Feasibility of Laparoscopic Re-resection for Patients with Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

Repeated resection via an open approach is an effective treatment for post-operative recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there are limited data on the application of laparoscopic approach for recurrent HCC in patients with prior liver resections. The aim of this study was to review our experience of laparoscopic re-resection in patients with postoperative tumor recurrence.

Materials and methods

A total of 11 patients received laparoscopic re-resections for postoperative tumor recurrence in our center. Data were reviewed for demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative outcomes. Case-match analysis with the open approach was performed in a 1:2 ratio.

Results

Six patients had their first liver resection carried out via the open approach and the remaining five patients received the laparoscopic approach. The recurrent tumor size was 20 mm (12–50 mm) and ten patients had a solitary recurrence. Two patients had laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and the remaining nine patients had sub-segmentectomies. There was no significant difference in patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, and tumor features between the laparoscopic and open groups. Perioperative blood loss was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group (100 vs. 314 mL; p = 0.014) but the morbidity rate (18.2 vs. 4.5 %; p = 0.199) and length of hospitalization were comparable (6 vs. 5 days; p = 0.831). The 3-year overall survival rates for the laparoscopic and open groups were 60.0 and 89.3 %, respectively (p = 0.279).

Conclusion

Our study showed that laparoscopic re-resection for recurrent HCC was feasible with satisfactory postoperative and oncological outcomes, even in patients with previous major liver resections.     

Impact of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with F4-liver cirrhosis

Background

Although the utility of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been recognized in recent years, the impact of the laparoscopic liver resection for HCC with complete liver cirrhosis (F4) is still unknown.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 56 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy for HCC (3 cm or smaller in a diameter) and had complete liver cirrhosis (F4) diagnosed histologically was performed. Of the 56 patients, partial hepatectomy was performed under laparotomy in 28 patients (laparotomy group) or under laparoscopy in 28 patients (laparoscopy group). Perioperative outcome was analyzed in the two groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in the results of the preoperative liver function tests and the operation time between the two groups. The intraoperative blood loss was lower in the laparoscopy group than the laparotomy group (p = 0.0003). The incidence of the postoperative complications was significantly higher in the laparotomy group (20/36 patients) than in the laparoscopy group (3/28 patients, p < 0.0001). The incidences of surgical site infection, especially incisional infection, and intractable ascites were significantly higher in the laparotomy group than in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.0095, p < 0.0001, respectively). The proportions of patients who were classified into Clavien’s grade I and IIIa were higher in the laparotomy group than in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.0043, p = 0.051, respectively). The duration of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group than in the laparotomy group (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The postoperative morbidity, such as surgical site infection and intractable ascites, decreased by the induction of laparoscopic liver resection in patients with liver cirrhosis. As the results, the necessity of invasive treatment for postoperative complications decreased and the duration of the postoperative stay was shortened.     

Laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative outcomes in high-risk patients with colorectal cancer

Background

Patients with significant comorbidities often are denied laparoscopic colorectal resections, because they are thought to be too “high-risk.” This study was designed to examine the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic colorectal resections in high-risk colorectal cancer patients and to compare them with a similar cohort of patients undergoing open resections in the same time period.

Methods

This was a single-center, prospective, cohort study conducted at a high-volume, nonuniversity, tertiary care hospital. From a database of 616 patients submitted to elective colorectal surgery for cancer within a fast-track protocol (January 2005 to November 2011), 188 patients who met at least one minor (age >80 years and body mass index (BMI) >30 m/kg²) and one major (cardiac, pulmonary, renal or liver disease, diabetes mellitus) criterion were classified as high-risk. Differences in baseline characteristics, intraoperative outcomes, and short-term (30-day) postoperative outcomes, as well as the pathology findings and the readmission and reoperation rates, were compared between the open and laparoscopic cohorts in both high- and low-risk groups and between high- and low-risk groups.

Results

During the study period, 68 high-risk patients underwent laparoscopic resections and 120 had open surgeries. A shorter length of postoperative stay (6 vs. 9 days, p < 0.0001) and fewer postoperative nonsurgical complications (4 % vs. 19 %, p = 0.003) were observed among the laparoscopic group. Postoperative major (p = 0.774) and minor complications (p = 0.3) and reoperations (p = 0.196) were similar between the two groups, and a significantly lower rate of mortality (1.5 vs. 7.5 %, p = 0.038) was observed in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colorectal resection can be safely performed on “high-risk” surgical patients with better results than a similar group of high-risk patients undergoing open colon resections.     

