Laparoscopicvs. open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome after laparoscopicversus open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 1992 and June 1999 at a university-affiliated hospital. These included 219 open (mean age, 68.3 years) and 98 laparoscopic (mean age, 70.3 years) resections. Data from converted cases (n=12) were included in the laparoscopic group using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Operative time, lymph node yield, resection margins and postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and open technique. Parenteral analgesic use was less in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 2.7; open, 3.2 days;P=0.021). Time to first flatus (laparoscopic, 1.8; open, 3 days;P<0.0001) and first bowel movement (laparoscopic, 3.5; open, 4.9 days;P<0.0001) was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Resumption of an oral liquid diet (laparoscopic, 2.1; open, 4 days;P<0.0001) and solid diet (laparoscopic, 5.2; open, 7.1 days;P<0.0001) was also quicker in the laparoscopic patients. Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic patients (laparoscopic, 6.9; open, 10.9 days;P<0.001). There were less minor complications in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 11.2; open, 21.5 percent;P=0.029) but no difference in major complications or perioperative mortality. Recurrence, disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups. No port site recurrences ocurred in the laparoscopic group but there were three wound recurrences in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively in tertiary centers. Earlier discharge from hospital, quicker resumption of oral feeds and less postoperative pain are clear advantages. No adverse effect on recurrence or survival was noted, but results of prospective, randomized trials, currently underway, are needed before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer becomes the standard of practice.Presented at The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons 2000 Scientific Session, Atlanta, Georgia, March 29 to April 1, 2000.     

Laparoscopic colorectal resection for diverticulitis

This study evaluated outcome in patients undergoing laparoscopically assisted sigmoid resection for diverticular disease. A total of 29 consecutive patients were treated surgically for colonic diverticulitis; in 27 of these laparoscopy was performed. The review of medical records from a control group of 34 patients undergoing open resection were used for comparison. The conversion rate was 7.5%. Using the laparoscopic technique the duration of surgery was longer (165 vs. 121 min, P<0.05), blood loss less (182 vs. 352 ml, P<0.05), and subsequent blood transfusion less (0 vs. 61%). The incidence of complications following laparoscopic resection was lower (two anastomotic leakages, two wound infections) than in the conventional group. Convalescence in the laparoscopic group was more rapid and hospital stay shorter (7.9 vs. 14.3 days, P<0.05). In the laparoscopic group patients expressed less pain at rest and in motion. The cost of the laparoscopically assisted procedure was less than that of conventional resection (7185 vs. 8975 DM). In this series laparoscopically assisted sigmoid resection for diverticulitis proved safe. Recovery was faster, hospital stay was shorter, and patients expressed less pain than in conventional open surgery. Accepted: 10 October 1997     

Laparoscopic versus open bowel resection for Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic bowel resection is an alternative to open surgery for patients with Crohn's disease requiring surgical resection. The present report describes a seven-year experience with the laparoscopic treatment of Crohn's disease compared with the open technique in a tertiary Canadian centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 61 consecutive patients undergoing elective resection for Crohn's disease was carried out between October 1992 and June 1999. This analysis included 32 laparoscopic resections (mean age 33 years) and 29 open resections (mean age 42 years). Patient demographics were compared, as well as short and long term outcomes after surgery (mean follow-up 39 months). RESULTS: Patients in the laparoscopic group were younger and had fewer previous bowel surgeries than patients who had open resections. Indications for surgery and operative times were similar between the groups. Patients who underwent laparoscopic resections required fewer doses of narcotic analgesics. The resumption of bowel function after surgery, and tolerance of a clear liquid and solid diet was quicker in the laparoscopic group. Patients who underwent laparoscopic resections had significantly shorter hospital stays than those who underwent open resections. Fifteen patients (48.4%) in the laparoscopic group experienced recurrence of disease compared with 13 patients (44.8%) in the open group. In both groups, the most common site of recurrence was at the anastomosis. The disease-free interval was the same length for both groups (23.9+/-17.3 months for the laparoscopic resection patients compared with 23.9+/-20.2 months for the open resection patients; P=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for Crohn's disease can be performed safely and effectively. Quicker resumption of oral feeds, less postoperative pain and earlier discharge from hospital are advantages of the laparoscopic method. No differences in the recurrence rate or the disease-free interval were noted.     

