Effect of Laparoscopic versus Open Gastric Bypass Surgery on Postoperative Pain and Bowel Function

Background: This study was designed to assess postoperative pain and bowel function in morbidly obese patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) performed either by open or laparoscopic technique. Methods: We prospectively studied patients scheduled for RYGBP between July 2002 and June 2003. Patients were assigned to the laparoscopic or open procedure by one surgeon. All patients received patient controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine and rectal naproxen 500 mg every 12 hours. Postoperative analgesia was assessed daily using a visual analog scale (VAS) at rest, on walking and coughing. The amount of morphine used during the first 48 hours, the time of return of gastrointestinal motility and the time until first oral food intake were recorded. Results: 53 patients were enrolled and studied (laparoscopic group n=33, open group n=20). Patients undergoing laparoscopic RYGBP requested less morphine (P=0.0001) and showed lower VAS pain scores than patients undergoing open RYGBP. The return of bowel movement in the laparoscopic group occurred 1 day earlier than in the open group (P=0.01). The time to first passage of gas (P=0.01) and oral food intake (P=0.06) was shorter after laparoscopic than after open RYGBP. Patients in the laparoscopic group were discharged 1? days earlier than patients in the open group (P=0.01). Conclusion: The laparoscopic RYGBP operation was associated with less postoperative pain and morphine consumption than the open RYGBP, thereby facilitating an earlier recovery of intestinal motility.     

手助腹腔镜全结肠切除术治疗结肠无力症的临床研究

目的比较手助腹腔镜与开腹全结肠切除术的临床疗效,评价手助腹腔镜全结肠切除术在结肠无力症手术治疗中的应用价值。方法采用前瞻性随机对照研究的方法,将2001年1月至2006年6月收治的42例结肠无力症患者分为传统开腹手术（22例）和手助腹腔镜手术（20例）两组,比较两组患者的一般临床资料、手术情况（手术时间、出血量、切口长度）、术后情况（肛门排气时间、进流质时间、术后平均住院日、术后早期并发症以及费用）,并随访术后排便情况。结果开腹组与手助腹腔镜组一般临床资料无明显差别。42例均行全结肠切除术,无手术死亡。两组的手术时间、术中出血无明显差别;但两组的手术切口长度、术后肛门排气时间、进流质时间和术后平均住院天数差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,手助腹腔镜组优于传统开腹手术组;但平均住院费用手助腹腔镜组高于开腹组（P〈0．05）。开腹组1例发生切口感染,1例出现早期肠梗阻。手助腹腔镜组术后无明显并发症。术后随访2～14个月,两组平均排便（3．55±1．80）次／d。结论手助腹腔镜与开腹全结肠切除术均安全、简捷、有效,前者更有手术外观好、术后恢复快的优点。     

手辅助腹腔镜胃癌根治术的临床效果观察

目的探讨手辅助腹腔镜胃癌根治性切除术的临床可行性和效果。方法回顾性分析2011年10月至2014年10月收治的132例胃癌根治性手术患者的临床资料,根据手术方式分为手辅助组(采用手辅助腹腔镜手术治疗41例)、腹腔镜组(采用腹腔镜辅助手术46例)、开腹组(采用传统开腹手术治疗45例)。使用SPSS17.0统计软件分析,三组患者的术中、术后指标以(x珋±s)表示,三组组间两两比较采用LSD-t检验;术后并发症率比较采用卡方检验。P0.05表示差异具有统计学意义。结果三组患者的手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、清扫淋巴结数目、术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、术后住院时间指标比较差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05);腹腔镜组的手术时间(192.4±16.6)min长于其他两组(P=0.039);手辅助组的术中出血量(229.5±44.2)ml显著小于其他两组(P=0.001);手辅助组和腹腔镜组的术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、术后住院时间显著的短于开腹组患者(P0.05);手辅助组术中共清扫淋巴结(17.8±2.1)枚与开腹组相当,但显著的高于腹腔镜组(P=0.035)。三组患者的术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.846,P=0.397)。结论手辅助腹腔镜胃癌根治性切除术具有腹腔镜手术的微创、术后恢复快的特点,同时具有开腹手术的手术时间短、可充分发挥手的灵巧性及触觉、术中淋巴结清扫较为彻底的优点。     

