Hospital stay and return to full activity following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery are well established, particularly within an enhanced recovery program. Early return to activity is to be expected but has not been quantified. The aim of this study was to measure the hospital stay and return to full activity following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and compare this with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: All totally laparoscopic gallbladder, inguinal hernia, and colorectal operations performed between January 2003 and October 2006 were included. Outcomes were collected from a prospective database and case notes. Post discharge information was collected by telephone interview. A comparison was made by creating 4 groups: laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (Transabdominal PrePeritoneal [TAPP]), laparoscopic colorectal nonresectional, and resectional surgery. RESULTS: The median hospital stay following laparoscopic colorectal resection was 7 days, while in the cholecystectomy and hernia group it was 1 day. The median return to full activity after discharge from the hospital was 4, 5, 3, and 7 days in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, nonresection, and colorectal resection groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Following laparoscopic colorectal surgery, patients can be expected to return to their usual activities within a week after discharge from the hospital and less than 2 weeks from surgery.     

Enhanced recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resection with primary anastomosis: accelerated discharge is safe and does not give rise to increased readmission rates

Aims Enhanced recovery programmes after colorectal surgery are promoted to minimize complications and expedite recovery, thus reducing length of hospital stay where appropriate and improving the overall standard of patient care. There are few published trials of enhanced recovery programmes in the context of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods Data were prospectively collected on all laparoscopic colorectal resections carried out in our institution from May 2004 to November 2009. An informal move to 48‐h discharge was introduced in May 2004 and the official enhanced recovery programme was launched in November 2008. We identified all patients with a primary anastomosis discharged within 3 days of surgery. Early outcomes – leaks, complications, readmission rates and returns to theatre – were analysed. Results In all, 606 resections were performed in this period. Median length of stay was 4 (0–52) days. Of these patients, 279 (46%) met the criteria of accelerated discharge by day 3: 2 (0.7%) were discharged on the day of surgery, 70 (25.1%) within 24 h, 116 (41.6%) within 48 h and 91 (32.6%) by 72 h. Age was not a significant factor in determining length of stay. Patients undergoing right hemicolectomy were more likely to be discharged by 24 h than those with left‐sided anastomoses, and patients having total mesorectal excision resections were more likely to stay 3 days. The readmission rate was 4%, regardless of day of discharge. Conclusion Accelerated discharge is feasible and safe. High readmission rates reported in enhanced recovery programmes after open colorectal surgery have not occurred in our laparoscopic experience.     

MRSA infections following colorectal surgery in an enhanced recovery programme

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in a cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal resections within an enhanced recovery programme. Method A prospective database of all patients undergoing colorectal resections by a single surgical team over a 3.5‐year period was reviewed. Demographics including age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, type of surgery (abdominal or pelvic) and whether or not the procedure was laparoscopic or open were analysed. All patients were screened preoperatively and postoperatively and on discharge for MRSA. Patients found preoperatively to be MRSA positive were excluded from the study. Results In all, 186 patients underwent colorectal resection over the time reviewed. There were 113 laparoscopic resections, 70 open resections and three laparoscopic converted to open resections. Five patients (2.7%) were found to be MRSA positive postoperatively. All of these had open rather than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.01). Length of stay for patients that had MRSA infections was significantly longer than those remaining MRSA free (P < 0.05). Conclusion These results suggest that patients who successfully undergo laparoscopic colorectal resections within an enhanced recovery programme have a lower incidence of postoperative MRSA infections.     

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.     

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs hasten recovery after colorectal resections

Colorectal resection was traditionally associated with significant morbidity and prolonged stay in hospital.Laparoscopic colorectal resection was first described in 1991 as a minimally invasive form of colorectal surgery.It was later on assessed by multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis and was found to be associated with a faster recovery,lower complication rates and a shorter stay in hospital compared with open resection.To assess the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program on postoperative length of stay after elective colorectal resections,a literature review was conducted,supplemented by the results of 111 ERAS colorectal resections at regional NWS Hospital using a protocol based on the Fast Track approach described by Kehlet in 1999.ERAS has been shown to improve postoperative recovery,reduce length of stay and enhance early return to normal function when compared with traditional colorectal surgical protocols.The role of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal resections within a fast-track (ERAS) program is controversial.The current evidence suggests that within such a program,there is no difference between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery in terms of postoperative recovery rates or length of hospital stay.     