Laparoscopic vs open left hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis

AIM: To explore the feasibility and therapeutic effect of total laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis. METHODS: From June 2006 to October 2009, 61 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis who met the inclusion criteria for LLH were treated in our institute. Of the 61 patients with hepatolithiasis, 28 underwent LLH (LLH group) and 33 underwent open left hepatectomy (OLH group). Clinical data including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complication rate, postoperative...     

Laparoscopic colectomy vs. open colectomy for sigmoid diverticular disease

PURPOSE: The feasibility of laparoscopic colectomy for colon surgery has now been well established. Most of the studies on laparoscopic colectomies include all types of colonic pathologies without discrimination. Our goal was to compare laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy open sigmoid colectomy for simple sigmoid diverticular disease, to assess whether it can be done safely and whether the proposed advantages could be realized. METHODS: We evaluated the differences in outcomes of 66 laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients and 88 open sigmoid colectomy patients. We report a five-year outcomes analysis of 154 patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. We compared age, gender, history of prior abdominal surgery, estimated blood loss, operative time, total conversions with reason for conversion, time until a liquid diet was started, postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, operation costs, and total hospital charges incurred for both laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy and open sigmoid colectomy. RESULTS: Mean age and gender were similar in the two groups. However, the mean estimated blood loss (143 ml 314 ml), time until a liquid diet was started (2.9 4.9 days), and hospital length of stay (4.8 8.8 days) were all significantly less in laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients. The mean operative time for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy was 212 minutes as compared with 143 minutes for open sigmoid colectomy ( < 0.05). Conversion rate of laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy to open procedure was 19.7 percent. All laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients received a lighted ureteral stent preoperatively, which was removed at the end of surgery. Relevant complications for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy open sigmoid colectomy were as follows: anastomotic leak in 1 3 (1.5 3.4 percent) patients, hematuria in 64 6 (97 6.8 percent) patients, with an average duration for 2.93 3 days, urinary tract infection in 5 4 (7.6 4.5 percent) patients, and ureteral injury in 1 2 (1.5 2.2 percent) patients. Although the mean operating room charges were greater in the laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients ($9,566 $7,306) the mean hospital charges ($13,953 $14,863) were less. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy as the modality of treatment for diverticular disease. Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy seems to be a reliable, safe and efficacious treatment modality with better outcomes for diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon. The operative time for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is decreasing as surgeons gain more experience.     

Laparoscopic colorectal resection versus open colorectal resection in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy

Octogenarians are more often viewed as high-risk surgical candidates. This increased risk is attributed to an age-related decline in physical function and reserve capacity coupled with the presence of various underlying diseases. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for this cohort of complex patients. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic colorectal resection versus open colorectal resection in octogenarians. The meta-analysis was conducted following all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A systematic literature review was carried out using the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and OVID. Only studies comparing outcome of laparoscopic and open colorectal resections in the elderly population (≥80 years) were selected. The data collected included the patient demographics, interventions, observed outcome and sources of bias. When performing the statistical analysis, we used the odds ratio for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference for continuous variables. The results of this systematic review and pooled analysis demonstrated the safety and potential benefits of laparoscopic colorectal resection in octogenarians. LC can reduce the length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, time to return of normal bowel function, and incidence of postoperative pneumonia, wound infection, and postoperative ileus.     

Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers

AIM: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.METHODS: A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection(OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection(LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathologicalresults, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Diseasefree survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time(180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss(93.9 ± 60.0 m L vs 88.4 ± 55.2 m L, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes(12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications(12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia(2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P 0.001), earlier first flatus(57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time(6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission(11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications(perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.     

