Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters








Year range
1.
Rev. argent. coloproctología ; 31(4): 138-144, dic. 2020. tab
Article in Spanish | LILACS | ID: biblio-1412986

ABSTRACT

Introducción: En los últimos años ha habido una gran difusión de la cirugía laparoscópica para el manejo de la patología colorrectal. La dehiscencia anastomótica es una de las complicaciones más graves, con una elevada morbi-mortalidad. La reoperación por vía laparoscópica podría ser una opción válida para tratar esta complicación, manteniendo ciertos beneficios del abordaje miniinvasivo. Objetivos: Evaluar la factibilidad y seguridad del abordaje laparoscópico en el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía colorrectal y en forma secundaria comparar los resultados con la reoperación por vía convencional. Materiales y Método: Se analizó una serie retrospectiva, completada en forma prospectiva, se incluyeron 1693 pacientes (junio 2000 - septiembre 2018). Los pacientes que fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica se dividieron en dos grupos según el abordaje de la reoperación: laparoscópico (Grupo 1, G1) y laparotómico (Grupo 2, G2). Se compararon ambos grupos teniendo en cuenta factores demográficos, estadía hospitalaria, complicaciones, morbilidad y mortalidad. Las complicaciones se estratificaron según la clasificación de Dindo y Clavien, y se tuvieron en cuenta las más graves (categorías 3, 4 y 5). Para el análisis estadístico se utilizó el T student y chi cuadrado. Resultados: Ciento seis (6,26%) pacientes fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica. Ochenta y cinco (80%) fueron incluidos en el grupo 1 y 21 (20%) en el grupo 2. La única diferencia demográfica entre ambos grupos fue una mayor cantidad de pacientes obesos en el grupo laparoscópico (G1: 17 (20%) vs. G2: 0, p: 0,02). Hubo una tendencia hacia un intervalo menor entre la cirugía inicial y la reexploración, pero sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas (5,18 días vs. 6,23 días, p: 0,22). En 84 (79%) la conducta quirúrgica fue lavado y confección de ostomía proximal de protección (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p: 0,001). El desmonte de la anastomosis y la confección de ostomía terminal debió realizarse en 8 pacientes (G1: 4 vs G2: 4, p: 0,02). Nueve pacientes en G1 y 3 pacientes en G2 requirieron más de una cirugía (p: 0,63). Las complicaciones fueron similares entre ambos grupos, sólo se incluyeron los grados 3, 4 y 5 (G1: 21,2% vs G2: 28,6% p: 0,34). El promedio de estadía hospitalaria disminuyó con el abordaje laparoscópico (10,71 días vs. 11,57 días, p: 0,66), a pesar de que no hubo diferencia estadística entre ambos grupos. Conclusiones: La reintervención laparoscópica es un tratamiento válido y seguro para el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. (AU)


Introduction: In recent years there has been a great diffusion of laparoscopic surgery for the management of colorectal pathology. Anastomotic dehiscence is one of the most serious complications, with high morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic reoperation could be a valid option to treat this complication, maintaining certain benefits of the minimally invasive approach. Objectives: To evaluate the viability and safety of the laparoscopic approach in the management of anastomotic dehiscence in colorectal surgery and as a secondary end point to compare the results with those of reoperation by conventional approach. Material and Methods: A series of 1693 patients that underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery was analyzed, from a prospective database (June 2000 - September 2018). Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach performed in the reoperative surgery: laparoscopy (G 1) or laparotomy (G 2). Demographic data, hospital stay, type of complication, morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Dindo-Clavien classification was used to stratify postoperative complications and only categories 3, 4 and 5 were included. Data were statistically analyzed with Student ́s t test and chi-square test.Results: A hundred six patients (6.26%) were reoperated because of AL, 85 (80%) by laparoscopy and 21 (20%) by conventional surgery. The only demographic difference between both groups was that more obese patients were included in G1 (G1: 17, 20% vs. G2: 0, p=0.02). Interval of time between surgeries was lower in G1 without statistical difference (5.18 vs. 6.23 days, p=0.22). In 84 patients (79%) abdominal lavage and loop ostomy was performed (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p=0.001). Anastomosis takedown was required in 8 patients (G1: 4 vs. G2: 4, p=0.02). 9 patients in G1 and 3 in G2 needed more than one reexploration (p= 0.63). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups, grades 3, 4 and 5 were included (G1: 21, 2% vs. G2: 28.6%, p= 0.34). In average hospital stay was decreased in G1 (10.7 vs. 11.6 days, p=0.66), without statistical difference. Conclusion: Laparoscopic reintervention can be a safe treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. (AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Surgical Wound Dehiscence/surgery , Laparoscopy , Colorectal Surgery/methods , Postoperative Complications , Reoperation , Multivariate Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Laparotomy
2.
Chinese Journal of Surgery ; (12): 579-581, 2017.
Article in Chinese | WPRIM | ID: wpr-809108

ABSTRACT

In recent years, with the improvement of the incidence of thyroid tumors and the extensive development of thyroid surgery in primary hospitals, the proportion of thyroid cancer patients requiring reoperation has continued to increase. In spite of different reasons of reoperation, the risk of serious complications will increase after reoperation compared with first operation. Undoubtedly, the doctors will have to face new challenges to make more appropriate surgery program. Before reoperation, both the operation benefits and the corresponding risks should be considered comprehensively. As far as possible, the individual treatment should be recommended on the basis of standardized treatment, and it will be better to strike a balance between radical surgery and function protection. Consequently, low-grade doctors should be cautious to perform these reoperations.

3.
International Journal of Surgery ; (12): 629-632, 2009.
Article in Chinese | WPRIM | ID: wpr-393001

ABSTRACT

History of abdominal surgery was the contradiction of reoperation with laparoscopy. With the development of laparoscopic technique, this contradiction now has been challenged and reoperative minimally invisave surgery is growing. The objective of this article is to state the applications of laparoscopic technique in gastrointestinal reoperative surgery.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL