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

Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases).

RESULTS

36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.

Robotic re-exploration for post-operative in house complications following robotic pelvic uro-oncologic surgery: Initial experience, tips and tricks

Purpose

Despite widespread acceptance of robotics in urology, literature on using the minimally invasive approach for management of post robotic surgical complications is limited. Here we describe our experience with tips and tricks for robotic re-exploration of post-operative in house complications following robotic pelvic uro-oncologic surgery.

Methods

A retrospective query of prospectively maintained database was done for all patients who underwent robotic - radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP, 437 patients) and radical prostatectomy (RP, 649 patients), from Jan 2015 or March 2021. Clinical details were collected for all who underwent a second robotic procedure during the same hospital admission for any complication related to the primary surgery.

Results

Following RCP, 5 patients were re-explored for intestinal obstruction. Surgery was successfully completed in all with a median console time of 80 minutes. Median time to the passage of flatus and discharge from hospital following relook surgery was 3 and 6 days, respectively. Following RP, 3 patients underwent robotic re-exploration (two for reactionary hemorrhage, one for rectal injury). All three cases were managed with a median console time of 75 minutes. Robotic re-exploration was accomplished without extending the skin incision of the index surgery and we did not find an increased incidence of infectious or wound related complications.

Conclusion

Robotic re-exploration for select post robotic urologic pelvic oncology surgery complications in the immediate and early post-operative period is feasible in the hands of experienced surgeons. Our experience can help others adopt robotics in such scenarios.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic redo anastomosis for management of intraperitoneal anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery

BACKGROUND

There is still no consensus on the management of intraperitoneal anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery. Among of various treatment strategies, laparoscopic redo anastomosis for intraperitoneal leakage has rarely been reported in the literature and is condemned by some. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic redo anastomosis for intraperitoneal anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of laparoscopic redo anastomosis for intraperitoneal anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery from January 2013 to May 2020. An accompanying video demonstrates the technique.

RESULTS

Fifteen consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic redo anastomosis for management of leakage after colonic surgery; two patients required conversion to open repair. A protective stoma was created in three patients during the second operation. There was no re-leakage nor mortality in this series.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic redo anastomosis was feasible and safe for the management of intraperitoneal anastomotic leakage after colonic surgery. Considering the advantages of re-do laparoscopy, this procedure should be part of every surgeon's armamentarium to deal with anastomotic leakage and represents a logical alternative to the "Diversion and Drainage" technique.

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.

Laparoscopic Reintervention for Intraperitoneal Leaks After Colonic Surgery: Do We Need a Routine Stoma?

INTRODUCTION

No universal consensus exists on the management of intraperitoneal anastomosis leakage after colonic surgery. The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic reintervention without stoma creation for intraperitoneal leaks after colonic surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Single tertiary center study conducted from January 2010 to December 2020. 54 patients with intraperitoneal leakage were divided into 2 groups according to whether they received a stoma (n = 37) or not (n = 17) during laparoscopic reintervention. Short term outcome was analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients in the no stoma group had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = .009), lower Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (5 vs. 10; P < .001) compared with the stoma group. Intensive care unit admission (43.2% vs. 5.8%; P = .006) and major complications (35.1% vs. 5.8%; P = .015) occurred more in the stoma group compared to the no stoma group. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, initial surgical procedure (P = .001) and APACHE II score (P = .039) were significant predictors of no stoma. The APACHE II score(P = .035) was an independent predictor of major complications. Finally, Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis showed that the cutoff value of APACHE II score for no stoma was 7.5.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, APACHE II score was an independent predictor of stoma formation and the cutoff value of APACHE II score for no stoma was 7.5. Our results need to be confirmed by larger and randomized studies. In particular, a specific APACHE II threshold to omit a stoma in this setting remains to be determined.

"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.

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.