Mini-invasive vs open resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The safety and feasibility of the simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM) have been demonstrated in some studies. Combined resection is expected to be the optimal strategy for patients with CRC and SCRLM. However, traditional laparotomy is traumatic, and the treatment outcome of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is still obscure. AIM To compare the treatment outcomes of MIS and open surgery (OS) for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. METHODS A systematic search through December 22, 2018 was conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MIS and OS for patients with CRC and SCRLM were included by eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. The quality of the pooled study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and the Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Fixed- and random-effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS Ten retrospective cohort studies involving 502 patients (216 patients in the MIS group and 286 patients in the OS group) were included in this study. MIS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-130.09, 95% confidence interval (CI):-210.95 to -49.23, P = 0.002] and blood transfusion [odds ratio (OR)= 0.53, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.95, P = 0.03], faster recovery of intestinal function (WMD =-0.88 d, 95%CI:-1.58 to -0.19, P = 0.01) and diet (WMD =-1.54 d, 95%CI:-2.30 to -0.78, P < 0.0001), shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD =-4.06 d, 95%CI:-5.95 to -2.18, P < 0.0001), and lower rates of surgical complications (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.99, P = 0.04). However, the operation time, rates and severity of overall complications, and rates of general complications showed no significant differences between the MIS and OS groups. Moreover, the overall survival and disease-free survival after MIS were equivalent to those after OS. CONCLUSION Considering the studies included in this meta-analysis, MIS is a safe and effective alternative technique for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. Compared with OS, MIS has less intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion and quicker postoperative recovery. Furthermore, the two groups show equivalent long-term outcomes.     

Laparoscopic resection of hepatic colorectal metastases

BackgroundLiver resection for secondary malignancy has become the standard of care in appropriately staged patients, offering 5-year survival rates of >40%. Reports of laparoscopic liver resection have been published with increasing frequency over the last few years. In these small series approximately one-third of all operations have been for malignancy, but survival figures cannot be assessed yet.MethodsA retrospective review of all laparoscopic liver resections performed by four surgeons in Brisbane between 1997 and 2004 was done. Follow-up was by regular patient review and telephone confirmation.ResultsOf 84 laparoscopic liver resections, 33 (39%) were for malignancy; 28 of these were for metastases (22 colorectal). Thirteen patients had left lateral sectionectomy with minimal morbidity; nine right hepatectomies were attempted and six cases of segmental or subsegmental resection were performed. Survival rates in 12 patients followed for 2 years with colorectal secondaries were 75% with 67% disease-free.DiscussionLaparoscopic liver resection is feasible in highly selected cases of malignant disease. Patients need to be appropriately staged and surgeons need a broad experience of open liver surgery and advanced laparoscopic procedures.     

Laparoscopic vs open extended right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

AIM:To evaluate the feasibility,safety,and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic extended right hemicolectomy(LERH)for colon cancer.METHODS:Since its establishment in 2009,the Southern Chinese Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgical Study(SCLCSS)group has been dedicated to promoting patients’quality of life through minimally invasive surgery.The multicenter database was launched by combining existing datasets from members of the SCLCSS group.The study enrolled 220 consecutive patients who were recorded in the multicenter retrospective database and underwent either LERH(n=119)or open extended right hemicolectomy(OERH)(n=101)for colon cancer.Clinical characteristics,surgical outcomes,and oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.RESULTS:There were no significant differences in terms of age,gender,body mass index(BMI),history of previous abdominal surgery,tumor location,and tumor stage between the two groups.The blood loss was lower in the LERH group than in the OERH group[100(100-200)mL vs 150(100-200)mL,P<0.0001].The LERH group was associated with earlier first flatus(2.7±1.0 d vs 3.2±0.9 d,P<0.0001)and resumption of liquid diet(3.6±1.0 d vs 4.2±1.0 d,P<0.0001)compared to the OERH group.The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LERH group(11.4±4.7 d vs 12.8±5.6 d,P=0.009)than in the OERH group.The complication rate was 11.8%and17.6%in the LERH and OERH groups,respectively(P=0.215).Both 3-year overall survival[LERH(92.0%)vs OERH(84.4%),P=0.209]and 3-year disease-free survival[LERH(84.6%)vs OERH(76.6%),P=0.191]were comparable between the two groups.CONCLUSION:LERH with D3 lymphadenectomy for colon cancer is a technically feasible and safe procedure,yielding comparable short-term oncologic outcomes to those of open surgery.     

Surgical resection for colon cancer: laparoscopic assisted vs. open colectomy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Laparoscopic surgery has been considered for more than a decade for treatment of colorectal cancer. Although its benefits in term of postoperative comfort and parietal preservation are commonly accepted, its efficiency to achieve proper oncologic resection and to prevent tumor recurrence are still debated. The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare results of a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach to these of open surgery for treatment of colorectal cancer. METHODOLOGY: From January 1st 1999 to September 30th 2004, 239 patients underwent colorectal cancer resections; 28 of these patients underwent surgery in an emergent context and were excluded from this study. Accurate follow-up was available for 165 of the 239 patients (69%). For the study, 165 patients were divided into 3 groups: 39 patients underwent a laparoscopically assisted surgery (L group), 120 patients underwent an open colectomy (O group) and 6 patients initially treated with a laparoscopic approach were converted to open colectomy (L/O group) (conversion rate: 8.8%). RESULTS: Sex ratio, mean age and A.S.A. score, as well as patients' past records were similar in the 3 groups. Histological staging was more often stages 3 and 4 in the O group (62.5%) comparing to the L group (41%) (p < 0.5). Mean operating time was slightly longerwhen a laparoscopically assisted approach was used. Overall early mortality rate of this study was 1.8%. Combined local and general overall morbidity rate was 36%. Overall incidence of anastomotic fistulae was 4% and reintervention rate during the early postoperative period was 8%. Postoperative ileus period was often longer for patients of the O group but without statistical significance. Mean duration of hospital stay was similar in the 3 groups. Data concerning surgical resection did not show any difference between groups. None of the patients experienced a metastatic skin settlement. Overall anastomotic stenosis rate was low (2%). The overall locoregional recurrence rate was 12%, without difference between the 3 groups. Forty-two percent of these recurrences were secondarily treated by curative surgery. Similar survival rates as well as oncological spreading frequencies were found. CONCLUSIONS: Results obtained when comparing minimal invasive laparoscopically assisted surgery to open procedure are similar and efficient.     

Morbidity and survival of liver resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma

Sixty-two patients underwent hepatic resection for isolated colorectal metastases from 1963 to 1988. The numbers of hepatic resections were: lobectomy, 24 (39 percent); wedge resection, 23 (37 percent); and segmentectomy, 15 (24 percent). The median number of intraoperative blood transfusions was 3 0 units (range, 0–16 units). The median number of days in the hospital following hepatic resection was 13 (range, 4–51 days). There were 19 patients (30 percent), who developed a total of 23 complications. Surgery was required for complications in nine patients. Surgical mortality occurred in 5 of 62 (8 percent) patients. The estimated median survival in 56 patients with one to three metastases was 26 months, with a 28 percent estimated 5-year survival. The median size of the metastases was 4.0 cm (range, 0.7–13 cm). The estimated median survival in 27 patients with metastases less than 4 cm in diameter was 26 months, with a 24 percent estimated 5-year survival. The estimated median overall survival from the time of hepatic resection was 25 months.     

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs laparoscopic colorectal resection for early colorectal epithelial neoplasia