Short- and Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Emergency Resection for Colon Cancer: An Observational Propensity Score-matched Study

Background

Case series suggest the feasibility and safety of emergency resection of colon cancer by laparoscopy. The present study compares short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection for colon cancers treated as emergencies.

Methods

The study was a propensity score-matched design based on a prospective database. From October 2006 to December 2011, emergency laparoscopic colon cancer resections were 1:2 propensity score-matched to open cases. Covariates for match-estimation were age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, procedure type, tumor site, and reason for emergency surgery. Short-term outcomes included oncological quality surrogates (lymph node harvest and R stage), need for a stoma, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. For long-term outcomes, overall and recurrence-free survival rates were analyzed with Kaplan–Meier curves.

Results

During the study period, a total of 217 colon cancers were resected (181 open and 36 laparoscopic) as emergencies. The laparoscopic cases were matched to 72 open cases. Median follow-up was 3.6 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.3–4.3] years. The overall 3-year survival rate was 51 % (95 % CI 35–76) in the laparoscopic group versus 43 % (95 % CI 32–58) in the open group (p = 0.24). The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate in the laparoscopic group was 35 % (95 % CI 20–60) versus 37 % (95 % CI 27–50) in the open group (p = 0.53). Median lymph node harvest (17 vs. 13 nodes; p = 0.041) and median length of hospital stay (7.5 vs. 11.0 days; p = 0.019) favored laparoscopy.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that selective emergency laparoscopy for colon cancer is not inferior to open surgery with regard to short- and long-term outcomes. Laparoscopy resulted in a shorter length of hospital stay.     

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Stage I Rectal Cancer: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes

Background

Laparoscopic resection is increasingly being performed for rectal cancer. However, few data are available to compare long-term outcomes after open versus laparoscopic surgery for early-stage rectal cancer.

Methods

Included in this retrospective study were 160 patients who underwent surgery for stage I rectal cancer between 2001 and 2008. Perioperative outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared for open versus laparoscopic surgery.

Results

Altogether, 85 patients were treated using open surgery and 80 with laparoscopic surgery. Postoperative mortality (0 vs. 1.3 %; p = 1.00), morbidity (31.3 vs. 25.0 %; p = 0.38), and harvested lymph nodes (22.5 vs. 20.0; p = 0.84) were similar for the two groups. However, operating time was longer (183.8 vs. 221.0 min; p = 0.008), volume of intraoperative bleeding was less (200.0 vs. 150.0 ml; p = 0.03), time to first bowel movement was shorter (3.54 vs. 2.44 days; p < 0.001), rate of superficial surgical-site infection was lower (7.5 vs. 0 %; p = 0.03), and postoperative hospital stay was shorter (11.0 vs. 8.0 days; p < 0.001) in the laparoscopy group than in the open surgery group. At 5 years, there was no difference in OS (98.6 vs. 97.1 %; p = 0.41) or DFS (98.2 vs. 96.4 %; p = 0.30) between the open and laparoscopy groups.

Conclusions

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for stage I rectal cancer were comparable to those of open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery, however, produced more favourable short-term outcomes than open surgery.     

Survival following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery

Background

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is known to provide increased benefits to patients during the postoperative recovery period. Initial scepticism over the oncological adequacy of resection has been dismissed by a number of major randomized trials. Emerging evidence indicates that laparoscopic surgery may provide a potential survival benefit in colorectal cancer.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open resection for colorectal cancer between October 2003 and December 2010 were analyzed. Data were collated and a database compiled. Survival analysis was calculated by using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

A total of 665 resections were performed with 457 laparoscopically and 208 open. The median length of stay was 4 days following laparoscopic resection and 7 days following open (p < 0.0005). There was no significant difference between the two groups apart from gender (p = 0.03), ASA (p = 0.03), and the number of patients with extranodal metastatic disease (p = 0.01). The 5-year overall survival (OS) in the completed laparoscopic group was 75.8 versus 72.5 % in the open group (p = 0.12). The 5-year OS in patients who were converted was 52 %. The 5-year OS for nonmetastatic disease in the completed laparoscopic group was significantly greater at 79.4 versus 74 % in the open group (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in OS for rectal cancer (p = 0.66), but there was an OS advantage for laparoscopically resected colon cancer (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic resection for nonmetastatic colon cancer may provide an overall survival advantage.     

