Laparoscopic versus open right hemicolectomy for carcinoma of the colon.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic resection (LR) with open resection (OR) for right-sided colon cancer. METHODS: During the study period from June 2000 to December 2004, 182 patients (84 men) underwent elective resection for cancer of the right colon. Laparoscopic resection was performed in 77 patients, while 105 patients had open operations. Patients who underwent operations on an emergency basis were excluded. Data on the patients' demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications were collected prospectively. The outcomes of patients with laparoscopic resection were compared with those of patients with open surgery. RESULTS: There was no difference in the age, sex, presence of premorbid medical conditions, and blood loss between the 2 groups. The mean operative time for open resection was 115.4 minutes and that for laparoscopic resection was 165.1 minutes (P<0.001). Among the 77 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection, 7 (9%) required conversion to an open operation. There was no difference in postoperative surgically related complications including wound infection, leakage, intestinal obstruction, postoperative ileus. Nonsurgical-related complications were also similar. The median time to resumption of a normal diet was 3 days and 4 days in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. The median hospital stay in patients with laparoscopic resection was significantly shorter than in patients with open surgery (6.0 days vs 7.0 days, P<0.001). The 2-year overall survival rates were 74% in both groups (P=0.904). In the converted to open (LCOR) group, the hospital stay was significantly longer (LR vs OR vs LCOR, 5.5 days vs 7.0 days vs 9.0 days respectively, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is a safe option for cancers of the right colon. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay and earlier resumption of a normal diet. Mortality and morbidity are similar to that with the open approach. There is no compromise in the survival of patients.     

Laparoscopic vs open hemicolectomy for colon cancer

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopic resection in the management of colon cancer is still a subject of debate. In this clinical study, we compared the perioperative results and long-term outcome for two unselected groups of patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open hemicolectomy for colon cancer. METHODS: This prospective nonrandomized study was based on a series of 248 consecutive patients operated on by the same surgical team using the same type of surgical technique for right (RHC) and left (LHC) hemicolectomy, excluding segmental resections; the only difference was the type of access, which was either laparoscopic or open. The choice of type of access was left up to the patient after he or she had read the informed consent form. Operative time, length of stay, complications, and long-term outcome for the two groups were compared. Follow-up time ranged between 12 and 92 months (mean, 42). RESULTS: Between March 1992 and January 2000, 140 patients underwent a laparoscopic hemicolectomy (55 RHC and 86 LHC); at the same time, 107 patients (44 RHC and 63 LHC) were treated via an open approach. There were no conversions to open surgery in the laparoscopic RHC group, but six patients (7%) in the laparoscopic LHC group were converted. The mean operative time for laparoscopic surgery was significantly longer than the time for open surgery (190 vs 140 min for RHC, 240 vs 190 min for LHC,); however, with increasing experience, this time decreased significantly. The mean hospital stay for the patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures was significantly shorter in both the RHC and the LHC groups (9.2 vs 13.2 days for RHC, 10.0 vs 13.2 days for LHC). No statistically significant difference between the two laparoscopic and open groups was observed for the major complication rate (1.9% vs 2.3% for RHC, 7.5% vs 6.3% for LHC). The patient in the laparoscopic RHC group were lost to follow-up. The local recurrence rate was lower after laparoscopic surgery in both arms (5.4% vs 9% for RHC, 1.5% vs 7.5% for LHC), but the differences were not statistically significant. Two port site recurrences were observed in the laparoscopic groups, one after RHC (2.7%) and one after LHC (1.5%). Metachronous metastases rates were similar for the two groups (16.2% vs 15.1% for RHC, 4.4% vs 5.7% for LHC). Cumulative survival probability at 48 months after laparoscopic RHC was 0.865, as compared to 0.818 after open surgery, and 0.971 after laparoscopic LHC, as compared to 0.887 after open surgery. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that laparoscopic hemicolectomy for colonic cancer can be performed safely, with morbidity, mortality, and long-term results comparable to those of open surgery.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy is commonly performed and has been presumed to offer economic benefits similar to those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study was done to examine that premise. METHODS: Two surgical groups contributed consecutively operated patients with a clinical diagnosis of appendicitis. One group did all appendectomies open and the other group did them laparoscopically. Hospital expenses were compared using a single billing formula. Hospital length of stay, time to return to work, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Operating room times were longer for the laparoscopic group, median 80 minutes, versus median 50 minutes for the open group. Hospital length of stay and return to work were the same, median 1 day and median 10 days, respectively. Wound complications were less common in the laparoscopic group, 0 of 30, than in the open group, 3 of 18; however, there was 1 intra-abdominal abscess in the laparoscopic group. Median cost of the laparoscopic group was $2,915 versus $1,747 for the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than appendectomy but does not reduce hospital length of stay nor change the time to return to work; however, wound complications are less common.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