AIM: To compare the short term outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD) with that of laparoscopic colorectal resection(LC) for the treatment of early colorectal epithelial neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic removal. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. The clinical data of all consecutive patients who underwent ESD for endoscopically assessed benign lesions that were larger than 2 cm in diameter from 2009 to 2013 were collected. These patients were compared with a cohort of controls who underwent LC from 2005 to 2013. Lesions that were proven to be malignant by initial endoscopic biopsies were excluded. Mid and lower rectal lesions were not included because total mesorectal excision, which bears a more complicated postoperative course, is not indicated for lesions without histological proof of malignancy. Both ESD and LC were performed by the same surgical unit with a standardized technique. The patients were managed according to a standard protocol, and they were closely monitored for complications after the procedures. All hospital records were reviewed, and the following data were compared between the ESD and LC groups: patient demographics, size and location of the lesions, procedure time, shortterm clinical outcomes and pathology results. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2013, 65 patients who underwent ESD and 55 patients who underwent LC were included in this study. The two groups were similar in terms of sex(P = 0.41) and American Society of Anesthesiologist class(P = 0.58), although patients in the ESD group were slightly older(68.6 ± 9.4 vs 64.6 ± 9.9, P = 0.03). ESD could be accomplished with a shorter procedure time(113 ± 66 min vs 153 ± 43 min, P 0.01) for lesions of comparable size(3.0 ± 1.2 cm vs 3.4 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.22) and location(colon/rectum:59/6 vs colon/rectum: 52/3, P = 0.43). ESD appeared to be associated with a lower short-term complication rate, but the difference did not reach statistical significance(10.8% vs 23.6%, P = 0.06). In the LC arm, a total of 22 complications occurred in 13 patients. A total of 7 complications occurred in the ESD arm, including 5 perforations and 2 episodes of bleeding. All perforations were observed during the procedure and were successfully managed by endoscopic clipping without emergency surgical intervention. Patients in the ESD arm had a faster recovery than patients in the LC arm, which included shorter time to resume normal diet(2 d vs 4 d, P = 0.01) and a shorter hospital stay(3 d vs 6 d, P 0.01). CONCLUSION: ESD showed better short-term clinical outcomes in this study. Further prospective randomized studies will be required to evaluate the efficacy and superiority of colorectal ESD over LC.     

Survival following laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer

Background

This study aimed to compare the overall and disease specific survivals of patients who underwent laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer in a high volume tertiary center.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent elective resection for colorectal cancer (open resection, n?=?1,197; laparoscopic resection, n?=?814) from January 2000 to December 2009 were included. The operative details, postoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and survival data were collected prospectively. Comparison was made between patients who had laparoscopic and open surgery.

Results

The age, gender, medical morbidity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists status were similar in the two groups. Laparoscopic resection was associated with significantly less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The operating mortality and morbidity were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The qualities of the specimens in terms of the distal resection margin and the number of lymph nodes examined were not inferior in the laparoscopic group. With the median follow-up of 40.3?months, the 5-year overall survival (74.1% vs. 65.5%, p?p?=?0.002) were significantly better in patients with non-disseminated disease in the laparoscopic group. The operative approach was an independent prognostic factor in the overall (risk ratio 1.36, 95% CI 1.093–1.700, p?=?0.006) and disease specific (risk ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.005–1.738, p?=?0.048) survivals in multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer is associated with more favorable overall and disease specific survivals when compared with open resection in a high volume tertiary center.     

Laparoscopic vs. Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis

Introduction Sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis can be technically challenging because of severe inflammation in the left-lower quadrant and pelvis. We hypothesized that hand-assisted laparoscopic technique may facilitate laparoscopic completion of this surgery while retaining the short-term benefits associated with “pure” laparoscopic surgery, in which an incision is made only for extracting the specimen. This study was designed to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent totally laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. Methods We reviewed our prospectively collected patient database from July 2001 to June 2004 and compared the intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomies for diverticulitis. Complicated patients (with abscess or fistulas) also were separately analyzed. Results The hand-assisted laparoscopic (mode age, 57 years; 48 percent male) and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (mode age, 56 years; 90 percent male) groups were similar with regard to age and gender. Overall, patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 21) vs. hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 21) sigmoidectomies had a significantly longer operative time (197 ± 42 vs. 171 ± 34 minutes, P = 0.04) and shorter incision length (5 ± 2.1 vs. 9.3 ± 4.1 cm, P = 0.0001). Patients with complicated diverticulitis (n = 14; abscess, colovesical fistula, enterocolic fistula) who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomies (n=4) had a significantly longer operative time compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (n = 10) group (255 ± 18 vs. 177 ± 34 minutes, P = 0.001). Conversion rate for the laparoscopic group was significantly higher (3/4 vs. 1/10, P = 0.04, Fisher exact) when complicated diverticulitis was present. There were no differences in postoperative outcomes or incision lengths in thecomplicated group. Conclusions Outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis are similar to those seen in the pure laparoscopic method, with lower conversion rates and shorter operative times. Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis is an attractive alternative to a “pure” laparoscopic method in complicated cases. Podium presentation at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 30 to May 5, 2005. Reprints are not available.     

