Right intrahepatic pseudocyst following acute pancreatitis: an unusual location after acute pancreatitis

The location of a pseudocyst (PC) in the liver is an exceptional event, and intrahepatic PCs are mainly located in the left lobe. We report here a case of right intrahepatic PC following acute pancreatitis associated with cystic (aberrant pancreatic) dystrophy of the duodenal wall (CDDW) and chronic pancreatitis. Morphological assessment (ultrasound, computed tomography [CT] scan, and cholangio-magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) revealed a 10-cm right intrahepatic collection and rupture of the main pancreatic duct. Percutaneous puncture permitted us to detect a high level of amylase in the collection, confirming the diagnosis of intrahepatic PC. Surgical drainage concomitant with pancreatico-duodenectomy for the treatment of CDDW resulted in disappearance of the collection. The mechanism involved in this patient was rupture of the pancreatic duct in the retroperitoneal cavity and erosion reaching the right hepatic parenchyma. Although intrahepatic PCs are rare, the diagnosis of intrahepatic PC complicating acute pancreatitis can be confirmed by a high level of amylase in the collection. Asymptomatic intrahepatic PCs can be treated conservatively, and symptomatic intrahepatic PCs can be managed either transcutaneously or surgically.     

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized trial

Background: The role of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is not yet clearly established. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis and to compare the results with delayed cholecystectomy.Methods: Between January 2001 and November 2002, 40 patients with a diagnosis of acute cholecystitis were assigned randomly to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 24 h of admission (early group, n = 20) or to initial conservative treatment followed by delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 6 to 12 weeks later (delayed group, n = 20).Results: There was no significant difference in the conversion rates (early, 25% vs delayed, 25%), operating times (early, 104 min vs delayed, 93 min), postoperative analgesia requirements (early, 5.3 days vs delayed, 4.8 days), or postoperative complications (early, 15% vs delayed, 20%). However, the early group had significantly more blood loss (228 vs 114 ml) and shorter hospital stay (4.1 vs 10.1 days).Conclusions: Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is safe and feasible, offering the additional benefit of a shorter hospital stay. It should be offered to patients with acute cholecystitis, provided the surgery is performed within 72 to 96 h of the onset of symptoms.     

Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: a randomized trial

PURPOSE: This study compared the outcomes in patients assigned to either endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) or traditional open carpal tunnel release (OCTR). METHODS: An unbalanced randomized clinical trial (91 endoscopic, 32 open) was conducted. Short-term and long-term outcomes were evaluated by a blinded assessor. The primary outcome measures were symptom severity measured on a self-report scale and nerve/vascular complications. Secondary outcomes included the McGill pain questionnaire, grip strength, pinch strength, sensory threshold (NK PSSD device, NK Biotechnical Corp, Minneapolis, MN), and time to return to work. RESULTS: Both groups improved on all outcomes. No differences were observed in primary outcomes between the groups at either baseline or follow-up at 1 week, 6 weeks, or 12 weeks after surgery. No significant complications occurred in either group. Grip strength and pain were significantly better at 1 and 6 weeks in the endoscopic group although differences dissipated by 12 weeks. No significant differences occurred in other secondary outcomes. Long-term satisfaction was lower in the endoscopic group, attributable to a 5% rate of re-operation. Lower rates of endoscopic release have occurred at our center once these results were available to surgeons and patients. CONCLUSIONS: No substantive difference in benefit was shown for these 2 methods of carpal tunnel release.     

Early analgesic effects of parecoxib versus ketorolac following laparoscopic sterilization: a randomized controlled trial

Background. The aim of this prospective double blind randomizedcontrolled trial was to compare the effects of ketorolac andparecoxib on early postoperative pain. Method. We studied 36 ASA I/II patients who received a standardizedgeneral anaesthetic for laparoscopic sterilization. Patientswere allocated randomly to receive either parecoxib 40 mg i.v.or ketorolac 30 mg i.v., at induction. After surgery, patientswere assessed on awakening and then at 1, 2, and 3 h. Abdominalpain at rest and on inspiration, in addition to nausea and sedationwere assessed on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Results. Of 36 patients, one was excluded from analysis. Inthe remaining patients, pain scores at rest and on inspirationwere significantly lower in patients given ketorolac comparedwith those given parecoxib. This difference was attributableto the higher pain scores on awakening and at 1 h postoperativelyin the parecoxib group compared with the ketorolac group. Despitethis initial difference, there was no significant differencebetween the two groups in the number of patients receiving rescueanalgesia. The median (interquartile range) time to consumptionof rescue cocodamol of 60 (46–74) min in the parecoxibgroup was not significantly shorter than that of 100 (70–130)min in the ketorolac group. The amount of cyclizine given, nauseaand sedation did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion. We found that parecoxib 40 mg i.v. given at inductionof anaesthesia was less effective than or ketorolac 30 mg i.v.,in the first hour after laparoscopic sterilization. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 846–9     

Peroral endoscopic drainage/debridement of walled-off pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND: Experience with minimal access, transoral/transmural endoscopic drainage/debridement of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) after necrotizing pancreatitis is limited. We sought to determine outcome using this technique. METHODS: Retrospective analysis. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2006, 53 patients underwent transoral/transmural endoscopic drainage/debridement of sterile (27, 51%) and infected (26, 49%) WOPN. Intervention was performed a median of 49 days (range, 20-300 days) after onset of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. A median of 3 endoscopic procedures/patient (range, 1-12) were performed. Twenty-one patients (40%) required concurrent radiologic-guided catheter drainage of associated or subsequent areas of peripancreatic fluid and/or WOPN. Twelve patients (23%) required open operative intervention a median of 47 days (range, 5-540) after initial endoscopic drainage/debridement, due to persistence of WOPN (n = 3), recurrence of a fluid collection (n = 2), cutaneous fistula formation (n = 2), or technical failure, persistence of pancreatic pain, colonic obstruction, perforation, and flank abscess (n = 1 each). Final outcome after initial endoscopic intervention (median, 178 days) revealed successful endoscopic therapy in 43 (81%) and persistence of WOPN in 10 (19%). Preexistent diabetes mellitus, size of WOPN, and extension of WOPN into paracolic gutter were significant predictive factors for need of subsequent open operative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Successful resolution of symptomatic, sterile, and infected WOPN can be achieved using a minimal access endoscopic approach. Adjuvant percutaneous drainage is necessary in up to 40% of patients, especially when WOPN extends to paracolic gutters or pelvis. Operative intervention for failed endoscopic treatment is required in about 20% of patients.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic colectomy has been proved to be both technically and oncologically feasible. However, the approach has been criticized for its procedural complexity and long operative time as a result of the loss of tactile feedback and absence of depth perception. The advent of hand-access devices offered a potential solution to these problems. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with open colectomy (OC) in the management of right-sided colonic cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with nonmetastatic carcinoma of cancer or ascending colon were recruited. Patients were excluded if they presented with surgical emergencies, had synchronous tumors on work-up, or when the tumor was larger than 6.5 cm in any dimension or preoperative imaging. Recruited patients were randomized to undergo either HALC or OC by the same surgical team. Outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, as well as disease recurrence and patient survival. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (HALC = 41, OC = 40) were successfully recruited. The 2 groups were matched for age, gender distribution, body mass index, and comorbidities. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the distribution of tumors and the final histopathological staging. HALC took significantly longer than OC (110 min vs. 97.5 minutes, P = 0.003) but resulted in significantly less blood loss (35 mL vs. 50 mL, P = 0.005). Patients after HALC experienced significantly less pain, required significantly less parenteral and enteral analgesia, recovered faster, and was associated with a shorter length of stay (7 days vs. 9 days, P = 0.004). With median follow-up of 28 to 30 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5-year survival rates remained similar (83% vs. 74%, P = 0.90). CONCLUSION: HALC retained the same short-term benefits of the pure laparoscopic approach. The technique is associated with a slightly increased but acceptable operative time. Aside as a useful adjunct in complex laparoscopic procedures, the hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is also a useful, if not more effective, alternative for patients with right-sided colonic cancer.     

