopic-assisted colectomy in 1991, significant advances have been made in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. For many benign conditions, laparoscopic colectomy has been proven to be safe and effective, and in some instances superior when compared with open surgery. Complex laparoscopic resections such as those for diverticulitis and inflammatory bowel disease have also been shown to have equivalent outcomes when compared with open surgery. Short-term benefits of a minimally invasive approach include less pain, decreased rates of wound infection and postoperative morbidity, faster return of bowel function, and shorter length of stay. Improvements in long-term complications have also been noted with lower incidence of incisional hernias and small bowel obstructions secondary to adhesions. As surgeons become more facile with laparoscopic resection, more complex cases such as those for complicated diverticulitis and reoperative surgery for inflammatory bowel disease can be completed with shorter operative times and decreased cost.

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.

Laparoscopic colorectomy for colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of 889 patients in a single center

Laparoscopic colectomy has been reported as an alternative for treatment of colorectal cancer. However, its long-term efficacy and safety remain obscure. The purpose here was to review our experience with laparoscopic colectomy in 899 patients between June 2001 and December 2008. Of them, 43 patients were converted to open surgery and 846 accepted laparoscopic colorectomy successfully. Among these 846 patients, 790 patients underwent radical resection and 56 patients underwent palliative resection. Only 1 patient died from perioperative pulmonary infection; thus the mortality was 0.12% (1/846). The morbidity of perioperative complications was 18.20% (154/846): intraoperative complication rate was 4.49% (38/846) and the most common intraoperative complication was subcutaneous emphysema and hypercapnia (1.65%, 14/846); postoperative complication rate was 13.71% (116/846) and the most common postoperative complication was ileus (4.37%, 37/846). The overall followed-up rate was 86.41% (731/846, 680 for radical operations and 51 palliative operations). Postoperative deaths happened to 139 patients, including 112 after radical operation and 27 after palliative resection. Of these 112 patients, 97 deaths were cancer-related (14.26%, 97/680) and 15 deaths were non-cancer-related. There were 10 patients encountered local recurrence (1.47%, 10/680) and 105 for metastasis (15.44%, 105/680) after radical operation. Forty-two patients are still alive with tumor. Overall survival rate was 80.98% (592/731), 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate after radical operation was 78.0%, and 3-year DFS rate after radical operation for stage I, stage II, and stage III was 89.0%, 85.0%, and 65.0%, respectively. In conclusion, laparoscopic colorectal resection is a feasible and safe technology for colorectal cancer.

Clinical and economic burden of opioid use for postsurgical pain: focus on ventilatory impairment and ileus

Opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) can have a significant impact on patient recovery after surgery. This review investigates the impact of two ORADEs, respiratory depression and postoperative ileus (POI), on clinical and economic outcomes. Opioid-induced ventilatory impairment is a potentially serious ORADE that can result in apnea and even death. The incidence of ventilatory impairment is approximately 1%, even among patients receiving opioids using patient-controlled analgesia. Costs are increased in patients treated with opioids who are at high risk of ventilatory impairment due to the need for more intensive monitoring from nursing staff and the use of alarmed monitoring equipment. Opioids, together with other factors, contribute to the development of POI through a direct effect on gut motility. Postoperative ileus has been shown to significantly increase hospital length of stay and cost of care. A key determinant of ileus development, as well as length of stay and costs, is postsurgical opioid dose. Data from a retrospective analysis show that a daily hydromorphone dose of 2 mg/day markedly increases the risk of POI. In addition, although the incidence of POI is reduced in patients who undergo laparoscopic surgery or hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery, the reduction of POI can potentially be negated by excessive opioid use. Therefore, multimodal, opioid-sparing strategies should be explored and used to reduce severe ORADEs and improve outcomes in the surgical setting.

Expert opinion on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer parallels evidence from a cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

This study sought to synthesize survival outcomes from trials of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether expert acceptance of this technology in the literature has parallel cumulative survival evidence.

Study Design

A systematic review of randomized trials was conducted. The primary outcome was survival, and meta-analysis of time-to-event data was conducted. Expert opinion in the literature (published reviews, guidelines, and textbook chapters) on the acceptability of laparoscopic colorectal cancer was graded using a 7-point scale. Pooled survival data were correlated in time with accumulating expert opinion scores.

