Use of Palmer’s Point in Creation of Pneumoperitoneum in Patients of Previous Abdominal Surgeries and To Check Efficacy of the Visceral Slide Technique for Detection of Abdominal Wall Adhesions

In patients with history of previous abdominal surgery, creation of pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopicprocedure involves risk of complications as there is association of underlying adhesions at the umbilicus site.Palmer’s point is alternative site of primary port insertion. For creating pneumoperitoneum, visceral slidetechnique is used to detect the movement of viscera immediately deep to the abdominal wall. This techniqueis reliable in identifying adhesion-free areas of the abdominal wall. This study was undertaken to evaluate useof Palmer’s point in creation of pneumoperitoneum in patients of previous abdominal surgeries and to checkthe efficacy of the visceral slide technique for detection of umbilical adhesions in these patients. This one-yearstudy was conducted on 30 patients with previous history of abdominal surgery in the Government MedicalCollege, Jammu. Visceral slide test was conducted using a real time ultrasonography machine with a 7.5 MHzabdominal transducer placed in a sagittal plane at the umbilicus and the ultrasound scan focused on theinfraumbilical region between the anterior abdominal wall and the aortocaval complex. A normal visceral slide(positive test) is movement of the viscera more than 1 cm. An abnormal visceral slide (negative test) is definedas movement of the viscera less than 1 cm. At the end of the surgery, intra-operative, early and late complicationswere evaluated. Adhesions under the umbilicus were present and absent in 15 (50%) patients each. Thevisceral slide technique was negative in 9 (30%) and positive in 21 (70%) patients. Sensitivity, specificity,positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of visceral slide technique was 60%, 100%,100%, 72% and 70% respectively. Definitive evidence of the efficacy of Palmer’s point in creation ofpneumoperitoneum could not be established due to the small sample size and patients with limited spectrum ofabdominal surgeries. Further studies in the form of multicenter randomized control trials are needed to verifythe utility of Palmer’s point for creation of pneumoperitoneum and to evaluate the role of visceral slidetechnique in diagnosing intra-abdominal adhesions preoperatively.

Cirugía urológica laparoscópica en pacientes con múltiples cirugías abdominales previas / Laparoscopic urological surgery in patients with multiple previous abdominal surgeries

Introducción: en la actualidad la cirugía laparoscópica urológica ha desplazado a la cirugía abierta ya que ha demostrado ventajas de calidad de vida y de gestión de pacientes. La cirugía abdominal previa fue considerada como contraindicación relativa de cirugía laparoscópica debido al riesgo potencial de lesión de vísceras; sin embargo, la mayor experiencia en este abordaje ha llevado a un nuevo enfoque llegando a cuestionar esta afirmación. Casos clínicos: presentamos una serie de casos de 5 pacientes que tienen múltiples intervenciones quirúrgicas abdominales previas con técnica laparoscópica transperitoneal con resultados satisfactorios. Discusión: las adherencias postquirúrgicas hacen que el acceso laparoscópico sea más complejo; en el campo de la Urología hay poca evidencia sobre el efecto de la cirugía previa en los resultados de la cirugía laparoscópica. Se ha reportado que en este tipo de pacientes, las tasas de complicaciones y mortalidad no son significativamente diferentes y el riesgo de lesiones intestinales, la conversión a cirugía abierta son equivalentes a los pacientes sin antecedente de cirugía abdominal. Conclusiones: hemos comprobado que la cirugía laparoscópica es factible, segura y puede reproducirse en pacientes con múltiples cirugías abdominales previas.

Introduction: Currently urological laparoscopic surgery is replacing to open surgery as it have proven advantages in clinical terms of quality of life and patient management. previos abdominal surgery was considered a relative contraindication for laparoscopic surgery because of the increased risk of visceral injury; however, the wide experience in laparoscopy has led to a new approach challenging this traditional contraindication. Clinical cases: we present a clinical serie of five patients with history of multiple abdominal surgeries performed through transperitoneal laparoscopic approach with satisfactory results. Discussion: Post-surgical adhesions make the laparoscopic approach more complex; in the field of Urology there is little evidence on the effect of previous surgery on the results of laparoscopic surgery. It has been reported that in patients the rates of complications and mortality are not significantly different and the risk of intestinal lesions, conversion to open surgery are equivalent to patients without a history of abdominal surgery. Conclusions: We found that urological laparoscopic surgery is feasible, safe and reproductible in patients with multiple previous abdominal surgeries.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeries for Patients With Colorectal Cancer Who Have Had a Previous Abdominal Surgery

