Laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: an overview

Although they are not widely employed, advanced laparoscopic hepatobiliary pancreatic (HBP) procedures can be performed. Laparoscopic common bile duct (CBD) exploration has gained wide acceptance, and endoscopic retro‐grade cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic sphincterotomy (ERCP/ES) may become less important in the treatment of CBD stones. Choledochal cyst is another example that is suitable for laparoscopic treatment. It can be removed, and bilioenteric flow is reestablished laparoscopically. Simple cyst of the liver is an excellent indication for laparoscopic surgery. Cysts are unroofed, and recurrence is rare. Hydatid disease can also be treated laparoscopically. In liver resection, the use of laparoscopy is limited to wedge resection and left lateral segmentectomy at most. Laparoscopic staging for pancreatic cancer can demonstrate respectability in 90% of cases. This staging may obviate unnecessary laparotomy. Although laparoscopic Whipple is feasible, laparoscoic distal pancreatectomy is a realistic indication for pancreatic resection. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may be indicated for cystic neoplasms of low‐grade malignancy, and for islet cell tumors. When internal drainage is indicated, pseudocysts can be treated laparoscopically. If the cyst is located close to the posterior gastric wall, cystgastrostomy can also be achieved with an endoluminal surgical technique.     

Postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis of recently published studies

Background:This is an updated meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of rectal cancer.Methods:Cochrane central, MEDLNE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Web of Science and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies (published after the year 2015), comparing robotic versus LS for the treatment of rectal cancer. The postoperative outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to carry out the statistical analysis. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results following data analysis.ResultsA total number of 22,744 participants were included in this study whereby 9178 participants were assigned to the robotic surgery and 13,566 participants were assigned to the LS group. The time period of patients’ enrollment varied from years 2007 to 2017. Our results showed that overall complications (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71–1.17; P = .45), wound complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64–1.04; P = .09), anastomotic leak (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.88–1.42; P = .37), anastomotic bleeding (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29–2.64; P = .82), stoma-related complications (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.24–3.21; P = .85), intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 0.53. 95% CI: 0.22–1.31; P = .17), urinary tract infection (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.53–1.66; P = .83), enterocolitis (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.38–4.71; P = .64), reoperation (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.46–1.54; P = .58), and mortality (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.34–1.62; P = .46) were not significantly different between robotic-assisted versus LS for rectal cancer. Postoperative ileus (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.81–1.81; P = .34), readmission (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.75–1.83; P = .48), and urinary retention (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.21–1.23; P = .14) were also similarly manifested.Conclusions:In this updated meta-analysis, both robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were equally effective for the treatment of rectal cancer. Similar postoperative complications were observed. However, our analysis was restricted only to postoperative outcomes, parameters such as duration of surgery were not taken into consideration.     

Laparoscopic upper gut surgery

Australian surgeons have been prominent in the introduction, development, and consolidation of laparoscopic surgery of the upper gut. In doing this, some of the very best principles of surgical innovation have been in evidence: preliminary animal work in which to test hypotheses and techniques, followed by careful application and documentation in the clinical setting, randomized clinical trials and finally academic reporting and ongoing development. This review documents the introduction of laparoscopic surgery for gastroesophageal reflux, hiatus hernia, achalasia, gastroesophageal malignancy, obesity, and a range of emergency conditions in Australia. Those involved are regarded as world leaders in their field. A vital component of this success has been the close cooperation between surgeons and gastroenterologists within the Gastroenterological Society of Australia.     

Cooperative laparoscopic endoscopic and hybrid laparoscopic surgery for upper gastrointestinal tumors: Current status