Results

A total of 5,800 citations were screened. Of these, 39 publications pertaining to 23 individual trials were retained. As well, 414 reviews were included (28 guidelines, 30 textbook chapters, 20 systematic reviews, 336 narrative reviews). In total, 5,782 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 3,031) and open (n = 2,751) colorectal surgery. Survival data were presented in 16 publications. Laparoscopic surgery was not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.80, 1.09). Expert opinion in the literature pertaining to the oncologic acceptability of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer correlated most closely with the publication of large RCTs in 2002–2004. Although increasingly accepted since 2006, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is non-inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival, and has been so since 2004. The majority expert opinion in the literature has considered these two techniques to be equivalent since 2002–2004. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been increasingly accepted since 2006, but remains controversial. Knowledge translation efforts in this field appear to have paralleled the accumulation of clinical trial evidence.

Introduction of alvimopan into an enhanced recovery protocol for colectomy offers benefit in open but not laparoscopic colectomy

INTRODUCTION

Alvimopan coupled with an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) has been shown to reduce length of stay (LOS) after open colectomy, but its role after laparoscopy remains unknown. This study evaluated alvimopan with an established ERP for laparoscopic (LAP), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and open colectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective colectomy by any technique were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if they developed a major intra-abdominal complication, medical complication, or had a complex preoperative evaluation. Patients were stratified into 4 groups based on the surgical approach (open/HAL vs. LAP) and the use of alvimopan. All patients were managed by using an ERP. The incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) and LOS were compared between alvimopan and control groups for each surgical approach.

RESULTS

There were 282 patients. Demographics were similar across the 4 groups. The mean number of alvimopan doses administered was 6.7±2.6. For patients in the open/HAL group (n=149), the incidence of primary ileus was 9.5% (7/74) and 16% (12/75) for alvimopan and control patients, respectively (P=.231). A significant decrease in LOS was noted with alvimopan (5.6±2.5 vs. 6.8±3.3 days, P=.009). For patients after LAP (n=133), there was no significance difference in POI with or without alvimopan (3.9% [3/76] vs. 3.5% [2/57], P=1.00). There was no difference in LOS (3.9±1 vs. 3.7±1.4 days, P=.305).

CONCLUSION

The addition of alvimopan to an established ERP will lead to improvement in clinical outcomes in patients after open/HAL colectomy. The benefit of alvimopan after LAP remains negligible.

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has no advantages over open approach: midterm results of a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) for symptomatic diverticular disease is supposed to have significant short-term advantages compared to open surgery (open sigmoid resection (OSR)). This opinion is rather based on inferences from trials on colonic resections for malignant diseases or minor laparoscopic surgery. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare quality of life as well as morbidity and clinical outcome after LSR vs. OSR following a midterm follow-up period.

METHODS

Patients presenting with a symptomatic sigmoid diverticular disease stage II/III (Stock/Hansen) were randomly allocated to LSR or OSR in a prospective multicenter trial. Endpoints included the quality of life assessed with a standardized questionnaire, postoperative mortality, and complications within the follow-up of 12 months after operation.

RESULTS

A total of 143 patients randomized between 2005 and 2008 in 12 centers could be analyzed. The recruitment was aborted for nonachievement of the planned sample size. Seventy-five patients were allocated to LSR, and 68 received OSR. Nine operations were converted to OSR (9%) and analyzed as intention to treat. Groups were comparable for age, gender, body mass index, comorbidity, and indication for surgery. Operation time was longer for LSR (p < 0.001). Quality of life did not differ between LSR and OSR, either during the early postoperative course or after 12 months (p = 0.172). Also, mortality and morbidity, including subgroups of major and minor morbidity, were compared.

CONCLUSION

LSR was not superior to OSR regarding postoperative quality of life and incidence of complications in this trial.

Laparoscopic management of diverticular disease

Despite its potential advantages, laparoscopic management of diverticular disease is currently performed by a minority of surgeons on a small group of patients. However, the role for laparoscopy in diverticular disease continues to develop. At present, adequate evidence exists for the routine use of laparoscopy for uncomplicated diverticular disease. Complicated disease, including fistulizing disease and free perforation requires additional expertise and study. As the experience grows among individual surgeons and institutions, it can be expected that the complication and conversion rates will continue to decline allowing even further evolution of laparoscopy for the treatment of this challenging disease process.

