Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy a consideration for acceptance as standard of care

Introduction

Since the inception of laparoscopic liver surgery, the left-lateral sectionectomy has become the standard of care for resection of lesions located in segments II and III. However, few centers employee laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy on a routine basis. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy as a standard of care.

Methods

An international database of 1,620 laparoscopic liver resections was established and outcomes analyzed comparing the laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L lat) to laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LH). All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Results

A total of 222 laparoscopic L lat and 82 LH were identified. The L lat group compared with LH group had a higher incidence of cirrhosis (27 vs. 21 %; p = 0.003) and cancer (48 vs. 35 %; p = 0.043). Tumors were larger in the LH group (7.09 ± 4.2 vs. 4.89 ± 3.1 cm; p = 0.001). Operating time for LH was longer than L lat (3.9 ± 2.3 vs. 2.9 ± 1.4 h; p < 0.001). Operative blood loss was higher in LH (306 vs. 198 cc; p = 0.003). Patient morbidity (20 vs. 18 %; p = 0.765) was equivalent with a longer length of stay (7.1 ± 5.1 vs. 2.5 ± 2.3 days; p < 0.001) for LH. Patient mortality and tumor recurrence were equivalent.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy is a more technically challenging and often time-consuming procedure than a left-lateral sectionectomy. This international multi-institutional confirmed that intraoperative blood loss, complications, and conversions are more than acceptable for laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy in expert hands. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates together with adequate surgical margins and long-term recurrence are not compromised by the laparoscopic approach.     

Laparoscopic liver resection and the learning curve: a 14-year,single-center experience

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has not been widely used because of intraoperative bleeding. This problem should be solved with instruments and techniques that require a short learning curve.

Materials and methods

The aim of this work was to present the technique used in our center to perform laparoscopic liver resection using the ‘curettage and aspiration’ technique with laparoscopic Peng’s multifunctional operational dissectors and regional occlusion of inflow and outflow. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent a laparoscopic liver resection from August 1998 to August 2012, and collected the conversion rate, operating time, blood loss, hospitalization, bile leakage rate, bleeding rate, and other complications on a yearly basis and in total. We used SPSS software to analyze whether there was a significant difference, and summarized the learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection with various procedures.

Results

We performed 365 cases of laparoscopic liver resection, including left hemihepatectomy, left lateral lobectomy, segmental hepatectomy, non-anatomic liver resection, right hemihepatectomy, and caudate lobectomy. The diseases included liver cancer, hepatolithiasis, liver hemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia, liver abscess, and metastatic hepatic carcinoma. In total, 63 cases (17.20 %) were converted to open surgery because of severe adhesions, bleeding, or anatomical limitation. Mean blood loss was 370.6 ± 404.0 ml; mean operating time was 150.8 ± 73.0 min; and mean postoperation hospitalization was 9.2 ± 5.3 days. There were four cases (1.32 %) with the complication of bile leakage and two cases of hemorrhage (0.66 %). No intraoperative or postoperative deaths occurred. After finishing 15–30, 43, 35, and 28 cases of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy, left lateral hepatectomy, non-anatomic liver resection, and segmentectomy, respectively, the average operating time, blood loss, and hospitalization were almost the same as the overall mean results.

Conclusion

The technique used in our center is a safe, fast, and effective approach to laparoscopic liver resection. Our 14 years of experience demonstrates that this technique can prevent postoperative bleeding and bile leakage. A surgeon can master the skill of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy, left lateral hepatectomy, non-anatomic liver resection, and segmentectomy after ～15–30, 43, 35, and 28 case procedures, respectively.     

Fifteen-year experience in managing obturator hernia: from open to laparoscopic approach

Purpose

Obturator hernia is a rare disease and preoperative diagnosis is always difficult. There are increasing reports employing laparoscopic approach in the recent literature. Our aim was to review and compare the open and laparoscopic approach in repairing obturator hernia.

Methods

All patients with obturator hernia from 1997 to 2011 were recruited. Patient’s demographics, presentation, operative details, morbidity, and mortality were retrospectively collected and reviewed.

Results

There were 36 patients during the 15-year period. All of them were elderly ladies (median 83). Nineteen underwent open surgery while 16 received laparoscopic surgery. Both age and ASA were comparable. The median operative time was 68 and 65 min for laparoscopic and open group, respectively (p = 0.690). The median hospital stay was significantly longer in the open group (19 vs 5 days, p = 0.007). There were less major complications (p = 0.004) and mortality (p = 0.049) in the laparoscopic group. Two recurrences were reported in the laparoscopic group, although statistically not significant (p = 0.202).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repair can achieve a shorter hospital stay and has lesser major complications and mortality in selected patients.     