A cohort study of results following elective colonic and rectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme

Objective  The use of laparoscopic surgery coupled with an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) has resulted in hospital stays of 4 or less days for colonic and 6 days following rectal resection, in previously reported small selected groups of patients. This report analyses an unselected cohort to determine if such benefits are reproducible.
Method   Consecutive patients undergoing elective colonic or rectal surgery at a single centre between January 2002 and January 2006 were followed. All were included in the ERP and underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery.
Results   The study group comprised 241 patients (mean age of 67 ± standard deviation 14 years and 49% male sex distribution) who underwent elective colorectal resection within the context of an ERP. One hundred and fifty-one (62.7%) patients had malignant disease. Overall, 191 (79.3%) patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and the remaining underwent an open operation. Postoperative stay was shorter in patients undergoing laparoscopic vs open, colonic surgery (4 days vs 6 days, P  = 0.002). A nonsignificant trend towards reduced postoperative stay was observed for patients undergoing laparoscopic vs open, rectal surgery (6 days vs 9 days, P  = 0.088). Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy demonstrated significantly lower 30-day mortality rates than those undergoing traditional colectomy (3/131 vs 3/39, P  = 0.049).
Conclusion  Laparoscopic colonic surgery in the context of an ERP offers reduced hospital stay and may confer a survival advantage over traditional techniques. These results confirm that previously reported benefits of laparoscopic surgery are reproducible within an unselected population.     

Factors predicting deviation from an enhanced recovery programme and delayed discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Aim The study aimed to identify factors that predict postoperative deviation from an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) and/or delayed discharge following colorectal surgery. Method Data were prospectively collected from all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection between January 2006 and December 2009. They included Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) variables, body mass index (BMI), sex, preoperative serum albumin, pathology, conversion from a laparoscopic to an open approach and postoperative length of hospital stay. Results There were 176 patients (90 women) of mean age 68 years. Fifteen (9%) operations were converted from laparoscopic to open. The remainder were completed laparoscopically. Fifty‐five (31%) deviated from the ERP, with most failing multiple elements. The most common reason was failure to mobilize, which often occurred in conjunction with paralytic ileus or analgesic failure. Factors independently predicting ERP deviation on multivariate analysis were pathology and intra‐operative complications. The median length of stay was 5 days. Sixty‐four (36%) patients had a prolonged length of stay that was predicted by age, number of procedures and ERP deviation. Conclusion Pathology and intra‐operative complications are independent predictors of ERP deviation. Prolonged length of stay can be predicted by age, multiple procedures and ERP deviation. Failure to mobilize should be considered as a red flag sign prompting further investigation following colorectal resection.     

Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer may improve short-term outcome without compromising long-term survival or disease control. Recent evidence suggests that the difference between laparoscopic and open surgery may be less significant when perioperative care is optimized within an enhanced recovery programme. This study compared short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer within such a programme. METHODS: Between January 2002 and March 2004, 62 patients were randomized on a 2 : 1 basis to receive laparoscopic (n = 43) or open (n = 19) surgery. All were entered into an enhanced recovery programme. Length of hospital stay was the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes of functional recovery, quality of life and cost were assessed for 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: Demographics of the two groups were similar. Length of hospital stay after laparoscopic resection was 32 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 7 to 51) per cent shorter than for open resection (P = 0.018). Combined hospital, convalescent and readmission stay was 37 (95 per cent c.i. 10 to 56) per cent shorter (P = 0.012). The relative risk of complications, quality of life results and cost data were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Despite perioperative optimization of open surgery for colorectal cancer, short-term outcomes were better following laparoscopic surgery. There was no deterioration in quality of life or increased cost associated with the laparoscopic approach.     

Laparoscopically assisted colorectal surgery in the elderly.