Impact of incision length on the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background

The recent introduction of hand-assist devices in laparoscopic colorectal surgery has renewed interest in the influence of incision length. This study aimed to define the impact of extraction incision length on the postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic left-sided colon and rectal resections.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resection from 1991 to 2007 were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. The association between incision length and patient characteristics, diagnosis, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression, Spearman correlation, Wilcoxon test, and chi-square test.

Results

A total of 494 laparoscopic colorectal resections (left, sigmoid, anterior, and low anterior resections) were retrieved. Patients with conversions to open surgery (n = 59) and missing data (n = 53) were excluded. As a result, 382 cases were included in the study. A slight majority of the patients had malignant disease (n = 202, 53%). The median incision length was 5 cm (interquartile range, 4–6 cm). Increasing weight was positively correlated with incision length (p = 0.0001). Male patients had modestly larger mean incisions than female patients (5.5 vs. 5.0 cm; p = 0.0075). Age, previous surgery, diagnosis, days to resumption of normal diet, and days to discharge from hospital showed no significant relationship with incision length. No association was observed between the incision length and intraoperative or postoperative complications.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery appear to achieve the same perioperative outcomes irrespective of their extraction incision lengths. To maintain the short-term benefits of laparoscopy, surgeons should consider pursuing a minimally invasive technique, even when a larger extraction incision will ultimately be required.     

Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma of Cirrhotic Liver: A Case–Control Study

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection is considered a safe and feasible alternative to open surgery for malignant liver lesions. However, laparoscopic surgery in cirrhotic patients remains challenging. The aim of this retrospective case–control study was to compare morbidity, mortality, and long-term patient survival between laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and open liver resections (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis.

Methods

A total of 45 patients treated with LLR were matched by cause of cirrhosis, Child-Pugh score, type of surgical resection (subsegmentectomy, segmentectomy, and bisegmentectomy), tumor number, tumor size, and alpha-fetoprotein value with 45 patients treated with OLR. Pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables were compared between groups.

Results

Compared with OLR, the LLR group displayed a significantly shorter operative time (140 vs. 180 min; p = 0.02), shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 12 days; p < 0.0001), and lower morbidity rate (20 vs. 45 % of patients; p = 0.01). A higher rate of R0 resection was observed in the LLR group than in the OLR group (95 vs. 85 %; p = 0.03). Postoperative ascites was more frequently observed in the OLR group (18 vs. 2 %; p = 0.01). Mortality, patient, and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 88, 59, and 12 %, respectively, in the LLR group and 63, 44, and 22 % in the OLR group (p = 0.27).

Conclusions

Significantly shorter operative times, better resection margins, lower postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay were observed in the LLR group compared with the OLR group. LLR and OLR have similar overall and disease-free survival rates in cirrhotic HCC patients.     

The prevalence of laparoscopy and patient safety outcomes: an analysis of colorectal resections

Background

Although laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stays than open surgery, perioperative patient safety analyses using process-focused, validated measures have yet to be performed.

Methods

This study analyzed the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a 20 % weighted sample of inpatient hospital discharges, from 1998 to 2009. The study included patients who underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal resections and excluded those younger than 18 years and those who underwent emergent or multiple colorectal operations. The primary outcome measure was surgery-specific patient safety indicators (PSIs). Uni- and multivariate regression methods were used to estimate associations of surgery type with PSIs.

Results

A total of 2,936,641 patients were identified, and 177,547 (6 %) of these patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections. The laparoscopic patients were younger (p < 0.001) and more likely to be Caucasian (p = 0.005) and male (p < 0.001), to have lower Charlson scores (p < 0.001), and to undergo surgery in teaching hospitals (p < 0.001) located in urban areas (p < 0.001). The prevalence of laparoscopic surgery has increased rapidly in recent years, from 5 to 29 % of all colorectal procedures performed in 2007 and 2009, respectively. The prevalence of any PSI was lower in the laparoscopic group (4.2 vs. 8.3 %; p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that the likelihood of any PSI for laparoscopic colorectal resection was 57 % lower than for open resections (odds ratio, 0.43; 95 % confidence interval, 0.40–0.46; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery was associated with a lower risk of adverse patient safety events, a difference that became more pronounced as the prevalence of laparoscopy increased. Future studies should focus on factors that promote the safe adoption of innovative surgical techniques and optimize surgical outcomes.     

Influence of conversion on the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer compared with primarily open resection

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of conversion on perioperative and short- and long-term oncologic outcomes in laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer and to compare these with those for an open control group.

Methods

The data of 276 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer between 2006 and 2010 at a single institution were prospectively collected. Of the 276 patients, 114 underwent primarily open surgery, and 162 underwent laparoscopic surgery (on an intention-to-treat basis). Of the 162 laparoscopic patients, 38 (23.5 %) underwent conversion to open surgery. The three groups of patients were compared: the conversion surgery group, the open surgery group, and the completed laparoscopy surgery group.

Results

The converted patients had more wound infections (18.4 vs 4.8 %, p = 0.009), but the wound infection rate in the primarily open group also was significantly higher than in the laparoscopic resection group (p = 0.007). No further differences in perioperative morbidity, including anastomotic leakage, were found. The perioperative 30-day mortality rate was comparable between all the groups (0.6 vs 2.6 vs 2.6 %, nonsignificant difference). The oncologic parameters such as number of harvested lymph nodes and rate of R0 resection were equal in all the groups. The completed laparoscopy group had a shorter hospital stay [12 vs 16 days in the primarily open group (p = 0.02) vs 15 days in the converted group (p = 0.03)]. The rates for survival, local recurrence (4.5 vs 3 vs 3 %), and metachronous metastasis (10.1 vs 9.3 vs 9 %) did not differ significantly between the three groups after a period of 3 years.

Conclusion

Conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic rectal resection has no negative effect on perioperative or long-term oncologic outcome.     

Single-port laparoscopic colorectal resections in obese patients are as safe and effective as conventional laparoscopy

Background

Obese patients pose additional operative technical difficulties, and it is unclear if the outcomes of single-port colorectal surgery are equivalent to those of conventional laparoscopy in such patients. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative variables and short-term outcomes of single-port versus conventional laparoscopy in obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Patients and methods

Obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) undergoing single-port laparoscopic colorectal resections between March 2009 and September 2012 were case matched 1:1 with obese counterparts undergoing conventional (multi-port) laparoscopic surgery based on diagnosis and operation type.

Results

Thirty-seven patients who underwent single-port surgery were matched with 37 conventional laparoscopic counterparts. Male gender predominated in the single-port group (26 vs 15, p = 0.02). The number of patients with a history of previous abdominal operations (17 vs 13, p = 0.48) and ASA score (3 vs 2, p = 0.6) were similar between the groups. No differences were observed with respect to conversion rate (2 vs 5, p = 0.43), operative time (146 vs 150 min, p = 0.48), estimated blood loss (159 vs 183 ml, p = 0.99), time to first flatus (3 vs 3 days, p = 0.91), time to first bowel movement (3 vs 4 days, p = 0.62), length of hospital stay (7 vs 6 days, p = 0.37), or reoperation (2 vs 1, p > 0.99), and readmission rates (2 vs 2, p > 0.99). There were no deaths.

Conclusion

For obese patients undergoing colorectal resections, single-port laparoscopy appears to be as safe and effective as conventional laparoscopy.     

Financial Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatic Resection Using Deviation-Based Cost Modeling

Background

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting the equivalence and in some cases superiority of laparoscopic liver resection versus open resection. Fewer data exist regarding the financial impact of laparoscopic liver resection.

Methods

Retrospective review of 98 consecutive patients at a single institution from 2007 through 2011 undergoing first time hepatic resection was performed. Laparoscopic and open cases were compared primarily on OR and hospital charges. Deviation-based cost modeling and weighted average mean cost for the two procedures were used to determine both financial and clinical efficacy on the basis of differences in length of stay, complications, and charges.