Influence of Intravenous Opioid Dose on Postoperative Ileus

Background:

Intravenous opioids represent a major component in the pathophysiology of postoperative ileus (POI). However, the most appropriate measure and threshold to quantify the association between opioid dose (eg, average daily, cumulative, maximum daily) and POI remains unknown.

Objective:

To evaluate the relationship between opioid dose, POI, and length of stay (LOS) and identify the opioid measure that was most strongly associated with POI,

Methods:

Consecutive patients admitted to a community teaching hospital who underwent elective colorectal surgery by any technique with an enhanced-recovery protocol postoperatively were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if they received epidural analgesia, developed a major intraabdominal complication or medical complication, or had a prolonged workup prior to surgery. Intravenous opioid doses were quantified and converted to hydromorphone equivalents. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to determine the dosing threshold for the opioid measure most associated with POI and define high versus low use of opioids. Risk factors for POI and prolonged LOS were determined through multivariate analysis.

Results:

The incidence of POI in 279 patients was 8.6%. CART analysis identified a maximum daily intravenous hydromorphone dose of 2 mg or more as the opioid measure most associated with POI. Multivariate analysis revealed maximum daily hydromorphone dose of 2 mg or more (p = 0.034), open surgical technique (p = 0.045), and days of intravenous narcotic therapy (p = 0.003) as significant risk factors for POI. Variables associated with increased LOS were POI (p < 0.001), maximum daily hydromorphone dose of 2 mg or more (p < 0.001), and age (p = 0.005); laparoscopy (p < 0.001) was associated with a decreased LOS.

Conclusions:

Intravenous opioid therapy is significantly associated with POI and prolonged LOS, particularly when the maximum hydromorphone dose per day exceeds 2 mg. Clinicians should consider alternative, nonopioid-based pain management options when this occurs.

Benefits of Laparoscopy: Does the Disease Condition that Indicated Colectomy Matter?

The benefits of laparoscopic (LC) over open colectomy (OC) have been well characterized for a variety of conditions. Whether the relative benefits of LC differ for different conditions has not been previously investigated. The aim of this study was to identify whether there are differences in benefits of LC for colon cancer (CC), Crohn's disease (CD), and diverticular disease (DD). Data of patients with CC, CD, and DD undergoing elective colectomy from January 2000 to December 2007 were identified from departmental databases. Patients with CC, CD, and DD undergoing LC were matched 1:1 for diagnosis, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologists scale, and date of surgery to patients undergoing OC. TNM stage was also matched for patients with CC. Two hundred eighty-nine patients undergoing LC (CC, 93; CD, 140; DD, 56) were matched 1:1 to 289 patients undergoing OC. Median age was 49 years (range, 14 to 91 years) in LC and 52 years (range, 14 to 98 years) in OC ( P = 0.35). All other matched criteria were also similar in both groups. The conversion rate to OC was 13 per cent (n = 36). Patients undergoing LC had significantly shorter lengths of stay (LOS) (3 days [range, 1 to 70 days] vs 6 days [range, 1 to 37 days], P < 0.001) and lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 mL [range, 10 to 1750 mL] vs 200 mL [range, 10 to 1700 mL], P < 0.001). Median operative time was similar in both groups (LC: 145 minutes [range, 35 to 431 minutes] vs OC: 135 minutes [range, 23 to 485 minutes], P = 0.54). The conversion rate was lower for DD (2%) when compared with CC (18.9%) and CD (13.4%). Improvement in EBL with LC was least pronounced in patients with CD and most pronounced in patients with DD ( P interaction < 0.001). In the LC group, patients with DD presented less postoperative complications ( P = 0.009). LC results in reduced LOS and EBL with similar complications rates when compared with OC. The benefits of LC are more pronounced in DD when compared with CD and CC.

