-
British Journal of Hospital MedicineRecent interest in laparoscopic surgery has led to an increasing number of procedures being performed by minimally invasive techniques. Initial experience with... (Review)
Review
Recent interest in laparoscopic surgery has led to an increasing number of procedures being performed by minimally invasive techniques. Initial experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and advances in instrument design and surgical technique have enabled more sophisticated procedures such as laparoscopic colectomy to be performed.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Diseases; Humans; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 7921495
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jul 2022This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.
RESULTS
Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.
Topics: Colectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35650261
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8 -
Surgical Oncology Nov 2000The conventional and accepted treatment for curative resection of colon cancer is laparotomy with hemicolectomy for right or left sided lesions. The technique of colon... (Review)
Review
The conventional and accepted treatment for curative resection of colon cancer is laparotomy with hemicolectomy for right or left sided lesions. The technique of colon resection through an open laparotomy incision is well known. Over the past several years, laparoscopically assisted colectomy has been developed and studied, following the explosion of laparoscopic technology from the cholecystectomy experience and with acquisition of advanced general laparoscopic techniques. The right, left or sigmoid colon can be mobilized and regional lymphadenectomy performed using laparoscopic instruments and video-imaging equipment. The advantage of laparoscopic colectomy is the use of small abdominal port site and wound incisions which translate to reduced postoperative pain and analgesic requirement, earlier return of bowel function and normal physical activities, and shorter hospital stay without increasing health care costs. Laparoscopic colectomy compares favorably with open colectomy in terms of surgical morbidity and mortality. The laparoscopic approach has been shown to be technically and oncologically feasible with equivalent lymph node harvest from mesenteric lymphadenectomy and achieves adequate proximal and distal margins of colonic resection. Despite initial early anecdotal reports of port site cancer recurrence in laparoscopically assisted colectomy, port site recurrence is rare and its incidence is similar to incisional recurrences in conventional open colectomy. Recent prospective comparative studies have demonstrated equivalent patient survival and equivalent local or distant colon cancer recurrences for open versus laparoscopic curative resection of colon cancer.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Feasibility Studies; Health Care Costs; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymph Node Excision; Morbidity; Quality of Life; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 11356341
DOI: 10.1016/s0960-7404(01)00002-0 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Nov 2015While definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic surgery for right colectomy remain controversial. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
While definitive long-term results are not yet available, the global safety and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic surgery for right colectomy remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in safety of laparoscopic right colectomy, compared with open surgery, with particular attention to cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic review from 1991 to 2014 was performed searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42014015256). We included randomised and controlled clinical studies comparing laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Primary endpoints were 30 days mortality and overall morbidity. Then, a meta-analysis was conducted by a fixed-effect model, performing a sensitivity analysis by a random-effect model. Relative risk (RR) was used as an indicator of treatment effect; a RR less than 1.0 was in favour of laparoscopy. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot, heterogeneity by the I (2) test and subgroup analysis on oncologic patients.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies, representing 3049 patients, met the inclusion criteria; only 2 were randomised for a total of 211 patients. Mortality was observed in 1.2 % of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 3.4 % of patients in the open group. The overall RR was 0.45 (95 % CI 0.21-0.93, p = 0.031). The raw incidence of overall complications was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (16.8 %) compared to the open group (24.2 %). The overall RR was 0.81 (95 % CI 0.70-0.95, p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evidence of few randomised and mostly controlled series, mortality and morbidity were significantly lower after laparoscopy compared to open surgery.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Diseases; Colonic Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 26137968
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-015-2304-9 -
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Sep 1994To describe our surgical techniques for successful completion of laparoscopic-assisted segmental colectomy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To describe our surgical techniques for successful completion of laparoscopic-assisted segmental colectomy.
DESIGN
We reviewed the important preoperative, operative, and postoperative factors that should be considered for laparoscopic resection of the right, left, and sigmoid colon.
RESULTS
The current indications for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy include most benign colonic conditions (such as colorectal polyps, rectal prolapse, diverticular disease, and colonic lipomas). Laparoscopic procedures for malignant disease, however, are currently reserved for prospective trials and palliation of patients with stage IV colonic cancer because the adequacy of staging and lymphatic resection remains questionable. Patients who are appropriate candidates for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy should be counseled about the potential benefits, risks, and possible need for conversion to an open surgical procedure--a decision that should be considered application of sound surgical judgment rather than a failure. For laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, we prefer to use the closed technique for establishing a pneumoperitoneum. We use a two-surgeon, four-cannula approach for resections of the right and left colon and a three-surgeon, five-cannula technique for resections of the sigmoid colon. Laparoscopic techniques are used to mobilize the bowel and divide the principal blood supply; the resection and anastomosis are performed extracorporeally, with use of a small incision.
CONCLUSION
The associated morbidity and mortality rates are comparable to those for conventional open procedures. Despite a shortened period of ileus and fewer hospital days, the total costs for laparoscopic colectomy have been equivalent to those for standard colectomy. This result has generally been due to longer operative times, which should decrease with additional experience.
Topics: Colectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 8065183
DOI: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)61783-2 -
Il Giornale Di Chirurgia Apr 2007Aim of our study was to compare the results of the laparoscopic technique to those obtained by traditional open approach in patients with colon cancer. The advantages,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
Aim of our study was to compare the results of the laparoscopic technique to those obtained by traditional open approach in patients with colon cancer. The advantages, disadvantages, and the contraindications (real and presumptive) of this mini-invasive approach are described, by comparing the data obtained from the international literature with our clinical experience.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
From February 2000 to May 2006, we performed 73 laparoscopic colectomies for cancer in the Operative Unit of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences of the University of Chieti, Italy. The data of these patients were compared with the data obtained from 141 other patients who underwent open procedure for the same pathology in the same period and in the same Unit. Factors such as obesity, previous major abdominal surgery, T4 cancers, perforation and obstruction of the colon, tumor located in the transverse colon or in the left flexure of the colon were considered contraindications to laparoscopic approach.
RESULTS
The length of surgical specimens and the number of lymph nodes removed did not show significant differences in the two groups. Two patients in the open procedure group died in the postoperative period. No postoperative death was noted in the group of patients operated by laparoscopic method. Postoperative complications requiring re-operation were observed in 9 patients in the open group and in 3 patients of laparoscopic group. Postoperative complications not requiring re-operation were observed in 16 patients in the open group and in 4 patients in laparoscopic group. Hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic right or left colectomy compared to corresponding open procedures. At the follow-up (a mean 30 months), the overall survival was 78% for open colectomies and 82.1% for laparoscopic colectomies. Disease-free survival, excluding patients with stage IV tumor and patients died in the postoperative period, was 77.6% for open colectomies and 82.5% for laparoscopic colectomies. In the group of laparoscopic patients, we observed 1 case of port-site recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
Our clinical experience, even if limited by the number of patients and by the duration of follow-up period, contributes in confirming the reliability of laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of tumours of the colon and the safety of oncological results.
Topics: Aged; Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male
PubMed: 17475112
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Surgery Dec 1992Fifty-one laparoscopic colectomies were attempted at two institutions. The clinical results and methods are presented. Seven cases (14%) were converted to facilitated...
Fifty-one laparoscopic colectomies were attempted at two institutions. The clinical results and methods are presented. Seven cases (14%) were converted to facilitated procedures, and four cases (8%) were converted to "open." Cases of cancer, diverticulitis, endometriosis, regional enteritis, villous adenomas, and sessile polyps were operated. Right, transverse, left, low anterior, and abdominoperineal colectomies were performed. Colotomies and wedge resections were also performed. Laparoscopic suturing was required in five cases of incomplete anastomosis by circular stapler (18%). Suturing was required in all right, transverse colectomies and colotomies. Operative time averaged 2.3 hours. Hospitalization averaged 4.6 days. Four patients had complications (8%), and one 95-year-old died of pneumonia (2%). Laparoscopic colectomies can be performed safely, but require two-handed laparoscopic coordination, as well as suturing and knot-tying skills.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colectomy; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 1466626
DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199212000-00015 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Jan 2014Because of its technical difficulty, totally laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is performed only by a small number of surgeons and most of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Because of its technical difficulty, totally laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is performed only by a small number of surgeons and most of them use a laparoscopic-assisted technique with extracorporeal anastomosis. This systematic review aims to evaluate differences in outcomes of patients undergoing right laparoscopic colectomy, either with intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis. Electronic databases were searched for studies published between 1991 and 2012. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies comparing intracorporeal to extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy were included in the systematic review. Meta-analytical models were used to evaluate anastomotic leak rate and short-term overall morbidity. Defined primary outcomes of interest were operating time, conversion rate, return of bowel function, anastomotic leak rate, and length of hospital stay. Randomized controlled trials were not found, confirming the paucity of the literature on this topic. Six case-control studies were identified involving 484 patients undergoing right laparoscopic colectomy, 272 with intracorporeal and 212 with extracorporeal anastomosis. Best outcomes seem to be associated with totally laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis, especially in terms of return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, and cosmetic results. However, our meta-analysis did not show a significant difference between the two techniques in terms of anastomotic leak rate (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.30-3.15) or for short-term overall morbidity (OR 0.68; 95 % CI 0.41-1.12). Comparative analysis of outcomes is in favor of intracorporeal anastomosis. However, the meta-analysis results do not allow us to draw definitive conclusions. Further prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm our findings.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Colectomy; Colon; Humans; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23686680
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-013-1029-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2011Colectomy is a common procedures for both benign and malignant conditions. Increasingly more colectomy has been performed laparoscopically and there are several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Colectomy is a common procedures for both benign and malignant conditions. Increasingly more colectomy has been performed laparoscopically and there are several available instruments being used for this procedure. Of which three common dissecting instruments are: monopolar electrocautery scissors (MES), ultrasonic coagulating shears (UCS) and electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers (EBVS).