Colonic necrosis following a pancreatic pseudocyst embolization

A 43-year-old man with chronic alcohol pancreatitis was admitted in our intensive care unit for an haemorrhagic shock. An abdominal CT-scan performed on admission showed bleeding from a vessel in a pancreatic pseudocyst. Initial treatment included intravenous fluids, transfusion, mechanical ventilation and vasopressive support. Percutaneous arterial embolization (PAE) of a bleeding right superior colon artery was performed with an initial good result. Nevertheless after initial clinical improvement, hypotension refractory to fluid management occurred. An abdominal CT-scan disclosed pneumatosis in right colon. A right hemicolectomy was performed. Histologic analysis confirmed ischemic colitis. The patient recovered and was discharged from the intensive care unit. Colitis necrosis after PAE for pancreatic pseudoaneurysm had never been described before. It should be suspected when haemodynamic instability occurs following PAE.     

Laparotomy versus retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare laparotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopy in debridement and drainage of retroperitoneal infected necrosis of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), and to evaluate the curative efficacy and the timing of retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement drainage (RLDD) for SAP patients.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 50 SAP cases, including 18 patients in the RLDD group and 32 patients in the laparotomy group. Observed indices included gender, age, CT severity index, Ranson score, APACHE II score, preoperative course, length of stay, operation time, mortality, postoperative complications, drainage tube indwelling time, and change of body temperature and peripheral white blood cell (PWBC) count between the time before the operation and at 48 h after surgery.

Results

Between the RLDD group and the laparotomy group, there was a significant difference in operation time (130 ± 15 vs. 148 ± 25 h; P = 0.007), length of stay [40.8 (6–121) vs. 55.9 (28–133) days; P = 0.053], and preoperative course [14.7 (5–31) vs. 18.3 (6–31) days; P = 0.05], but no significant difference in average drainage tube indwelling time [44.4 (2–182) vs. 49.8 (2–175) days; P = 0.663]. More improvement in body temperature and PWBC count was observed in the patients of the RLDD group. There was one death (1/18) in the RLDD group and four (4/32) in the laparotomy group. Fourteen cases (14/32) in the laparotomy group had postoperative complications, including pancreatic fistula (n = 11), intestinal fistula (n = 2), retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 2), infection of incision (n = 9), and 5 cases (5/18) in the RLDD group, including pancreatic fistula (n = 4) and retroperitoneal hemorrhage (n = 1).

Conclusions

RLDD, as minimally invasive surgery, is technically feasible, safe, and effective in the treatment of retroperitoneal infected necrosis in SAP patients, in contrast to the laparotomy technique, and can be performed in the early phase of SAP to prevent the deterioration of the disease.     

Endoscopic,percutaneous and laparoscopic treatment for acute biliary pancreatitis

AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of acute gallstone pancreatitis treatment and to discuss indications in relation with the different forms of the disease. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From january 1992 to june 2001, 137 patients have been treated for an acute gallstone pancreatitis. Diagnostic criteria were given by the history, clinical examination, biochemical and radiological findings. After exclusion of patients with a systemic disease, a group of 129 patients have been enrolled in a treatment regimen with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and eventual sphincterotomy, a percutaneous US-guided cholecystostomy (PC) when necessary and an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RESULTS: ERCP has been successfully performed in 121/129 patients. A PC has been performed in 5/8 patients of the failed endoscopic procedure and in 14 with acute cholecystitis. Retrograde and percutaneous cholangiographies showed main bile duct stones in 89 patients, a dilatation of the main bile duct without stones in 26 patients and a negative finding in 6 patients. An endoscopic sphincterotomy has been performed in 117 patients. A laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed in 118 patients. Mortality and morbidity rates were 1.6 and 10.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ERCP and sphincterotomy seem to be indicated in all patients observed during the first 72 hours. Endoscopic treatment and percutaneous procedure make it possible to reduce at a very low rate the cases with an unfavourable course of the disease. A definitive treatment may then be performed by the way of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

Hand‐assisted laparoscopic versus total laparoscopic right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Aim Laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer is associated with definite short‐term benefits, and is increasingly practised worldwide. The limitations of a pure laparoscopic approach include a relative lack of tactile feedback and long procedural time. Hand‐assisted laparoscopic surgery was introduced in an attempt to facilitate operation by improving the tactile sensation. To date, there is no consensus as to which approach is better. Herein we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing hand‐assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with total laparoscopic colectomy (TLC) in the management of right‐sided colonic cancer. Methods Adult patients with carcinoma of the caecum and ascending colon were recruited and randomized to undergo either HALC or TLC. Measured outcomes included operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative morbidities, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, disease recurrence and patient survival. Results Sixty patients (HALC = 30, TLC = 30) were recruited. The two groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, body mass index and final histopathological staging. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of operating time, conversion rate, operative blood loss, pain score and length of hospital stay. With a median follow‐up of 27 to 33 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5‐year survival rates remained similar (83%vs 80%, P = 0.923). Conclusion HALC is safe and feasible, but it does not show any significant benefits over TLC in terms of operating time and conversion rate. Routine use of the hand‐assisted laparoscopic technique in right hemicolectomy is therefore not recommended.     

Comparison of needlescopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Laparoscopic appendectomy has been shown to improve postoperative recovery when compared with open appendectomy. The present randomized trial was conducted to evaluate any further difference in outcome between needlescopic appendectomy (NA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis. Patients with the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either NA (instrument size < or = 3 mm) or CLA (instrument size > or = 5 mm). Standardized anesthetic technique and perioperative management were adopted. The primary end point was length of postoperative hospital stay. Other parameters such as conversion rate, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, return of bowel function, resumption of normal activities, complication rate, and length of the final scars were also assessed and compared. A total of 363 patients (NA: 174, CLA: 189) were recruited. Both approaches could accurately arrive at the diagnosis (NA: 98.3%; CLA: 100%). Compared with CLA, NA resulted in a significantly longer operation time (P = 0.015) and a higher conversion rate (P < 0.001). The final scars of the NA group were significantly shorter when compared with the CLA group (P < 0.001). Otherwise, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in terms of complication rate, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative stay, and other recovery parameters. NA resulted in a longer operation time and higher conversion rate. Except for a smaller scar, the present study was unable to demonstrate any other short-term benefits. Thus, the technique cannot be routinely recommended.     

Patient-reported outcomes after single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective trial

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newer approach that may be a safe alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) based on retrospective and small prospective studies. As the demand for single-incision surgery may be driven by patient perceptions of benefits, we designed a prospective randomized study using patient-reported outcomes as our end points.

Methods

Patients deemed candidates for either SILC or TLC were offered enrollment in the study. After induction of anesthesia, patients were randomized to SILC or TLC. Preoperative characteristics and operative data were recorded, including length of stay (LOS). Pain scores in recovery and for 48 h and satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 and 4 weeks were reported by patients. We used the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) survey preoperatively and at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess recovery. Procedural and total hospital costs per case were abstracted from hospital billing systems.

Results

Mean age of the study group was 44.1 years (±14.8), 87 % were Caucasian, and 77 % were female, with no difference between groups. Operative times were longer for SILC (median = 57 vs. 47 min, p = 0.008), but mean LOS was similar (6.8 ± 4.2 h SILC vs. 6.2 ± 4.8 h TLC, p = 0.59). Operating room cost and encounter cost were similar. GIQLI scores were not significantly different preoperatively or at 2 or 4 weeks postoperatively. Patients reported higher satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 weeks with SILC. There were no differences in pain scores in recovery or in the first 48 h, although SILC patients required significantly more narcotic in recovery (19 mg morphine equivalent vs. 11.5, p = 0.03).

Conclusions

SILC is a longer operation but can be done at the same cost as TLC. Recovery and pain scores are not significantly different. There may be an improvement in patient satisfaction with wound appearance. Both procedures are valid approaches to cholecystectomy.     

Clinical significance of drainage tube insertion in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background/Purpose We aimed to investigate the appropriateness of inserting an intraperitoneal drainage tube after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), based on postoperative pain and clinical courses, in a randomized comparative study. Methods One hundred and twenty patients who were to have LC were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. An 8-mm Penrose drain was retained below the liver bed for 42 h in each of 60 patients (group A), and no drain was retained in the remaining 60 patients (group B). Patients in each group were hospitalized for 4 days after operation, and the pain reported by the patients, using a visual analogue pain scale (VAS), and the time courses of changes in the highest body temperature, leukocyte count, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were studied comparatively for men and women. Results Mean VAS scores were significantly greater in group A than in group B at 24 h (P = 0.00004), and 48 h (P = 0.0014) after operation. When sex-stratified changes in mean VAS scores were compared within group A, females had more pain than their male counterparts at 24 h (P = 0.030), but group B showed no sex differences. When the number of patients who used analgesics postoperatively was compared between groups A and B, analgesics were used more frequently in group A. When changes in maximum body temperature were compared, the change was significantly higher in group A than in group B on day 2 after the operation (P = 0.017). Conclusions Postoperative pain was intensified by the insertion of a drainage tube after LC. This tendency was stronger in women.     

腔镜下囊肿胃吻合术治疗感染性与无菌性胰腺包裹性坏死的临床体会

目的:对比分析腹腔镜治疗感染性与无菌性胰腺包裹性坏死(WON)的治疗效果及生存质量。方法:回顾分析2015年2月至2019年3月为38例感染性WON(感染组,n=17)与有临床症状的无菌性WON(症状组,n=21)患者行腹腔镜囊肿胃吻合术联合坏死组织清除术的临床资料。分析手术效果,随访并评估患者生存质量。结果:手术时间平均(155.00±29.96)min,术中失血量平均(50.26±25.36)mL,13例(34%)患者同时行胆囊切除术。术后总体死亡率5.26%。两组手术时间、术中失血量差异无统计学意义,但感染组住院时间长于症状组(P<0.01),住院费用高于症状组(P=0.01),更多的患者需要重症护理(P=0.02),随访中感染组有更多的患者出现胰腺内外分泌功能障碍(P<0.05)。结论:感染性WON的预后较无菌性WON差,但通过微创手术可获得良好的治疗结果。     

Open versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for pyloric stenosis: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Pyloric stenosis, the most common surgical condition of infants, is treated by longitudinal myotomy of the pylorus. Comparative studies to date between open and laparoscopic pyloromyotomy have been retrospective and report conflicting results. To scientifically compare the 2 techniques, we conducted the first large prospective, randomized trial between the 2 approaches. METHODS: After obtaining IRB approval, subjects with ultrasound-proven pyloric stenosis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic pyloromyotomy. Postoperative pain management, feeding schedule, and discharge criteria were identical for both groups. Operating time, postoperative emesis, analgesia requirements, time to full feeding, length of hospitalization after operation, and complications were compared. RESULTS: From April 2003 through March 2006, 200 patients were enrolled in the study. There were no significant differences in operating time, time to full feeding, or length of stay. There were significantly fewer number of emesis episodes and doses of analgesia given in the laparoscopic group. One mucosal perforation and one incisional hernia occurred in the open group. Late in the study, 1 patient in the laparoscopic group was converted to the open operation. A wound infection occurred in 4 of the open patients compared with 2 of the laparoscopic patients (P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in operating time or length of recovery between open and laparoscopic pyloromyotomy. However, the laparoscopic approach results in less postoperative pain and reduced postoperative emesis. In addition, there was a fewer number of complications in the laparoscopic group. Finally, patients approached laparoscopically will likely display superior cosmetic outcomes with long-term follow-up.     

腹腔镜胆道探查术后胆管一期缝合与T管引流的疗效比较

目的 比较分析腹腔镜胆道探查术后胆管一期缝合与T管引流两种方法治疗胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者的疗效。方法 依据6项病例筛选标准,将2000年1月至2003年2月55例因胆囊结石继发胆总管结石行腹腔镜胆管切开取石治疗的患者,随机分为胆管一期缝合组和T管引流组,比较观察两组的手术和住院时间、输液量、住院费用、术后恢复情况及手术并发症等。结果 胆管一期缝合组27例患者,T管引流组28例患者,一期缝合组较T管引流组术后住院时间更短,肛门排气和恢复正常工作更快,输液量和住院费用更少。一期缝合组手术并发症3例(11．1％),T管引流组手术并发症8例(28．6％),其中需再次外科手术治疗的严重并发症3例(10．7％),严重并发症均由放置T管造成。两组患者随访结果差异无显著性意义。结论 腹腔镜胆管切开取石术后胆管一期缝合避免了放置T管引起的一系列弊端,体现出微创外科技术的优越性,治疗适合的胆囊结石继发胆总管结石患者是安全可行的。