Video-assisted versus open ileocolic resection in primary Crohn’s disease: a comparative case-matched study

Despite the technical difficulties, laparoscopic ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease (CD) has become widely accepted in recent years, due to its potential benefits. There are numerous reports concerning the use of laparoscopy in successfully treating CD, including two randomized trials and few comparative studies. For the most part, these reports outline use of laparoscopic approach in primary distal ileal or ileocolic disease, with a careful selection of the patients. The purpose of this comparative case–control study was to point out potential advantages and disadvantages in short- and long-term outcomes of the laparoscopic approach compared with the open one. From January 1999 to January 2004, 200 patients were admitted in our Surgical Unit for complicated primary CD. 100 patients (group 1) underwent a laparoscopic ileocolic resection, 100 patients (group 2), with alike demographic and clinical characteristics, underwent the same procedure using a traditional approach. The incidence of perforative disease was 32 and 40% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Average operative time was 140 min (range 90–245 min) in the video-assisted group and 98 min (range 65–255 min) in group 2 (P < 0.05). Postoperative morbidity was 6 and 8% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = NS). Recovery of peristalsis occurred within 2–3 days in group 1 and 3–4 days in group 2 (P = NS). Median postoperative hospitalization was 7 days (range 5–18 days) in group 1 and 9 days (range 7–22 days) in control group (P < 0.05). The overall rate of surgical relapse of CD was 8 and 13% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = NS), at a mean follow-up of 52 and 60 months, respectively. The 1-year surgical recurrence rate was similar (3%) for the two groups. In conclusions, in spite of the technical difficulties, video-assisted surgery for CD offers advantages over laparotomy, including less postoperative pain, reduced postoperative hospital stay, less disability of the patient, and better cosmetic results. Potential advantages are: easier approach for re-resection, lower rate of postoperative adhesions and bowel obstruction, and lower rate of wound complications.     

Laparoscopic colectomy for complex diverticular disease: a justifiable choice?

Background  

Surgery is increasingly reserved for complicated diverticulitis. The role of laparoscopy in this context is ill defined. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and outcomes associated with the application of laparoscopy to an unrestricted spectrum of diverticular pathologies, with an emphasis on complicated disease.     

Complicated appendicitis--is the laparoscopic approach appropriate? A comparative study with the open approach: outcome in a community hospital setting

Good outcome has been reported with the laparoscopic approach in uncomplicated appendicitis, but a higher incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses has been reported after laparoscopic appendectomy in complicated appendicitis. This retrospective comparative study compares outcome after laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in complicated appendicitis. All patients who had LA or OA for complicated appendicitis between January 2003 and February 2006 were included in the study. Data collection included demographics, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), complications, readmission, and reoperative rates. The primary end points for analysis were postoperative intraabdominal abscess and complication rates and secondary end points were LOS and operative time. All data were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Of 104 patients, 43 patients underwent LA and 61 had OA. The mean age (24.8 +/- 16.5 versus 31.3 +/- 18.9, P = 0.08) in the LA group was lower than the OA group because there was a significantly higher proportion of pediatric patients (34.8% versus 14.8%, P = 0.02) who had LA. There was no significant difference in gender (female/male, 14/29 versus 27/34, P = 0.3) or American Society of Anesthesiologists class distribution (American Society of Anesthesiologists 1/2/3/4/, 35/7/1/0 versus 45/12/3/1, P = 0.68) between the two groups. The operative time (100.5 +/- 36.2 versus 81.5 +/- 29.5 minutes, P = 0.03) was significantly longer and the estimated blood loss (21 mL versus 33 mL, P = 0.01) was lower in LA when compared with OA, but there was no significant difference in the number of patients with preoperative peritonitis versus abscesses (7/36 versus 13/48, P = 0.6) in both groups. There was no difference in the median LOS (6 [interquartile range 5-9] versus 6 [interquartile range 4-8], P = 0.7) in the two groups. The conversion rate in LA was 18.6% (n = 8). There was also no significant difference in the complication (17/43 [39.5%] versus 21/61 [34.4%], P = 0.54), reoperative (3/43 [7%] versus 0/61 [0%], P = 0.07), and 30-day readmission (5/41 [11.6%] versus 3/61 [4.9%], P = 0.23) rates between the two groups. The rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses was significantly higher in the LA group when compared with the OA group (6/43 [14%] versus 0/61 [0%], P = 0.04) and the wound infection (1/43 [2.3%] versus 5/61 [8.2%], P = 0.4) and pulmonary complication (0/43 [0%] versus 3/61 [4.9%], P = 0.26) rate was higher in the OA group. There was no mortality in the LA group, but there was one mortality in the OA group resulting from postoperative myocardial infarction. Laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed in patients with complicated appendicitis with a comparative operative time, LOS, and complication rates but results in a significantly higher intraabdominal abscess rate and lower wound infection rate when compared with OA.     

