A nationwide assessment comparing nonelective open with minimally invasive complex colorectal procedures.

AIM: The use of minimally invasive colorectal surgery has increased greatly for both benign and malignant disease. Studies evaluating complex procedures have been largely limited to elective indications. We aimed to compare the outcome of a laparoscopic with an open transverse (TC) and total abdominal colectomy (TAC) in the nonelective setting. METHOD: Comparative analysis was made using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008-11) of patients undergoing a nonelective TC or TAC identified by ICD-9-CM procedure codes. The risk-adjusted 30-day outcome was assessed using regression modelling accounting for patient characteristics, comorbidity and surgical procedure. RESULTS: We identified 7261 admissions including 818 laparoscopic and 6443 open procedures. The mean age of the population was 65 ± 17 years and patients in the laparoscopic group were younger (56 ± 20 vs. 66 ± 17 years; P < 0.05). The rate of a single complication was lower in the laparoscopic group (26% vs. 38%; P < 0.01), but this did not remain significant following a logistic regression analysis. Mortality was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (3.1% vs. 17%; P < 0.01) and this remained true after adjusting for covariates (OR = 0.62; P < 0.05). Laparoscopic cases were associated with a shorter median length of stay (10 vs. 13 days; P < 0.01) and hospital charge ($75,758 vs. $98,833; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A nonelective laparoscopic TC or TAC is associated with an equivalent complication rate and lower mortality compared with an open operation. The results should encourage surgeons with the appropriate skills to consider a laparoscopic approach for nonelective pathology requiring a complex colectomy.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the cost and effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealers versus clips and vascular staplers for laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of laparoscopy has resulted in a variety of instruments being used routinely for vascular control. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the cost-effectiveness of bipolar vessel sealer (BVS) compared with clips and vascular stapler (CVS) in straight laparoscopic colorectal resection. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective colorectal resection, including benign and malignant diseases, were randomized to either BVS or CVS for vascular control. Patients whose operation was converted to an open approach before pedicle ligation were excluded. The primary endpoints were duration of operation, including time taken to control vascular pedicles, and cost of disposable instruments for vascular control. RESULTS: Of 114 patients randomized to BVS (60 patients) or CVS (54), 14 did not receive the allocated vascular control device, leaving 55 and 45 respectively for analysis. The BVS reduced the time spent for vascular control by a mean of 6·9 min (P = 0·031) and reduced the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control by US $ 80·7 per patient (P = 0·043). For total colectomy, the BVS reduced the operating time by 103·6 min (P = 0·023) and the time taken for vascular control by 16·8 min (P = 0·022). For left colectomy, it decreased the time to vascular control by 9·3 min (P = 0·021). In multivariable analysis, the cost of disposable instruments for vascular control was independently reduced by randomization to BVS, type of procedure, female sex and estimated blood loss. The mean cost reduction was $ 88·2 for left colectomy (P = 0·037), $ 377·7 (P = 0·005) for total colectomy and $ 366·9 (P = 0·012) for proctectomy. Conversely, use of the BVS increased the cost of instruments used for vascular control in right colectomy by $ 92·6 (P = 0·012). CONCLUSION: BVS devices are expedient and cost-efficient in proctectomy, left and total colectomy procedures.

Single-incision vs straight laparoscopic segmental colectomy: a case-controlled study.

PURPOSE: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining momentum in general surgery but it is essentially unstudied for laparoscopic colectomy. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy with laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy were prospectively entered into an institutional review board-approved database. Those that underwent single-incision laparoscopic colectomy were case matched for sex, age, disease, surgery, body mass index, previous surgeries, and surgeon with patients undergoing LAC. RESULTS: Twenty-nine single-incision laparoscopic segmental colectomies were performed for polyps (4), adenocarcinoma (12), diverticulitis (6), and Crohn's disease (7) and were case matched to laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for the same indications. Mean body mass index was 28.8 ± 3 kg/m². Operative time was longer for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (134.4 ± 40 vs 103.8 ± 54 min; P = .0002). Four single-incision laparoscopic colectomies were converted to LAC requiring either one extra port (2) or 2 extra ports (2), and there was one conversion to laparotomy. Extraction scar length (millimeters) was similar (38 ± 6.0 vs 45 ± 6.2; P = .746). Postoperative morbidity (5/29 vs 7/29; P = .284) and length of stay (day) (3.7 ± 1.1 vs 3.9 ± 1.1; P = .445) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy is feasible and safe but takes more time than laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Although results approximate those for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, an additional learning curve is involved, and extra incisions are sometimes required. Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy requires further prospective validation so that the cost of the device can be justified by an improved clinical outcome.

Single incision laparoscopic total colectomy and proctocolectomy for benign disease: initial experience.

