Conventional and Laparoscopic Reversal of the Hartmann Procedure: a Review of Literature

Purpose

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic overview on both laparoscopic and conventional Hartmann reversal. Furthermore, the Hartmann procedure is reevaluated in the light of new emerging alternatives.

Methods

Medline, Ovid, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were searched for studies reporting on outcomes after Hartmann reversal.

Results

Thirty-five studies were included in this review of which 30 were retrospective. A total of 6,249 patients with a mean age of 60 years underwent Hartmann reversal. Two thirds of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I–II. The mean reversal rate after a Hartmann procedure was 44%, and mean time interval between Hartmann procedure and Hartmann reversal was 7.5 months. The most frequent reported reasons for renouncing Hartmann reversal were high ASA classification and patients’ refusal. The overall morbidity rate ranged from 3% to 50% (mean 16.3%) and mortality rate from 0% to 7.1% (mean 1%). Patients treated laparoscopically had a shorter hospital stay (6.9 vs. 10.7 days) and appeared to have lower mean morbidity rates compared to conventional surgery (12.2% vs. 20.3%).

Conclusion

Hartmann reversal carries a high risk on perioperative morbidity and mortality. The mean reversal rate is considerably low (44%). Laparoscopic reversal compares favorably to conventional; however, high level evidence is needed to determine whether it is superior.     

Laparoscopic Versus Open Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Matched-Cohort Study

To compare the results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and open cholecystectomy (OC) for symptomatic cholelithiasis in elective surgery we performed a prospective matched-cohort study. Hundred consecutive patients who underwent LC in the period Sept. 1990-June 1992, and 100 patients who were age and sex matched and underwent an elective OC in the foregoing two years (1989-1990) were studied. The median operation time for LC (75, 40-180 min) was significantly longer than for OC (55, 20-155 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative hospitalization was significantly shorter after LC (3, 1-16 days), compared with OC (7, 4-22 days; p<0.001). Conversion of LC to OC occurred in 12 (12%) patients initially scheduled to undergo LC. Complications occurred in 5 patients (5%) after LC and in 5 patients (5%) after OC. The calculated expenses (operation and postoperative hospitalization, 3rd class) were approximately fl. 3740,- for LC (excl. investments for pieces of apparatus) and fl. 6725,- for OC. This study demonstrates that LC can be performed safely with the number of complications comparable to those for OC. Bile duct injury is a serious potential threat. The main advantages ofLC are the minimal trauma, with more rapid recovery. Insurers seem to benefit from reduced postoperative disability and earlier discharge.     

Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Open Appendectomy: A Single Institution Study

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy at Baptist Hospital in Miami, Florida.

Methods:

A retrospective review was performed on all appendectomies performed at Baptist Hospital from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995. There were a total of 244 cases; 137 open appendectomies and 107 laparoscopic appendectomies. The cases were reviewed with regard to pathology, operating time, length of hospital stay and complications.

Results:

The pathologic findings at surgery were similar for the two groups. Concomitant pathology was more likely to be found laparoscopically than in open surgery. There was a greater percentage of ruptured appendices in surgery done via the open method. Operative time was slightly longer, but complications were less in the laparoscopic group. Length of stay was lower in the laparoscopic appendectomy group.

Conclusions:

Although very similar, our method of appendectomy favors the laparoscopic technique.     

Laparoscopic Versus Open Biliopancreatic Diversion: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background  

Bariatric surgery is playing an increasingly important role in our society. The surgical approach should be chosen in consistent with the patients' problem. The purpose of this study was to compare surgical outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic Scopinaro's biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) versus open BPD in our institute experience.     

腹腔镜和开腹肝切除的临床对比研究

目的探讨腹腔镜肝切除(LH)的安全性和微创性。方法将2004年6月至2005年2月40例行肝切除病人,随机分入LH组和开腹肝切除(OH)组。比较两组病人的平均切口长度、手术时间、麻醉时间、术中出血量、术后进食时间、术后止痛药用量、术后住院天数、有无并发症以及围手术期体温、血象的变化。结果切口长度、出血量、进食时间、止痛药用量、术后住院天数及体温、血象的升高LH组明显小(少)于OH组(P<0.01);LH组手术时间、麻醉时间长于OH,但差异无显著性(P>0.05);LH组术后无并发症,OH组发生胆漏1例。结论在一定的条件下,与OH相比,LH是安全的,而且创伤更小。     

Conventional Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Hepatic Hydatidosis: a 6-Year Single-Center Experience

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional surgery.

Methods

Records of patients who underwent surgery for liver hydatid disease between 2005 and 2011 were reviewed. Operative time, blood loss, conversion to open, postoperative morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and recurrence rate were measured.

Results

Among 353 eligible patients, 60 were considered for laparoscopic and 293 for conventional surgery. Operative time was slightly increased in laparoscopic group. No major blood loss and blood transfusion were needed. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly short in laparoscopic group (3.8?±?1.2 days) than that in conventional group (7.4?±?1.4 days). The overall morbidity was 13.3 % (8/60) in laparoscopic and 19.8 % (58/293) in conventional group without significance. Both conversion rate and mortality was 0 %. One recurrence in laparoscopic (1.7 %, 1/60) and five in conventional group (1.7 %, 5/293) occurred within 48 months of follow-up.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic treatment of liver hydatid disease is safe and effective in selected patients with all its advantages.     

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery aims to provide patients with curative resection while minimizing postoperative morbidity and mortality. This study used meta-analytical techniques to compare laparoscopic and open surgery as the primary treatment for patients with rectal cancer with regard to short-term and long-term outcomes. Methods A literature search was performed on all studies between 1993 and 2004 comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients undergoing abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. The following end points were evaluated: operative outcomes, postoperative recovery, and early and late adverse events. Results Twenty studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 2071 subjects, of whom 909 (44%) underwent laparoscopic and 1162 (56%) underwent open surgery for rectal cancer. Time to stomal function (weighted mean difference [WMD], −1.52; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], −2.20, −1.01), first bowel movement (WMD, −.72; 95% CI, −1.21, −.22), feeding solids (WMD, −.92; 95% CI, −1.35, −.50), and length of hospital stay (WMD, −2.67; 95% CI, −3.81, −1.54) were all significantly reduced after laparoscopic surgery. In patients who underwent abdominoperineal excision of the rectum, wound infection (odds ratio, .15; 95% CI, .03, .73) and requirement for postoperative parenteral analgesia (WMD, −.63; 95% CI, −1.22, −.04) were also significantly reduced. There was no difference between groups in the extent of oncological clearance. Conclusions Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery results in an earlier postoperative recovery and a resected specimen that is oncologically comparable to open surgery. Results from randomized trials reporting long-term outcomes such as cancer recurrence (local and metastatic) and 5-year survival are eagerly awaited.     

Single-Centre Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy

Background  

Expansion of laparoscopic major hepatectomy is still limited mainly due to the well-recognised technical difficulties compared to open surgery, and doubts regarding the oncological efficiency when major resections are required.     

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Endometrial Cancer: a Minimum 3-Year Follow-Up Study

Background  

The paucity of long-term oncologic results published in the literature still prevents the scientific community from cementing the place of laparoscopy as the procedure of choice for managing endometrial cancer. We present the outcomes of consecutive patients with endometrial cancer managed laparoscopically with >3-year follow-up.     

Complications of Liver Resection: Laparoscopic Versus Open Procedures

Background and Objective:

Minimally invasive surgery for liver resection remains controversial. This study was designed to compare open versus laparoscopic surgical approaches to liver resection.

Methods:

We performed a single-center retrospective chart review.

Results:

We compared 45 laparoscopic liver resections with 17 open cases having equivalent resections based on anatomy and diagnosis. The overall complication rate was 25.8%. More open resection patients had complications (52.9% vs 15.5%, P < .008). The conversion rate was 11.1%. The mean blood loss was 667.1 ± 1450 mL in open cases versus 47.8 ± 89 mL in laparoscopic cases (P < .0001). Measures of intravenous narcotic use, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay all favored the laparoscopic group. Patients were more likely to have complications or morbidity in the open resection group than in the laparoscopic group for both the anterolateral (P < .085) and posterosuperior (P < .002) resection subgroups.

Conclusion:

In this series comparing laparoscopic and open liver resections, there were fewer complications, more rapid recovery, and lower morbidity in the laparoscopic group, even for those resections involving the posterosuperior segments of the liver.     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的系统评价

目的评价腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的临床效果。方法按照Cochrane系统评价方法,计算机检索PubMed、Wiley Online Library、Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆及中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国学术期刊网全文数据库(VIP)、中文科技期刊全文数据库(CNKI),检索时间截至2011年11月,并手工检索相关文献,查找比较腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的随机对照文献。由2位研究者按照纳入和排除标准筛选文献,评价质量并提取资料后采用RevMan 4.2.2进行Meta分析。分析两种手术方法的伤口感染、住院时间、手术时间、住院费用及腹腔脓肿发生率。结果纳入8篇随机对照试验,Meta分析结果显示,腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的伤口感染〔OR=0.19,95%CI(0.09,0.38),P<0.000 01〕、手术时间〔WMD=3.66,95%CI(0.50,6.82),P=0.02〕及住院费用〔WMD=503.96,95%CI(337.23,670.70),P<0.000 01〕比较,差异均有统计学意义;二者的住院时间〔WMD=-0.11,95%CI(-3.64,3.43),P=0.95〕及腹腔脓肿发生率〔OR=1.40,95%CI(0.23,8.64),P=0.71〕比较,差异无统计学意义。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除手术较开腹阑尾切除术伤口感染率低,但手术时间长,费用高;二者住院时间和腹腔脓肿发生率差异无统计学意义。     

Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy

Background:

Appendectomy, being the most common surgical procedure performed in general surgery, is still being performed by both open and laparoscopic methods due to a lack of consensus as to which is the most appropriate method. Because further trials are necessary and few such studies have been performed in developing countries, we decided to evaluate the outcomes of the 2 procedures to share our experience with the international community.

Methods:

Consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic (LA) (n=48) and open (n=52) appendectomy (OA) over a period of 3 years were studied. Clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups in relation to operative time, analgesia used, length of hospital stay, return to work, resumption of a regular diet, and postoperative complications.

Results:

Mean age of patients was 25.8 years in the laparoscopic and 25.5 years in the open group. Patient demographics were similar in both groups (P>0.05). There was significantly less need for analgesia (1.0±0.5 in LA and 1.5±0.6 doses in OA), a short hospital stay (1.4±0.7 in LA and 3.4±1.0 days in OA), early return to work (12.6±3.3 in LA and 19.1±3.1 days in OA), and less time needed to return to a regular diet (20.1±2.9 in LA and 22.0±4.7, P<0.05 in OA) in the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Operative time was significantly shorter (54.9±14.7 in LA and 13.6±12.6 minutes in OA) in the open group. Total number of complications was less in the laparoscopic group; however, there was no statistically significant difference.

Conclusion:

The laparoscopic technique is a safe and clinically beneficial operative procedure. It provides certain advantages over open appendectomy, including short hospital stay, decreased requirement of postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, and earlier return to normal activities. Where feasible, laparoscopy should be undertaken as the initial procedure of choice for most cases of suspected appendicitis.