Elective open versus laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis with the Sigma trial

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of published literature comparing open versus laparoscopic elective sigmoid resections for diverticular disease was conducted.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for data from January 1991 to March 2009. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-two comparative studies involving 10,898 patients were analyzed; 1538 patients were in the laparoscopic group and 9360 were in the open group. The operative time for laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) is longer than open resections (OSR) [random-effects model: SMD = 1.94, 95% CI = (1.14, 2.74), z = 4.74, p < 0.001]. However, patients who undergo LSR have earlier return to passage of feces [random-effects model: SMD = -1.01, 95% CI (-1.80, -0.22), z = -2.50, p = 0.013] and shorter hospital stay [random-effects model: SMD = -7.65, 95% CI (-10.96, -4.32), z = -4.52, p < 0.001]. Overall morbidity was higher in the OSR group [random-effects model: RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.40, 0.80), z = -3.24, p < 0.001] and no difference in mortality rates was observed (p = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection takes longer to perform than open procedures; however, it is safe and has lower overall morbidity, earlier return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stays. This approach should be considered for elective cases but more randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.

Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has fewer complications than conventional surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a meta-analysis of published literature comparing the complications after open and laparoscopic elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from January 1991 to March 2009. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Nineteen comparative studies involving 2,383 patients were analyzed. There were 1,014 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1,369 patients in the open group. There was no significant heterogeneity among any of the complications analyzed. Patients in the laparoscopic sigmoid resection group had fewer wound infections (fixed effects model: risk ratio [RR], .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.80; z, -3.05; P < .01; random effects model: RR, .59; 95% CI, .39-.89; z, -2.54; P < .05), blood transfusions (fixed effects model: RR, .25; 95% CI, .10-.60; z, -3.10; P < .01; random effects model: RR, .28; 95% CI, .11-.68; z, -2.81; P < .01), and ileus rates (fixed effects model: RR, .37; 95% CI, .20-.66; z, -3.34; P = .001; random effects model: RR, .37; 95% CI, .20-.68; z, -3.21; P = .001) compared with open sigmoid resections. No difference was seen for medical complications, need for rehospitalization, and reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection is safe and has fewer postoperative surgical complications. This approach should be considered for elective cases, however, more randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.

Long-term experience with the laparoscopic approach to perforated diverticulitis plus generalized peritonitis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of perforated diverticulitis is changing form the current standard of laparotomy with resection, Hartmann procedure, and colostomy to a minimally invasive technique. In patients with complicated acute diverticulitis and peritonitis without gross fecal contamination, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage, inspection of the colon, and intraoperative drain placement of the peritoneal cavity appears to alleviate morbidity and improve the outcome. In this article, we report our experience of a laparoscopic peritoneal lavage technique with delayed definitive resection when necessary.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Records of patients who underwent intraoperative peritoneal lavage for purulent diverticulitis at the Texas Endosurgery Institute from April 1991 to September 2006 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the study, with a male/female ratio of 26:14. The average age was 60 years. Many had associated co-morbidities. The average operating time was 62 minutes. There were no conversions to an open procedure. Apart from mild postoperative paralytic ileus in six patients and chest infections in two, there were no significant peroperative or postoperative complications. Just over 50% underwent elective interval laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy. During the mean follow-up of 96 months, none of the other patients required further surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lavage of the peritoneal cavity and drainage is a safe alternative to the current standard of treatment for the management of perforated diverticulitis with or without gross fecal contamination. It is associated with a decrease in the overall cost of treatment; the use of a colostomy is avoided; patient improvement is immediate; and there is a reduction in mortality and morbidity as definitive laparoscopic resection can be performed in a nonemergent fashion. Perhaps the most important benefit, other than avoiding a colostomy, is the association of fewer wound complications such as dehiscence, wound infection, and the high risk of hernia formation. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage should be considered in all patients in whom medical and/or percutaneous treatment is not feasible. It carries minimal morbidity and should be considered the standard of care.

Emergent and elective surgery for diverticulitis

The scientific evidence and basis for standardized treatment for diverticulitis has been questioned. For years, medical and surgical management of acute diverticulitis included the theory that more than 2 significant attacks of diverticulitis would lead to the recommendations of surgical resection. This should be questioned and further investigated with prospective randomized trials. Only a small number of well-published articles support the surgical management with good scientific data. Although our ability to take a history and skill of physical examination has not changed, the use of improved technology such as high-speed computerized axial tomography has afforded us the ability to make earlier and more accurate diagnoses. This may further allow us to standardize treatment and study outcomes. It is possible that only the most critical situations may necessitate an operation. The age group less than 40 years, the immunocompromised, steroid-dependent, diabetic, and transplant patients, seem to be at greater risk with increased morbidity if not treated early and aggressively. Those individuals who present with perforation or compromised obstruction most likely will continue to need emergent intervention. But we need to reevaluate who needs surgical intervention while remaining within the confines of excellent and cost-effective care.