AIM: To investigate the cooperative laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques used for the resection of upper gastrointestinal tumors.METHODS: A systematic research of the literature was performed in PubMed for English and French language articles about laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative, combined, hybrid and rendezvous techniques. Only original studies using these techniques for the resection of early gastric cancer, benign tumors and gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach and the duodenum were included. By excluding case series of less than 10 patients, 25 studies were identified. The study design, number of cases, tumor pathology size and location, the operative technique name, the endoscopy team and surgical team role, operative time, type of closure of visceral wall defect, blood loss, complications and length of hospital stay of these studies were evaluated. Additionally all cooperative techniques found were classified and are presented in a systematic approach.RESULTS: The studies identified were case series and retrospective cohort studies. A total of 706 patients were operated on with a cooperative technique. The tumors resected were only gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in 4 studies, GIST and various benign submucosal tumors in 22 studies, early gastric cancer (pT1a and pT1b) in 6 studies and early duodenal cancer in 1 study. There was important heterogeneity between the studies. The operative techniques identified were: laparoscopic assisted endoscopic resection, endoscopic assisted wedge resection, endoscopic assisted transgastric and intragastric surgery, laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), laparoscopic assisted endoscopic full thickness resection (LAEFR), clean non exposure technique and non-exposed endoscopic wall-inversion surgery (NEWS). Each technique is illustrated with the roles of the endoscopic and laparoscopic teams; the indications, characteristics and short term results are described.CONCLUSION: Along with the traditional cooperative techniques, new procedures like LECS, LAEFR and NEWS hold great promise for the future of minimally invasive oncologic procedures.     

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer after Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Abstract: In 1991, we first performed a simple technique of Iaparoscopy-assisted Bill-roth I gastrectomy for patients with mucosal gastric cancer. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) sometimes fails to completely resect the early gastric cancer lesion, nor does it give full histopathology of the resected stomach. The aim of this study was to review the surgical and pathological findings of eight patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy after EMR for early gastric cancer. Of 54 patients with early gastric cancer who were treated with laparoscopic gastrectomy between 1994 and 1998, eight patients underwent surgery after EMR. The resected margin of the EMR specimens was positive in three and suspicious in five; and three underwent laparoscopic wedge resection of the stomach, while five underwent Iaparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with regional lymph node dissection. All but one resected stomach had residual cancer tissue in the mucosa or submucosa, and three patients had multiple gastric cancers. The results indicated that remnant cancer tissue might be present when the resected margin of the EMR specimen was positive or suspicious. Partial resection or distal gastrectomy under laparoscopy is useful for such patients who have undergone EMR for early gastric cancer. (Dig Endooc 1999; 11:132–136)     

Laparoscopic Abdominoanal Pull-through Procedure for Male Patients With Lower Rectal Cancer After Chemoradiation Therapy

Introduction Abdominoanal pull-through procedure is an alternative procedure for lower rectal cancer in which double-stapling technique is difficult to apply and/or the adequate distal safety margin (>2 cm) cannot be achieved in a very narrow male pelvis. The present study is to examine if the pull-through procedure can be effectively performed by laparoscopic approach for male lower rectal cancer downstaged by concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Methods A total of 14 male patients with advanced lower rectal cancer (Stage II: n = 6; Stage III: n = 8, by tumor, node, and metastasis staging system of International Union Against Cancer) and successfully downstaged by preoperative concurrent chemoradiation therapy were accrued for this study. All patients underwent three-staged operation including: transverse-colostomy creation before concurrent chemoradiation therapy, laparoscopic pull-through procedure and closure of colostomy. The details of laparoscopic pull-through procedure were shown in the video including: total mobilization for rectum in the fashion of total mesorectal excision, retrieval and transection of bowel through an incision over dentate line, and coloanal anastomosis. The surgical outcome of the patients were prospectively evaluated. Results Although the dissection plane is a little blurred by preoperative concurrent chemoradiation therapy, the laparoscopic pull-through procedure was preformed with acceptable operation time (274.6 ± 52.4 minutes, mean±standard deviation) and little blood loss (104.5 ± 32.0 ml) through 5 small wounds of abdominal ports. The number of dissected lymph node was 17.0 ± 3.0. The distal safety margin of all patients was more than 2 cm. The patients have quick functional recovery, as evaluated by the length of postoperative ileus (48.0 ± 8.0 hours), hospitalization (9.0 ± 1.0 days), and degree of postoperative pain (3.5 ± 0.5, visual analog scale). There were no major postoperative complications yet postoperative fever developed in one patient and wound infection in the other one. Besides the expenses covered by the National Bureau of Health Insurance in Taiwan, the patient had to pay extra expenses of NT$25000.0 ± 3500.0 (1.0 US dollars = 32.0 NT$). During the follow-up periods (median: 10 months, range, 4 to 16 months), one patient developed a recurrent lung metastasis. Conclusion In view of the good functional recovery and fine short-term oncologic results, laparoscopic pull-through procedure was thus a good choice for downstaged male lower rectal cancer in terms of sphincter-preservation and enough distal section margin of tumor. Electronic Supplementary Material This multimedia article (video) has been published online and is available for viewing at . Its abstract is presented here. As a subscriber to Diseases of the Colon & Rectum you have access to our SpringerLink electronic service, including Online First. Video presentation in Yonsei Colorectal Cancer International Symposium, Seoul, South Korea, May 28, 2005. Grant support from 94S040, National Taiwan University Hospital. Reprints are not available.     