Background: Although laparoscopic appendectomy is widely practiced in developed countries, still there are many questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this approach in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Several controlled trials have been conducted, some in favor of laparoscopic appendectomy others not. The aim of this study was to evaluate laparoscopic appendectomy in comparison with open appendectomy, with special emphasis on postoperative septic complications. Methods: For this study, 227 consecutive patients (159 males and 68 females) with a diagnosis of suspected appendicitis between 1995 and 1999 were assigned either to laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 108) or open appendectomy (n = 119). The patients were assigned according to insurance company approval and patient preference. There were no exclusion criteria and no age limits in this study. Results: Wound infection was significantly higher in the open group (incidence, 7.6%) than in the laparoscopic group (incidence, 0%; p < 0.003). Intraabdominal infections were equal in both groups. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.046), but operative time was little longer than in the open group (p < 0.002). Conversion to open surgery was necessary in one case. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as the open procedure. It significantly reduces the rate of postoperative wound infection. However, it is still acceptable to perform the open procedure, especially in hospitals without a large amount of laparoscopic experience.     

腹腔镜下右半结肠切除术

本手术为腹腔镜下右半结肠切除术式,中央入路解剖血管、清扫主干旁淋巴结,头侧游离结肠肝曲,尾侧入路掀起右半结肠,将右半结肠相应血管离断、淋巴结清扫展示出来,尤其是处理Henle干。手术时间总长约60 min,视频剪辑后无加速,基本能反映出手术全程步骤的各个细节,全程手术层次入路标准,几乎无出血。腔镜下操作及缝合动作流畅,手术流程亮点包括血管解剖、淋巴结清扫、腔内关闭系膜。     

Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy

Background: As compared with open donor nephrectomy (OpenDN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) offers donors more rapid recovery and recipients equivalent graft function, but LapDN costs remain greater. This study compared LapDN and OpenDN with cost–utility analysis. Methods: Utilities were assessed with time trade-off, probabilities derived from systematic review of the literature and the costs derived from 27 OpenDN and 34 LapDN patients treated contemporaneously. A societal perspective was taken. Lost employment costs were included. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with best- and worst-case scenarios for confidence intervals. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness. Results: LapDN costs are lower ($11,170.71 vs $12,631.91), whereas quality of life (QOL) is superior (0.7247 vs 0.6585 quality-adjusted life years [QALY], rendering LapDN a dominant strategy. The model was robust to all variables, and LapDN remained dominant from a payer perspective. In a worst-case scenario, the ICER for LapDN was at most $2,231.61 per QALY. Conclusions: LapDN offers improved QOL at lower costs, despite the fact that this analysis included patients treated during the learning curve of LapDN at our institution. By potentially increasing organ donor rates, LapDN may be further cost saving by decreasing the number of patients receiving dialysis.     

Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass

Laparoscopic bypass has become a common approach for the treatment of morbid obesity. This article compares the results of laparoscopic gastric bypass with that of open gastric bypass based on published data from prospective series, comparative studies, and randomized clinical trials.     

Cost of open versus laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy for cancer

n = 28) or ORHC ( n = 33) was performed. The analysis focused on the cost (in Australian dollars) incurred from the date of operation to the date of discharge. LARHC was significantly more expensive than ORHC (total cost LARHC $9064, ORHC $7881; p < 0.001). LARHC was associated with a significantly longer operating room utilization time (LARHC 261 minutes, ORHC 203 minutes; p < 0.001) and a greater cost of disposables (LARHC $854, ORHC $189; p < 0.001). This study demonstrates no cost benefit for LARHC compared to ORHC when performed for cancer.     

腹腔镜右半结肠根治性切除术

患者取仰卧分腿位,扶镜手站在患者两腿之间,术者站在患者左侧,助手站在患者右侧。腹腔镜观察孔位于脐下10 cm。首先,腹腔镜探查肝脏及腹盆腔,没有发现明确转移灶。先沿Toldt’s线打开升结肠侧方解剖间隙,游离回盲部,以利于更好地牵拉右半结肠。随后,打开回结肠血管与肠系膜下血管之间的系膜,显露肠系膜下静脉,并以此作为标志,自下向上、自中间向右侧进一步解剖并扩大手术平面。良好的游离后,首先分离、夹闭并切断回结肠静脉和动脉,随后处理右结肠血管和结肠中血管,此过程中清扫胰腺前方淋巴脂肪组织。因为肿瘤位于结肠肝曲,我们将幽门下区淋巴结一并切除。完成游离后,脐上方取6 cm纵行切口,将病变肠管提出腹腔外完成切除和回结肠端侧吻合。术后病理回报:p T4b N2b M0(Ⅲc期)。患者恢复顺利,术后第8天出院。     

腹腔镜扩大左半结肠切除术

采用5孔法,经典中间入路。在右侧输尿管内侧2 cm切开,进入左侧Toldt间隙,自尾侧向头侧锐性分离,清扫肠系膜下动脉根部的淋巴脂肪组织。解剖降结肠及乙状结肠动脉,根部离断。十二指肠空肠曲左侧离断肠系膜下静脉根部,向外侧拓展降结肠后间隙、乙状结肠后间隙和直肠上段后间隙,确认左输尿管及生殖血管以防止损伤。切开并游离横结肠系膜,在胰颈下缘显露中结肠动静脉,于根部离断。沿降结肠沟剪开左侧腹膜,上至脾曲,下至直肠上段,与之前已拓展完成的左结肠后间隙汇合。自胃大弯侧血管弓内离断血管分支,直至根部切断胃网膜左血管,并切断脾结肠韧带,完全游离脾曲。于左侧经腹直肌切口切开腹壁,长约5 cm,将左半结肠拖出体外。在肿瘤近远端10～15 cm横断结肠,行端端吻合术。     

Laparoscopic versus open left lateral segmentectomy

Background

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer related death in Western countries. Advantages in surgical techniques, radiation and chemotherapy had almost no impact on the long term survival of affected patients. Therefore, the need for better treatment strategies is urgent. HER2, a receptor tyrosine kinase of the EGFR family, involved in signal transduction pathways leading to cell growth and differentiation is overexpressed in a number of cancers, including breast and pancreatic cancer. While in breast cancer HER2 has already been successfully used as a treatment target, there are only limited data evaluating the effects of inhibiting HER2 tyrosine kinases in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Here we report the design of a prospective, non-randomized multi-centered Phase II clinical study evaluating the effects of the Fluoropyrimidine-carbamate Capecitabine (Xeloda ^®) and the monoclonal anti-HER2 antibody Trastuzumab (Herceptin^®) in patients with non-resectable, HER2 overexpressing pancreatic cancer. Patients eligible for the study will receive Trastuzumab infusions on day 1, 8 and 15 concomitant to the oral intake of Capecitabine from day 1 to day 14 of each three week cylce. Cycles will be repeated until tumor progression. A total of 37 patients will be enrolled with an interim analysis after 23 patients.

Discussion

Primary end point of the study is to determine the progression free survival after 12 weeks of bimodal treatment with the chemotherapeutic agent Capecitabine and the anti-HER2 antibody Trastuzumab. Secondary end points include patient's survival, toxicity analysis, quality of life, the correlation of HER2 overexpression and clinical response to Trastuzumab treatment and, finally, the correlation of CA19-9 plasma levels and progression free intervals.     

Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND: To analyze hospital resource utilization for laparoscopic vs open incisional hernia repair including the postoperative period. METHODS: Prospectively collected administrative data for incisional hernia repairs were examined. A total of 884 incisional hernia repairs were examined for trends in type of approach over time. Starting October 2001, detailed records were available, and examined for operating room (OR) time, cost data, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day postoperative hospital encounters. RESULTS: Of the total, 469 incisional hernias were approached laparoscopically (53%) and 415 open (47%). Laparoscopic repair had shorter LOS (1 +/- 0.2 days vs 2 +/- 0.6 days), longer OR time (149 +/- 4 min vs 89 +/- 4 min), higher supply costs (2,237 dollars +/- 71 dollars vs 664 dollars +/- 113 dollars), slightly lower total hospital cost (6,396 dollars +/- 477 dollars vs 7,197 dollars +/- 1,819 dollars), and slightly more postoperative hospital encounters (15% vs 13%). Use of laparoscopy increased over time (37% in 2000 vs 68% in 2004). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is becoming increasingly popular, and not at increased cost to the health care system.     

Laparoscopic versus open fundoplication in infants

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic esophagogastric fundoplication is an effective treatment for severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), although its role in the very young is still largely undetermined. We review our surgical outcome in infants with severe GERD, comparing laparoscopic (LNF) with open (ONF) Nissen fundoplication. METHODS: This study reviewed 55 consecutive Nissen fundoplications performed for GERD on infants less than 1 year old at our institution between January 1996 and June 2000. The follow-up period for LNF averaged 14.2 months (range, 3.3-42 months), as compared with 16.5 months (range, 1-37.1 months) for ONF (p was not significant, t-test). Surgical outcome was compared in terms of the following parameters: average operative time, times to initiation and completion of feeding schedule, postoperative complications, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: For the study, 53 infants were divided into two groups: LNF (n = 39; 73.6%) and ONF (n = 14; 26.4%). The average operating time for LNF was 120 +/- 24 min (range, 60-195 min), as compared with 91 +/- 21 min (range, 60-135 min) for ONF (p < 0.05, t-test). Time to initiation of postoperative feeding schedule was 1.3 +/- 0.3 days for LNF, as compared with 3 +/- 0.9 days for ONF (p < 0.05, t-test). Full feedings were reached in 1.7 +/- 0.6 days for LNF, as compared with 1.3 +/- 0.9 for ONF (p was not significant, t-test). During the short-term follow-up period, recurrent reflux developed in 2/14 ONF patients (14.3%) as compared with 1/39 LNF patients (2.6%) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in addition to sparing infants the morbidity of celiotomy, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication had a surgical outcome comparable to that of traditional open fundoplication in infants with severe GERD. Importantly, resumption of goal nutritional regimens was equally efficient in both groups.     

Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy in children

BACKGROUND: The authors have reviewed their initial experience with laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) to identify the indications, success rate, and complications associated with this procedure compared with a series of children undergoing open splenectomy (OS) during the same time period. METHODS: The records of 51 children who underwent splenectomy from 1993 through 1998 were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients aged 1 to 17 years (mean, 9.4 years) underwent LS for the following indications: ITP (n = 20), sickle cell disease or thalassemia (n = 6), hereditary spherocytosis (n = 5), other hematologic disorders (n = 4). Seventeen patients aged 2 to 17 years (mean, 11.8 years) underwent OS during the same time period for ITP (n = 4), sickle cell disease or thalassemia (n = 4), hereditary spherocytosis (n = 5), and other indications (n = 4). Concomitant cholecystectomy was performed in 4 of 35 LS and 4 of 17 OS. Accessory spleens were identified in 10 of 35 LS and 2 of 17 OS cases. Eleven spleens were enlarged in the LS group, and 8 were enlarged in the OS group. One LS required conversion to an open procedure because the spleen did not fit in the bag. No other cases were converted. Median estimated blood loss was 50 mL for both the LS and OS groups. The only intraoperative complication in the LS group was a splenic capsular tear, which had no effect on the successful laparoscopic removal of the spleen. No patient in either group required a blood transfusion. The LS patients had a shorter length of hospital stay (1.8 +/- 1 versus 4.0 +/- 1 day, P = .0001). Total hospital charges were not significantly different. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 40 months. One LS patient died 47 days postoperatively from unrelated causes. Two LS patients had recurrent ITP; accessory spleens were found in one and resected laparoscopically. CONCLUSION: LS in children can be performed safely with a low conversion rate (2.9%) and is associated with a shorter hospital stay and comparable total hospital cost when compared with OS.