Profile and Significance of Emergency Colonic Resections

The objectives of this study are to define the distinguishing features between elective and emergency colonic surgery. The records of adult patients who underwent elective and emergent colonic resection over a 4-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate analysis was performed to compare outcomes for elective and emergency procedures and multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the significant predictors of outcome. Three hundred and thirty-eight elective and 147 emergency colonic resections were performed. Diverticular disease was most common in the emergency group (43.5% vs 14.2%, P = 0.001) whereas malignancy predominated in the elective group (56.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.001). The emergency group accounted for 54.7 per cent and 79.3 per cent of the total morbidity and mortality. Emergency colonic surgery has distinctive features and significance. Emergency surgery for colonic obstruction and total/subtotal resection are associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Diverticular disease compares favorably to other pathologies in postoperative outcome.

Complicated diverticular disease of the colon, do we need to change the classical approach, a retrospective study of 110 patients in southeast England

BACKGROUND

Complicated diverticular disease of the colon imposes a serious risk to patient's life, challenge to surgeons and has cost implications for health authority. The aim of this study is to evaluate the management outcome of complicated colonic diverticular disease in a district hospital and to explore the current strategies of treatment.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all patients who were admitted to the surgical ward between May 2002 and November 2006 with a diagnosis of complicated diverticular disease. A proforma of patients' details, admission date, ITU admission, management outcomes and the follow up were recorded from the patients case notes and analyzed. The mean follow-up was 34 months (range 6-60 months)

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 72.7 years (range 39-87 years). Thirty-one men (28.18 %) and Seventy-nine women (71.81%) were included in this study. Male: female ratio was 1:2.5.Sixty-eight percent of patients had one or more co-morbidities. Forty-one patients (37.27%) had two or more episodes of diverticulitis while 41.8% of them had no history of diverticular disease.Eighty-six percent of patients presented with acute abdominal pain while bleeding per rectum was the main presentation in 14%. Constipation and erratic bowel habit were the commonest chronic symptoms in patients with history of diverticular disease. Generalized tenderness was reported in 64.28% while 35.71% have left iliac fossa tenderness. Leukocytosis was reported in 58 patients (52.72%).The mean time from the admission until the start of operative intervention was 20.57 hours (range 4-96 hours). Perforation was confirmed in 59.52%. Mortality was 10.90%. Another 4 (3.63%) died during follow up for other reasons.

CONCLUSION

Complicated diverticular disease carries significant morbidity and mortality. These influenced by patient-related factors. Because of high mortality and morbidities, we suggest the need to target a specific group of patients for prophylactic resection.

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in Germany—a standardised procedure?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection of the sigmoid colon is generally considered as feasible option to open surgery, but standardised guidelines on surgical details have not been adopted yet. The aim of this survey was to investigate which techniques were applied by laparoscopic surgeons who are members of the Surgical Working Group for Minimal Invasive Surgery (CAMIC) of the German Surgical Society.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2005, we conducted a written survey among all members of the CAMIC asking them for their routine surgical strategy of laparoscopic sigmoid resection in a standardised multiple-choice questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of 20 questions covering main technical issues of laparoscopic sigmoid resection including trocar and team positioning, mobilisation and resection of the left colon, specimen retrieval as well as anastomosing technique. The results were classified into four levels of consensus depending on the level of agreement between participating surgeons.

RESULTS

There were 292 surgeons who took part in the survey. Strong consensus (>95% agreement) was only found in 1 of 20 technical details: the operating surgeon standing at the patient right's side. Consensus (75-95% agreement) was found for: position of the first assistant standing to the patient's left side, size of the camera port is 10 mm, lateral mobilisation of the left hemicolon before ligating the inferior mesenteric artery, extracorporeal resection of the sigmoid via minilaparotomy, transrectal stapling of the colorectal anastomosis, intraoperative testing of the anastomosis for leakage, no regular suturing over the anastomosis and irrigating of the abdominal cavity after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Variability of technical details of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy was surprisingly high among German laparoscopic surgeons. This fact should be considered when discussing clinical studies about laparoscopic sigmoidectomy because trocar position, type of minilaparotomy and dissection techniques may very well influence patient outcome after laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, publications of clinical results concerning laparoscopic sigmoid resection should include a precise description of the technical details of the operation.