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy in pancreatic tumours: a case–control study

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has become an increasingly used procedure in the surgical treatment of benign or borderline cystic and endocrine tumours. The feasibility and safety of this technique is well known but its results when compared with open distal pancreatectomy were rarely reported in literature. Data from 22 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were recorded in a prospective database from January 2006 to January 2010. These patients were matched with 22 patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomy from January 2000 to December 2005, regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, pancreatic pathology. Intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcome were compared between the two groups. Blood loss, amount of analgesic drugs administered, postoperative mortality and morbidity and pancreatic fistula rate were similar in laparoscopic and open groups. Tumour size was significantly smaller in laparoscopic group (2.0 ± 3.3 vs. 5.0 ± 4.2 cm; P = 0.038). Operative time was significantly shorter in open group (145 ± 49 vs. 225 ± 83 min, P = 0.045). Time to adequate oral intake and length of postoperative hospital stay were significantly better in laparoscopic group than in open group (3.0 ± 0.8 vs. 4.0 ± 0.7 days; P = 0.030 and 8.0 ± 1.3 vs. 11.0 ± 3.0 days; P = 0.011, respectively). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a feasible and safe surgical approach as well as open distal pancreatectomy.     

Laparoscopic appendicectomy versus open appendicectomy: a comparative study of clinical outcome and cost analysis — Institutional experience

Background  

Laparoscopic appendicetomy had not gained importance against open appendicectomy and it remains controversial in Indian perspective.     

Does delay in surgical debridement increase the risk of infection in open tibia fractures in Saudi patients? A retrospective cohort study

BackgroundInfection is the most common and devastating complication of open fractures, with a reported incidence of 3–40%. Tibia bone along its anteromedial surface has relatively thin soft tissue coverage; hence the open tibia fracture incidence rate ranges from 49.4% to 63.2%. Open fractures are usually classified based on the Gustilo & Anderson classification system, which is used by surgeons as an index for the severity of an injury and as a prognostic tool. Our current practice follows the 6-h rule of irrigation and debridement (I&D). Nevertheless, there is little support for this opinion in the literature. Our study concentrates on identifying the risk factors of infection in open tibia fractures and comparing the rate of infection if surgical irrigation and debridement was delayed.MethodsThe medical records of 389 patients with open fractures were reviewed. Of these cases, 113 patients with open tibia fracture who presented to our Hospital from the period 1997 to 2008 fit the inclusion criteria and were included in a retrospective cohort study.ResultsA total of 113 tibia fractures were reviewed, with an average patient age of 31.70 years; 87.1% of the fractures were high-energy fractures, and the most common mechanism of injury was a motor vehicle accident (62.4%). The data analysis revealed no difference in overall infectious outcome when comparing initial I&D performed within 6 h to when I&D was performed after 6 h (P = 0.201). The data analysis showed a significant relationship between infection and wound closure in first surgery in both univariate and multivariate analysis (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.014), respectively.ConclusionThis study showed no significant evidence to support the 6-h rule, but it did demonstrate a significant relationship between the Gustilo stage and infection, as well as an increased infection rate if external fixation was used or if the wound was left open during the initial irrigation and debridement. We believe that more studies are required to identify the relationship between infection and the delay in irrigation and debridement; a meta-analysis of the currently available data may provide an answer to this question.     

Colonic resection in the setting of damage control laparotomy: is delayed anastomosis safe?

