Incisional hernia after open versus laparoscopic sigmoid resection

Background  Incisional hernia after open surgery is a well-known complication with an incidence of up to 20% after a 10-year period. Data regarding the long-term hernia risk after laparoscopic colonic surgery are lacking in the literature. In the present study we compared the long-term hernia incidence after laparoscopic versus open sigmoid resection. Methods  The study included patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid resection in the period January 1995 to December 2004 in the eastern part of Denmark. This group was matched with a consecutive group of patients undergoing open surgery in our department in the same period. Patients were contacted by telephone, and a questionnaire was completed for each patient. If the patient was believed to have a hernia or if there was any suspicion of a hernia, a consultant surgeon examined the patient and completed the questionnaire. Factors related to the primary operation, the hernia and general risk factors were registered for all patients. Results  A total of 201 patients answered the questionnaire (95.3%). The laparoscopy group was comprised of 58 patients and 143 patients were included in the laparotomy group. The patients had a median follow-up of 4.6 years (range 2.4–11.7 years) and 4.9 years (range 2.4–8.5 years) after laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively (P = 0.326). Incisional hernia was found in two of 58 patients (3.4%, 95% CI -1.4–7.4) in the laparoscopic surgery group compared with 21 of 143 patients (14.7%, 95% CI 8.9–20.5) in the open surgery group (P = 0.026). There were no significant differences in demographic data or the occurrence of risk factors between the two groups. Conclusion  Laparoscopic sigmoid resection leads to a significantly lower incidence of incisional hernia compared with the open surgical technique.     

Laparoscopic total colectomy for colorectal cancers: a comparative study

Background No previous report could be found in the literature comparing laparoscopic and open total colectomy for colorectal cancers, especially synchronous colorectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short-term clinical outcomes and oncologic results of laparoscopic and open total colectomy or proctocolectomy for colorectal cancers. Methods Between July 1997 and January 2005, six patients with colorectal cancers underwent elective laparoscopic total colectomy or proctocolectomy at the authors’ institution. Clinical data for 12 patients who underwent elective open total colectomy or proctocolectomy for colorectal cancers during the same period were prospectively collected and compared. Results The median follow-up periods were 43.9 months for the laparoscopic group and 48.2 months for the open group. Conversion to open procedure was required for one patient (16.7%) in the laparoscopic group because of bleeding. The median operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (427.5 min; range, 280–480 min vs 172.5 min; range, 90–260 min; p = 0.001). The patients in the laparoscopic group required a significantly shorter duration of parenteral analgesia (3 vs 5 days; p = 0.01), but there were no differences in time to first bowel motion, time to resumption of diet, time to full ambulation, and duration of hospital stay between the two groups. Perioperative morbidity rates were comparable between the two groups, and there was no operative mortality. The oncologic results, including number of lymph nodes removed, recurrence rates, and survival rates, were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Laparoscopic total colectomy has short-term clinical outcomes (postoperative recovery and perioperative morbidity and mortality rates) and oncologic results similar to those of open surgery for treating patients with colorectal cancers. Our study has shown that the only advantage of laparoscopic over open surgery is a shorter duration of analgesic requirement, but at the expense of a longer operative time.     

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery – results from 200 patients

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly being performed for benign and malignant colorectal disease. This study examines the short-term results in a consecutive series of laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed over 2 years. METHOD: A prospective database was established for all elective patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery by one surgeon. The main outcome measures assessed were operative duration, conversion rate, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality and lymph node harvest. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients were referred for elective colorectal surgery, with 18 patients excluded from laparoscopic surgery. Thirteen patients had nonresective laparoscopic colorectal procedures for endometriosis and have been excluded from the series. Of 200 patients who underwent a laparoscopic colorectal procedure, 114 (57%) were female, the median age was 67 years (inter-quartile range (IQR) 57-76), and there were 116 malignancies. The most common operations were anterior resection and sigmoid colectomy (n = 82), right hemicolectomy (n = 62) and left hemicolectomy (n = 12). The median operating time was 120 min (IQR 90-150) and 10 patients (5%) required conversion to open surgery. The median lymph node harvest in malignancies was 21 nodes (IQR 15-30) and no positive resection margins were found. There were two deaths and 29 significant complications (14.5%), with seven patients requiring re-operations because of postoperative complications. The median postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 3-6) and 13 patients (6.5%) were re-admitted within 30 days of hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is possible for most benign and malignant conditions, with low conversion and complication rates, as well as short hospital stay.     