PURPOSE: The impact of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on surgical outcomes from laparoscopic and robot surgeries is inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PAS on perioperative outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries. METHODS: From March 2007 to February 2014, a total of 612 and 238 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, respectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups: those who did not have a PAS (NPAS), those who had a major PAS, and those who had a minor PAS. We further divided the patients so that our final groups for analysis were: patients with NPAS (n = 478), major PAS (n = 19), and minor PAS (n = 115) in the laparoscopy group, and patients with NPAS (n = 202) and minor PAS (n = 36) in the robotic surgery group. RESULTS: In the laparoscopy group, no differences in the conversion rates between the 3 groups were noted (NPAS = 1.0% vs. major PAS = 0% vs. minor PAS = 1.7%, P = 0.701). In the robotic surgery group, the conversion rate did not differ between the NPAS group and the minor PAS group (1.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.390). Among the groups, neither the operation time, blood loss, days to soft diet, length of hospital stay, nor complication rate were affected by PAS. CONCLUSION: PAS did not jeopardize the perioperative outcomes for either laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgeries. Therefore, PAS should not be regarded as an absolute contraindication for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries.

Clinical study on laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis with previous abdominal surgery / 国际外科学杂志

Objective To evaluate the feasibility,safety and efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis with previous abdominal surgery.Methods The clinical data of 253 patients with acute appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic surgery was retrospectively studied from Feb.2009 to Jun.2012,including 177 patients without previous abdominal surgery (no previous abdominal surgery group,NPAS group),76 patients with previous abdominal surgery (previous abdominal surgery group,PAS group).Parameters studied were conversion rates,operation time,blood loss,complications rate,length of hospital stay and the intestine function recovery time between two groups.Results The conversion rates were no significant difference between NPAS group and PAS group.The operation time of NPAS group and PAS group was (40.5 ± 12.3) minutes and (62.6 ± 14.2) minutes (P ＜0.05).The blood loss,intestine function recovery time,complications rate,and length of hospital stay were no significant minutes between NPAS group and PAS group after operation (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions Previous abdominal surgery prolongs the operation time of laparoscopic appendectomy,but history of abdominal surgery has no significant effect on laparoscopic surgical outcome,which may indicate that laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis with previous abdominal surgery is safe and effective and still has the adventages of less trauma,faster recovery.

Single-port access total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with history of previous abdominal surgery / 대한산부인과내시경학회지

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of previous abdominal surgery on surgical outcomes of single-port access (SPA) total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 111 women who underwent SPA-TLH at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University between January 2010 and December 2010. Women were classified according to their history of previous abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Of 111 women undergoing SPA-TLH, 74 women (66.7%) without history of previous abdominal surgery and 37 women (33.3%) with history of previous abdominal surgery were classified. There was no significant difference in surgical outcomes including operative time, estimated blood loss, change in hemoglobin, uterine weight, perioperative complications, transfusion, and additional port insertion between two groups. CONCLUSION: In our experience, previous abdominal surgery has no significant impact on SPA-TLH.

Application of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Patients with Previous Abdominal Surgery

PURPOSE: Previous abdominal surgery has been one of the relative contraindications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Recently, the accumulation of experience and the development of skill have widened the indications of LC. The aim of this study was to elucidate the effectiveness and safety of LC in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery. METHODS: The medical records of patients treated with LC at Ewha Womans University, Mokdong Hospital from March 1997 to December 2000 were reviewed. Operative results were compared between the previous abdominal-surgery group (Group A) and the non-operative history group (Group B). Group A consisted of 99 cases: 91 cases with one operation history, 7 with two, and 1 with three. Group B consisted of 99 cases randomly selected out of 437 cases without a history of previous abdominal surgery in the same period. We compared the mean operative time, conversion rate, rate of drain insertion, starting day of postoperative diet and hospital stay. RESULTS: In groups A and B, the mean ages were 52 and 51.4 years olds, the male to female ratios 1 : 2.7 and 1 : 1.08, and the mean operative times 88.8 and 91.1minutes (P=0.740), respectively. The conversion rates were 3% and the time of postoperative diet was 2.3 days in both groups. The rates of drain insertion were 21% and 15% (P=0.372), the hospital stay was 5.4 days and 5.6 days (P=0.769), the morbidity was 4% and 1% (P=0.371), respectively. There were no cases of mortality in either group. CONCLUSION: The operative results of the patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery were similar to those of the patients without an operative history. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was an effective and safe method in the patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery.