Relaparoscopy for the detection and treatment of complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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.

Laparoscopy in Emergency: Why Not? Advantages of Laparoscopy in Major Emergency: A Review

A laparoscopic approach is suggested with the highest grade of recommendation for acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcers, acute appendicitis, gynaecological disorders, and non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). To date, the main qualities of laparoscopy for these acute surgical scenarios are clearly stated: quicker surgery, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. For the remaining surgical emergencies, as well as for abdominal trauma, the role of laparoscopy is still a matter of debate. Patients might benefit from a laparoscopic approach only if performed by experienced teams and surgeons which guarantee a high standard of care. More precisely, laparoscopy can limit damage to the tissue and could be effective for the reduction of the overall amount of cell debris, which is a result of the intensity with which the immune system reacts to the injury and the following symptomatology. In fact, these fragments act as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). DAMPs, as well as pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), are recognised by both surface and intracellular receptors of the immune cells and activate the cascade which, in critically ill surgical patients, is responsible for a deranged response. This may result in the development of progressive and multiple organ dysfunctions, manifesting with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coagulopathy, liver dysfunction and renal failure. In conclusion, none of the emergency surgical scenarios preclude laparoscopy, provided that the surgical tactic could ensure sufficient cleaning of the abdomen in addition to resolving the initial tissue damage caused by the “trauma”.

The Role of Relaparoscopy in the Management of Early Bariatric Surgery Complications and 30-Day Outcome: a Tertiary Centre Experience

The laparoscopic approach for dealing with bariatric complications has become the gold standard of modern practice. The aim of this study is to assess the role of relaparoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic approach towards managing complications and improving 30-day outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted in a tertiary bariatric unit. Data were collected on all bariatric surgical procedures performed between March 2013 and March 2019. Any patient who was returned to theatre for a suspected serious complication was identified and their outcome studied.

RESULTS

Over the 5-year study period, the total number of operations performed was 1660 (981 laparoscopic gastric bypass (LRYGB), 612 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and 67 revisional bariatric operations). Early postoperative complications (in hospital or within 30 days of surgery) that lead to reoperation were recorded in 33 patients (1.9%). These complications occurred after LRYGB in 26 patients (2.65%) and LSG in 7 patients (1.14%), respectively. Anastomotic leaks occurred in 1.1% of LRYGB, whilst 0.6% of patients have jejuno-jejunostomy obstruction. Obstruction at the gastro-jejunostomy anastomosis occurred in one patient. Following LSG, one mortality was recorded following bleeding from the staple line (0.06%) and five patients (0.3%) had leaks from the staple line. Thirty-one reoperations were performed laparoscopically, and two were converted to the open approach, whilst 2 operations were planned as open from the outset.

CONCLUSION

Relaparoscopy is an effective and safe approach to the management of clinically or radiologically suspected early complications after bariatric surgery. Graphical abstract.

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.

Re-laparoscopy for the treatment of complications after laparoscopic appendectomy: is it possible to maintain the minimally invasive approach?

Despite laparoscopy is considered an adequate tool for the diagnosis and management of postoperative surgical complications, its role after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopy is useful for treating complications after laparoscopic appendectomy. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing LA, who needed a reoperation for postoperative complications during the period 2006-2020, was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A total of 2019 LA were performed, and 41 patients (2%) underwent a RL for post appendectomy complications. Twenty-three patients (56%) were male. The mean age was 32 years old (16-92 years). The majority of patients (75%) had a complicated acute appendicitis in the first operation. The most common findings at RL were generalized peritonitis (36.4%) and intraabdominal abscesses (26.8%). Five patients (12.1%) developed stump appendicitis, all of them as a late complication. The procedures were completed laparoscopically in 85% and 6 patients (15%) required conversion to an open approach. Three patients (7.3%) required a percutaneous drainage and two patients (4.9%) needed an additional surgery (laparotomy) after RL, all of them presenting with generalized peritonitis at the RL. No mortality was registered. Re-laparoscopy is feasible, safe, and highly effective for the diagnosis and treatment of post appendectomy complications. RL should be encouraged to avoid more aggressive procedures.

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.

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.

"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.

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

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has increasingly become the standard of care for patients who undergo colorectal surgery for both benign and malignant disease. On the basis of this growing experience, there is now an expanded role for laparoscopic approach to postoperative complications after primary colorectal resection. However, there is little literature specific to this topic. We report a ten-year experience with laparoscopic treatment of early complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

From January 2003 to December 2012, a total of 1,292 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery in our department. One hundred and two (7.9%) patients required reoperation for a postoperative complication. Laparoscopy has been also adopted as the preferred procedure for management of postoperative complications. A retrospective review of 84 patients who had relaparoscopy (RL) for postoperative complications, including peritonitis, ureteral injury, bowel obstruction, and bleeding, was performed.

RESULTS

Reoperation was carried out laparoscopically in 79 (94.0%) patients. Five (6.0%) conversions were necessary because of massive colonic ischemia, generalized fecal peritonitis, and lack of working space. The most common finding at RL was anastomotic leakage (57.1%) that was managed by peritoneal lavage and ileostomy in 91.7% of cases. Six percent of patients had negative RL. Overall morbidity rate was 25.0%. Five patients required additional surgery: four (5.1%) after RL and one after a converted procedure. There were five (6.0%) deaths from septic shock, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective tool for management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In this setting, RL represents the first step of re-exploration and treatment, with no delay to conversion to open procedure even in skilled laparoscopic hands.

The Effects of Repeat Laparoscopic Surgery on the Treatment of Complications Resulting from Laparoscopic Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery is frequently applied in the operative management of appendicitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis because it is a minimally invasive procedure. There are, however, some complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) that result in the need for reoperation. In the current study, we examine the effects of repeat laparoscopic surgery on the treatment of complications arising from LC/LA. From April 2005 to March 2011, we examined a cohort of patients who had received LC or LA and experienced complications that required reoperations. We focused on patients with postoperative hemorrhages, postoperative peritonitis, early postoperative small bowel obstructions (EPSBO), and biliary complications (after LC) who were treated through a repeat laparoscopic approach. The general demographics of the patients, their postoperative complications, procedures for selecting the appropriate reoperation method, and repeat laparoscopic findings are described in detail. During the 6-year period examined, 1608 patients received LC and 1486 patients received LA at the hospitals participating in this study. In patients with complications requiring reoperation, the repeat laparoscopic approach was performed successfully (without the need for further laparotomy) in 50 per cent of the patients with postoperative hemorrhage (2 of 4), 50 per cent of the patients with postoperative peritonitis (2 of 4), 75 per cent of the EPSBO patients (3 of 5), and 50 per cent the of patients with biliary complications (1 of 2). The repeat laparoscopic approach is an appropriate method for the management of complications arising from laparoscopic surgery. In patients with postoperative hemorrhage, laparoscopic hemostasis and hematoma evacuations can be performed while maintaining stable hemodynamics. In addition, laparoscopic approaches are also feasible for selective post-LC ductal injuries, EPSBO, and unconfirmed diagnoses of peritonitis after laparoscopic surgery.

Relaparoscopy in minor bile leakage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an alternative approach?

PURPOSE

Bile leakage is one of the most important complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and it has been recognized as a major clinical challenge during the last 2 decades. Although endoscopic and percutaneous interventions are widely accepted in the management of bile leakage, relaparoscopy permits the bile drainage adequately and gives direct control of bile leakage site in selected patients.

METHODS

Data for patients with minor bile leakage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy were collected from January 2001 to January 2010. Patients were categorized in 2 groups, nonoperative and relaparoscopy. Clinical presentation, kind of management, and outcomes were evaluated in 2 groups.

RESULTS

After a total of 2652 laparoscopic cholecystectomies, postoperative minor bile leakage occurred in 17 (0.64%) patients. Four patients with minimal leakage were managed by percutaneous drainage alone. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was applied to 4 patients with jaundice, high output bile fistula, and a patient with retained common bile duct stone. Bile leakage was controlled in 3 of the 4 patients. There were 9 patients in the relaparoscopic group to which 1 patient was added after unsuccessful endoscopic intervention. The source of bile leakage in the relaparoscopic cases was defined as 50% from cystic duct stump and 50% from Luschka or accessory ducts. The success rate of bile leakage control after relaparoscopy was 90%. The mean of hospital stay after relaparoscopy was 3 days (range, 2-10 d) and after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography intervention or percutaneous drainage was 10 days (range, 3-28 d).