Laparoscopic vs open inguinal hernia repair

Background: The role of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is controversial. The aim of this study was to find out whether it is justified to switch from the predominantly modified Bassini repair which the authors had been using to laparoscopic repair. Methods: Randomized controlled trial in 120 eligible patients admitted for elective hernia repair in a university hospital. Results: Sixty patients underwent laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal mesh repair; the other 60 patients had an open repair, mostly with the modified Bassini technique. Operative time for laparoscopic repair was significantly longer, mean (s.d.) 95 (28) min vs 67 (27) min (p < 0.001). The mean analogue pain score during the first 24 h after surgery was 36.2 (20.2) in the laparoscopic group and 49.3 (24.9) in the open group (p= 0.006). The requirement for narcotic injections and postoperative disability in walking 10 m and getting out of bed were also significantly less following laparoscopic repair. The postoperative hospital stay was not significantly different, mean 2.6 (1.2) days for laparoscopic repair and 3.0 (1.5) days for open repair (p= 0.1). Patients were able to perform light activities without pain or discomfort sooner after laparoscopic repair, median interquartile range 8 (5–14) days vs 14 (8–19) days (p= 0.013). Patients also resumed heavy activities sooner, but not significantly, after laparoscopic repair, median 28 (17–60) days vs 35 (20–56) days (p= 0.25). The return to work was not significantly different, median 14 (8–25) days after laparoscopic repair and 15 (11–21) days after open repair (p= 0.14). After a mean follow-up of 32 months one patient developed a recurrent hernia 3 months after a laparoscopic repair. Laparoscopic repair was more costly than open repair by approximately $400. Conclusions. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was associated with less early postoperative pain and disability and earlier return to full activities than open repair, but there were no benefits regarding postoperative hospital stay and return to work; laparoscopic repair was also more costly. Received: 23 May 1997/Accepted: 1 August 1997     

Laparoscopic colorectal resection: a safe option for elderly patients

BACKGROUND: Open colorectal surgery in the elderly has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates. The favorable short-term outcomes of laparosocopic colorectal resection might reduce the morbidity in elderly patients. This study compares results of elderly patients (aged 70 and above) who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection with those having open surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive patients aged 70 and above who had elective colorectal resection from June 2000 to December 2001 were included. Data concerning demographics, diseases, details of operations, and postoperative events were collected prospectively. Comparisons between results of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery were made. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients had laparoscopic colectomy and 89 had open surgery during the study period. Median ages were 77 years and 75 years in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. Presence of premorbid medical conditions, American Society of Anesthesiology score, and incidence of previous surgery were similar in the two groups. Median operative time was longer (180 minutes versus 135 minutes, p < 0.001), but blood loss was less (100 mL versus 200 mL, p = 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Conversion to open surgery occurred in eight patients. One patient died in the laparoscopic group and five died in the open group. Laparoscopic resection was associated with earlier return of bowel function (3 days versus 4 days, p = 0.004), earlier resumption of solid diet (3 days versus 5 days, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (7 days versus 9 days, p = 0.001), and less cardiopulmonary morbidity (7.7% versus 22.4%, p = 0.033) when compared with open colorectal resection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal resection is a safe option for elderly patients and is associated with more favorable short-term outcomes in terms of earlier return of bowel function, earlier resumption of diet, and shorter hospital stay. It is also associated with less cardiopulmonary morbidity, which is an important complication after colorectal surgery in the elderly.     

Comparison of conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted oncologic segmental colonic resection