Minimal incision abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE: The use of a limited incision for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair was evaluated, and its outcome was analyzed in comparison to standard open repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2000 and August 2001, 20 patients with an AAA underwent minimal incision repair (MINI) for tube graft implantation. The minimal skin incision was made after localization of aneurysm neck and aortic bifurcation by CT and DSA. For repair of the upper part of the AAA the abdominal incision was retracted toward the head of the patient who was in a jackknife decubitus position. Conversely, when the peripheral portion of the AAA was treated, the abdominal incision was retracted caudally with the patient in a flat or slightly bent decubitus position. The operation itself was performed using the standard conventional technique. The length of the abdominal incision was 10 cm. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcome of this procedure were compared to a group of patients who underwent repair of AAA by means of a standard open technique (OPEN). RESULTS: Patients age in the MINI and OPEN groups were similar (69 +/- 11 vs. 69 +/- 9 years). However, there were significant differences between the MINI and OPEN groups in the time for starting oral intake of food (2,4 +/- 1,2 vs. 7,4 +/- 5,5 postoperative days, p = 0,003), time for starting to walk outside the room (2,2 +/- 0,7 vs. 4,6 +/- 2,2 postoperative days, p = 0,01) and operation times (197 +/- 37 vs. 294 +/- 83 min, p = 0,0004). CONCLUSION: Minimal incision repair is technically feasible and combines the benefits of a minimal incision with those of conventional open repair, reducing patient recovery time.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and total GIQLI score (P < 0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were 16.728 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095). CONCLUSIONS: Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure.     

Comparison between Open Hand-sewn,Laparoscopic Stapled and Laparoscopic Computer-mediated,Circular Stapled Gastro-Jejunostomies in Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in the Porcine Model

Background: In this porcine survival model, we compared laparoscopic computer-mediated flexible circular stapled (SurgASSIST) gastro-jejunostomies in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) to open hand-sewn (HS) and laparoscopic end-to-end (EEA) anastomosis. Methods: RYGBP was performed in 15 pigs. Depending on the technique used to create the gastro-jejunostomy, the pigs were divided in 3 groups. In group A, a standard two-layer hand-sewn anastomosis were performed. In group B and C, gastro-jejunostomies using EEA (B) or SurgASSIST (C) were attempted. Operation time, intraoperative technical failure, postoperative anastomotic leakage, and necropsy results were measured. Results: 14 pigs survived surgery. One leakage from the gastro-jejunostomy was detected intraoperatively in group B. There was no evidence of leakage postoperatively from the proximal gastro-jejunostomy in any groups. No statistical difference was found between the groups concerning the operation time or the diameter and degree of healing of the anastomosis. Conclusion: We found the SurgASSIST system safe for performing gastro-jejunostomies in laparoscopic RYGBP. There were no anastomotic failures intra- or postoperatively. At necropsy, there was no evidence of anastomotic stricture or delayed healing processes.     

Laparoscopy-assisted live donor nephrectomy: a modified cost-effective approach for developing countries

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because of the prohibitive cost of laparoscopic disposable instruments such as the PneumoSleeve, Endocatch, and vascular staples, laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy has not gained wide acceptance in many developing countries. To circumvent this problem, we have developed a cost-saving approach, which is described herein and compared with the open method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy at our institute, of which two were performed by the hand-assisted technique, five by the technique described by Fabrizio et al and forty-two by our modified cost-saving laparoscopy-assisted technique (LD). The latter patients were compared with 50 patients who had a standard open donor nephrectomy (OD) through a rib-resecting (12th rib) flank incision. Our technique is similar to the procedure described by Fabrizio et al except for a 6- to 8-cm incision placed in the subcostal region to retrieve the kidney after the renal vessels are cut and ligated as in the open procedure. The costs of the various techniques at our institute were compared. RESULTS: The LD and OD groups were similar in terms of age, weight, side of nephrectomy, and number of renal vessels. The operative time was longer in the LD group than in the OD group (180.7 +/- 18 minutes v 101.5 +/- 10.4 minutes), whereas the mean intraoperative blood loss was less (85.5 +/- 21.35 v 220 +/- 22.5 mL; P < 0.001). Warm ischemia time and recipient outcomes were comparable in the two groups. Patients in the LD group had lower postoperative narcotic (tramadol hydrochloride) requirement (155.3 +/- 53.3 mg v 251.8 +/- 63.1 mg; P < 0.001) and earlier discharge from the hospital (3.14 v 5.7 days; P < 0.001). The mean expense incurred was US$175 v US$160 in the LD and OD groups, respectively. The cost of the hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic techniques was significantly higher than that of our modified technique. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified technique of laparoscopy-assisted live-donor nephrectomy avoids the use of costly disposables yet offers the advantages of lesser morbidity and small incision of LD. It is cost effective and is an alternative to open nephrectomy in the developing world.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery: an emerging technique