OBJECTIVES
The aim is to assess the safety and effectiveness of these instruments.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Studies were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Trials Register. Major journals were specifically hand searched. All randomised controlled trials were included.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All patients underwent elective laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted right, left or total colectomy or anterior resection for either benign or malignant conditions were included in the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data. The three primary outcomes were: overall blood loss, complications and operating time.
MAIN RESULTS
Six randomised controlled trials including 446 participants. Two trials compared three types of instruments (MES vs UCS vs EBVS). One trial compared MES and UCS. One trial compared UCS and EBVS. One trial compared 5 mm versus 10 mm EBVS. One trial compared the technique of laparoscopic staplers and clips versus EBVS in pedicle ligation during laparoscopic colectomy. The limitation of this review is the heterogeneity of the trials included. The measured outcomes were covered by one to three studies with small number of participants. With this in mind, there was significant less blood loss in UCS compared to MES. The operating time was significantly shorter with the use of EBVS than MES. No difference between UCS and EBVS apart from EBVS appeared to be handling better than UCS in one study. Haemostatic control was better in UCS and EBVS over MES. No definite conclusion on the cost difference between these three instrument but this would lie in the balance between the instrument cost and the operating time. The handling of 5 mm EBVS was better than 10 mm and its main advantage was trocar flexibility. Laparoscopic staplers/clips used for pedicle ligation in colectomy associated with more failure in vessel ligation and cost more when compared to EBVS.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The limitations of this review is the small number of trials and heterogeneity of the studies included. With the current evidence it is not possible to demonstrate which is the best instrument in laparoscopic colectomy. Hopefully more data would follow and subsequent updates of this review could become more informative.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Colectomy; Electrocoagulation; Humans; Laparoscopy; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 21563161
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007886.pub2 -
Surgical Endoscopy Aug 2016Laparoscopic colectomy has been associated with improved postoperative pain control, earlier return to work, and shorter hospital stays compared to open colectomy....
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic colectomy has been associated with improved postoperative pain control, earlier return to work, and shorter hospital stays compared to open colectomy. However, there are varied technical approaches to laparoscopic resections. We therefore sought to determine whether the straight laparoscopic approach was associated with shorter length of stay compared to hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted techniques for sigmoid colectomies.
METHODS
A retrospective review of laparoscopic sigmoid colectomies performed by five colorectal surgeons from 2010 to 2014 was performed. Approaches were defined as: (1) straight laparoscopic if colon mobilization, inferior mesenteric artery transection and intra-corporeal anastomosis were performed laparoscopically, (2) hand assisted if a hand port was utilized to assist with mobilization and vessel transection, and (3) laparoscopic assisted if only the colon mobilization was performed intra-corporeally. Poisson regression was performed to determine the impact of surgical technique on LOS while controlling for differences in patient factors.
RESULTS
A total of 191 patients were identified with 71 straight laparoscopic, 57 hand-assisted, and 63 laparoscopic-assisted cases. Substantial variability in choice of surgical technique was seen across surgeons. Patient populations were similar, with the exception of hand-assisted procedures being more often used in obese patients. Unadjusted average postoperative days to discharge were 3.6 days for straight laparoscopic and 4.1 and 4.0 days for hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted approaches, respectively. While controlling for factors associated with longer hospital stay, the straight laparoscopic approach was associated with a 14 % shorter stay compared to laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and a 15 % shorter stay compared to hand-assisted colectomy. The straight laparoscopic approach was also associated with earlier return of bowel function compared to other approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
The straight laparoscopic approach to sigmoid colectomy is associated with substantially shorter postoperative stay and earlier return of bowel function when compared to hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted techniques. When technically feasible, the straight laparoscopic approach is preferred.
Topics: Adult; Colectomy; Colon, Sigmoid; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 26541737
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4654-3