INTRODUCTION: Open colorectal surgery in elderly patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates compared with those in younger age groups. It also requires more intensive postoperative support, longer hospitalization, and in many cases leads to prolonged rehabilitation or institutionalization. Because of its less invasive nature, laparoscopically assisted colorectal surgery may lead to a reduced period of convalescence. However, the safety of advanced laparoscopic surgical techniques in the elderly has not been established, so this prospective comparative study was undertaken. METHODS: All patients aged 80 years or more who were undergoing an elective laparoscopic or open colorectal procedure between 1 January 1992 and 30 June 1997 were assessed prospectively. Patients having simple stoma formation were excluded. Perioperative care, operative results and subsequent function were analysed. RESULTS: There were 42 patients in the laparoscopic group and 35 in the open group, with a median age of 84 years in each group. Five patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery required conversion to an open procedure. No complications related to laparoscopy occurred. Three patients died after operation in the laparoscopic group and four in the open group, with morbidity in seven and 15 patients respectively. Median hospital stay was 9 (range 4-21) days for patients having the laparoscopic operation, and 17 (range 7-28) days in the open cases. At 4 weeks after operation 30 of the 35 independent patients surviving the operation in the laparoscopic group and 16 of 28 in the open group were back to preoperative activity levels. CONCLUSION: In this series laparoscopically assisted colorectal surgery was safe and was associated with a low incidence of complications, short hospitalization and a rapid return to preoperative activity levels when compared with open colorectal resections in this age group.     

The RAPID protocol enhances patient recovery after both laparoscopic and open colorectal resections

Background  

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs can accelerate recovery and shorten the hospital stay after colorectal resections. The RAPID (remove, ambulate, postoperative analgesia, introduce diet) protocol is a simplified ERAS program that consists of a simplified, user-friendly single-page pro forma schedule. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the RAPID protocol on patients undergoing both laparoscopic and open colorectal resections in two specialized colorectal units.     

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。     

Hospital stay amongst patients undergoing major elective colorectal surgery: predicting prolonged stay and readmissions in NHS hospitals

Aim Reduced hospital stay confers clinical and economic benefits for patients and healthcare providers. This article examines the length of stay and consequent bed resource usage of patients undergoing elective excisional colorectal surgery in English NHS trusts. Method All patients undergoing elective colorectal resections for malignancy between 1996 and 2006 in English NHS trusts were included from the Hospital Episode Statistics data set. Unifactorial and multifactorial analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of prolonged stay and 28‐day readmission. Results Over the 10‐year period, 186 013 patients underwent elective colorectal procedures in 181 NHS trusts. About 2.893 million bed days were utilized for elective colorectal surgery. Admission stay was shorter following colonic surgery than following rectal surgery (median 11 vs 13 days, P < 0.001). A 2‐day decrease in median stay was observed over the 10‐year period for both colonic and rectal procedures. Readmissions within 28 days of discharge were higher following rectal excision than following colonic surgery (9.4 vs 7.6%, P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed the following independent predictors of prolonged hospital stay: distal (vs proximal) bowel resection, benign pathology, open technique, increasing age, comorbidity, social deprivation and low provider volume status. Independent predictors of 28‐day readmission included distal bowel resection, benign diagnosis, young age, social deprivation and high provider volume status. Conclusion Patients of advanced age, with associated comorbidities, and those living in areas of social deprivation are at increased risk of prolonged stay. Targeted pre‐emptive discharge planning and enhanced use of laparoscopic surgery could improve bed resource utilization.     

Comparison of Recovery Time after Open and Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass and Laparoscopic Adjustable Banding

Background: Laparoscopy is believed to reduce recovery time and patient discomfort following bariatric surgical operations. This study tests that hypothesis. Methods: 60 randomly selected bariatric surgery patients, consisting of 20 open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP), 19 lap RYGBP, and 21 laparoscopic adjustable banding, were studied. Outcome measures including hospital length of stay (LOS), days to return to normal activity, days to surgical recovery, and pain medication usage were defined by the patients' subjective responses to a retrospective questionnaire. Overall differences among the three surgeries were first determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and then individual comparisons were made between each of the three pairs of operations using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test when a significant difference existed. Results: Patients reported an average LOS of 3.45 days following open RYGBP, 2.47 days following lap RYGBP, and 1.33 days following Lap-Band? surgery. There was little difference in return to normal activity, with open RYGBP patients reporting a 17.55 day delay in return to normal activity, and lap RYGBP reporting an 18.16 day delay. In contrast, Lap-Band? patients responded that the delay was only 7.24 days. Days to recovery were reported to be 29.05 for open RYGBP patients, 21.68 for lap RYGBP patients and 15.81 for Lap-Band? patients. Hospital days (P=0.0002), days to normal activity (P=0.0115), and days to recovery (P<0.0001) differed significantly among the surgery types. Lap and open RYGBP did not differ significantly regarding days to resumption of normal activities. Open RYGBP and banding differed significantly regarding days to recovery (P <0.001). Conclusions: Lap-Band? patients returned to normal activity levels earlier than gastric bypass patient's irrespective of approach. Lap-Band? patients also reported recovering from surgery significantly sooner than open RYGBP patients. Perceived differences in recovery time between open and laparoscopic RYGBP patients did not affect their time to resumption of normal activity.     

Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted large bowel excision for cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The authors described their experience with laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection for colorectal carcinoma, both curative and palliative, with emphasis on patient selection. The techniques of the operations were described. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic colorectal procedures for treatment of benign lesions have been shown to be less painful and to enhance early postoperative recovery. However, use of laparoscopic procedures for treatment of colorectal cancer are controversial. The authors have used laparoscopic techniques for curative and palliative resections of colorectal carcinoma with satisfactory early results. METHODS: One hundred patients with colorectal carcinoma were selected over a 30-month period for laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection. For 17 patients, laparoscopy revealed bulky tumor or locally advanced disease, and open surgery was performed. For 83 patients, laparoscopic-assisted colon and rectal resections were attempted. Procedural data and postoperative results were entered prospectively. The median follow-up period was 15.2 months (range, 2.5-32.7 months). RESULTS: Fourteen of 83 patients eventually required conversion to open surgery. The median operative time was 180 minutes. The patients could return to a normal diet in a median of 4 days. The median number of doses of analgesics required was two, and the median hospital stay was 6 days. The morbidity rate was 12%, and there was no deaths attributable to the procedure. There were four distant recurrences and one pelvic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection for selected patients is feasible, and early postoperative results are encouraging. This procedure does not appear to be associated with an excessive recurrence rate, and long-term follow-up is necessary for late survival figures.     

Laparoscopic total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (IRA), supported by an enhanced recovery programme in cases of familial adenomatous polyposis

Aim Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is associated with an almost 100% chance of colorectal cancer by the age of 50 years. Surgery is the only prophylaxis. The study compared the outcome of prophylactic laparoscopic colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) with conventional open surgery. Method A case–control study was carried out including all cases of proven FAP undergoing prophylactic laparoscopic colectomy with IRA between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2008 using a standardized technique within an enhanced recovery programme (ERAS). All data were collected prospectively. Controls were identified retrospectively from patients who underwent open prophylactic IRA before 31 March 2008 and were matched for age, gender, BMI and ASA. Outcomes included duration of surgery, complications, length of stay, readmission and mortality. Results During the study period 25 patients underwent laparoscopic IRA. The median operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group (235 vs 180 mins, P < 0.0001) but the median hospital stay was shorter (6 vs 9 days, P = 0.002). Overall there were fewer complications in the laparoscopic group (20%vs 40%, P = 0.3). Conclusion Laparoscopic prophylactic colectomy with IRA in FAP is safe and feasible, and combined with ERAS leads to accelerated recovery and possibly fewer complications than open surgery. FAP patients undergoing prophylactic IRA should be offered laparoscopic surgery.     

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection in the elderly population

Background

Elderly patients are often regarded as high-risk patients for major abdominal surgery because of a lack of functional reserve and associated medical comorbidities. The aim of this systematic review and pooled analysis was to review the current data published regarding the differences in operative outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery in the elderly population.

Methods

A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Studies that compared outcome following laparoscopic and open colorectal resections in the elderly (≥70) population were included. Primary outcomes were operative death, anastomotic leak, pneumonia, length of hospital stay, and return to bowel function. Secondary outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative cardiac morbidity, ileus, and postoperative wound infection.

Results

The results of this systematic review and pooled analysis demonstrate the safety and potential benefits of laparoscopic colorectal resection in the elderly population. The latter include reduction in length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, incidence of postoperative pneumonia, time to return of normal bowel function, incidence of postoperative cardiac complications, and wound infections.

Conclusion

The results of this pooled analysis demonstrate the potential short-term advantages of laparoscopic colorectal resection in the elderly population. Further studies are required to examine the long-term survival following laparoscopic and open colorectal resections in the elderly population.     

A prospective case-matched comparison of clinical and financial outcomes of open versus laparoscopic colorectal resection

Background We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs associated with laparoscopic resection within an elective colorectal practice. Method Over a 12-month period data were prospectively collected on patients undergoing elective colorectal resection under the care of a single consultant surgeon. Thirty patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection were case-matched by type of resection, disease process, and, where appropriate, cancer stage to patients having open surgery. A cost analysis was carried out incorporating cost of surgical bed stay, theater time, and specific equipment costs. Results In the 30 patients having laparoscopic resection, a conversion rate of 13% was observed. Surgery was performed for colorectal cancer in 83% of patients, and 53% of resections were rectal. No significant differences were found in age (65 versus 69 years, p = 0.415), BMI (27.4 versus 26.1, p = 0.527), POSSUM physiology score (16 versus 16.5, p = 0.102), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade (2 versus 2, p = 0.171), or length of theater time (160 min versus 160 min, p = 0.233) between the laparoscopic and open patients. Hospital stay was reduced in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 9 days, p < 0.001). Average cost of surgical equipment used for a laparoscopic resection was greater than for open surgery (￡912.39 versus ￡276.41, p = 0.001). Cost of hospital stay was significantly less (￡1259.75 versus ￡2267.55, p < 0.001). Cost of operating room time was similar for the two groups (￡2066.63 versus ￡1945.07, p = 0.152). Overall no significant cost difference could be found between open and laparoscopic resection (￡4560.9 versus ￡4348.45, p = 0.976). More postoperative complications were seen in the open resection group (14 versus 4, p < 0.001). Conclusions Intraoperative equipment costs are greater for laparoscopic resection than for open surgery. However, benefits can be seen in terms of quicker recovery and shorter hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery is a financially viable alternative to open resection in selected patients.     

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.     

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery in urgent and emergent settings

Laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is slowly becoming the standard of care for elective resections. The use of LC in the emergency setting is relatively unstudied. Authors describe their experience with a series of 34 emergent and urgent LC cases for a variety of benign and neoplastic colorectal diseases, admitted from 2007 to 2009 at Emergency Department of a tertiary level hospital, comparing laparoscopic group with matched control open group. Twenty-one LC was performed for benign complicated disease, 12 for malignant disease and 1 for iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy. Two cases were converted to open procedure (5.8%), the average operative time was 188 minutes (SD 61.84). The average postoperative length of hospital stay was 6.57 days (SD 1.75), with no postoperative mortality and no major morbidity. Results of laparoscopic group compared with 61 patients treated with open colorectal procedure confirm the advantages of laparoscopic approach similar to those established in elective colorectal surgery. With increasing experience, LC would be a feasible and an effective option in nonelective situations lowering complication rate and length of hospital stay.     

腹腔镜与开腹结直肠癌手术短期效果的对比研究

目的:对比分析腹腔镜与开腹结直肠癌手术的短期效果。方法:回顾分析2001～2010年1 743例结直肠癌患者的临床资料,其中864例行腹腔镜手术8,79例行开腹手术。结果:相对开腹组,腹腔镜组切口小([5.5±1.8)cm vs.(23±3.5)cm,P<0.01;]失血量少([110±41)ml vs.(350±56)ml,P<0.01);]术后阿片类镇痛剂使用例数少(179 vs.261,P<0.01);首次下床活动时间早([1.9±0.9)天vs.(2.5±1.2)天,P<0.01;]肠道功能恢复快([2.5±0.6)天vs.(3.8±0.7)天,P<0.01;]术后住院时间短[(6.5±1.3)天vs.(8.4±1.5)天,P<0.01;]术后并发症发生率低(15.7%vs.27.6%,P<0.01)。淋巴结清扫数量、标本切缘阳性率两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:腹腔镜结直肠癌手术安全可行,可取得与开腹手术相同的根治效果,且具有切口小、出血少、疼痛轻、术后住院时间短、并发症发生率低等优势,值得推广。