BACKGROUND: Some surgeons are finding that the placement of one hand in the abdomen during laparoscopic procedures returns tactile feedback lost during purely laparoscopic surgery and facilitates dissection, retraction, and control of bleeding. Studies comparing patient postoperative discomfort after laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic procedures have not found a significant difference. METHODS: This article is a review of the current literature on hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and of the different hand-assisted devices on the market. Included in the review are opinions of expert laparoscopic surgeons who have used hand-assisted devices. RESULTS: More than 100 hand-assisted laparoscopic procedures have been described in the literature. At least four different companies are involved in hand-assisted laparoscopic devices. Three of these companies currently are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is not necessary for all laparoscopic procedures. Hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is advantageous for certain procedures and clinical situations such as en bloc resections and removal of solid organ tumors, large colon tumors, and the kidney after donor nephrectomy. This technique offers benefits when a large incision is necessary to complete surgery such an open colon anastomosis.     

Hand-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical cystectomy: A clinical outcome comparison

Objectives:   To compare hand-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (HALRC) with the standard laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) in an attempt to delineate their role in bladder cancer treatment.
Methods:   We retrospectively analyzed 51 patients who underwent HALRC (HALRC group, 31 cases) or LRC (LRC group, 20 cases). Urinary diversion was performed extracorporeally through the hand port or the incision for specimen retrieval, respectively, in the two groups. Baseline patient characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.
Results:   There was no statistically significant difference in age, sex, body mass index, previous abdominal surgeries, or tumor stage between the two groups. Although the LRC group yielded a significantly smaller incision for urinary diversion than the HALRC group (7.3 cm vs 6.2 cm, P  < 0.05), mean operative time, mean estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, time to oral intake and complications were similar in the two groups. Hernia formation was observed with increased frequency in the HALRC group. No patients in the HALRC group and only one patient (5%) in the LRC group presented a positive margin.
Conclusions:   The HALRC group yielded the same outcomes as the LRC group, except with a larger incision. The hand-assisted approach might be preferred for obese patients or those having multiple previous abdominal surgeries.     

Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass--evaluation of three different techniques

Background:The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) is one of the ideal operations for morbid obesity.The minimal invasive laparoscopic technique has been performed to shorten the operative time and to reduce the complications of the open surgery. Methods: From Jan 1999 through Jan 2001, laparoscopic RYGBP (LRYGBP) was attempted in 90 patients. Median age was 30, with median preoperative BMI 47. The preoperative nutritional habits and comorbidities were recorded. LRYGBP was done by three different techniques in three equal groups. In the first group, the gastrojejunostomy was constructed by passing the EEA anvil transorally, using a pull-wire technique. In the second group, the gastrojejunostomy was fashioned with a totally hand-sewn technique. In the third group, the gastrojejunostomy was performed with an endo-cutter cartridge and the anastomotic incision was closed with an endo TA30 stapler. Results: The results were nearly identical in the three groups. Average excess weight loss at 1 year was 70%. The mean operating time was 120 min in the first group, 100 min in the second group and 75 min in the third group. Esophageal injury was the most common problem in the first group. Incidence of gastrojejunostomy stenosis was higher in the second group (36.6%). Incidence of internal herniation was higher in the second (17%) and first (13.6%) groups than in the third group (3.3%). Conclusion: Whichever technique is used to construct the gastrojejunostomy, LRYGBP is a safe, effective and technically feasible operation for morbidly obese patients. We recommend the technique of constructing the gastrojejunostomy with an endocutter cartridge and closing the anastomotic incision with an endo TA stapler, as it saved time and reduced the incidence of the essential complications in gastric bypass surgery.     