Based on a large body of literature concerning the subject, trauma surgeons are becoming more comfortable with anastomosis rather than stoma creation in patients with destructive colon injuries requiring resection. This literature was largely generated before the widespread acceptance of the importance of damage control laparotomy (DCL). Thus, when such injuries occur in patients initially left in colonic discontinuity after DCL, the question of anastomosis versus stoma becomes more difficult, and there are no data to guide management decisions. The goal of this report is to describe the results of our early experience with delayed anastomosis (DA) after destructive colon injury in the setting of DCL. We reviewed the records of patients with destructive colon injuries at our Level I trauma center over a 5.5-year period for demographics, injury characteristics, and outcome. Studied outcomes included anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal abscess, and colon injury-related death. The decision to proceed with DA was based on individual surgeon opinion at the time of re-exploration. From January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2006, 92 patients sustained colon injury, 55 of which required resection (31 blunt mechanism and 24 penetrating). Twenty-two resections occurred in the setting of DCL. Six of these patients underwent stoma creation and 11 underwent DA. Three died before reoperation, and two had an anastomosis created during the initial DCL. The remaining 33 resections occurred during initial definitive operation, and 21 underwent anastomosis, whereas 12 had a stoma created. Comparing the 11 patients undergoing DA with the 21 undergoing immediate anastomosis, the anastomotic leak rate (0% vs 5%), abscess rate (36% vs 24%), and colon related-death rate (9% vs 0%; all P > 0.05) were similar. Six patients undergoing DA had a right hemicolectomy with ileocolonic anastomosis, four had a segmental left colon resection, and one had a near total abdominal colectomy with ileosigmoid anastomosis. Delayed anastomosis of colon injuries after DCL is safe in selected patients and has a similar complication rate as resection and anastomosis performed during initial definitive operation. DA avoids stoma creation in some patients who are not candidates for anastomosis during initial DCL. To our knowledge, this represents the first reported series of DA after DCL, an area in which further work is needed to carefully define indications for the safe application of this concept.     

Complicated appendicitis in children: is laparoscopic appendectomy appropriate? A comparative study with the open appendectomy—our experience

Purpose

Good outcomes have been reported with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for uncomplicated appendicitis in children, but the use of laparoscopy for complicated appendicitis in children is more controversial. This is related to a higher incidence of postoperative abdominal and wound infections. The purpose of this trial was to retrospectively compare LA and open appendectomy (OA) for complicated appendicitis and evaluate the efficacy of LA in children with complicated appendicitis.

Methods

The outcome of 128 patients with complicated appendicitis in children was retrospectively analyzed. There were 80 children in the LA group and 48 in the OA group. The appendectomies were performed by a single senior surgeon and his surgical trainees. There was no selection of cases for LA. Data collection included demographics, operative time, resumption of diet, infectious complications (wound infection and intraabdominal abscess), length of hospitalization, and duration of antibiotic use.

Results

There were no cases of LA that required conversion to OA. The operative time for LA (88.5 ± 28.8 minutes for LA vs 71.8 ± 30.6 minutes for OA; t = 3.10; P = .002) was longer. Patients in the LA group returned to oral intake earlier (1.8 ± 0.6 days for LA vs 2.8 ± 0.8 days for OA; t = −8.04; P < .01) and had a shorter length of hospital stay (6.5 ± 2.2 days for LA vs 7.8 ± 2.9 days for OA; t = −2.87; P = .005). The incidence of wound infection (1/80 [1.3%] for LA vs 6/48 [12.5%] for OA; P < .05) and postoperative intraabdominal abscess (2/80 [2.5%] for LA vs 7/48 [14.6%] for OA; P < .05) in LA group was lower. No significant difference was found in the duration of antibiotic administration between the 2 groups (5.8 ± 1.8 days for LA vs 6.3 ± 2.3 days for OA; t = −1.37; P = .174). No mortality was observed in either group.

Conclusions

The minimally invasive laparoscopic technique is feasible, safe, and efficacious for children with complicated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy should be the initial procedure of choice for most cases of complicated appendicitis in children.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: What is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial

Background: The comparison of laparoscopic to open appendectomy has been reviewed in many retrospective and prospective studies. Some report shorter hospital stays, less postoperative pain, and earlier return to work while others fail to demonstrate such differences. We performed a prospective, randomized double-blinded trial to evaluate this ongoing debate. Methods: Fifty-two consecutive men presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic appendectomy or open appendectomy. Length of operative times, hospital stay, lost work days, visual analog pain scores, and operative costs were compared. Results: Length of stay averaged 21.5 h for the laparoscopic group and was not statistically different when compared to the open group. Perceived postoperative pain on postoperative days 1 and 7 were not statistically different between the two groups. Mean time to return to work was 11 days, and there was no statistical difference between groups. Operative costs were >$600 greater for the laparoscopic approach. Conclusions: In this prospective randomized double-blinded trial, laparoscopic appendectomy appears to confer no significant advantage over open appendectomy for postoperative pain or lost work days. It does carry an increase in operating room costs and, contrary to other reports, hospital stay is not shortened. Further studies are needed to determine if specific populations, such as the obese or women, may benefit from a minimally invasive approach to appendicitis. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government     

Where did the patients go? Changes in acute appendicitis presentation and severity of illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restricted movement of individuals and altered provision of health care, abruptly transforming health care-use behaviors. It serves as a natural experiment to explore changes in presentations for surgical diseases including acute appendicitis. The objective was to determine if the pandemic was associated with changes in incidence of acute appendicitis compared to a historical control and to determine if there were associated changes in disease severity.MethodsThe study is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of adults (N = 956) presenting with appendicitis in nonpandemic versus pandemic time periods (December 1, 2019–March 10, 2020 versus March 11, 2020–May 16, 2020). Corresponding time periods in 2018 and 2019 composed the historical control. Primary outcome was mean biweekly counts of all appendicitis presentations, then stratified by complicated (n = 209) and uncomplicated (n = 747) disease. Trends in presentations were compared using difference-in-differences methodology. Changes in odds of presenting with complicated disease were assessed via clustered multivariable logistic regression.ResultsThere was a 29% decrease in mean biweekly appendicitis presentations from 5.4 to 3.8 (rate ratio = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]) after the pandemic declaration, with a significant difference in differences compared with historical control (P = .003). Stratified by severity, the decrease was significant for uncomplicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.47–0.91]) when compared with historical control (P = .03) but not for complicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.52–1.52]); (P = .49). The odds of presenting with complicated disease did not change (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [95% confidence interval 0.83–2.25]).ConclusionThe pandemic was associated with decreased incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis without an accompanying increase in complicated disease. Changes in individual health care–use behaviors may underlie these differences, suggesting that some cases of uncomplicated appendicitis may resolve without progression to complicated disease.     

A prospective cohort study characterising patients declined emergency laparotomy: survival in the ‘NoLap’ population

Patients eligible for emergency laparotomy who do not proceed to surgery are not as well characterised as patients who do proceed to surgery. We studied patients eligible for laparotomy, as defined by National Emergency Laparotomy Audit criteria, from August 2015 to October 2016. We analysed the association of individual variables with survival and two composite scores: P-POSSUM and a general survival model. Out of 314 patients, 214 (68%) underwent laparotomy and 100 (32%) did not. Median (IQR [range]) follow-up was 1.3 (0.1–1.8 [0.0–2.5]) years for the cohort, 1.5 (1.1–2.0 [0.0–2.6]) years after laparotomy and 0.0 (0.0–1.1 [0.0–2.2]) years without laparotomy. There were 126/314 (40%) deaths in the follow-up period, 52/214 (24%) deaths after laparotomy and 74/100 (74%) deaths without surgery. Ninety out of 126 deaths (71%) were within one month of hospital admission. Patient variables were different for the two groups, which when combined in the general survival model generated background median (IQR [range]) life expectancies of 12 (6–21 [0–49]) and 4 (2–6 [0–36]) years, respectively, p < 0.0001. ‘Poor fitness’ precluded laparotomy in 74/100 (74%) patients. The decision to not operate involved a consultant less often than the decision to operate: 66/100 (66%) vs. 178/214 (83%), p = 0.001. Our study supports the contention that survival beyond 30 postoperative days could be predicted reasonably accurately. Survival in patients who did not have laparotomy was shorter than expected. Emergency laparotomy might have prolonged survival in some patients.     

Adjuvant chemotherapy after radical resection of squamous cell carcinoma in the thoracic esophagus: who benefits? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND: A definitive combined modality therapy superior to surgery alone has not yet been found for esophageal cancer. This retrospective study investigated the impact of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who underwent curative (R0) esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred and eleven patients with a squamous cell carcinoma in the thoracic esophagus who underwent transthoracic curative (R0) esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy, such as 3-field lymphadenectomy or total 2-field lymphadenectomy, between 1988 and 2000, were retrospectively reviewed. Ninety-four patients received postoperative chemotherapy - 2 courses of cisplatin (CDDP) plus fluorouracil (5-FU) or vindesine (VDS) - while the other 117 patients received surgery alone. The overall survival rate was compared between the two groups after being stratified by the numbers of the metastasis- positive lymph nodes. RESULTS: Only in the subgroup of patients with 8 or more lymph nodes metastasis- positive, the surgery-with-postoperative-chemotherapy group had a significantly better survival than the surgery-alone group. No significant difference was found in survival between the two groups in any other stratified subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy following curative (R0) esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy such as 3-field lymphadenectomy or total 2-field lymphadenectomy provided a benefit only in patients having metastasis in a large number - 8 or more - lymph nodes.