Fast-track surgery nursing intervention in CRC patients with laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery

In this study, the application effect of fast-track surgery (FTS) nursing intervention in laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is investigated, and the optimal perioperative management strategy for CRC surgery is explored. One hundred thirty CRC patients are included in this study, in which 67 patients undergo laparotomy (Group A) and 63 patients undergo laparoscopic surgery (Group B). These patients were also randomly divided into traditional nursing subgroup (Group A1 [n = 33] and Group B1 [n = 31]) and FTS nursing subgroup (Group A2 [n = 34] and Group B2 [n = 32]). The general data of patients, pre-operative preparation, intra-operative data, postoperative recovery data, and postoperative complications are recorded. Both FTS and laparoscopic surgery can advance the anal exhaust time, and shorten postoperative fasting and water deprivation time, and the hospitalization time without increasing the incidence of complications. FTS has advantages in reducing the indwelling time of gastric tube and throat pain. Simultaneous implementation of FTS and laparoscopic surgery has the best effect on the postoperative recovery of CRC patients.     

Robotic surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Current status and future perspectives

Robotic surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System has been increasingly applied in a wide range of surgical specialties, especially in urology and gynecology. However, in the field of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the da Vinci Surgical System has yet to be standard as a result of a lack of clear benefits in comparison with conventional minimally invasive surgery. We have been carrying out robotic gastrectomy and esophagectomy for operable patients with resectable upper GI malignancies since 2009, and have demonstrated the potential advantages of the use of the robot in possibly reducing postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula following gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy, even though there have been a couple of problems to be solved including longer duration of operation and higher cost. The present review provides updates on robotic surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and review of the literature.     

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:To systematically review and evaluate the safety, advantages and clinical application value of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for endometrial cancer by comparing it with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).Methods:We conducted a systematic review of the published literature comparing LESS with CLS in the treatment of endometrial cancer. English databases including PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases including Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and China Biology Medicine were searched for eligible observational studies up to July 10, 2019. We then evaluated the quality of the selected comparative studies before performing a meta-analysis using the RevMan 5.3 software. The complications, surgical time, blood loss during surgery, postoperative length of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes removed during surgery were compared between the 2 surgical approaches.Results:Four studies with 234 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. We found that there was no statistically significant difference in complications between the 2 surgical approaches [odds ratio (OR): 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18–2.21, P = .47, I² = 0%]. There was no statistically significant difference in blood loss between the 2 surgical approaches [mean difference (MD): –61.81, 95% CI: –130.87 to –7.25, P = .08, I² = 74%]. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical time between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: –11.51, 95% CI: –40.19 to 17.16, P = .43, I² = 81%). There was also no statistically significant difference in postoperative length of hospital stay between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: –0.56, 95% CI: –1.25 to –0.13, P = .11, I² = 72%). Both pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes can be removed with either of the 2 procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of paraaortic lymph nodes and total lymph nodes removed during surgery between the 2 surgical approaches [(MD: –0.11, 95% CI: –3.12 to 2.91, P = .29, I² = 11%) and (MD: –0.53, 95% CI (–3.22 to 2.16), P = .70, I² = 83%)]. However, patients treated with LESS had more pelvic lymph nodes removed during surgery than those treated with CLS (MD: 3.33, 95% CI: 1.05–5.62, P = .004, I² = 32%).Conclusion:Compared with CLS, LESS did not reduce the incidence of complications or shorten postoperative hospital stay. Nor did it increase surgical time or the amount of bleeding during surgery. LESS can remove lymph nodes and ease postoperative pain in the same way as CLS. However, LESS improves cosmesis by leaving a single small scar.     