Bilateral native ureteral ligation without nephrectomy in the management of kidney transplant recipients with native proteinuria

The aim of this study was to assess the safety of bilateral native ureteral ligation (BNUL) without nephrectomy in the management of native proteinuria in kidney transplant (KTx) recipients. We retrospectively studied 17 patients who underwent BNUL between 2002 and 2010 with a median preoperative 24 h protein concentration of 2140 (range 1020-25 000) mg/L. Fifteen of the 17 patients had focal segmental glomerulosclerosis as their primary renal disease and ligation was employed to facilitate the diagnosis of early recurrence. The BNUL was performed simultaneously with KTx in 14 patients. Surgical techniques were: open (n = 5), pure laparoscopic (n = 1) and a hybrid of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgical/open approach (n = 12) used at the time of transplantation via the transplant incision. At a median follow-up of 46 months (range 1-59), no patient had a complication related to BNUL and none required interventions associated with their native kidneys. BNUL without nephrectomy seems to be a safe technique to manage native proteinuria in renal transplant candidates.     

Is Gastric Bypass Associated with More Complications in Patients Weighing >500 lb (>227 kg)?

Background: Increasing weight and BMI are believed to be independent risk factors for postoperative morbidity and mortality following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP). Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed. 25 patients weighing >500 lb (227 kg), mean BMI 78 kg/m² (range 69-97) underwent open RYGBP by a single surgeon over a 3-year period (Group A). Co-morbid conditions included diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, degenerative joint disease, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Acute complications in this group were compared with an age and gender matched cohort of patients with similar co-morbidities who underwent the same operation by the same surgeon during the same period (Group B). The study group was also compared with the cumulative data of all patients who underwent the open RYGBP during the same period (Group C, n=253). Comparisons were made for hospital length of stay, ICU days, mortality, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), anastomotic leak, evisceration, and need for postoperative ventilation or reoperation. Results:There was no mortality,evisceration, leaks, or reoperation in the study group and no statistically significant differences between the groups. The incidence of DVT and PE was also not significantly different among the 3 groups.The days on postoperative mechanical ventilation (7 vs 0 vs 0 days), ICU days (0.68 vs 0 vs 0.03 days), and total LOS (4.56 vs 3.04 vs 3.0 days) was greater in the study group and statistically significant. Conclusions: Gastric bypass in patients weighing >500 lb (>227 kg) can be performed safely. A longer LOS, need for ICU stay and mechanical ventilation should be anticipated. Complications in this group were no greater than age-matched controls who weighed <500 lb or when compared with all patients who underwent RYGBP over the 3 years. Super-obese patients should not be discriminated against when considering a surgical option.     

Combination of hand-assisted and laparoscopic proctocolectomy (HALP): Technical aspects,learning curve and early postoperative results

BACKGROUND: Various techniques for laparoscopic proctocolectomy have been reported worldwide. We evaluated the technical aspects and early postoperative results of hand-assisted laparoscopic proctocolectomy (HALP) with construction of an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis through a Pfannenstiel incision. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 2004 and May 2006, 20 patients (median age 28 years) underwent combined HALP at our institution. Preoperative diagnosis included ulcerative colitis (n = 16), indeterminate colitis (n = 1), familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 2), and carcinoma of the rectum associated with ulcerative colitis (n = 1). All patients were under immunosuppressive therapy. Laparoscopic mobilisation of rectum, sigmoid and descending colon was performed first. Subsequently, hand-assisted laparoscopic mobilization of the transverse and ascending colon as well as creation of an ileal J-pouch were performed through a Pfannenstiel incision. Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis was completed by transrectal stapling device and protected by a loop ileostomy. RESULTS: The ileal pouch-anal anastomosis could be achieved in 19 cases (95%). There was one conversion (5%) to open surgery with construction of an end-ileostomy. No intraoperative blood transfusions were necessary. The median operating time was 210 minutes (range 180 min to 330 min). It was longer for the first five procedures but then remained constant. Two patients (10%) developed anastomotic leakage, which could be treated conservatively. Mean length of hospital stay was 11 days (range 7-32 days). CONCLUSIONS: Combined HALP with construction of an ileal J-pouch-anal anastomosis can be performed safely and effectively. The Pfannenstiel incision proved to be advantageous for hand-assisted mobilisation of the transverse colon. Additionally, it was useful for the specimen removal and the J-pouch construction. Our new technique not only proved to be safe, but also resulted in a shortened total operation-time after a learning curve of about five procedures.     

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: Aspects of Surgical Technique and Early Results

Background: The efficacy of Roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGBP) for morbid obesity is well documented. We investigated the role of the Hand-assisted laparoscopic technique for performing RYGBP. Methods: In an open series, 13 patients (all female, median age 38, BMI 45 kg/m2) underwent Hand-assisted laparoscopic RYGBP. The HandPort was introduced through an 8-cm right subcostal incision. The stomach was always completely transected.The Roux limb was made > 50 cm and brought to the proximal gastric pouch (4 x 3 cm) behind the colon and the excluded stomach. A circular stapler (no. 21) was used for the gastrojejunostomy, with the anvil introduced through a gastrotomy. Results: The HandPort device could be successfully placed and allowed good working conditions in all patients. Median duration of surgery (including learning-curve time) and postoperative hospital stay were 205 min and 5 days, respectively. The amount of morphine needed (PCA) during postoperative day 1-3 were 45, 32 and 18 mg, respectively. One patient (8%) was converted to full laparotomy for safe closure of a small perforation of the proximal gastric pouch caused by the anvil of the circular stapler. All patients made an uneventful recovery. Two patients needed endoscopic dilatation of a relative stricture at the gastrojejunostomy. Conclusion: We believe that Hand-assistance makes Lap-RYGBP faster and safer without losing the essential benefits of total laparoscopy.     

手助腹腔镜改良Sugiura 术治疗门静脉高压症的临床分析

目的：比较手助腹腔镜与开腹改良Sugiura术治疗门静脉高压症的近期临床疗效。 方法：2011年1月—2012年3月,将需行改良Sugiura术的56例门静脉高压症患者随机分为手助腹腔镜组和开腹组,每组28例,比较两组术中及术后各项临床指标。 结果：两组患者手术均获成功,无术中并发症发生。两组手术时间和术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）,而手术切口、术中出血量、肛门排气时间、腹腔引流液量、术后住院天数比较,手助腹腔镜组均低于开腹组,差异均有统计学（均P<0.05）。术后随访1~13（平均7.32）个 月,两组食管胃底曲张静脉消除率均为100%,均未出现上消化道再出血。 结论：手助腹腔镜行改良Sugiura术既具有与开腹改良Sugiura术相同的临床疗效,又具有腹腔镜手术微创的优点。     

手助腹腔镜与开腹肝癌切除的对比研究

目的探讨手助腹腔镜肝癌切除的微创性和安全可行性。方法40例肝癌切除患者随机分为手助腹腔镜(HALH)和开腹肝癌切除术(OH)两组,比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院时间、术后并发症及C反应蛋白的动态变化。结果HALH组平均出血量、切口长度、术后肛门排气时间、术后住院时间、术后第7天C反应蛋白均明显少于OH组(均P<0.05)。两组平均手术时间相仿,均无严重并发症发生。两组复发率差异无显著性。结论手助腹腔镜肝癌切除安全可行,具有创伤小、术后恢复快等特点。     

经胸乳入路腔镜手术治疗女性单侧甲状腺微小乳头状癌的临床价值

目的:探讨经胸乳入路腔镜技术在女性单侧甲状腺微小乳头状癌手术中的应用价值.方法:回顾分析2019年1月至2020年7月收治的50例女性甲状腺微小乳头状癌患者的临床资料,根据术式分为腔镜组(n=25)与开放组(n=25).对比分析两组手术时间、中央区淋巴结清扫数量、术后引流量、置管时间、术后美容效果、术后并发症等.结果:...     