Results

There were 57 laparoscopic and 41 open cases included in the study. Right hepatectomy was the most common procedure performed in both the laparoscopic (n = 23, 40.4 %) and open (n = 22, 53.7 %) groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group were significantly more likely to have an “on course” postoperative hospitalization (73.7 vs. 26.8 %; p < 0.001), which translated into a WAMC of $58,401 for the laparoscopic cases and $69,728 for the open cases. In the subset of patients undergoing right hepatectomy, patients in the laparoscopic group remained more likely to have an on course hospitalization (61.2 vs. 31.8 %; p = 0.025). WAMC for the laparoscopic right hepatectomy group, however, was higher than the open group ($69,544 vs. $68,266).

Conclusions

The cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy appears to vary with the complexity of the procedure. Overall, laparoscopy offers a cost advantage; however, with more complex procedures such as right hepatectomy, higher up-front operating room charges offset the financial benefits of less complicated hospitalization.     

Laparoscopic versus open resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach

Background

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Surgical treatment is the only chance of cure for patients with a primary localized GIST. A laparoscopic approach has been considered reasonable for these tumors of gastric origin. The current study compares the outcome of laparoscopic versus open resection of gastric GISTs and compares our series with the few published studies comparing the open versus the laparoscopic approach.

Methods

From a prospectively collected database, we found 53 primary gastric GIST resections that were performed in our department. Laparoscopic (LAP) resections were performed in 37 patients and traditional (OPEN) resections in 16 patients. Clinical and pathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were analyzed according to surgical procedure.

Results

Patients who underwent LAP or OPEN resection of gastric GISTs did not differ with respect to age at operation, gender, clinical presentation, and tumor size. Operative time was significantly lower for LAP than for OPEN resection, with a mean duration of 45 and 132.5 min, respectively (p < 0.001). LAP resection yielded a significantly shorter length of stay (median 7 vs. 14 days; p = 0.007) and lower 30-day morbidity rate (2.7 % vs. 18.9 %; p = 0.077). The operative mortality was 12.5 % after OPEN resection and there was no operative mortality after LAP (p = 0.087). The recurrence rate was significantly lower after LAP surgery (0 % vs. 37.5 %; p < 0.001). All patients in the LAP group are alive without recurrence, and 25 % (4/16) of the OPEN group are alive with recurrence but in complete remission under imatinib mesylate treatment. Two patients of the open group died due to progression of GIST (p = 0.087).

Conclusions

Compared to open resection, laparoscopic resection of gastric stromal tumors is associated with a shorter operation time, a shorter hospital stay, and a lower recurrence rate.     

Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference?

Background

Temporary loop ileostomy is commonly performed to protect the distal anastomosis during both open and laparoscopic colectomies. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of initial open and laparoscopic colorectal resection on the outcomes of ileostomy closure.

Methods

After institutional review board approval, all patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure from January 2008 to July 2012 were identified. The patients’ demographics, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, type of resection, approach (laparoscopic [LS] or open [OS] surgery), use of anti-adhesion barrier, and ileostomy closure outcomes were obtained from a chart review. The outcomes of ileostomy closure after LS and OS colorectal resections were compared using Chi-square for categorical variables and Student’s t test for continuous variables.

Results

The study identified 351 patients with a mean age of 51 years: 145 patients (41.2 %) in the LS group and 206 patients (58.8 %) in the OS group. The most common procedures performed were total proctocolectomy with ileal J pouch anal anastomosis (109 patients: 49 LS, 60 OS) and restorative proctectomy (99 patients: 34 LS, 65 OS). At the time of ileostomy closure, the patients in the LS group had a significantly shorter mean operative time (LS 60.9 vs OS 82.6 min; p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (LS 4.9 vs OS 5.8 days; p = 0.042). The overall complication rate was 20.1 % (70 patients), and the rate in the OS group was significantly higher (p = 0.028). The most common complications were postoperative ileus (41 patients: 13 LS vs 28 OS) and enterocutaneous fistula (5 patients, all in the OS group).

Conclusions

Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a significantly shorter operative time and hospital stay as well as a lower rate of postoperative complications. Superior outcomes after loop ileostomy closure lend further support to the use of laparoscopy.     

Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of small bowel obstruction: an analysis of short-term outcomes

Background

Laparoscopy in acute care surgery continues to expand. While adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) has traditionally been managed via an open approach, appropriately selected patients may benefit from laparoscopy. The objective of our study was to compare short-term postoperative outcomes in patients with adhesive SBO treated with laparotomy versus laparoscopy.