Laparoscopic colorectal resection for benign polyps not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy

Background and aims  Endoscopic polypectomy still remains the cornerstone of therapy for colorectal polyps and adenomas. However, if colorectal polyps are too large or not accessible for endoscopic ablation or cannot be removed without an increased risk for perforation, operative procedures are required. In such circumstances, laparoscopic resection represents a minimally invasive alternative. Materials and methods  Between January 1993 and December 2004, more than 2,500 endoscopic polypectomies were performed at the Department of Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany. In patients which could not be treated by endoscopic polypectomy due to size, location, and/or risk of complications, a laparoscopic colorectal resection was performed. All data were prospectively assessed in our “colorectal resection” database. Results  The database analysis revealed 58 patients with endoscopically not resectable colorectal polyps who underwent a laparoscopic colorectal resection (intend to treat). In 54 patients, the operative procedure could be finished by the laparoscopic approach (study population). The conversion rate was 6.9% (four of 58). An ileocolic resection was performed in 20 patients (37.0%), and 14 patients (25.9%) underwent an anterior rectal resection. A right colectomy was necessary in 12 patients (22.2%), and six patients (11.1%) underwent a sigmoid resection. In the remaining two patients, a left colectomy and a resection of the transverse colon were performed. Intra- and postoperative complications occurred in five patients (9.3%). Perioperative mortality was not registered. The histopathological work-up revealed benign disease in all cases. Conclusion  Laparoscopic resection of colorectal polyps is a safe and minimally invasive technique for the management of benign colorectal tumors. Thus, the laparoscopic approach to endoscopically not resectable polyps enriches the therapeutic spectrum. The authors Hauenschild and Bader contributed equally to this work.     

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).METHODS: PubMed (Medline), EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library were searched systematically to identify relevant comparative studies reporting outcomes for both LLR and OLR for HCC between January 1992 and February 2012. Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.0 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects (Mantel-Haenszel method) or random effects models (DerSimonian and Laird method). Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirement), postoperative outcomes (liver failure, cirrhotic decompensation/ascites, bile leakage, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary complications, intraabdominal abscess, mortality, hospital stay and oncologic outcomes (positive resection margins and tumor recurrence).RESULTS: Fifteen eligible non-randomized studies were identified, out of which, 9 high-quality studies involving 550 patients were included, with 234 patients in the LLR group and 316 patients in the OLR group. LLR was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, based on six studies with 333 patients [WMD: -129.48 mL; 95%CI: -224.76-(-34.21) mL; P = 0.008]. Seven studies involving 416 patients were included to assess blood transfusion requirement between the two groups. The LLR group had lower blood transfusion requirement (OR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.26-0.91; P = 0.02). While analyzing hospital stay, six studies with 333 patients were included. Patients in the LLR group were found to have shorter hospital stay [WMD: -3.19 d; 95%CI: -4.09-(-2.28) d; P < 0.00001] than their OLR counterpart. Seven studies including 416 patients were pooled together to estimate the odds of developing postoperative ascites in the patient groups. The LLR group appeared to have a lower incidence of postoperative ascites (OR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.16-0.61; P = 0.0006) as compared with OLR patients. Similarly, fewer patients had liver failure in the LLR group than in the OLR group (OR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.02-0.95; P = 0.04). However, no significant differences were found between the two approaches with regards to operation time [WMD: 4.69 min; 95%CI: -22.62-32 min; P = 0.74], bile leakage (OR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.10-3.12; P = 0.50), postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.20-1.45; P = 0.22), pulmonary complications (OR: 0.43; 95%CI: 0.18-1.04; P = 0.06), intra-abdominal abscesses (OR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.01-4.53; P = 0.32), mortality (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.14-1.51; P = 0.20), presence of positive resection margins (OR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.21-1.62; P = 0.31) and tumor recurrence (OR: 0.95; 95%CI: 0.62-1.46; P = 0.81).CONCLUSION: LLR appears to be a safe and feasible option for resection of HCC in selected patients based on current evidence. However, further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to ascertain these findings.