Laparoscopic versus open surgery in the treatment of hepatic hemangioma: A meta-analysis

Background:The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic versus open resection (LR vs OR) in the treatment of hepatic hemangioma.Methods:We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedicine Database from January 2000 to April 2020 for studies comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in hepatic hemangioma treatment.Results:Based on the preset criteria, 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 12 observational clinical studies (OCSs) were selected for analysis. Our results showed that laparoscopic surgery was more effective than open surgery in terms of reducing operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative exhaust time, postoperative complications, postoperative bile leak, postoperative intra-abdominal infection, postoperative alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) values, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and hospitalize length. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in hepatectomy time, hospitalized cost, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, and the postoperative recurrence of hemangioma.Conclusion:While similar therapeutic effect was achieved by the compared herein surgical methods, the findings of our analysis revealed that laparoscopic surgery is superior over open surgery in terms of less trauma, faster recovery, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalize length, and reduced postoperative complications. Therefore, laparoscopic resection of hepatic hemangioma is a safe, effective, and feasible surgical method that is worth considering in clinical applications.     

Role of robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery:lessons learned from our initial experience

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive surgery has achieved worldwide acceptance in various fields, however, pancreatic surgery remains one of the most challenging abdominal pro-cedures. In fact, the indication for robotic surgery in pancre-atic disease has been controversial. The present study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic pancreatic resec-tion. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our experience of robotic pancreatic resection done in Sanchinarro University Hospital. Clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: From October 2010 to April 2016, 50 patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery for different pancreatic pathologies. All procedures were performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Of the 50 patients, 26 were male and 24 female. The average age of all patients was 62 years. Operative time was 370minutes. Among the procedures performed were 16 pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), 23 distal pan-createctomies (DP), 11tumor enucleations (TE). The mean hospital stay was 17.6 days in PD group, 9.0 days in DP group and 8.4 days in TE group. Pancreatic fistula occurred in 10 cases (20%), 2 after PD, 3 after DP, and 5 after TE. Four pa-tients had postoperativetransfusion in PD group and one in DP group. Conversion to open laparotomy occurred in four patients (8%). No serious intraoperative complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS:From our early experience, robotic pancre-atic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. Further experi-ence and follow-up are required to confirm the role of robotic approach in pancreatic surgery.     

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery:current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studiesand meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients' characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intracorporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.     

Laparoscopic vs. Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticulitis

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

Laparoscopic choledochotomy for bile duct stones

In the era of laparoscopic surgery, treatment strategies for common bile duct stones remain controversial. Laparoscopic choledochotomy is usually indicated only when transcystic duct exploration is not feasible. However, laparoscopic choledochotomy provides complete access to the ductal system and has a higher clearance rate than the transcystic approach. In addition, primary closure of the choledochotomy with a running suture and absorbable clips facilitates the procedure. Therefore, to avoid postoperative biliary stenosis, all patients with bile duct stones can be indicated for choledochotomy, except for those with nondilated common bile duct. Placement of a C‐tube also provides access for the clearance of possible retained stones by endoscopic sphincterotomy as a backup procedure. C‐tube placement, in contrast to T‐tube insertion, is advantageous in terms of a relatively short hospital stay. In conclusion, laparoscopic choledochotomy with C‐tube drainage is recommended as the treatment of choice for patients with common bile duct stones.     

Experience with Laparoscopic Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse

Abstract: A 48-year old man was admitted to our hospital for rectal prolapse and anal bleeding. A diagnosis of type III complete rectal prolapse with two carcinomatous lesions had been made, based on examinations at his hospitalization. However, he refused abdominoperineal resection with colostomy, despite the probability of death due to carcinoma. Therefore, per anal local excision of the lesions was the method of first choice, as the patient hoped to maintain fecal continence for as long as possible. At the second operation, the rectum was fully mobilized with great care, so as to avoid injuring the testicular vessels, ureter and seminal vesicle, under laparoscopic control. The mobilized rectum was wrapped in a sheet of Teflon mesh which was fixed to the presacral fascia, and the rectum was fixed to the mesh by suturing. The front side of the rectum was not sutured to the Teflon mesh, with the aim of preventing subsequent stricture. There were no perioperative complications and the postoperative course was uneventful. Laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse is thought to be effective and worthy of trial in special situations such as that of the patient described herein.     

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.