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.     

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.     

Current status of laparoscopic liver surgery in Japan: results of a multicenter Japanese experience

Purpose

Laparoscopic liver surgery is widely performed around the world, and surgeons recognize its feasibility. We herein report the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery in Japan.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted at 761 hospitals, including 41 member hospitals of the Japanese Endoscopic Liver Surgery Study Group and 720 facilities certified by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Surgery. Four hundred ninety-one hospitals responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 64 %). The data collected from 2,259 patients in 124 hospitals that reported performing laparoscopic liver resection were used. The surgical procedures and intraoperative complications, including the rate of conversion to open surgery, and morbidity rates were analyzed.

Results

Pure laparoscopic procedures were performed in 1,346 patients (59.6 %), hand-assisted procedures in 174 (7.7 %) and hybrid procedures in 739 (32.7 %). Laparoscopic hepatectomy was performed in 1,982 patients (87.7 %): hemihepatectomy in 141 (7.1 %), sectionectomy in 87 (4.4 %), left lateral sectionectomy in 208 (10.5 %), segmentectomy in 91 (4.6 %) and non-anatomical partial resection in 1,248 (63.0 %). A total of 45 procedures (2.3 %) were converted to conventional open surgery. Postoperative complications occurred in 91 patients (4.6 %).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe, feasible procedure for treating liver disease in carefully selected patients.     

A comparison of the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colon cancer with early and advanced disease: the short- and long-term outcomes at a single institution

Purpose

The role of resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. Laparoscopic resection has become an accepted therapeutic option for treating early stage I–III CRC; however, it has not been evaluated for use in patients with advanced stage disease.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor exclusively in patients with stage IV colon cancer compared to open resection in patients with stage IV colon cancer and laparoscopic resection in patients with stage I–III colon cancer in terms of operative results and short- and long-term outcomes.

Results

Laparoscopic resection was performed in 35 stage IV patients and open resection was performed in 40 stage IV patients. One hundred and eighteen stage I–III patients who underwent laparoscopic resection were evaluated. In the comparison between the laparoscopic group and the open group among patients with stage IV colon cancer, postoperative recovery appeared to be better in the laparoscopic group than in the open group, as reflected by shorter times to resumption of a regular diet (p = 0.049), shorter lengths of hospitalization (p = 0.083), increased feasibility of postoperative chemotherapy (p < 0.001), shorter time intervals from surgery to chemotherapy (p = 0.031) and longer median survival (p = 0.078) at the expense of longer operative times (p = 0.025). In the comparison between the laparoscopic resection in stage IV and stage I–III disease groups, no significant differences were observed in operative results and short- and long-term outcomes, except for the rate of ostomy creation (48.5 vs. 8.5 %, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colon cancer achieves equivalent results to that performed in patients with stage I–III disease and that performed in patients with stage IV disease using open resection. The use of a minimally invasive approach in the laparoscopic procedure is beneficial because it results in shorter times to resumption of a normal diet, shorter lengths of hospitalization, increased feasibility of postoperative chemotherapy and shorter time intervals from surgery to chemotherapy at the expense of longer operative times. We believe that patients undergoing laparoscopic resection can receive targeted chemotherapy earlier and more aggressively, which might provide a survival benefit.     

Laparoscopy-Assisted Hybrid Left-Side Donor Hepatectomy

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection developed for live liver donors has the advantage of reducing the physical and mental stress in donors. However, its safety and efficacy still remain to be established. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy (LADH) to obtain left side grafts.

Patients and methods

A total of 31 consecutive live liver donors of left side liver grafts underwent LADH, including left lateral segmentectomy (n = 17) and left liver resection with or without the caudate lobe (n = 14) (LADH group). We compared the clinical data between the LADH group and the group of donors in whom traditional open donor hepatectomy was performed to procure the liver graft (open donor hepatectomy [ODH] group, n = 79).

Results

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy was feasible in all patients, and there was no mortality over a follow-up period of 13.9 ± 9.8 months. The operative time to procure a left-lobe graft was significantly longer in the LADH group (510 ± 90 min) than in the ODH group (P < 0.001). A large right lobe on CT (RPv distance) was identified as a significant risk factor for prolonged operative time (P = 0.007). Evaluation using the SF36-v2 questionnaire revealed faster recovery of the physical component summary score and bodily pain score in the LADH group than in the ODH group.

Conclusions

Laparoscopy-assisted hybrid donor hepatectomy for procuring left side grafts was safe and effective up to the left liver with the caudate lobe. Left-lobe LADH in donors with a large right lobe should be carefully planned in view of the potential surgical difficulty.     

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.     

Assessment of the financial implications for laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-centre UK cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is progressively gaining popularity. However, it is still unclear whether the laparoscopic approach offers cost advantages compared with the open approach, especially when major hepatectomies are required. Data providing useful insights into the costs of the laparoscopic approach for clinicians and hospitals are needed. The aim of this study is to assess the financial implications of the laparoscopic approach for two standardized minor and major hepatectomies: left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy.

Methods

A cost comparison analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) versus the open counterparts was performed. Data considered for the comparison analysis were operative costs (theatre cost, consumables and surgeon/anaesthetic labour cost), postoperative costs (hospital stay, complication management and readmissions) and overall costs.

Results

A total of 149 patients were included: 38 patients underwent LRH and 46 open right hepatectomy (ORH); 46 patients underwent LLLS and 19 open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). For LRH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £10,181, £4,037 and £14,218; for ORH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £6,483 (p < 0.0001), £10,304 (p < 0.0001) and £16,787 (p = 0.886). Regarding LLLS, the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,460, £2,599 and £8,059; for OLLS the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,841 (p = 0.874), £5,796 (p < 0.0001) and £11,637 (p = 0.0001).

Conclusion

Our data support the cost advantage of the laparoscopic approach for left lateral sectionectomy and the cost neutrality for right hepatectomy.     

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.     

Is larger tumor size a contraindication to retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy?

Purpose

To evaluate the surgical feasibility of retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy for tumors exceeding 5 cm.

Methods

A retrospective review was carried out on all adrenalectomies performed between 2002 and 2011. All surgical procedures were performed or supervised by one of two experienced laparoscopic surgeons. A total of 133 patients who underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy were divided according to tumor size: group I (n = 57) had tumors <5 cm and group II (n = 76) had tumors ≥5 cm. The operative outcomes included surgical time, change in hemoglobin level, estimated blood loss, necessity for blood transfusion, time to ambulation, hospitalization duration, postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and the rate of conversion to open surgery.

Results

The estimated blood loss (271.75 ± 232.98 mL vs. 367.24 ± 275.11 mL; p = 0.037), time to ambulation (1.60 ± 0.49 days vs. 1.89 ± 0.31 days; p = 0.001), and postoperative hospitalization (7.88 ± 3.08 days vs. 9.264 ± 3.10 days; p = 0.012) were significantly higher in group II. The operation time and hemoglobin level change were not statistically different between groups. Blood transfusions were performed in 3 patients from group I and 6 patients from group II (5.3 vs. 7.9 %; p = 0.449). No patients experienced conversion to open surgery.

Conclusions

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy can be used in patients with tumors larger than 5 cm.     

Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched-pair comparative study

Background

Only a few series have demonstrated the safety of laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the benefits of this approach. Moreover, these studies reported mostly minor and nonanatomic hepatic resections. This report describes the results of a pair-matched comparative study between open and laparoscopic liver resections for HCC in a series of essentially anatomic resections.

Methods

Patients were retrospectively matched in pairs for the following criteria: sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, severity of liver disease, tumor size, and type of resection. A total of 42 patients undergoing laparoscopy were compared with patients undergoing laparotomy during the same period. Surgeons from the authors’ department not trained in laparoscopy performed open resections. Operative, postoperative, and oncologic outcomes were compared.

Results

The mean duration of surgery was similar in the two groups. Significantly less bleeding was observed in the laparoscopic group (364.3 vs. 723.7 ml; p < 0.0001). Transfusion was required for four patients (9.5%) in the laparoscopic group and seven patients (16.7%) in the open surgery group (p = 0.51). Postoperative ascites was less frequent after laparoscopic resections (7.1 vs. 26.1%; p = 0.03). General morbidity was similar in the two groups (9.5 vs. 11.9%; p = 1.00). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter for the patients undergoing laparoscopy (6.7 vs. 9.6 days; p < 0.0001). The surgical margin and local recurrence adjacent to the liver stump were not affected by laparoscopy. The overall postoperative survival rates in the laparoscopic group were 93.1% at 1 year, 74.4% at 3 years, and 59.5% at 5 years and, respectively, 81.8, 73, and 47.4% in the open surgery group (p = 0.25). The postoperative disease-free survival rates in the laparoscopic group were at 81.6% at 1 year, 60.9% at 3 years, and 45.6% at 5 years, respectively, 70.2, 54.3, and 37.2% in the open surgery group (p = 0.29).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic resection of HCC for selected patients gave a better postoperative outcome without oncologic consequences. Prospective trials are required to confirm these results.     

A cost comparison of laparoscopic and open colon surgery in a publicly funded academic institution

Background

The objective of this study was to compare the total hospital cost of laparoscopic (lap) and open colon surgery at a publicly funded academic institution.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open colon surgery for all indications at the University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, from April 2004 to March 2009 were included. Patient demographic, operative, and outcome data were reviewed retrospectively. Hospital costs were determined from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, adjusted for inflation, and compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between length of stay and total hospital cost.

Results

There were 391 elective colon resections (223 lap/168 open, 15.4 % conversion). There was no difference in median age, gender, or Charlson score. Body mass index was slightly higher for laparoscopic surgery (27.5/25.9 lap/open; p = 0.008), while the American Society of Anesthesiologists score was slightly higher for open surgery. Median operative time was greater for laparoscopic surgery (224/196 min, lap/open; p = 0.001). There was no difference in complication rates (21.6/22.5 % lap/open; p = 0.900), reoperations (5.8/6.5 % lap/open; p = 0.833) or 30-day readmissions (7.6/12.5 % lap/open; p = 0.122). Number of emergency room visits was greater with open surgery (12.6/20.8 % lap/open; p = 0.037). Operative cost was higher for laparoscopic surgery ($4,171.37/3,489.29 lap/open; p = 0.001), while total hospital cost was significantly reduced ($9,600.22/12,721.41 lap/open; p = 0.001). Median length of stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (5/7 days lap/open; p = 0.000), and this correlated directly with hospital cost.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic colon surgery is associated with increased operative costs but significantly lower total hospital costs. The cost savings is related, in part, to reduced length of stay with laparoscopic surgery.     

Laparoscopic versus open bilateral intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy after TUR-P for incidental prostate cancer: surgical outcomes and effect on postoperative urinary continence and sexual potency

Objective

To evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes in nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (nsLRPT) and nerve-sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (nsRRPT) after TUR-P for incidental prostate cancer.

Materials and methods

Between January 2003 and August 2011, 125 nsLRPT and 128 nsRRPT for incidental prostate cancer diagnosed after TUR-P were performed at our clinic. Demographic data, peri- and postoperative measurements and functional outcomes were compared.

Results

The mean operative time was 153.1 ± 35.4 min for nsLRPT and 122.5 ± 67.5 min for nsRRPT (p = 0.03). The mean catheterization time was 8 ± 1 days in the laparoscopic group and 11 ± 2 days in the open group (p = 0.02). Also, the length of hospitalization presents statistical significant difference in the two groups. Positive margins were detected in 2.4 and 4.7 % of patients with pT2c tumours in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = 0.09). At a mean follow-up of 26.9 ± 9.3 months for the nsLRPT group and of 27.8 ± 9.7 months for the nsRRPT group, all patients were alive with no evidence of tumour recurrence. Twelve months postoperatively, complete continence was reported in 96.8 % of patients who underwent an nsLRPT and in 89.4 % of patients in the nsRRPT group (p = 0.02). At that time, 74.4 % of patients in the nsLRPT group and 53.1 % in the nsRRPT group reported the ability to engage in sexual intercourse (p = 0.0004).

Conclusion

nsLRPT after TUR-P, performed by expert surgeons, results to be a safe procedure with excellent functional outcomes with regard to the urinary continence and sexual potency.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Thermal spread and heat absorbance differences between open and laparoscopic surgeries during energized dissections by electrosurgical instruments

Background

The reported literature suggests a higher incidence of collateral damage during energized dissections in laparoscopic surgery than in open surgery, probably because the ambient environment of the two approaches causes different heat absorbance and thermal spread during energized dissection.

Methods

The experimental design involved randomized allocation of the surgical approach (4 open and 4 laparoscopic procedures) for eight adult pigs. A bipolar electrosurgery system (LigaSure) was used to perform 40 standardized regional dissections and procedures (5 per animal in randomized order). During these procedures, both white light and infrared thermographic imaging (3–5 μm) were recorded, and biopsy specimens were procured for histology.

Results

The core body temperatures were significantly different between the two approaches. The laparoscopic group had a smaller temperature drop (3.08 ± 0.98°C vs 1.9 ± 0.72°C; p = 0.03). Differences also were observed in the thermal spread between the laparoscopic and open groups during portal vein dissection with the Advance (1.7 ± 0.2 mm vs 2.3 ± 1.7 mm; p = 0.07). Both thermography and histology confirmed the safety of the LigaSure system in limiting thermal spread and necrosis at the fusion line. Significant degradation of the instruments began after 10 activations. The deterioration was faster and more extensive in laparoscopic surgery.

Conclusions

Heat absorbance and thermal spread during bipolar electrosurgery are significantly different between open and laparoscopic surgery. Device performance degradation with repeat activations is more marked in laparoscopic surgery.