A comparison of laparoscopic, hand-assist and open sigmoid resection in the treatment of diverticular disease

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LAP) has become more prevalent as evidence of its safety and benefits become apparent. However, in difficult cases, hand-assisted instrumentation has facilitated LAP. We examined the impact of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) on the treatment of sigmoid diverticular disease.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study using a prospectively maintained database from January 1, 2000 through November 30, 2005. Patients were divided into 3 groups: open (n = 110), LAP (n = 17), and HALS (n = 98). Data include operative time, length of stay, surgical method, conversion rate, and reasons for conversion.

RESULTS

Surgeries started as LAP were completed in that fashion 59% of the time, with 23% being converted to open and 18% converted to HALS (total 41%). HALS cases showed a 6% conversion rate to open surgery (OS). Duration of surgery and length of stay were similar between LAP and HALS.

CONCLUSIONS

HALS should be considered the optimal approach for surgery for diverticular disease.

Inflamed solitary caecal diverticulum - it is not appendicitis, what should I do?

We describe three cases that presented with symptoms suggestive of appendicitis but were found at operation to have an inflamed solitary caecal diverticulum. All were treated successfully with diverticulectomy or inversion of the diverticulum. We wish to highlight this diagnosis and its surgical management so that informed decisions can be made if this is first encountered in the operating theatre.

Laparoscopic colon surgery: past, present and future

Since its first described case in 1991, laparoscopic colon surgery has lagged behind minimally invasive surgical methods for solid intra-abdominal organs in terms of acceptability, dissemination, and ease of learning. In colon cancer, initial concerns over port site metastases and adequacy of oncologic resection have considerably dampened early enthusiasm for this procedure. Only recently, with the publication of several large, randomized controlled trials, has the incidence of port site metastases been shown to be equivalent to that of open resection. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has also been demonstrated to be at least equivalent to traditional laparotomy in terms of adequacy of oncologic resection, disease recurrence, and long-term survival. In addition, numerous reports have validated short-term benefits following laparoscopic resection for cancer, including shorter hospital stay, shorter time to recovery of bowel function, and decreased analgesic requirements, as well as other postoperative variables. In benign colonic disease, much less high-quality literature exists supporting the use of laparoscopic methods. Two recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated some short-term benefits to laparoscopic ileocolic resection for CD, in addition to evident cosmetic advantages. On the other hand, the current evidence on laparoscopic surgery for UC does not support its routine use among nonexpert surgeons outside of specialized centers. Laparoscopic colonic resection for diverticular disease appears to provide several short-term benefits, although these advantages may not translate to cases of complicated diverticulitis. Despite the increasing acceptability of minimally invasive methods for the management of benign and malignant colonic pathologies, laparoscopic colon resection remains a prohibitively difficult technique to master. Numerous technological innovations have been introduced onto the market in an effort to decrease the steep learning curve associated with laparoscopic colon surgery. Good evidence exists supporting the use of second-generation, sleeveless, hand-assist devices in this context. Similarly, new hemostatic devices such as the ultrasonic scalpel and the electrothermal bipolar vessel sealer may be particularly helpful for extensive colonic mobilizations, in which several vascular pedicles must be taken. The precise role of these hemostatic technologies has yet to be established, particularly in comparison with stapling devices and significantly cheaper laparoscopic clips. Finally, recent advances in camera systems are promising to improve the ease with which difficult colonic dissections can be performed.

The management of 38 anastomotic leaks after 1,684 intestinal resections

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the management of anastomotic leaks and assess the impact of outpatient leak presentation on clinical outcome.

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients with clinical anastomotic leaks from 1,684 adult patients undergoing large and small intestinal anastomosis in a tertiary referral center between January 1, 2003 and September 1, 2005 were studied. All pediatric patients and adult patients with esophageal and gastric leaks were excluded. Charts were reviewed for information on anastomotic leak management, discharge status before leak presentation, length of stay, readmissions, and mortality.