Laparoscopic Gastric Bypass: Development of Technique,Respiratory Function,and Long-Term Outcome

Background: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) is the preferred operation for the treatment of morbid obesity by many surgeons. Hereby we present the process by which laparoscopic RYGBP (LRYGBP) developed at our institution. Methods: Perioperative morbidity was recorded from 150 consecutive morbidly obese patients operated upon by RYGBP from August 1994 to March 2002. The first 76 consecutive patients have been followed up to 5 years postoperatively. A subgroup of 40 patients was recruited to evaluate the postoperative lung function in a randomized study between receiving and not receiving prophylactic chest physiotherapy. Results: In the whole series, there were 4 conversions to open surgery, 5 leaks, 12 postoperative bleedings and 1 intestinal obstruction. 1 patient succumbed after developing acute dilatation of the bypassed stomach. Respiratory function deteriorated significantly in all patients in the early postoperative period, irrespective if given physiotherapy. During the follow-up period, 3 patients developed mechanical obstruction of the Roux limb. Another patient had a perforated ulcer at the proximal pouch. Weight reduction averaged 70% of excess body weight at 2 years after surgery. Conclusions: LRYGBP is an effective treatment for morbid obesity. During the initial development, we experienced a number of serious complications. The complication rate decreased over time. Postoperative lung function was markedly impaired, but there were no beneficial effects of chest physiotherapy. Long-term weight loss after LRYGBP seems to be comparable to what has been reported after open RYGBP.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: We report our experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (HALN) for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma and compare our results with a contemporary series of open nephroureterectomy (ON) performed at our institution. METHODS: Between August 1996 and May 2003, 90 patients underwent nephroureterectomy for upper-tract transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). Thirty-eight patients underwent HALN, while 52 had an ON. End-points of comparison included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, pathologic grade and stage of tumor, and tumor recurrence. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 72.3 and 70.6 years in the ON and HALN groups, respectively. Mean operative duration was 243 minutes (ON) and 244 minutes (HALN), with an EBL of 478mL in the open group versus 191 mL in the hand-assisted group (P<0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred, but postoperative complications occurred in 4% and 11% of the ON and HALN groups, respectively (P=0.21). The mean hospital duration was 7.1 days (ON) versus 4.6 days (HALN) (P<0.01). No difference existed in the pathologic grade or stage distribution of urothelial tumors between the 2 groups. The mean follow-up was 51.0 months in the ON group and 31.7 months in the HALN group. Recurrence of urothelial carcinoma occurred in 50% of patients who underwent ON and 40% treated by HALN (P=0.38) at a median interval of 9.1 and 7.7 months, respectively, after surgery. CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy is an effective modality for the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Patients benefited from less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospitalization with an equivalent intermediate-term oncologic outcome compared with that of the open approach.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: report of 100 cases

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is not yet widespread in Japan. After our first hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (HALapNx) in 2001, we report our 100 cases and examine the possibility of making this technique widely available in Japan. METHODS: HALapNx was performed in 100 cases (44 males and 56 females) from February 2001 through July 2003. The operative procedure for HALapNx was briefly described here. First, 2 12-mm ports were placed in the midaxillary line at the superior and inferior level of the umbilicus. Next, a 5-cm incision was made in the midline periumbilicus and the hand port system was fitted through the abdominal incision. After 10 mm Hg pneumoperitoneum, HALapNx begins with mobilization of the left colon. RESULTS: HALapNx was completed successfully in all cases and no patients required conversion to laparotomy. The estimated blood loss was 33.5 +/- 40.3 g and no patient required blood transfusion. The mean operative time was 168.8 +/- 47.6 minutes, and there was no major complication in a donor. CONCLUSIONS: HALapNx is technically feasible and may offer several advantages over open donor nephrectomy in terms of less blood loss, less postoperative pain, and minimal cosmetic disfigurement. In Japan, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is not yet widespread, possibly due to the need for surgical laparoscopic skills. We believe that the best way to make laparoscopic donor naphrectomy widely available is through hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery.