Single Port and Conventional Laparoscopy in Colorectal Surgery: Comparison of Two Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to further the enhanced outcome of conventional multiport laparoscopy (CML). We compared their short- and long-term outcomes in colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 3-year period. Patients' data, surgery outcomes, and oncological results were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (33 male, 28 female), mean age 67.4 years, underwent laparoscopic colonic resections: 28 SILS and 33 CML. Twenty-three (37.7%) patients had previous abdominal surgery. There were 19 (31.2%) right, 9 (14.7%) left, and 2 (3.3%) total colectomies, 16 (26.2%) sigmoidectomies, 13 (21.3%) anterior and 2 (3.3%) abdominoperineal resections. Colonic malignancy was a main indication for the surgery in 51 (83.6%) patients. Mean surgery time and postoperative stay were 92.0 minutes and 9 days, respectively. Pathological examination revealed stage I colon cancer in 16 (32%), stage II in 22 (44%), stage III in 10 (20%), and stage IV in 2 (4%) patients. Mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 19 ± 13.5. No differences were found between groups in demographic data, type of surgery, surgery time and hospital stay, pathological results and tumor staging, and disease-free and overall survivals. In the SILS group, placement of additional trocar was required in 7 (25%) and conversion in 3 (10.7%) cases compared with 1 (3%) case of conversion to formal laparotomy in the CML group. Overall postoperative morbidity was 16.4%. There was no mortality in both the groups. During the study period, 3 patients from the CML group had cancer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: SILS is a feasible and safe technique compared with CML in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic diagnosis and treatment of postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND: There is no unequivocal attitude to a laparoscopy as to the means in the diagnosis and treatment of postoperative surgical complications. Our study sought to determine the role of laparoscopy in the management of suspected postoperative complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the patients who underwent laparoscopy for complications of previous surgery over a 6-year period. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients underwent laparoscopy for complications during the study period including 49 laparoscopies, 14 laparotomies, and 1 endoscopic procedure. The median delay between operations was 2 +/- 4.5 days. In 18 (28.1%) patients, laparoscopy did not find intra-abdominal pathology. The conversion to open surgery was necessary in 9 (14.1%) patients. Seven patients underwent more than 1 relaparoscopy. No cases of misdiagnosis were observed. Morbidity was 12.5%. There was no laparoscopy-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is an effective tool for the management of postoperative complications after open and laparoscopic surgery. It avoids diagnostic delay and unnecessary laparotomy.

Early relaparoscopy for management of suspected postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of complications after laparoscopic surgery is difficult and sometimes late. METHODS: We compared the outcome of patients who had early (<48 h) relaparoscopy for suspected postoperative complication to those where relaparoscopy was delayed (>48 h). RESULTS: During the study period, 7726 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery on our service. Of these, 57 (0.7%) patients had relaparoscopy for suspected complication. The primary operations were elective in 48 patients and emergent in nine. Thirty-seven patients had early, 20 had delayed, secondary operations. The most common indication in the early group was excessive pain (46%) followed by peritoneal signs in 35%. In the delayed group, the most common indication was signs of systemic inflammatory response syndrome in 30% and peritoneal signs in 25%. Relaparoscopy was negative in 16 (28%) patients with no difference between groups. The identified complication was treated laparoscopically in 37(65%) patients, and the rest were converted. The patients in the delayed group had a significantly longer hospital stay (p < 0.003) and had a higher rate of complications (p < 0.05). They also had a higher mortality rate (10% vs. 2.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A policy of early relaparoscopy in patients with suspected complications enables timely management of identified complications with expedient resolution.

Complicated appendicitis: laparoscopic or conventional surgery?

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment of complicated appendicitis remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of complicated appendicitis in comparison with open surgery. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent an appendectomy for complicated appendicitis between January 2001 and August 2005. RESULTS: We identified 98 patients with complicated appendicitis. Forty-eight patients underwent open appendectomy, 42 laparoscopic appendectomy, and 8 initial laparoscopy with conversion to open surgery. Older patients, patients with comorbidities, and female patients were more likely to have been offered a laparoscopic appendectomy. Operating time, time to solid oral intake, and time of hospital stay were prolonged in the laparoscopic group but not significantly. There was no mortality observed in either group, and the complication rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy is an acceptable procedure for complicated appendicitis, with the same rate of infectious complications as the conventional approach.