RESULTS

The overall leak rate was 2.3 percent. Eighty-seven percent of patients (n = 33) were managed operatively. Forty-two percent of patients (n = 16) were discharged after initial operation and presented as outpatients with anastomotic leak. The discharge and inpatient groups were comparable in respect to total length of stay (26.9 vs. 33.4 days) and number of readmissions (2 vs. 1.5). The overall mortality of 5 percent (n = 2) originated from the discharge group. A greater percentage of discharge patients required intensive care unit stays for more than two weeks (25 vs. 14 percent) and very long hospital admissions lasting more than two months (31 vs. 9 percent). A smaller percentage of the discharge group patients had their ostomies reversed (31 vs. 50 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary management of clinical anastomotic leak remains intestinal diversion. Although length of stay was shorter in the discharge group, the number of patients who experienced significant intensive care unit stays and very long hospital stays was greater. Within the discharge group, mortality was higher and fewer patients had their ostomies reversed.

Laparoscopic versus open approach for solitary insulinoma

BACKGROUND

In recent years, advances in laparoscopic techniques have allowed surgeons to treat pancreatic lesions laparoscopically. Insulinoma, the most prevalent pancreatic endocrine tumor, is mostly benign and curable with surgical resection. This study aimed to assess the results from laparoscopic resection (LG) of insulinomas and to compare them with the results from open surgery (OG).

METHODS

From September 1999 to December 2005, 56 laparoscopic pancreatic resections were performed for selected patients, including 12 laparoscopic resections of insulinomas. The results were compared with those of patients who underwent open resection of insulinomas selected from the authors' pancreatic database.

RESULTS

Three conversions to the open approach were required because of inability to identify the tumor. There were no deaths in either group, and the morbidity rates were 25% (3/12) for LG and 55% (5/9) for OG (nonsignificant difference). The pancreatic fistula rate after laparoscopic enucleation was statistically lower than after open enucleation (14% vs 100%; p = 0.015). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 13 +/- 5.9 days for LG and 17.6 +/- 7.5 days for OG (nonsignificant difference). After exclusion of the patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.5 +/- 5.8 days for LG and 17.6 +/- 7.5 days for OG (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic resection of insulinomas. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a decrease in hospital stay and pancreatic fistula after enucleation. Preoperative localization tests and laparoscopic ultrasonography seem necessary to prevent conversion.

Diagnosis and management of diverticulitis and appendicitis

Diverticulitis and appendicitis are common infections of the gastrointestinal tract that require urgent medical and surgical attention. Successful management of these conditions requires a multidisciplinary approach among primary care providers, gastroenterologists, surgeons, and radiologists. The diagnosis of appendicitis, in particular, can be difficult. Advances in radiographic imaging have improved the diagnostic accuracy in these infections. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have improved the patient's postoperative recovery when surgery is necessary in the management of these conditions.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with diverticular disease by using meta-analytic techniques.

METHODS

Comparative studies published between 1996 and 2004 of open vs. laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease were included. The end points that were evaluated are operative and functional outcomes and adverse events. A random effects model was used during analysis of these outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed and sensitivity analysis was performed to account for bias in patient selection.

RESULTS

Twelve nonrandomized studies, incorporating 19,608 patients, were included in the analysis. One study with 18,444 patients accounted for 94.5 percent of the total sample. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in reduced infective (odds ratio, 0.61; P = 0.01), pulmonary (odds ratio, 0.4; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal tract (odds ratio, 0.75; P = 0.03), and cardiovascular complications (odds ratio, 0.28; P = 0.0008) with no significant heterogeneity. Operative time was longer with laparoscopic surgery (weighted mean difference, 67.59; P = 0.04), and length of stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, -3.81; P < 0.0001); however, these outcomes demonstrated significant heterogeneity. These results remained significant throughout all the sensitivity analyses except when evaluating high-quality studies (when the study with 18,444 patients was excluded), in which only blood loss and length of stay were significantly in favor of the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results for patients selected for laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for diverticular disease are equivalent with a potential reduction in complications and hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease performed by appropriately experienced surgeons in the elective setting may be safe and feasible; because of the potential of significant bias arising from the included studies, a randomized, controlled trial is recommended.