Methods

Using the ACS NSQIP participant use files (2005–10), patients with a postoperative diagnosis of adhesive SBO were selected for inclusion in this study. Patients with bowel resections or concomitant procedures were excluded. Both univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression were performed to compare 30-day outcomes in the open and laparoscopic groups.

Results

A total of 4,616 patients with adhesive SBO were identified: 3,697 (80.1 %) and 919 (19.3 %) in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. Mean operative time was similar in both groups. The mortality and overall complications were 84 (2.3 %) and 819 (22.2 %), respectively, in the open group compared to 7 (0.8 %) and 81 (8.8 %) in the laparoscopic group, with respective unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 0.33 (0.13–0.71, P < 0.01) and 0.39 (0.30–0.49, P < 0.01). The adjusted OR for overall complications was 0.46 (0.37–0.59, P < 0.01) favouring the laparoscopic group. The mean postoperative length of stay (LOS) was 8.4 days compared to 3.8 in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

The laparoscopic approach to treating adhesive SBO resulted in significantly fewer complications and shorter LOS.     

Stress response and well-being after open,laparoscopic, and NOTES transgastric uterine horn resection in a randomized porcine model

Background

NOTES is believed to induce less surgical trauma than open and laparoscopic surgery. The degree of surgical trauma can be assessed by measuring serum levels of acute-phase proteins such as CRP and TNF-α. We conducted a prospective randomized survival trial in which the inflammatory responses after laparoscopic, open, and NOTES transgastric uterine horn resection were compared. The aim of this study was to investigate whether NOTES procedures induce less inflammatory response.

Methods

Thirty pigs were randomized into three groups to undergo open, laparoscopic, or transgastric uterine horn resection. Weight, body temperature, and postoperative recovery were recorded and venous blood samples were taken for analysis of CRP and TNF-α at different time points. Analyses of CRP and TNF-α were performed using pig-specific ELISA assays.

Results

Procedure time was significantly longer for NOTES [median = 121 min (range = 94–155)] compared with that for open surgery [median = 22 min (14–27)] and laparoscopy [median = 37 min (20–45)] (p < 0.0001). There was a nonsignificant tendency for shorter recovery time for the NOTES animals. Twenty-seven animals survived for 4 weeks. One animal in each group was euthanized prior to 4 weeks. All animals gained weight during the 4-week period with no significant differences. Only animals in the NOTES group showed a significant weight gain during the first postoperative week (p = 0.007). On postoperative day (POD) 1, CRP was significantly lower in the NOTES group compared with the open and laparoscopic groups (mean = 0.72 ± 0.22, 0.98 ± 0.26, and 0.97 ± 0.20, respectively; p = 0.048). The CRP levels were normalized on day 14. Throughout the study there were no significant changes in TNF-α levels in the laparoscopic and NOTES groups. At POD 3 the open surgery group showed significantly higher TNF-α levels than the other groups (p = 0.036).

Conclusions

Despite the longer operating time, the transgastric NOTES approach seems to be less traumatic than open or laparoscopic uterine horn resection in this porcine model.     

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open colectomy for treatment of colon cancer in the elderly: morbidity and mortality outcomes in 545 patients

Background

Advanced age is a risk factor of major abdominal surgery due to diminished functional reserve and increased comorbidity. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy is a well-established procedure in colon cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare early outcome of elective laparoscopy surgery and open colectomy in colon cancer patients according to age.

Methods

A total of 545 patients with colonic adenocarcinoma underwent elective surgery between 2005 and 2009. There were 277 patients in the laparoscopic group and 268 in the open. Patient characteristics in both groups were homogeneous and further stratified into three subgroups by age: <75, between 75–84, and ≥85 years. Main outcome measures were early morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay.

Results

Open surgery group showed a higher overall morbidity rate (37.3 vs. 21.6 %, P = 0.001), medical complications (16.4 vs. 10.5 %, P = 0.033), surgical complications (23.5 vs. 15.5 %, P = 0.034), and mortality (6.7 vs. 3.2 %, P = 0.034). The overall morbidity rate difference between open and laparoscopy approach disappeared in the oldest group (≥85 years old). Surgical site infections rate was inferior for patients <75 years old in laparoscopy group compared with open. Mortality was also significantly inferior in laparoscopy group in younger patients (<75 years, 0 vs. 3 %, P = 0.038). Mean hospital stay was shorter for patients in <75 and 75–84 groups with laparoscopic approach (7.8 vs. 11.4 days and 10 vs. 14.3, respectively, P = 0.001) as compared with those who underwent open surgery, but these differences disappeared in patients aged ≥85 years.

Conclusion

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy in patients underwent elective surgical resections for colon cancer showed advantages in rate of early complications in patients younger than 85 years of age and was found to be as safe and well tolerated as open surgery in patients over 85 years of age.     

The minimally invasive approach is associated with reduced perioperative thromboembolic and bleeding complications for patients receiving preoperative chronic oral anticoagulant therapy who undergo colorectal surgery

Background

The data on the perioperative risk of both thromboembolism and hemorrhage for patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation who undergo colorectal surgery are sparse. In addition, it is uncertain whether the use of the laparoscopic instead of open technique entails additional risk for these patients. This study aimed to evaluate surgical outcomes, with a particular focus on perioperative thromboembolic and bleeding complications for patients receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy who undergo open or laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Methods

Patients undergoing colorectal resection between 1994 and 2011 on preoperative chronic oral anticoagulant therapy were included in the study. Patient demographics, characteristics, and perioperative outcomes, with particular emphasis on thromboembolism and bleeding risks, were evaluated comparing laparoscopic and open colectomy.

Results

The study enrolled 261 patients receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy (102 laparoscopic colectomy vs 159 open colectomy patients). The patients had a mean age of 57.9 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 29.3 kg/m². The conversion rate was 8.8 % (n = 9) for laparoscopic operations. Laparoscopic and open cases had comparable BMIs and levels of preoperative hemoglobin. Anastomotic leak, postoperative hospital stay, and surgical-site infection rates were similar for the two groups. Although the laparoscopic group had a significantly greater mean age (p < 0.001) and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (p = 0.005), the rates for postoperative venous thromboembolism (24.5 vs 2.9 %; p < 0.001), urinary complications (6.9 vs 0 %; p = 0.008), and overall morbidity (44.7 vs 17.7 %; p < 0.001) were lower after laparoscopic surgery. Although the rates for intra- and postoperative blood transfusion were similar, the postoperative hemoglobin levels were significantly higher after laparoscopic surgery. One patient in the laparoscopic group died of sepsis on postoperative day 3.

Conclusion

For the patients receiving preoperative chronic anticoagulant therapy who underwent colorectal resection, the laparoscopic approach was associated with lower thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications than open surgery.     

Comparison of open and laparoscopic preperitoneal repair of groin hernia

Background

Compared with laparoscopic groin herniorrhaphy, the open procedure used in most former studies was Lichtenstein repair. However, unlike the totally extraperitoneal (TEP) or transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic techniques, Lichtenstein procedure is a premuscular but not preperitoneal repair. This retrospective study compared the outcomes between laparoscopic preperitoneal and open preperitoneal procedure—modified Kugel (MK) herniorrhaphy.

Methods

Groin hernia patients older than 18 years who underwent open MK or laparoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy in our hospitals between January 2008 and December 2010 were enrolled. Baseline characteristics, recurrence, and intraoperative, short-term, and long-term postoperative complications were recorded.

Results

Among the 1,760 included patients (530 open and 1,230 laparoscopic), 96.08 % completed the follow-up (24–60 months). The patients in the open group were older than laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). More bilateral (91.45 %) and recurrent (82.12 %) hernia patients underwent laparoscopic procedures (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). The overall recurrence rate was 0.71 %, with no significant difference between the two approaches (p = 0.227). The overall complication rate was lower for the laparoscopic than the open approach (14.47 vs. 19.25 %, p = 0.012), whereas the rates of life-threatening complications were similar (1.51 vs. 0.98 %, p = 0.332). The laparoscopic group had significantly lower incidence rates of wound infection and chronic pain (p = 0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively), shorter operative time, lower visual analogue scale scores, and faster recovery than the open group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

As preperitoneal herniorrhaphy, both MK and laparoscopic (TEP/TAPP) procedures are safe and effective, with low incidence rates of life-threatening complications and recurrence. The laparoscopic approach is superior in terms of lower incidence rates of infection and chronic pain, shorter operative time, and faster recovery; however, careful surgical procedure selection and implementation of technical details are required.