AIM: This paper presents our initial experience of single incision laparoscopic total colectomy and proctocolectomy. METHOD: Four female patients (mean age 35.5 years; mean body mass index 24.7 kg/m(2) ) underwent total colectomy with end ileostomy (n = 2) and proctocolectomy with stapled ileum pouch-anal (n = 1) and rectal (n = 1) anastomosis with loop ileostomy, for benign disease, using a single-incision laparoscopic approach. The single port was placed at the umbilicus or the ileostomy site. Specimen extraction was through the port site. RESULTS: Operative procedures were performed with a mean operative time of 212 min, mean blood loss of 30 ml and no intraoperative complication. No additional abdominal ports were required. A postoperative ileus (n = 1) on day three resolved spontaneously and the. mean hospital stay was 4.5 days. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic total colectomy or proctocolectomy is feasible for benign disease in selected patients.

Assessment of comparative skills between hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic colorectal training on an augmented reality simulator.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare skills sets during a hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic colectomy on an augmented reality simulator. METHODS: Twenty-nine surgeons, assigned randomly in 2 groups, performed laparoscopic sigmoid colectomies on a simulator: group A (n = 15) performed hand-assisted then straight procedures; group B (n = 14) performed straight then hand-assisted procedures. Groups were compared according to prior laparoscopic colorectal experience, performance (time, instrument path length, and instrument velocity changes), technical skills, and operative error. RESULTS: Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was similar in both groups. Both groups had better performances with the hand-assisted approach, although technical skill scores were similar between approaches. The error rate was higher with the hand-assisted approach in group A, but similar between both approaches in group B. CONCLUSIONS: These data define the metrics of performance for hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic colectomy on an augmented reality simulator. The improved scores with the hand-assisted approach suggest that with this simulator a hand-assisted model may be technically easier to perform, although it is associated with increased intraoperative errors.

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy: technical aspects, feasibility, and expected benefits.

Background. This paper studied technical aspects and feasibility of single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC). Methods. Bibliographic search was carried out up to October 2009 including original articles, case reports, and technical notes. Assessed criteria were techniques, operative time, scar length, conversion, complications, and hospitalization duration. Results. The review analyzed seventeen SILCs by seven surgical teams. A single port system was used by four teams. No team used the same laparoscope. Two teams used two laparoscopes. All teams used curved instruments. SILC time was 116 +/- 34 minutes. Final scar was longer than port incision (31 +/- 7 versus 24 +/- 8 mm; P = .036). No conversion was reported. The only complication was a bacteremia. Hospitalization was 5 +/- 2 days. Conclusion. SILC is feasible. A single incision around the umbilical scar represents cosmetic progress. Comparative studies are needed to assess potential abdominal wall and recovery benefits to justify the increased cost of SILC.

Tissue apposition system: new technology to minimize surgery for endoscopically unresectable colonic polyps.

OBJECTIVE: This is the first clinical series using the Tissue Apposition System (TAS) device in a feasibility study of polypectomy as an alternative to laparoscopic colectomy (LC) for endoscopically unresectable polyps. TAS is a novel T-tag system for endoscopic placement of sutures, facilitating closure of larger defects from advanced endoluminal or transluminal endoscopic procedures. Such novel instrumentation may reduce risk and accelerate recovery. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, patients with endoscopically unresectable polyps who would otherwise require LC were enrolled. The polyp site was visualized by colonoscopy and resected with laparoscopic assistance, using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or submucosal dissection. After confirming benign disease by frozen section, the polypectomy site was closed by TAS under laparoscopic observation to avoid injury to surrounding structures. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed at 3 months. RESULTS: Seven patients were recruited (5 men; mean age, 66 years). Polyps were from 20 to 50 (mean, 30) mm in diameter; six were in the right colon, and three were on the mesenteric border of the bowel. All final pathology was benign. Mean EMR time was 29 min, mean time taken for TAS was 37 min, and mean total operative time was 199 min. Two TAS procedures required conversion to LC (one unresectable polyp and one device failure). Five TAS procedures were completed, with a mean hospital stay of 1.2 days, and no complications. Follow-up colonoscopy revealed healing without polyp recurrence in any case. One patient (initial 5-cm sigmoid polyp) developed a very mild clinically asymptomatic stricture in the sigmoid colon. CONCLUSIONS: This initial human experience demonstrates that TAS can be used safely in the colon under laparoscopic control. TAS permits safe closure of defects after endoscopic polypectomy of selected and otherwise unresectable polyps. Such technology may potentially avoid the need for LC and permit rapid recovery with short hospital stay.

Standardized algorithms for management of anastomotic leaks and related abdominal and pelvic abscesses after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors and incidence of anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery are well reported in the literature. However, the management of the multiple clinical scenarios that may be encountered has not been standardized. METHODS: The medical literature from 1973 to 2007 was reviewed using PubMed for papers relating to anastomotic leaks and abdominal abscess, with a specific emphasis on predisposing factors, prevention strategies, and treatment approaches. A six-round modified Delphi research method was utilized to find consensus among a group of expert colorectal surgeons and interventional radiologists regarding standardized management algorithms for anastomotic leaks. RESULTS: Management scenarios were divided into those for intraperitoneal anastomoses, extraperitoneal (low pelvic) anastomoses, and anastomoses with proximal diverting stomas. Management options were then based on the clinical presentation and radiographic findings and organized into three interconnected algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: This process was a useful first step toward establishing guidelines for the management of anastomotic leak.