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

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy in Living Donors with a History of Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) is frequently performed in living kidney transplantation donors. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of HALDN for living donors with abdominal surgical histories.

Material/Methods

A total of 573 living kidney donors underwent donor nephrectomies for living donor kidney transplantation between January 2008 and May 2015. Eighteen donors underwent open donor nephrectomy and were excluded from analyses. Left HALDN was performed in 533 donors, including 44 donors with abdominal surgical histories and 489 donors without abdominal surgical histories. Right HALDN was performed in 22 donors, including 11 donors with abdominal surgical histories and 11 donors without abdominal surgical histories. Graft quality including the lengths of arteries, veins and ureters, time to initial urination, recipient complications, and recipient estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and operation quality including warm ischemic time, blood loss, operation duration, donor complications and donor eGFR, were compared between donors with and without abdominal surgical histories in the left and right HALDN groups.

Results

The metrics of graft and operation quality were similar between living kidney donors with and without a history of abdominal surgery who underwent left or right HALDN.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of HALDN were not impaired by abdominal surgical histories.

Safety and efficacy of transperitoneal laparoscopic nephron sparing surgery in patients with previous abdominal surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the safety and feasibility of the transperitoneal laparoscopic approach during nephron sparing surgery in patients with previous abdominal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing transperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal masses. All patients had received a diagnosis of cT1a renal exophytic mass (⩽5 cm). Patients were divided into two groups, those with and without previous abdominal surgery. Patients with solitary kidney or major previous abdominal surgery were excluded in this study. The operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, surgical complications, and positive surgical margins were recorded to compare outcomes among two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 157 patients who were included in our study, 71 (45.3%) had a history of abdominal surgery (Group 1), while the remaining 86 (54.7%) had not (Group 2). Cholecystectomy was the most common previous surgery performed near the renal fossa. Patients with previous abdominal surgery experienced increased operative time (111.5 vs 83.2 min; p = 0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was found in estimated blood loss (122.1 vs 114.4 mL; p = 0.363), length of stay (4.1 vs 3.8 days; p = 0.465), rate of conversion to open surgery (2.8% vs 2.3%; p = 0.234), and rate of complications (p = 0.121). However, operative time (p = 0.003) and length of stay (p < 0.001) were greater in patients with versus those without previous open cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that laparoscopic partial nephrectomy after minor previous abdominal surgery is safe and feasible in selected patients affected by renal masses with low nephrometry score. However, previous cholecystectomy results in an increased risk of conversion to open surgery and longer hospital stay in patients undergoing right laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery in Patients With Previous Abdominal Surgery: A Single-center Experience and Literature Review

To present the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in colorectal cancer patients with a previous history of abdominal surgery. Data of a total of 121 patients with primary colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups as those with previous abdominal surgery (PAS, n=34) and those without (non-PAS, n=87). Gastric and colonic surgeries were the most common procedures in the major PAS group, whereas gynecologic and obstetric surgeries and appendectomy were the most common procedures in the minor PAS group. However, there were statistically significant differences in the overall complication rates, wound complications, and anastomotic leaks, although there were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative ileus, pneumonia, port site herniation, and postoperative bleeding between the groups. Our study results suggest that laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be safely performed in patients with colorectal cancer who underwent abdominal surgery previously.

Comparison of the Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Resections for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with a History of Prior Median Laparotomy

This study aimed to investigate the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection in comparison with those of open resection for colorectal cancer in patients with a history of prior median laparotomy (PML). Eighty-seven consecutive patients (87/1121, 7.8 %) with a history of PML who underwent major colorectal cancer resection were enrolled (laparoscopy, n = 40; open, n = 47). The conversion rate to open surgery was 25 % (n = 10). The laparoscopy group had a higher proportion of female patients (57.5 vs. 36.2 %), a lower rate of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score for physical status of ≥3 (7.5 vs. 25.5 %), and a lower pT4 tumor rate (15 vs. 38.3 %) than the open resection group. Regarding the reasons for PML, radical hysterectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gynecologic cancer was more common (32.5 vs. 4.3 %), but gastrointestinal surgeries, such as gastrectomy and colectomy, were less frequent in the laparoscopy group. Regarding intraoperative outcomes, the laparoscopy group showed a similar operative time (197 vs. 204 min), intraoperative enterotomy rate (2.5 vs. 2.1 %), and bowel resection rate (2.5 vs. 2.1 %) with the open resection group. Regarding postoperative outcomes, the laparoscopy group showed a lower complication rate (20 vs. 40.4 %), significantly reduced time to soft diet (5 vs. 7 days), and shorter hospital stay (12 vs. 18 days). Despite the high rate of open conversion, favorable short-term outcomes were observed in the laparoscopic group. Laparoscopy may be chosen as the primary approach in selected patients with a history of non-gastrointestinal PML (prior abdominal surgery for gynecological cancer).

Laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon cancer after multiple operations including urinary diversion with Indiana pouch: A case report

A 73-year-old man with lower abdominal pain was diagnosed at our hospital with sigmoid colon cancer. He had previously undergone radical cystectomy with Indiana pouch construction and gastrectomy to treat bladder cancer and gastric cancer, respectively. We performed a laparoscopic Hartmann's operation with Japanese D3 lymph node dissection. We observed severe adhesion in the abdominal cavity; adhesions between the urostomy and sigmoid colon were particularly severe. The tumor had invaded to the distal rectum, which had adhered to the pubic bone and the previously reconstructed urinary pouch. By performing careful and persistent laparoscopic dissection, we completed the operation without damaging the urostomy and with no remnant tumor tissue (R0). The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was doing well with no evidence of cancer recurrence 1 year after surgery.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Reoperative Abdomen or Pelvis

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

Risk factors for conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery: does conversion worsen outcome?

INTRODUCTION

The utilization of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery is increasing. However, conversion to open surgery remains relatively high.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated (1) conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery; (2) the outcomes of converted cases compared with successful laparoscopic and open colorectal operations; (3) predictive risk factors of conversion of laparoscopic colorectal surgery to open surgery.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we examined the clinical data of patients who underwent colon and rectal resection from 2009 to 2010. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive for conversion of laparoscopic to open operation.

RESULTS

A total of 207,311 patients underwent intended laparoscopic colorectal resection during this period. The conversion rate was 16.6 %. Considering resection type and pathology, the highest conversion rates were observed in proctectomy (31.4 %) and Crohn's disease (20.2 %). Using multivariate regression analysis, Crohn's disease (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.80), prior abdominal surgery (AOR, 2.45), proctectomy (AOR, 2.42), malignant pathology (AOR, 1.90), emergent surgery (AOR, 1.82), obesity (AOR, 1.63), and ulcerative colitis (AOR, 1.60) significantly impacted the risk of conversion. Compared with patients who were successfully completed laparoscopically, converted patients had a significantly higher complication rate (laparoscopic: 23 %; vs. converted: 35.2 % vs. open: 35.3 %), a higher in-hospital mortality rate (laparoscopic: 0.5 %; vs. converted: 0.6 %; vs. open: 1.7 %) and a longer mean hospital stay (laparoscopic: 5.4 days; vs. converted: 8.1 days; vs. open: 8.4 days); however, converted patients had better outcomes compared with the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

The conversion rate in colorectal surgery was 16.6 %. Converted patients had significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to successfully completed laparoscopic cases, although lower than open cases. Crohn's disease, prior abdominal surgery, and proctectomy are the strongest predictors for conversion of laparoscopic to open in colorectal operations.

Impact of Prior Abdominal Surgery on Rates of Conversion to Open Surgery and Short-Term Outcomes after Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of prior abdominal surgery (PAS) on rates of conversion to open surgery and short-term outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for colon and rectal cancers.

Methods

We compared three groups as follows: colon cancer patients with no PAS (n = 272), major PAS (n = 24), and minor PAS (n = 33), and rectal cancer patients with no PAS (n = 282), major PAS (n=16), and minor PAS (n = 26).

Results

In patients with colon and rectal cancers, the rate of conversion to open surgery was significantly higher in the major PAS group (25% and 25%) compared with the no PAS group (8.1% and 8.9%), while the conversion rate was similar between the no PAS and minor PAS groups (15.2% and 15.4%). The 30-day complication rate did not differ among the three groups (28.7% and 29.1% in the no PAS group, 29.2% and 25% in the major PAS group, and 27.3% and 26.9% in the minor PAS group). The mean operative time did not differ among the three groups (188 min and 227 min in the no PAS group, 191 min and 210 min in the major PAS group, and 192 min and 248 min in the minor PAS group). The rate of conversion to open surgery was significantly higher in patients with prior gastrectomy or colectomy compared with the no PAS group, while the conversion rate was similar between the no PAS group and patients with prior radical hysterectomy in patients with colon and rectal cancers.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that colorectal cancer patients with minor PAS or patients with prior radical hysterectomy can be effectively managed with a laparoscopic approach. In addition, laparoscopy can be selected as the primary surgical approach even in patients with major PAS (prior gastrectomy or colectomy) given the assumption of a higher conversion rate.

Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for metachronous colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study assessed the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for metachronous colorectal cancer in patients who had previously undergone surgery for primary colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Of the 52 patients who underwent curative resection for metachronous colorectal cancer from August 2004 to April 2013, 26 each underwent laparoscopic and open surgery. Their clinical characteristics and surgical and postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients who underwent previous open surgery was significantly higher in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (92.3 vs. 65.4 %). The body mass index was higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (23.8 vs. 21.1 kg/m(2)), and the amount of blood loss was significantly smaller in the laparoscopic than in the open group (30 vs. 195 ml); however, the mean operative time did not differ significantly. The time to first flatus (1 vs. 3 days) and first stool (2 vs. 3.5 days), as well as the length of postoperative hospital stay (10 vs. 16 days), was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group, although the rates of postoperative complications did not differ (15.4 vs. 23.1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for metachronous colorectal cancer shows short-term benefits compared with open surgery and should be considered as a treatment option in these patients.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy for patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery: results of a matched-pair analysis

PURPOSE

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for patients who have undergone previous upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) remain unclear. A matched-pair analysis was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of LG between patients with gastric cancer who had undergone PUAS and those who had not.

METHODS

A matched-pair analysis was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of LG between 22 patients who had undergone PUAS and 66 who had not (control group). To compare the outcome to that of open gastrectomy (OG) following PUAS, a total of 143 consecutive OG patients treated during the same study period were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Cholecystectomy was the most common type of PUAS, followed by gastrectomy. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the length of the operation, blood loss, and the number of retrieved lymph nodes or the rate of conversion to open surgery. The postoperative morbidity in the PUAS group (3/22, 13.6 %) was comparable to that of the control group (7/66, 10.6 %, P = 0.6981). There was no mortality within 30 days in either group. When compared to OG following PUAS (n = 23), LG was performed with significantly less blood loss with an equivalent postoperative outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

LG following PUAS is considered to be a safe and feasible surgical modality. PUAS should therefore not be regarded as a contraindication for LG.

Prior abdominal open surgery does not impair outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a case-control study in 367 patients

AIM

This prospective case-matched study was conducted to compare the outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with and without prior abdominal open surgery (PAOS).

METHOD

From June 1997 to December 2010, 167 patients with PAOS (including midline, Pfannenstiel, subcostal, right upper quadrant or transverse incision) were manually matched to all identical patients without PAOS from our prospective laparoscopic colorectal surgery database. Matching criteria included age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, body mass index, diagnosis and surgical procedure performed. Primary end-points were postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary end-points included operating time, conversion rate and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 367 patients (167 with PAOS and 200 without PAOS) were included in this study. PAOS was associated with a significantly increased mean operating time (229±66 min vs 216±71 min, P=0.044). The conversion rate was significantly higher in patients with PAOS, compared with patients without PAOS (22%vs 13%, P=0.017). There was one (0.3%) postoperative death. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was similar in both groups (22%vs 19%, P=0.658), including Grade 3 or Grade 4 morbidity, according to Dindo's classification (5%vs 5%, P=0.694). Mean hospital stay showed no difference between both groups (10±7 days vs 9±5 days, P=0.849).

CONCLUSION

This large case-control study suggests that PAOS does not affect postoperative outcomes. For this reason, a systematic laparoscopic approach in patients with PAOS, even with midline incision, should be considered in colorectal surgery.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resection in patients with previous abdominal operations

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal procedures (LCPs) are technically demanding; previous abdominal surgery may add to their complexity. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A prospective database was used to record LCPs between 2001 and 2011. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A consisted of patients with no PAS, and Group B of patients with PAS. Data collected included prior abdominal operations, type of LCP, operative time, and conversions. Operative mortality, morbidity, and ward stay in both groups were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and Student's t test.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-one patients underwent LCPs: 113 in Group A and 68 in Group B. Mean operative time in Group A and Group B was 216.5 (range, 60-520) minutes and 233.2 (range, 114-544) minutes, respectively (P = .17). In the first 90 cases, the mean operative time was significantly lower for Group A (203 minutes) than in Group B (236.5 minute) (P = .02). The rate of conversion was 10.6% (12/113) in Group A and 13.2% (9/68) in Group B (P = .6). Two patients in Group B had small bowel enterotomies (1 missed on the operating table) compared with none in Group A. Morbidities were comparable in both groups. Median hospital stay was 4.5 and 4 days in Groups A and B, respectively (P=.9). There were 3 deaths in Group A (2 due to medical causes and 1 surgical-related). One surgical-related death (missed enterotomy) occurred in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients with PAS are acceptable. There is no significant difference in conversion rate, hospital stay, morbidity, or mortality. The difference in the operative time is significant only in the early part of the learning curve. Meticulous adhesiolysis to avoid and recognize enterotomy is of paramount importance.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic colon resection for cancer after implementation of a full-time preceptorship

BACKGROUND

The learning curve for laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is considered long and difficult. The presence of a preceptor may shorten the learning curve of LC and ensure adequate oncologic and short-term results. City of Hope implemented a full-time LC preceptorship between September 2004 and March 2006 with one experienced surgeon assisting other surgeons. We review our outcomes with laparoscopic colon resection for colon adenocarcinoma after implementation of this preceptorship.

METHODS

All cases of laparoscopic colon resection for adenocarcinoma performed from September 2004 to April 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the patients in two groups: group 1 had surgery performed during the preceptorship period from September 2004 to March 2006 (n = 39) and group 2 had procedures done between April 2006 and April 2009 (n = 74). Clinical characteristics evaluated included sex, age, body mass index (BMI), ASA level, and history of previous abdominal surgery. Postoperative variables evaluated included type of operation, conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), operation time, stage, number of harvested lymph nodes, time to liquid diet, postoperative stay, complications, and 30-day mortality rate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed based on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen patients underwent LC for adenocarcinoma during the study period. Mean age and BMI were similar between the groups. There was also no significant difference in conversion rates (10.3% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.77) or total complications (25.6% vs. 41.9%, p = 0.088) between groups 1 and 2, respectively. There was a significantly greater number of lymph nodes removed in the post-preceptor period (20.3 vs. 15.8, p = 0.007). The 3-year DFS rate was 96.5%, with a mean follow-up of 22.8 months, and the 3-year OS rate was 88.9%, with mean follow-up of 22.1 months, for the entire cohort.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a program with a full-time preceptorship can help institutions overcome the challenges of laparoscopic colectomy and achieve acceptable postoperative and oncologic outcomes.