Background Laparoscopically assisted colon resection has evolved to be a viable option for the treatment of colorectal cancer. This study evaluates the efficacy of hand-assisted laparascopic surgery (HALS) as compared with totally laparoscopic surgery (LAP) for segmental oncologic colon resection with regard to lymph node harvest, operative times, intraoperative blood loss, pedicle length, incision length, and length of hospital stay in an attempt to help delineate the role of each in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Methods Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed to acquire data for this evaluation. Between June 2001 and July 2005, 40 patients underwent elective oncologic segmental colon resection (22 HALS and 18 LAP). The main outcome measures included lymph node harvest, operative times, intraoperative blood loss, pedicle length, incision length, and length of hospital stay. Results The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics. The tumor margins were clear in all the patients. The HALS resection resulted in a significantly higher lymph node yield than the LAP resection (HALS: 16 nodes; range, 5–35 nodes vs LAP: 8 nodes; range, 5–22 nodes; p < 0.05) and significantly shorter operative times (HALS: 120 min; range, 78–181 min vs LAP: 156 min; range, 74–300 min; p < 0.05). Both groups were comparable with regard to length of hospital stay, pedicle length, and intraoperative blood loss. However, the LAP group yielded a significantly smaller incision for specimen extraction (LAP: 7 cm; range, 6–8 cm vs HALS: 5.5 cm; range, 5–7 cm; p < 0.05). Conclusion The findings suggest that hand-assisted laparoscopic oncologic segmental colonic resection is associated with shorter operative times, more lymph nodes harvested, and equivalent hospital stays, pedicle lengths, and intraoperative blood losses as compared with the totally laparoscopic approach. The totally laparoscopic technique was completed with a smaller incision. However, this less than 1 cm reduction in incision length has doubtful clinical significance.     

Influence of thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative pain relief and ileus after laparoscopic colorectal resection

Background  Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) provides superior analgesia with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus when compared with systemic opiate analgesia in open colorectal surgery. However, in laparoscopic colorectal surgery the role of TEA is not well defined. This prospective observational study investigates the influence of TEA in laparoscopic colorectal resections. Methods  All patients undergoing colorectal resection between November 2004 and February 2007 were assessed for inclusion into a prospective randomized trial investigating the influence of bisacodyl on postoperative ileus. All patients treated by laparoscopic resection from this collective were eligible for the present study. Primary endpoints were use of analgesics and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores. Secondary endpoint concerned full gastrointestinal recovery, defined as the mean time to the occurrence of the following three events (GI-3): first flatus passed, first defecation, and first solid food tolerated. Results  75 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection, 39 in the TEA group and 36 in the non-TEA group. Patients with TEA required significantly less analgesics (metamizol median 3.0 g [0–32 g] versus 13.8 g [0–28 g] (p < 0.001); opioids mean 12 mg [±2.8 mg standard error of mean, SEM] versus 103 mg [±18.2 mg SEM] (p < 0.001). VAS scores were significantly lower in the TEA group (overall mean 1.67 [± 0.2 SEM] versus 2.58 [±0.2 SEM]; p = 0.004). Mean time to gastrointestinal recovery (GI-3) was significantly shorter (2.96 [±0.2 SEM] days versus 3.81 [±0.3 SEM] days; p = 0.025). Analysis of the subgroup of patients with laparoscopically completed resections showed corresponding results. Conclusion  TEA provides a significant benefit in terms of less analgesic consumption, better postoperative pain relief, and faster recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection.     

Adhesive intestinal obstruction in laparoscopic vs open colorectal resection

Aim While there is evidence that laparoscopy creates fewer adhesions, evidence regarding decreased episodes of adhesive obstruction in laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) is still lacking. The aim of our study was to compare the incidence of adhesion‐related admissions/surgery in patients undergoing LCR and open colorectal resection (OCR). Method We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database that included all patients undergoing LCR and OCR between 2001 and 2010. Patients with < 6 months of follow‐up were excluded. Patients who were converted to open surgery were included in the laparoscopic group. Details regarding readmission rates and surgery for adhesive obstruction were obtained from clinical portals and the theatre database. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test, the Mann–Whitney U‐test and the Student’s t‐test. Results One‐hundred and forty‐four patients had LCR with a median (range) follow‐up of 24.5 (6–108) months. One‐hundred and eighty‐seven patients underwent OCR, with a median (range) follow‐up of 49 (6–104) months. Six (4.2%) of 144 patients in the LCR group had adhesion‐related admission/obstruction compared with 13 (6.95%) of 187 patients in the OCR group (P = 0.34). Three (2.1%) of 144 patients who had LCR required surgery for adhesive obstruction compared with five (2.7%) of 187 who had OCR (P = 0.73). Conclusion In our study there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative adhesive intestinal obstruction between LCR and OCR groups.     

Laparoscopic Bowel Resection in the Setting of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background This study aimed to review the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resection for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. Methods From the prospectively collected database for patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer in our institution, those with stage IV colorectal cancer who underwent elective resection of tumor during the period from January 2000 to June 2006 were included. The outcomes of those with laparoscopic resection were reviewed and comparison was made between patients with laparoscopic and open resection. Results A total of 200 patients (127 men) with median age of 69 years (range: 25–91 years) were included, and 77 underwent laparoscopic resection. Conversion was required in ten patients (13.0%) and all except one conversion were due to fixed or bulky tumors. There was no operative mortality in the laparoscopic group. The complication rate was 14% and the median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. When patients with laparoscopic resection were compared with those with open operations, there was no difference in age, gender, comorbidity, or tumor size between the two groups. However, the complication rate was significantly lower in those with laparoscopic resection (14% versus 32%, P = 0.007) and the median hospital stay was significantly shorter (7 days versus 8 days, P = 0.005).The operative mortalities and the survivals were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Colorectal resection can be performed safely in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. The operative outcomes in terms of complication rate and hospital stay compare favorably with patients with open resection. Presented in the Scientific Meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons on 18–22 April 2007 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.     

高龄患者腹腔镜结直肠切除术安全性的研究

目的:评价为高龄患者行腹腔镜结直肠切除术的安全性及可行性。方法:回顾分析2003年8月至2008年8月我院择期行结直肠切除术中大于等于70岁高龄患者的临床资料。比较同期56例腹腔镜结直肠切除术和52例开腹手术患者的一般情况、疾病分类、手术指标、术后恢复情况和治疗效果。患者平均年龄开腹组74岁,腹腔镜组73岁。两组患者术前合并症、美国麻醉师协会术前危险度评分、疾病类型均无显著差异。结果:平均手术时间开腹组192min,腹腔镜组187min,P=0.616。开腹组术中平均出血218ml,腹腔镜组约86ml,P=0.000。腹腔镜组1例中转开腹。两组均无死亡病例。肠功能恢复时间开腹组5d,腹腔镜组3d,P=0.000。进流食时间开腹组5d,腹腔镜组4d,P=0.026。平均住院时间开腹组22d,腹腔镜组18d,P=0.000。术后心肺并发症发生率开腹组26.9%,腹腔镜组10.7%,P=0.030。结论:为高龄患者行腹腔镜结直肠切除术安全可行,可减少患者术中出血量,降低术后心肺并发症的发生率,加快术后胃肠功能恢复,缩短住院时间等。     

Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair

Background Incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery, and it is often a source of morbidity and high costs for health care. This is a case-control study to compare laparoscopic versus anterior-open incisional hernia repair. Methods 170 patients with incisional hernia were enrolled in this study between September 2001 and December 2004. Of these, 85 underwent anterior-open repair (open group: OG), and 85 underwent laparoscopic repair (laparoscopic group: LG). The clinical outcome was determined by a median follow-up of 24.0 months for LG and OG. Results No difference was noticed between the two groups in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), and incisional hernia diameter. Mean operative time was 61.0 min for LG patients and 150.9 min for OG patients (p < .05). Mean hospitalization was 2.7 days for LG patients and 9.9 days for OG patients (p < .05). Mean return to work was 13 days (range, 6–15 days) in LG patients and 25 days (range, 16–30 days) in OG patients. Complications occurred in 16.4 % of LG patients and 29.4 % of OG patients, with a relapse rate of 2.3% in LG and 1.1% in OG patients. Conclusions Short-term results indicate that laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is associated with a shorter operative time and hospitalization, a faster return to work, and a lower incidence of wound infections and major complications compared to the anterior-open procedure. Further studies and longer follow-up are required to confirm these findings.     

Minimal‐access colorectal surgery is associated with fewer adhesion‐related admissions than open surgery

Background:

This study aimed to describe national intermediate‐term admission rates for incisional hernia or clinically apparent adhesions following colorectal surgery, and to compare rates following laparoscopic and open approaches.

Methods:

Patients undergoing primary colorectal resection between 2002 and 2008 were included from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Subsequent inpatient admissions were extracted for up to 3 years after the initial operation or to the end of the study period. Outcomes examined were admissions with a diagnosis of, or operative interventions for, incisional hernia or adhesions.

Results:

A total of 187 148 patients were included between 2002 and 2008, with median follow‐up of 31·8 (interquartile range 13·1–35·3) months. Some 8885 (4·7 per cent) of these patients were admitted with a diagnosis of, or underwent a repair of, an incisional hernia. In multiple regression analysis, use of laparoscopy was not a predictor of operative intervention for incisional hernia (odds ratio 1·09, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0·99 to 1·21; P = 0·083). Some 15 125 (8·1 per cent) of the patients were admitted with a diagnosis of adhesions or had a procedure for division of adhesions. Overall, 3·5 per cent (6637 of 187 148) of patients underwent adhesiolysis. Patients selected for a laparoscopic procedure had lower rates of admission for adhesions (6·3 per cent (692 of 11 013) for laparoscopic versus 8·2 per cent (14 433 of 176 135) for open surgery; P < 0·001) and reintervention for adhesions (2·8 per cent (305 of 11 013) versus 3·6 per cent (6325 of 176 135) respectively; P < 0·001) than those undergoing an open procedure. In multiple regression analysis, patients selected for a laparoscopic procedure had lower subsequent intervention rates for adhesions (odds ratio 0·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 0·90; P < 0·001).

Discussion:

Patients undergoing colorectal resection who are selected for the laparoscopic approach have a lower risk of developing clinically significant adhesions. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Entirely laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma: lymph node yield and resection margins

Background  Laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma has been widely reported from Japan and Korea but there are sparse data for Western patients. This study aimed to describe and compare the perioperative outcomes and pathological staging for consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or open gastrectomy by a single surgeon in the UK. Methods  During the period from April 2005 to May, 2007, patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were selected for open or laparoscopic resection at the discretion of the surgeon. Gastric resections for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) or benign disease were excluded. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed entirely laparoscopically with intracorporeal anastomosis, followed by specimen retrieval via a suprapubic incision. Results  There were 21 men and 8 women, median age 75 years (range 45–88 years), with American Anaesthesiology Association scores of 3 or 4 in 19 patients. Gastrectomy was performed laparoscopically in 18 patients (62%; total gastrectomy, 6 patients) or open in 11 patients (total gastrectomy, 7). Five laparoscopic gastrectomies were converted to open procedures, three patients had re-laparoscopy and one patient had subsequent laparotomy. As compared with open gastrectomy, laparoscopic resection had longer operation time and similar length of hospital stay. There was one postoperative mortality in each group. There was similar lymph node retrieval for laparoscopic or open resection [23 (range 10–44) versus 26 (8–95), respectively; p = 0.40], with inadequate lymphadenectomy (<15 nodes) in two laparoscopic cases and one open case. R1 resection was limited to patients with pT3 disease (laparoscopic, 4; open, 2). Conclusions  Perioperative outcomes were similar for laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. Lymphadenectomy was adequate in 89% of laparoscopic gastrectomies. pT3 tumours were at risk of noncurative resection, as described in large Western series of open gastrectomy.     

Prospective comparison of laparoscopic versus open resection for benign colorectal disease

Laparoscopic surgery is not being applied in a widespread manner in the management of benign or malignant colorectal disorders. This is a prospective comparison of 279 patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery. Colorectal diseases included inflammatory bowel, diverticular disease, colonic inertia, polyps, and rectal prolapse. Data included 136 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (mean age, 51.3 years) and 143 who underwent open surgery (mean age, 56.0 years). Thirteen patients' procedures were converted to open, but their results were included in the laparoscopic surgery group. There was no significant difference in operative time, postoperative complications, morbidity, or mortality between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. More patients in the laparoscopic group had significant cardiac disease (6.0%, laparoscopic; 0.7%, open; = 0.01). More patients in the open group had undergone previous gastrointestinal surgery (3.7%, laparoscopic; 11.2%, open; = 0.02). The laparoscopic group used less postoperative analgesia and resumed oral feeding quicker ( < 0.05). In addition, time to first flatus and bowel movement was faster ( < 0.05), and the length of postoperative hospital stay (7.7 +/- 15.8 versus 11.0 +/- 8.3; = 0.03) was shorter in the laparoscopic surgery group. There are significant advantages in postoperative recovery with the laparoscopic technique. If proven to be cost-effective, laparoscopic colorectal surgery for benign diseases should become the standard of surgical care.     

