经蓝碟(LapDisc)手助腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术

目的 探讨手助腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术的临床效果。方法 应用LapDisc手助腹腔镜技术完成27例结直肠癌根治术。结果 手术全部成功，无一例中转开腹。手术时间90～260min，平均140min。术中出血50～200ml，平均110ml。术后无死亡及吻合口漏等并发症。随访6～23个月，平均8．6月，未见切口种植复发。结论 手助腹腔镜结直肠癌根治具有安全、创伤小、术后恢复快及降低标准腹腔镜手术难度等优点，值得临床推广应用。     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy: a prospective randomized study

Background: We compared the perioperative parameters and outcomes achieved with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) vs open colectomy (OC) for the management of benign and malignant colorectal disease, including cancer patients treated with curative intent. Methods: Sixty eligible patients were randomized to either HALC (n = 30) or OC (n = 30) treatment groups. We used Pearsons chi-square and two-sample t-tests to compare the differences in demographics and perioperative parameters. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender distribution, disease pattern, operative procedure, comorbidity, or history of abdominal surgery. The HALC patients had significantly shorter hospital stays and incision lengths, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, less analgesic use and blood loss, and lower pain scores on postoperative days 1, 3, and 14. There were no significant differences in operative time, complications, or time to return to normal activity. Conclusion: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) is safe and produces better therapeutic results in terms of perioperative parameters than OC.     

Use of the surgical towel in colorectal hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS)

The use of laparotomy pads or towels to displace the small intestine away from the operative site is a well-established technique in open surgery; however, its application is unfeasible or extremely challenging in standard laparoscopic surgery. We describe the use of standard surgical towels in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). A Pfannenstiel incision is made and a Gelport hand-access device is assembled. A sterilized surgical towel, 65 × 44 cm in size, is inserted via the Gelport, unfolded, and placed over the bowel loops laparoscopically with the assistance of the hand. The bowel loops are then housed gently in the towel and displaced away from of the operative site. HALS enables the easy insertion and handling of a large surgical towel inside the peritoneal cavity. The towel successfully retracts the small intestine, enabling the surgeon to concentrate the use of his or her hand on the targeted structures. This practical and inexpensive tip adds another advantageous component to the practice of colorectal HALS.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundLaparoscopic colorectal surgery remains one of the most challenging techniques to learn.MethodsThe authors collected studies that have compared hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal disease over the past 17 years. Data of interest for HALS and open surgery were subjected to meta-analysis.ResultsTwelve studies that included 1,362 patients were studied. In total, 2.66% of HALS procedures were converted to laparotomy. Compared with the open surgery group, blood loss, rate of wound infection, and ileus in the HALS group decreased, and incision length, recovery of gastrointestinal function, and hospitalization period were shorter. There were no significant differences in operating time, hospitalization costs, mortality, and complications, including urinary tract infection, pneumonia, and anastomotic leak, between the groups.ConclusionsHALS has the advantages of minimal invasion, lower blood loss, shorter incision length, and faster recovery, and it can shorten the length of hospitalization without an increase in costs. The drawbacks are that a small number of patients who undergo HALS may need to be converted to laparotomy, and the oncologic safety and long-term prognosis are not clear.     

Laparoscopic total colectomy: hand-assisted vs standard technique

Background: Although hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopically assisted surgery (LAP), little is known about its role in total colectomy. The objectives of the study were to compare the outcomes in patients undergoing total colectomy via either HALS or LAP and to determine what benefits HALS might have in extensive colorectal procedures. Methods: We reviewed the data for 23 patients who underwent total proctocolectomy (TPC) or total abdominal colectomy (TAC) using either a HALS or LAP technique. Results: There were 12 HALS (five TPC, seven TAC) and 11 LAP (seven TPC, four TAC) for ulcerative colitis (n = 17), familial polyposis (n = 5), and colonic inertia (n = 1). One LAP was converted (9.1%). The operative time was shorter for HALS than for LAP (210 vs 273 min; p = 0.03). Blood loss and incision length were similar. Postoperative recovery and morbidity rates were comparable. Conclusion: HALS reduces the operative time but patient morbidity rates and recovery are similar to LAP. HALS may be preferable for extensive colorectal procedures such as TPC and TAC. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 13–15 March 2003.     

手助腹腔镜肝血管瘤切除术

目的探讨手助腹腔镜下肝血管瘤切除的可行性及方法。方法经Lapdisc系统辅助腹腔镜完成8例肝血管瘤切除。术中切除步骤:(1)置入Lapdisc,游离肝脏;(2)解剖第一肝门,准备阻断;(3)阻断肝门,超声刀离断肝实质;(4)标本取出,创面处理。结果所有患者经Lapdisc辅助腹腔镜下顺利切除病灶,无中转开腹手术,手术时间(196·3±81·2)min,出血量(307·5±224·7)ml,住院时间(7·9±2·9)d。无胆漏、腹腔出血及感染等并发症。结论手助腹腔镜下肝血管瘤切除是安全可行的。     

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM: To determine the effect of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy(SILC) for colorectal cancer on short-term clinical and oncological outcomes by comparison with multiport conventional laparoscopic colectomy(CLC).METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE for the time period of 2008 to December 2014 to retrieve all relevant literature. The search terms were "laparoscopy", "single incision", "single port", "single site", "SILS", "LESS" and "colorectal cancer". Publications were included if they were randomized controlled trials, case-matched controlled studies, or comparative studies, in which patients underwent single-incision(SILS or LESS) laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Studies were excluded if they were non-comparative, or not including surgery involving the colon or rectum. A total of 15 studies with 589 patients who underwent SILC for colorectal cancer were selected.RESULTS: No significant differences between the groups were noted in terms of mortality or morbidity. The benefit of the SILC approach included reduction in conversion rate to laparotomy, but there were no significant differences in other short-term clinical outcomes between the groups. Satisfactory oncological surgical quality was also demonstrated for SILC for the treatment of colorectal cancer with a similar average lymph node harvest and proximal and distal resection margin length as multiport CLC.CONCLUSION: SILC can be performed safely with similar short-term clinical and oncological outcomes as multiport CLC.     

"蓝碟"手助技术在腹腔镜腹部手术的应用——附78例报告

目的探讨“蓝碟”（Lapdisc）手助器辅助腹腔镜手术（hand—assisted laparoscopic surgery，HALS）用于腹部手术的可行性。方法建立CO2气腹，根据病变部位和手术的要求，放置trocar和“蓝碟”手助器，对78例腹部疾病施行HALS，观察“蓝碟”手助器在腹部HALSA的实施过程，术中效果及术后临床效果。结果经Lapdisc完成70例HALS，术中出血量100—300ml，平均186ml；手术时间60—240min，平均140min；住院时间9—15d，平均10．2d。8例因腹腔镜下操作复杂危险而中转开腹。结论“蓝碟”手助器使用简单、感觉舒适，对切口提供完美保护，术中能维持良好的气腹状态。“蓝碟”简化传统腹腔镜的操作，可应用于绝大多数腹部外科疾病的HALS，安全可行。     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis

AIM To evaluate the utility of hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy(HALS-RP) compared with the conventional open procedure(OPEN-RP).METHODS Fifty-one patients who underwent restorative total proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis between January 2008 and July 2015 were retrospectively analyzed.Twentythree patients in the HALS-RP group and twentyfour patients in the OPEN-RP group were compared.Four patients who had purely laparoscopic surgery were excluded.Restorative total proctocolectomy was performed with mucosectomy and a hand-sewn ilealpouch-anal anastomosis.Preoperative comorbidities,intraoperative factors such as blood loss and operative time,postoperative complications,and postoperative course were compared between two groups.RESULTS Patients in both groups were matched with regards to patient age,gender,and American Society of Anesthesiologists score.There were no significant differences in extent of colitis,indications for surgery,preoperative comorbidities,and preoperative medications in the two groups.The median operative time for the HALS-RP group was 369(320-420) min,slightly longer than the OPEN-RP group at 355(318-421) min; this was not statistically significant.Blood loss was significantly less in HALS-RP [300(230-402) m L] compared to OPEN-RP [512(401-1162) m L,P = 0.003].Anastomotic leakage was noted in 3 patients in the HALS-RP group and 2 patients in the OPEN-RP group(13% vs 8.3%,NS).The rates of other postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay were not different between the two groups.CONCLUSION HALS-RP can be performed with less blood loss and smaller skin incisions.This procedure is a feasible technique for total proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.     

手助腹腔镜下右半结肠切除术12例报告

目的 总结应用改良手助式腹腔镜右半结肠切除术的经验。方法 自2001年9月至2003年12月。应用手助式腹腔镜技术行右半结肠切除12例。结果 12例病人手术均获成功，无一例中转开腹，手术时间为180～220min，术后恢复良好，无切口感染、吻合口瘘、肠梗阻等并发症。随访1～24个月，无切口肿瘤复发及肠梗阻的发生。结论 对于无远处转移的右侧结肠恶性肿瘤病人，应用手助腹腔镜行右半结肠切除术是安全、可行的。     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS): a report of 150 procedures

Background: This study was performed to evaluate the (long-term) morbidity associated with hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for various indications. Methods: HALS procedures for various indications were evaluated prospectively from 1995 to 2002. The primary outcome parameters were postsurgical complications and the development of incisional hernias. Results: Twenty-six splenectomies, 51 hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (HLDN), 34 segmental bowel resections, 29 proctocolectomies, and 10 emergency colectomies were evaluated. A Küstner or Pfannenstiel incision was used for handport placement. Minor complications (i.e., wound complications, urinary tract infection) occurred in 15%, 12%, 26%, 7%, and 33% of the patients after, respectively, splenectomy, HLDN, bowel resection, proctocolectomy, and emergency colectomy. Major complications (i.e., hemorrhage, anastomotic leakage) occurred in 15% and 12% of the patients after, respectively, bowel resection and proctocolectomy. Incisional hernias occurred in six patients (4%), all after a wound complication in the Küstner incision. Conclusion: HALS is fast, safe, and feasible for various indications, especially HLDN and (procto-)colectomies. Little advantage can be expected when HALS is applied in splenectomy and segmental bowel (sigmoid) resection.     

手辅助腹腔镜在右半结肠癌并急性肠梗阻中的应用

目的比较手辅助腹腔镜与开腹在右半结肠癌并急性肠梗阻中的近期疗效。方法回顾性分析2012年1月至2015年6月右半结肠癌并急性肠梗阻行根治性右半结肠切除的75例病人的临床病理资料,根据其手术方式分为手辅助腹腔镜手术组(n=34)和开腹手术组(n=41),比较两组的一般资料、手术时间、出血量、切口长度、切口感染率、术后C反应蛋白(C-reactive protein,CRP)水平、淋巴结数目、肛门排气时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症。结果手辅助腹腔镜组和开腹手术组基本资料具有可比性(P均0.05),两组间出血量分别为(139.85±53.75)ml和(178.05±75.04)ml、切口长度分别为(6.07±0.64)cm和(17.00±1.78)cm、切口感染率分别为5.88%和24.39%、术后CRP水平分别为(48.82±16.29)mg/L和(87.29±25.00)mg/L、肛门排气时间分别为(5.29±1.03)d和(6.02±1.01)d、术后住院时间分别为(13.62±2.45)d和(16.49±4.79)d,差异具有统计学意义(P均0.05),两组手术时间分别为(205.29±65.02)min和(195.61±45.69)min、淋巴结数目分别为(22.50±5.75)和(20.71±5.65)及术后并发症(吻合口瘘、吻合口出血、腹腔感染)差异无统计学意义(P均0.05)。结论右半结肠癌并急性肠梗阻病人应用手辅助腹腔镜手术创伤小、安全、有效,具有可行性。     

Outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal diseases. Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients undergoing a laparoscopic colorectal procedure (LCP) for large bowel disease. All opertions were performed by a single experienced team. Patients were divided chronologically into three consecutive groups (G1, G2, and G3). Data collection included the incidence and cause of both proper and mandatory conversions to laparotomy, the incidence and type of early and late postoperative complications, incidence of operative mortality, and the length of hospital stay. The incidences of conversion to laparotomy and of early and late postoperative complications were also determined as related to diagnosis, type of LCP attempted, and chronological group. Results: Between January 1996 and December 2001, a total of 108 patients (49 men and 59 women) with a mean age of 65.1 years underwent an LCP for colorectal disease. Proper conversion to open surgery was necessary in five patients (4.6%), whereas a mandatory conversion was needed in 10 with patients advanced cancer (9.2%). The overall morbidity rate was 11.9%. There were no anastomotic leaks. In two patients (1.85%) developed a complication requiring reoperation. Postoperative mortality was nil. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.2 days. The rates of conversion and of early and late complications decreased through the three chronological periods. No trocar site recurrences were observed in the cancer patients. Conclusion: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed in experienced centers is safe; the observed morbidity and mortality rates are low and acceptable and compare favorably to those observed after standard open surgery.     

手助腹腔镜切除左肝巨大肿瘤九例

目的探讨手助腹腔镜左肝巨大肝肿瘤切除的可行性和安全性。方法本组9例患者，平均年龄45．3岁，肿瘤均位于左肝，包括肝细胞癌（4例），肝内胆管细胞癌（1例），肝转移性鳞癌（1例），肝海绵状血管瘤（2例），肝梭形细胞瘤（1例）。AFP阳性3例，CEA阳性1例，术前肝功能均为Child—Pust,A级，手术按游离左肝韧带、阻断肝门和肝实质切除的步骤进行。结果9例手助腹腔镜肝切除均获得成功，肝左外叶切除6例，左半肝切除3例，无中转开腹。平均手术时间为111．7min，平均出血量97．8ml，8例行肝门阻断，平均阻断时间为13．4min。术中未发生大出血和气体栓塞，术后均无出血、胆漏和肝衰竭等严重并发症发生。肝功能均在7～10d恢复正常。AFP和CEA阳性者均转阴，术后平均住院日为8．4d。4例肝细胞癌术后1个月行预防性肝动脉造影和化疗1次。术后随访4～11个月，所有患者均无瘤生存。结论只要病例选择得当，手助腹腔镜左肝巨大肝肿瘤切除是安全可行的微创手术方式。     

手辅助腹腔镜肝切除术

目的探讨经蓝碟(Lapdisc)系统手助腹腔镜下肝切除的可行性及临床效果。方法经Lapdisc辅助腹腔镜下完成23例肝切除,男14例,女9例;年龄28~72岁,平均年龄(48·8±6·4)岁。其中肝血管瘤8例,原发性肝癌7例,肝转移癌3例,肝囊肿3例,肝内胆管结石2例。结果所有病人经Lapdisc辅助腹腔镜下均顺利切除病灶,无中转开腹手术,平均手术时间(190·3±45·7)min,平均出血量(420·5±56·8)ml,平均住院时间(8·3±2·3)d。无胆漏、腹腔出血及感染等术后并发症,平均随访(7·4±2·4)个月,未见长期并发症。结论Lapdisc辅助腹腔镜下肝切除安全可行,在肝脏外科具有广阔应用前景。     

A new multitool for hand-assisted advanced laparoscopic surgery (HALS)

Background: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), which has become possible due to the introduction of effective hand-access devices, facilitates the execution of major operations. Over the past 2 years, we have been evaluating various designs for small instruments that can be used by the internal assisting hand. Here we report on the development, testing, and evaluation of a small reusable multitool that hangs from the little finger of the internal assisting hand of the surgeon when not in use. Methods: The Dundee Multitool (DMT) was designed to enable the internal deployment (by thumb extrusion) of a small dissecting forceps (pickup), needle driver, and scissors. The multitool hangs from the little finger of the internal assisting hand when not in use. The instrument was subjected to beta testing in the laboratory using HALS trainers. When testing was completed, it was used in major HALS operations after approval by the hospital and consent of the individual patients. Results: The DMT was found to work well. The various active instruments could be extruded from the casing with ease and functioned well in picking up tissues, intracorporeal suturing/tying, and the cutting of sutures and ligatures. Both in laboratory experiments and during clinical evaluation, suturing was easy when the active driving of the needle though the tissues was carried out by the external hand. The multitool needle driver, held by the internal hand as an assisting instrument in conjunction with active needle driving through the tissue edges by the dominant (external) hand, improved suturing efficiency (i.e., reduced execution time) by 30% when compared to total laparoscopic suturing. Conclusions: We have described a novel little-finger–hung multitool for HALS surgery that deploys with ease at any one time. It incorporates a needle driver, a dissecting forceps, and a suture scissors. The good functionality of the multitool has been confirmed by both laboratory experiments and clinical evaluation.     

手助腹腔镜脾切除术治疗外伤性脾破裂的临床应用

目的探讨手助腹腔镜脾切除术治疗外伤性脾破裂的可行性及临床意义. 方法 2002年1月～2003年1月,采用手助腹腔镜脾切除术治疗外伤性脾破裂18例,Buntain CT分级Ⅱ型7例,Ⅲ型11例.其中12例合并其它脏器损伤.结果 16例顺利完成手术,手术时间75～115 min,平均92.5 min.2例因术中怀疑有其它大血管破裂而中转开腹手术.术后恢复正常工作时间:6例单纯脾破裂20～30 d,有合并伤10例30～100 d. 结论手助腹腔镜脾切除术治疗外伤性脾破裂切实可行,适用于Buntain CT分级Ⅱ、Ⅲ型脾脏损伤且无严重合并伤的患者.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs open colectomy: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted cohort

Background

Perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent hand-assisted colorectal laparoscopic (HALS) vs open colectomy were compared using recently released procedure-targeted database.

Methods

Review was conducted using the 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to final surgical approach: HALS vs open (planned). Groups were matched (1:1) based on age, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and wound classification. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for group comparison.

Results

Of 7,303 patients, 1,740 patients were matched in each group. Open group had higher proportion of patients with preoperative dyspnea (P = .01), ascites (P = .01), weight loss (P < .001), smoking history (P = .04), and increased work relative value units (P < .001). After adjusting for difference in baseline comorbidities, overall morbidity, superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, ileus, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay were significantly higher in open group (P < .05).

Conclusions

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted-data demonstrated several advantages of HALS compared with open colonic resection including shorter hospital stay and lower complication rate. Further adoption of HALS technique as a bridge to straight laparoscopy or tool in difficult cases can positively impact the short-term outcomes after colectomy when compared with open technique.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: helping hand or hindrance?

Background Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy has been introduced as an alternative to the standard laparoscopic technique, but it has not yet been established whether it offers the same benefits. Therefore, we compared the outcome of patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid resection (HALSR) to that of those undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR).Methods The study population comprised a sequential series of consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoid/left colectomy. Values are reported as mean (range).Results There were 85 LSR patients and 66 HALSR patients, with no differences in patient demographics or diagnoses. There were slight differences in operative time favoring HALSR (LSR 205 min (90–380) vs HALSR 189 min (120–290); p = 0.07), and the extraction incision was larger in the HALSR group (LSR 6.2 cm (3–25) vs HALSR 8.1 cm (7–12); p < 0.01). There was no difference in time for return of bowel function (LSR 2.8 days (1–15) vs HALSR 2.5 days (1–8); p = 0.31) or length of hospital stay (LSR 5.0 days (2–17) vs HALSR 5.2 days (3–22); p = 0.73). Complications were similar in the two groups (LSR 23% vs HALSR 21%), but there were fewer conversions in the hand-assisted group (HALSR 0% vs LSR 13%; p < 0.01).Conclusions Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid resection yields the same outcomes as standard laparoscopic techniques, but with fewer conversions. Hand-assistance is a helpful innovation that may expand the application of laparoscopic colectomy.Presented at the scientific session of the annual meeting of the society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Denver, CO, USA, 3 April 2004     

Surgeon experience with laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in Washington State

PURPOSE: To describe the current practice and opinions held by surgeons performing colorectal surgery in Washington regarding laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: After attempting to identify all surgeons with hospital privileges in colorectal surgery in Washington, a survey was sent to 303 surgeons. The survey asked about the surgeon's practice, volume of colon surgery in the preceding year, the number of laparoscopic colon resections ever performed, the surgeon's opinion on the future practice of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and whether faced with the personal need to undergo colon resection at the present time, would the surgeon elect to have laparoscopic or open colon resection. RESULTS: In all 170 surveys were returned; 154 returned surveys were from surgeons who had performed at least one colon resection in the preceding year; 53 (34%) respondents had experience with fewer than 20 laparoscopic resections and 83 (55%) have never performed laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC). Only 4 (3%) surgeons had performed more than 50 laparoscopic colon resections. Forty-five percent of respondents indicated that they would currently seek a laparoscopic resection for themselves to treat either a benign condition or an incurable malignancy, and 84% of respondents indicated they would have an open colectomy for a curable malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surgeons performing colorectal resections in Washington have limited experience with LAC. Surgeon opinion regarding the role of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in clinical practice is mixed. We suggest a model for proctoring of LAC for surgeons interested in implementing laparoscopic colorectal resection into their practice.