CONCLUSIONS

Relaparoscopy is an effective procedure in the management of minor bile leakage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and can be an alternative approach in selected situations.

Reoperation following minimally invasive surgery: are the "rules" different?

This article discusses various indications for reoperation and how employing laparoscopy at primary operation might affect the incidence, presentation, and treatment of common complications. The abdomen is likely to be far less hostile after laparoscopic surgery than after laparotomy. Adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall are minimal or absent. As a result, relaparoscopy is a reasonable diagnostic and often successful treatment modality in patients suspected of having intra-abdominal complications following laparoscopic operation. Laparoscopic success in dealing with acute bowel obstruction after laparoscopic surgery is related to the paucity of adhesions and unique mechanisms of obstruction that are localized and amenable to minimal dissection. The same mechanisms are also responsible for the increased risk of bowel necrosis associated with bowel obstruction after laparoscopic surgery. Limited experience with successful laparoscopic management of bleeding and anastomotic leak has been reported with the caveat that if the bleeding or contamination is excessive, cannot be identified and controlled quickly, or is unresponsive to a reasonable and brief effort using laparoscopy, a prompt laparotomy is indicated. Based on the current literature, it is reasonable to conclude that laparoscopic approaches to primary Crohn's disease and relaparoscopy for recurrence are an appropriate (perhaps the most appropriate) management strategy. Also, laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis after laparoscopic subtotal colectomy is the preferred treatment for toxic ulcerative colitis. We conclude that laparoscopic reoperative surgery is feasible for the treatment of many complications following laparoscopic major abdominal surgery and bowel resection.

Is a laparoscopic approach useful for treating complications after primary laparoscopic colorectal surgery?

PURPOSE

Although the use of laparoscopy for the management of postoperative complications has been previously well documented for different pathologies, there is scarce information regarding its use after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected from all patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery between June 2000 to October 2007. Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach used for the reoperation: laparoscopy (Group I) or laparotomy (Group II). Data were statistically analyzed by using Student's t-test and chi-squared test.

RESULTS

In all, 510 patients were analyzed. Twenty-seven patients (5.2 percent), 14 men and 13 women (men/women Group I: 10/7 vs. Group II: 4/6; P = not significant (NS)), required a second surgery because of postoperative complications (Group I: 17 (63 percent); Group II: 10 (37 percent)). Mean age was 60 +/- 17 years (Group I: 61.7 +/- 17.7 vs. Group II: 57.1 +/- 16 years; P = NS). Fifteen patients (55.5 percent) had anastomotic leaks (Group I 13/17 (76.5 percent) vs. Group II 2/13 (15 percent); P = 0.004). The were no differences between the groups regarding the length of stay or postoperative complications (Group I: 11.9 +/- 9.6 vs. Group II: 18.1 +/- 19.7 days: P = NS; Group I: 1 vs. Group II: 3; P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach is a useful tool for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, especially anastomotic leaks. Randomized, controlled trials are necessary to validate these findings.

Reoperation of the biliary tract by laparoscopy: an analysis of 39 cases

BACKGROUND

Previously, prior biliary tract surgery was considered a contraindication to laparoscopic biliary tract reoperation. In this paper, we present our experience with laparoscopic biliary tract reoperation for patients with the choledocholithiasis for whom the endoscopic sphincterotomy has failed or is contraindicated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on data from the attempted laparoscopic reoperation of 39 patients, examining open conversion rates, operative times, complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of 39 cases, 38 were completed laparoscopically: 1 case required a conversion to the open operation because of difficulty in exposing the common bile duct. Mean operative time was 135 minutes. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 4 days. Procedures included 3 cases of laparoscopic residual gallbladder resection, 13 cases of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary duct closure of choledochotomy, and 22 cases of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and choledochotomy with T-tube drainage. There was 1 case of duodenal perforation during dissection, which was repaired laparoscopically. There were 2 cases of retained stones. Postoperative asymptomatic hypermalasia occurred in 3 cases. There were no complications due to port placement, no postoperative bleeding, bile or bowel leakage, and no mortality. At a mean follow-up time of 18 months, there was no recurrence or formation of duct stricture.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic biliary tract reoperation is safe and feasible for experienced laparoscopic surgeons and is an alternative choice for patients with choledocholithiasis for whom the endoscopic sphincterectomy has failed or is contraindicated.

Entirely laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma: lymph node yield and resection margins

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma has been widely reported from Japan and Korea but there are sparse data for Western patients. This study aimed to describe and compare the perioperative outcomes and pathological staging for consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or open gastrectomy by a single surgeon in the UK.

METHODS

During the period from April 2005 to May, 2007, patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were selected for open or laparoscopic resection at the discretion of the surgeon. Gastric resections for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) or benign disease were excluded. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed entirely laparoscopically with intracorporeal anastomosis, followed by specimen retrieval via a suprapubic incision.

RESULTS

There were 21 men and 8 women, median age 75 years (range 45-88 years), with American Anaesthesiology Association scores of 3 or 4 in 19 patients. Gastrectomy was performed laparoscopically in 18 patients (62%; total gastrectomy, 6 patients) or open in 11 patients (total gastrectomy, 7). Five laparoscopic gastrectomies were converted to open procedures, three patients had re-laparoscopy and one patient had subsequent laparotomy. As compared with open gastrectomy, laparoscopic resection had longer operation time and similar length of hospital stay. There was one postoperative mortality in each group. There was similar lymph node retrieval for laparoscopic or open resection [23 (range 10-44) versus 26 (8-95), respectively; p = 0.40], with inadequate lymphadenectomy (<15 nodes) in two laparoscopic cases and one open case. R1 resection was limited to patients with pT3 disease (laparoscopic, 4; open, 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative outcomes were similar for laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. Lymphadenectomy was adequate in 89% of laparoscopic gastrectomies. pT3 tumours were at risk of noncurative resection, as described in large Western series of open gastrectomy.

Early relaparoscopy for management of suspected postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of complications after laparoscopic surgery is difficult and sometimes late.

METHODS

We compared the outcome of patients who had early (<48 h) relaparoscopy for suspected postoperative complication to those where relaparoscopy was delayed (>48 h).

RESULTS

During the study period, 7726 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery on our service. Of these, 57 (0.7%) patients had relaparoscopy for suspected complication. The primary operations were elective in 48 patients and emergent in nine. Thirty-seven patients had early, 20 had delayed, secondary operations. The most common indication in the early group was excessive pain (46%) followed by peritoneal signs in 35%. In the delayed group, the most common indication was signs of systemic inflammatory response syndrome in 30% and peritoneal signs in 25%. Relaparoscopy was negative in 16 (28%) patients with no difference between groups. The identified complication was treated laparoscopically in 37(65%) patients, and the rest were converted. The patients in the delayed group had a significantly longer hospital stay (p < 0.003) and had a higher rate of complications (p < 0.05). They also had a higher mortality rate (10% vs. 2.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

A policy of early relaparoscopy in patients with suspected complications enables timely management of identified complications with expedient resolution.

Laparoscopic diagnosis and treatment of postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

There is no unequivocal attitude to a laparoscopy as to the means in the diagnosis and treatment of postoperative surgical complications. Our study sought to determine the role of laparoscopy in the management of suspected postoperative complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the patients who underwent laparoscopy for complications of previous surgery over a 6-year period.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients underwent laparoscopy for complications during the study period including 49 laparoscopies, 14 laparotomies, and 1 endoscopic procedure. The median delay between operations was 2 +/- 4.5 days. In 18 (28.1%) patients, laparoscopy did not find intra-abdominal pathology. The conversion to open surgery was necessary in 9 (14.1%) patients. Seven patients underwent more than 1 relaparoscopy. No cases of misdiagnosis were observed. Morbidity was 12.5%. There was no laparoscopy-related death.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is an effective tool for the management of postoperative complications after open and laparoscopic surgery. It avoids diagnostic delay and unnecessary laparotomy.

Reoperation of biliary tract by laparoscopy: Experiences with 39 cases

AIM: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of biliary tract reoperation by laparoscopy for the patients with retained or recurrent stones who failed in endoscopic sphincterotomy.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data obtained from attempted laparoscopic reoperation for 39 patients in a single institution was performed, examining open conversion rates, operative times, complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS: Out of the 39 cases, 38 (97%) completed laparoscopy, 1 required conversion to open operation because of difficulty in exposing the common bile duct. The mean operative time was 135 min. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 4 d. Procedures included laparoscopic residual gallbladder resection in 3 cases, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and primary duct closure at choledochotomy in 13 cases, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and choledochotomy with T tube drainage in 22 cases. Duodenal perforation occurred in 1 case during dissection and was repaired laparoscopically. Retained stones were found in 2 cases. Postoperative asymptomatic hyperamylasemia occurred in 3 cases. There were no complications due to port placement, postoperative bleeding, bile or bowel leakage and mortality. No recurrence or formation of duct stricture was observed during a mean follow-up period of 18 mo.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic biliary tract reoperation is safe and feasible if it is performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, and is an alternative choice for patients with choledocholithiasis who fail in endoscopic sphincterectomy.

[Relaparoscopy as an alternative to laparotomy for laparoscopic complications]

In the field of visceral surgery, complications requiring reintervention following laparoscopy are currently most likely to be approached with conventional laparotomy. However, relaparoscopy has the theoretical advantage of maintaining the reduced morbidity allowed by the first procedure. Essential to the success of relaparoscopy is a clear understanding of the various specific complications. Should the surgeon decide on relaparoscopy, then prompt action is of central importance. Following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, it is fundamentally technically possible through renewed laparoscopy to treat not only subhepatic abscesses but also smaller lesions of the bile duct, for example from the gall bladder fossa. Revision of complications following fundoplication is technically very demanding and should be performed only by those most experienced in the techniques of laparoscopy. In contrast to interventional drainage, relaparoscopy of abscesses following laparoscopic appendectomy has the theoretical advantage of allowing recognition and treatment of the causes, for example in the case of appendicular stump insufficiency. Relapses very shortly after endoscopic surgery of inguinal herniae result from erroneous technique and may be corrected endoscopically in most cases. Complications following colon surgery have so far been dealt with using open surgery for technical reasons and also for patient safety. Given the uncertainty in the literature, patient safety must be paramount, when deciding on which technique is best to employ, particularly in cases of haemorrhage.

Fistula Between Cystic Artery Pseudoaneurysm and Cystic Bile Duct Cause of Acute Anemia One Year After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

We present a case of hemorrhage from a cystic artery pseudoaneurysm one year after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A 78-year-old male with a history of recurrent melena, hematemesis, and right upper abdominal pain was admitted to our emergency department. His blood pressure was 60/30 mm Hg with a pulse rate of 100 beats per minute. Hemoglobin was 7.6 g/dL and white blood cell count 19500/mm(3). Computed tomography scan of the abdomen and selective digital subtraction arteriography showed a pseudoaneurysm in the region of the former bed of the gallbladder. During gastroscopy, a pulsatile bleeding out of the papilla of Vater was found. Surgery by the open approach confirmed the presence of a cystic artery pseudoaneurysm and showed an additional fistula between the pseudoaneurysm and the cystic bile duct. Resection of the pseudoaneurysm and revision of the common bile duct with implantation of a T-tube was performed. The patient recovered well and was discharged from our hospital three weeks after surgery.

Laparoscopic surgery for the management of obstruction of the gastric outlet and small bowel following previous laparotomy for major upper gastrointestinal resection or cancer palliation: a new concept

BACKGROUND

Surgical relief of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) or small bowel obstruction in patients who had undergone major resection or palliative bypass surgery for malignancy is conventionally achieved at a laparotomy. The potential role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of these complications has not been previously explored.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2004, 4 consecutive patients, age range 37 to 72 years, where admitted with gastric outlet or proximal small bowel obstruction following previous open surgery for suspected intra-abdominal malignancy, under the care of one surgeon. The respective past histories of these patients were recurrent GOO and concomitant distal biliary obstruction following a previous open gastric bypass elsewhere for metastatic pancreatic head cancer; persistent adhesive small bowel obstruction following radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer; GOO secondary to intra-abdominal recurrence 6 months after hepatobiliary resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma; and GOO following previous pancreatico-duodenectomy for suspected pancreatic head cancer. Their respective surgical management consisted of a laparoscopic re-do gastric bypass and concomitant cholecystojejunostomy; adhesiolysis and revision of the Roux-en-Y enteric anastomosis; a Devine exclusion gastroenterostomy; and resection and refashioning of the gastroenterostomy.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to open surgery and no postoperative complications. The median operating time was 240 minutes (range, 145 to 300 minutes). Oral free fluid intake was resumed on postoperative day (POD) 1, while diet was resumed between POD 2 and 4. The median postoperative hospital stay was 15.5 days (range, 14 to 25 days).

CONCLUSION

Previous laparotomy and major resection or palliation of malignancy do not preclude the application of the laparoscopic approach for the management of upper gastrointestinal obstruction. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis and revision of enteroenteric and gastroenteric anastomoses are feasible management options in the hands of those experienced with complex laparoscopic surgery.

Le risque de plaies biliaires au cours de la cholécystectomie par laparoscopie

The incidence of iatrogenic injuries of the bile ducts has increased significantly since laparascopic cholecystectomy became the "gold standard" in the treatment of cholelithiasis. The incidence of major biliary ductal injury ranges from 0.25% to 0.74%, and of minor injury from 0.28% to 1.7%. The cause of the injury is not always clearly identifiable. In more than half the cases, the injury occurs during maneuvers to isolate the cystic duct or to free the gallbladder from the common bile duct. These maneuvers may be more difficult and consequently more dangerous when there is significant inflammation as may be seen in acute cholecystitis, or in case of obesity, cirrhosis with portal hypertension, previous surgery with peritoneal adhesions, or anatomic variations of the hepatic pedicle. Pre-operative evaluation of clinical risk factors should be coupled with intra-operative caution and instrumental evaluation. The increase in frequency of iatrogenic biliary injuries can not be attributed simply to the inexperience of the surgeon or the learning curve as was initially suggested. Many injuries are due, rather, to the surgeon's failure to respect basic technical rules, long established for open cholecystectomy and which should not be modified for the laparoscopic technique. While routine cholangiography does not offer complete protection from iatrogenic ductal injuries, it is essential to visualize the biliary tract whenever a lesion of the ductal system is clearly identified or even suspected. In such cases, facility with the technique of intraoperative cholangiography and a knowledge of the radiological anatomy of the biliary tree are essential for an accurate and complete intraoperative evaluation of the biliary injury. Finally, in the presence of acute or chronic inflammation or other factors for technical difficulty (obesity, cirrhosis, previous surgery, anatomic variations, intraoperative bleeding), the surgeon must not hesitate to consider conversion to an open surgical approach. In such complicated cases, even the open approach is not a guarantee against biliary injury; there is no substitute for experience and caution in biliary surgery.

A ten-year study on non-surgical treatment of postoperative bile leakage

AIM: To summarize systematically our ten-year experience in non-surgical treatment of postoperative bile leakage, and explore its methods and indications.

METHODS: The clinical data of 57 patients with postoperative bile leakage treated non-surgically from January 1991 to December 2000 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS: The site of the leakage was mainly the disrupted or damaged fistulous tracts of T tube in 25 patients (43.9%), the fossae of gallbladder in 14 cases (24.6%), the cut surface of liver in 7 cases (12.3%), and it was undetectable in the other 2 cases. Besides bile leakage, the wrong ligation of bile ducts was found in 3 patients, residual stones of the distal bile duct in 5 patients, benign papillary strictures in 3, and biloma resulting from bile collections in 2. The diagnoses were made according to the history of surgery, clinical situation, abdominal paracentesis, ultrasonography, ERCP, PTC, MRI/MRCP, gastroscopy and percutaneous fistulography. All 57 patients were treated non-surgically at the beginning of bile leakage. The non-surgical methods included keeping original drainage unobstructed, percutaneous abdominal paracentesis or drainage, percutaneous transhepatic cholangial/biliary drainage (PTCD/PTBD), endoscopic management, traditional Chinese medicine and so on. Of the 57 patients, 2 patients died, 5 were converted to reoperation later, the other 50 were directly cured by non-surgical methods without any complication. The cure rate of the non-surgery was 82.5% (50/57).

CONCLUSION: Many nonoperative methods are available to treat postoperative bile leakage. Non-surgical treatment may serve as the first choice for the treatment of bile leakage for its advantages in higher cure rate, convenience and safety in practice. It is important to choose the specific non-surgical method according to the volume, site of bile leakage and patient's condition.