Laparoscopic colonic resection in fast-track patients does not enhance short-term recovery after elective surgery

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been claimed to enhance recovery when compared with open surgery. The aim of our study was to investigate whether laparoscopic colorectal resection improved recovery with the use of a multimodal rehabilitation programme. METHOD: We carried out a prospective audit of 80 patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between November 2003 and March 2005. All patients underwent a fast-track protocol with early feeding, mobilization and a fluid and sodium restriction regime. Recovery was measured in terms of return of gastrointestinal function, hospital stay, complications and quality of life measures. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients in the study 22 underwent laparoscopic resection and 58 had open surgery. Patients were well matched for all baseline characteristics. The groups were not significantly different in terms of opioid or antiemetic use. They were also similar in median time to first flatus (69 h vs 69 h, P = 0.36) and median time to first bowel motion (127 h vs 101 h, P = 0.07). There was no difference in median hospital stay (5.8 days vs 5.9 days, P = 0.87) or complications (P = 0.46) between the laparoscopic and open group. There were no significant differences in Short Form 36 scores between the two groups for any of the components measured. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal resection does not appear to reduce the duration of ileus or hospital stay with the use of a multimodal rehabilitation regime. Further large randomized trials are required to confirm these findings.     

Incidence of Incisional Hernia Repair After Laparoscopic Compared to Open Resection of Colonic Cancer: A Nationwide Analysis of 17,717 Patients

Background

It remains unknown whether laparoscopic compared to open surgery translates into fewer incisional hernia repairs (IHR). The objectives of the current study were to compare the long-term incidence of IHR and the size of repaired hernias between patients subjected to laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer.

Methods

This was a nationwide cohort study comprised of patients undergoing resection for colonic cancer between January 2007 and March 2016 according to the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients who subsequently underwent IHR were identified in the Danish Ventral Hernia Database, from which information about the priority of the hernia repair and the size of the fascial defect was retrieved.

Results

The study included 17,717 patients, of whom 482 (2.7%) underwent subsequent IHR during a median follow-up of 4.7 (interquartile range 2.8–6.9) years. There was no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative incidence of hernia repair after laparoscopic compared to open colonic resection (3.9%, CI 3.3–4.4% vs 4.1%, CI 3.5–4.6%). After adjustment for confounders, laparoscopic approach was associated with an increased rate of emergency IHR (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.03–5.46, P = 0.042) as opposed to elective IHR (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73–1.14, P = 0.442). Laparoscopic surgery was significantly associated with a decreased fascial defect area compared to open surgery (mean difference −16.0 cm², 95% CI −29.4 to −2.5, P = 0.020).

Conclusions

There was no difference in the incidence of IHR after open compared to laparoscopic resection. Compared to the open approach, laparoscopic resection increased the rate of subsequent emergency IHR, suggesting that a more aggressive therapeutic approach may be warranted in this patient group upon diagnosis of an incisional hernia.

     

Accelerated learning curve for colorectal resection, open versus laparoscopic approach, can be attained with expert supervision

Background

Laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR) is gaining popularity. Nonetheless, open surgery remains an important technique. Thus, surgeons should be technically proficient in both open and laparoscopic surgery. One question however remains unanswered: Can training for open and LCR occur simultaneously? The objective of this paper is to review the learning curve for open and laparoscopic colon resection of one surgeon who underwent a rigorous training program.

Methods

A review of consecutive patients who underwent surgery for colon and rectosigmoid junction cancers by one trainee surgeon was performed. This surgeon had completed his basic surgical residency but had limited experience in colorectal cancer surgery. In total, 75 patients were included in this study. All operations were supervised by at least one staff surgeon with experience of more than 300 LCR cases. The trainee surgeon was allowed to train in both laparoscopic and open colorectal resection simultaneously.

Results

Forty-three patients underwent laparoscopic resection, while 32 patients underwent open surgery. Age, gender, mean body mass index (BMI), preoperative risk, and history of past abdominal surgery showed no significant difference between laparoscopic and open groups. There were no differences in tumor stage [International Union against Cancer (UICC)] or tumor size (p = 0.068 and 0.228, respectively). The morbidity rate for open and laparoscopic surgery was 3.1% (1/32) and 4.7% (2/43), respectively (p = 0.484). Operation time decreased with increasing experience, and plateaued after 25 cases in the laparoscopic group and 22 cases in the open group. The learning curve for open cases was 11 cases, and 7 for laparoscopic surgery.

Conclusions

Surgeons who have completed a basic surgical residency but have limited colorectal surgery experience can learn both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery simultaneously in an effective manner under supervision by well-experienced surgeons.     

Incisional hernia rate after laparoscopic colorectal resection is reduced with standardisation of specimen extraction

IntroductionIncisional hernia is a common complication of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Extraction site may influence the rate of incisional hernias. Major risk factors for the development of incisional hernias include age, diabetes, obesity and smoking status. In this study, we investigated the effect of specimen extraction site on incisional hernia rate.MethodsTwo cohorts of patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections in a single centre in 2005 (n=85) and 2009 (n=139) were studied retrospectively. In 2005 all specimens were extracted through transverse muscle cutting incisions. In 2009 all specimens were extracted through midline incisions. Demographic variables, rate of incisional hernias and risk factors for hernia development were compared between the year groups. All patients had been followed up clinically for two years.ResultsA total of 224 patients (mean age: 67.5 years, standard deviation: 16.35 years) were included in this study. Of these, 85 patients were in the 2005 transverse group and 139 were in the 2009 midline group. The total incisional hernia rate for the series was 8.0% at the two-year follow-up visit. For the 2005 group, the incisional hernia rate was 15.3% (n=13) and for the 2009 group, it was 3.6% (n=5) (p<0.01). The body mass index was higher in patients who developed incisional hernias than in those who did not (p=0.02).ConclusionsThe 2005 group had a significantly higher incisional hernia rate than the 2009 group. This is due to the differences in the incision technique and extraction site between the two groups.     

Laparoscopic versus open resection for appendix carcinoid

Background Since an increasing number of appendectomies are performed via laparoscopy, it is crucial to determine the impact of this approach on appendix carcinoid (AC) outcome. The goal of this study was to compare results of laparoscopic (LAP) versus open (OP) appendectomy for AC according to intend to treat approach. Methods A retrospective review (1991–2003) identified 39 patients (median age, 36 years; range, 12–83) treated by laparoscopy (LAP) or laparotomy (OP) for AC in a single institution. Follow-up was complete for all patients (median, 67 months; range, 4–132). Results Most cases had associated acute appendicitis (64%). Median carcinoid size was 1.1 cm (range, 0.3–5) and 0.4 cm (range, 0.2–3) in the LAP and OP groups, respectively. LAP and OP were performed in 21 (54%) and 18 (46%) patients, respectively. Surgical margins were positive in two patients in the LAP group and one patient in the OP group (p = 0.6). Right colectomies were performed for AC >2 cm in five patients after LAP and in four patients after OP (p = 0.9). Actuarial 5-year survival rates were 100 and 94% in the LAP and OP groups, respectively (p = 0.2). Two patients died in the OP group, one due to metastatic carcinoid and the other due to metachronous colorectal cancer. Synchronous or metachronous colorectal carcinomas developed in six patients (15%). Conclusion Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure for AC, with carcinologic and long-term results similar to those of conventional appendectomy. Thus, pre- or per-operative suspicion of AC is not a contraindication to LAP. Prognosis of AC appears more dependent on carcinoid malignant potential or associated tumors. Risk for developing colorectal adenocarcinoma is high in AC patients and warrants follow-up of all patients with colonoscopic screening.     

Comparison of resource utilization and long-term quality-of-life outcomes between laparoscopic and conventional colorectal surgery

Background The outcomes of laparosopic and conventional colorectal surgery, with special reference to costs of treatment and patients' quality of life, were compared. Methods A partly retrospective cohort study was designed to assess the use of resources, and a follow-up interview was undertaken to evaluate patients' quality of life after both to define laparoscopic (LAP) and conventional (CON) surgery. Results The length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the LAP group (median, 11 days; interquartile range [IQR], 9–15) than in the CON group (median, 16 days; IQR, 13–23; p < 0.0001), which is reflected in lower costs of hospitalization calculated for the three most frequent surgical interventions. Statistically significant improvements were noted between the median scores in the domains of physical functioning (LAP 85 vs CON 68; p < 0.05) and vitality (LAP 85 vs CON 69; p < 0.05). Conclusion Laparoscopy is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with colorectal diseases, offering lower costs and a better quality of life in the long term.