Re-Operative Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is becoming increasingly common. It can be a challenging procedure, but its benefits can outweigh the associated risks.Methods
A systematic review of the literature reporting re-operative laparoscopic surgery was carried out. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies and case series were included, with case reports being excluded.Results
Seventeen articles dated from 2007 to 2020 were included in the systematic review. In total, 1555 patients were identified. Five hundred and seventy-four of them had a laparoscopic procedure and 981 an open re-operation. One hundred and eighty-three women had a laparoscopic operation. The median age ranged from to 44.9 years to 68.7 years. In seven studies, the indication of the index operation was malignancy, one study regarded re-laparoscopy for excision of lateral pelvic lymph nodes, and one study looked at redo surgery of ileal J pouch anal anastomosis. There were 16 mortalities in the laparoscopic arm (2.78%) and 93 (9.4%) in the open surgery arm. One hundred and thirty-seven morbidities were recorded in the open arm and 102 in the laparoscopic arm. Thirty-nine conversions to open occurred. The median length of stay ranged from 5.8 days to 19 days in laparoscopy and 9.7 to 34 days in the open surgery arm.Conclusions
Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe when performed by experienced hands. The management of complications, recurrence of malignancy, and lateral pelvic floor dissection can be safely performed. The complication rate is low, with conversion to open procedures being relatively uncommon.
SUBMITTER: Halkias C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8036625 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: Evidence of benefits of laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted colectomies (LAC) over open procedures in gastrointestinal surgery has continued to accumulate. With its wide implementation, technical difficulties and limitations of LAC have become clear. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in an attempt to facilitate the transition from open techniques to minimally invasive procedures. Continuing debate exists about which approach is to be preferred, HALS or LAC. Several studies have compared these two techniques in colorectal surgery, but no single study provided evidence which procedure is superior. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out comparing HALS with LAC colorectal resection. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Embase Cochrane) and cross-reference search. The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Minimal outcome criteria for inclusion were operating time, conversion rate, hospital stay, and morbidity. RESULTS: Out of 468 studies a total of 13 studies were selected for comprehensive review. Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 non-RCTs, comprising 1017 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Because of possible clinical heterogeneity two groups of procedures were created: segmental colectomies and total (procto)colectomies. In the segmental colectomy group significant differences in favor of the HALS group were seen in operating time (WMD 19 min) and conversion rate (OR of 0.3 conversions). In the total (procto)colectomy group a significant difference in favor of the HALS group was seen in operating time (WMD 61 min). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that HALS provides a more efficient segmental colectomy regarding operating time and conversion rate, particularly accounting for diverticulitis. A significant operating time advantage exists for HALS total (procto)colectomy. HALS must therefore be considered a valuable addition to the laparoscopic armamentarium to avoid conversion and speed up complicated colectomies.
| S-EPMC2471396 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: HD systems are routinely used in laparoscopic surgery, 4K ultra HD monitors are mainly available within specialized, high-volume laparoscopic centers. The higher resolution of 4K ultra HD video could upgrade the surgical performance improving intraoperative and post-operative outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of intraoperative parameters and post-operative outcomes in a cohort of patients operated on for elective laparoscopic procedures for colo-rectal cancer during two different time frames: 2017 procedures performed using the Visera Elite full HD technology (® Olympus America, Medical) and the 2018 procedures performed the Visera 4K Ultra HD System (® Olympus America, Medical). Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in operative time in patients operated on with the 4K ultra HD technology compared to HD technology (p < 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced in patients operated in 2018 (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in complication rate and postoperative outcomes between the two groups.
| S-EPMC7400694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSimulation has spread widely this last decade, especially in laparoscopic surgery, and training out of the operating room has proven its positive impact on basic skills during real laparoscopic procedures. Few articles dealing with advanced training in laparoscopic abdominal surgery, however, have been published. Such training may decrease learning curves in the operating room for junior surgeons with limited access to complex laparoscopic procedures as a primary operator.MethodsTwo reviewers, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library conducted a systematic research with combinations of the following keywords: (teaching OR education OR computer simulation) AND laparoscopy AND (gastric OR stomach OR colorectal OR colon OR rectum OR small bowel OR liver OR spleen OR pancreas OR advanced surgery OR advanced procedure OR complex procedure). Additional studies were searched in the reference lists of all included articles.ResultsFifty-four original studies were retrieved. Their level of evidence was low: most of the studies were case series and one fifth were purely descriptive, but there were eight randomized trials. Pig models and video trainers as well as gastric and colorectal procedures were mainly assessed. The retrieved studies showed some encouraging trends in terms of trainee satisfaction with improvement after training, but the improvements were mainly on the training tool itself. Some tools have been proven to be construct-valid.ConclusionHigher-quality studies are required to appraise educational value in this field.
| S-EPMC4150855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).We employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.CLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).Despite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.
| S-EPMC5779699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAppendectomy is a common emergency surgery performed globally. Despite the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy, consensus does not exist on the best way to perform each procedural step. We identified literature on key intraoperative steps to inform best technical practice during laparoscopic appendectomy.MethodsResearch questions were framed using the population, indication, comparison, outcome (PICO) format for 6 key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy: abdominal entry, placement of laparoscopic ports, division of mesoappendix, division of appendix, removal of appendix, and fascial closure. These questions were used to build literature queries in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Evidence quality and certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) definitions.ResultsRecommendations were rendered for 6 PICO questions based on 28 full length articles. Low quality evidence favors direct trocar insertion for abdominal entry and establishment of pneumoperitoneum. Single port appendectomy results in improved cosmesis with unclear clinical implications. There was insufficient data to determine the optimal method of appendiceal stump closure, but use of a specimen extraction bag reduces rates of superficial surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Port sites made with radially dilating trocars are less likely to necessitate closure and are less likely to result in port site hernia. When port sites are closed, a closure device should be used.ConclusionKey operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy have sufficient data to encourage standardized practice.
| S-EPMC8473533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite ongoing advances in the field of colorectal surgery, the quality of surgical treatment is still variable. As an intrinsic part of surgical quality, the technical information regarding the surgical procedure is reflected only by the narrative operative report (NR), which has been found to be subjective and regularly omits important information.ObjectiveTo investigate systematic video recording (SVR) as a potential improvement in quality and safety with regard to important information in colorectal cancer surgery.Design, setting, and participantsThe Imaging for Quality Control Trial was a prospective, observational cohort study conducted between January 12, 2016, and October 30, 2017, at 3 centers in the Netherlands. The study group consisted of 113 patients 18 years or older undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. These patients were case matched and compared with cases from a historical cohort that received only an NR.InterventionsAmong study cases, participating surgeons were requested to systematically capture predefined key steps of the surgical procedure intraoperatively on video in short clips.Main outcomes and measuresThe SVRs and NRs were analyzed for adequacy with respect to the availability of important information regarding the predefined key steps. Adequacy of the reported information was defined as the proportion of key steps with available and sufficient information in the report. Adequacy of the SVR and NR was compared between the study and control groups, with the SVR alone and as an adjunct to the NR in the study group vs NR alone in the control group.ResultsOf the 113 study patients, 69 women (61.1%) were included; mean (SD) age was 66.3 (9.8) years. In the control group, a mean (SD) of 52.5% (18.3%) of 631 steps were adequately described in the NR. In the study group, the adequacy of both the SVR (78.5% [16.5%], P < .001) and a combination of the SVR with NR (85.1% [14.6%], P < .001) was significantly superior to NR alone. The only significant difference between the study and historical control groups regarding postoperative and pathologic outcomes was a shorter postoperative mean (SD) length of stay in favor of the study group (8.0 [7.7] vs 8.6 [6.8] days; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceUse of SVR in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery as an adjunct to the NR might be superior in documenting important steps of the operation compared with NR alone, adding to the overall availability of necessary intraoperative information and contributing to quality control and objectivity.
| S-EPMC6537773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for patients with postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgery.Methods and analysisWe will search the following databases from their inception to October 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), three Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) and the Wanfang database), one Japanese database (Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic (J-STAGE)) and eight Korean databases (Korean Association of Medical Journal Edition, Korean Medical Database, Korean Studies Information Service System, National Discovery for Science Leaders, Database Periodical Information Academic, Korean National Assembly Digital Library, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System and Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal). All randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgery will be considered for inclusion. The risk of bias and reporting quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA). The risk ratio for dichotomous data and mean difference or standard mean difference for continuous data will be calculated with 95% CIs.DisseminationThe results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication or conference presentation. Our findings will summarise the current evidence of acupuncture to treat postoperative pain after laparoscopic surgery, and may provide important guidance for acupuncture usage after laparoscopic surgery for clinicians and patients.Trial registration numberPROSPERO 2014: CRD42014010825.
| S-EPMC4275696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fast-track surgery (FTS), a multimodal rehabilitation technique, has been recommended as surgical therapy for colorectal cancer. The objective of the present study was to compare the outcomes of FTS and conventional laparoscopic surgery. This study was a blinded randomized trial. A total of 70 patients with colorectal cancer were divided into two groups and underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection. The FTS group consisted of 31 patients and the control group consisted of 39 patients. Protocols for the treatment of the FTS group included skipping pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation, early restoration of diet and early post-operative ambulation. Outcome measures, length of hospital stay, post-operative surgical stress response [C-reactive protein (CRP)] and post-operative complications were compared between the two groups. The average length of total hospital stay for the FTS and the control groups was 5.9±0.8 and 10.9±1.3 days, respectively (P<0.05), and the length of post-operative hospital stay for the FTS and control group was 4.3±0.8 and 8.0±1.1 days, respectively. (P<0.05) First flatus time for the FTS and control groups was 1.6±0.8 and 2.5±0.9 days, respectively (P<0.05). Defecation time for the FTS and control groups was 2.2±0.7 and 4.5±0.7 days, respectively (P<0.05). The time to restoration of a solid diet also showed a significant difference between the FTS and control groups (1.1±0.3 vs. 3.6±0.9 days; P<0.05). Following surgery, due to post-operative surgical stress, the two groups CRP levels increased significantly, but the levels of the FTS group were lower than those of the conventional control group (P<0.05). There was no difference in post-operative complications between the FTS and control groups. This study confirms that FTS shortens hospital stay and accelerates the recovery of bowel function without increase of post-operative complications. FTS is safe, improves post-operative recovery and is a better option than conventional laparoscopic surgery for treating colorectal cancer patients.
| S-EPMC4487143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn colon cancer, T4 stage is still assumed to be a relative contraindication for laparoscopic surgery considering the oncological safety. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate short- and long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer, and to compare these with open surgery.MethodsUsing systematic review of literature, studies reporting on radicality of resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and/or overall survival (OS) after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer were identified, with or without a control group of open surgery. Pooled proportions and risk ratios were calculated using an inverse variance method.ResultsThirteen observational cohort studies published between 2012 and 2017 were included, together consisting of 1217 patients that received laparoscopic surgery and 1357 with an open procedure. The proportion of multivisceral resections was larger in the open group in five studies. Based on 11 studies, the pooled proportion of R0 resection was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.98) after laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Analysing (mainly) T4a subgroups in 6 evaluable studies revealed pooled R0 resection rates of 0.94 in both groups. No significant differences were found between laparoscopic and open surgery for any survival measure: RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96-1.20) for 3-year DFS, RR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.15) for 5-year DFS, RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14) for 3-year OS, and RR 1.05 (95% CI: 0.98-1.12) for 5-year OS.ConclusionLiterature on laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer is restricted to non-randomized comparisons with substantial allocation bias. Laparoscopic surgery for T4a tumours might be safe, whereas for T4b colon cancer requiring multivisceral resection it should be applied with caution.
| S-EPMC5715041 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Laparoscopic colectomy has not been accepted as quickly as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is because of its steep learning curve, concerns with oncological outcomes, lack of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and initial reports on port-site recurrence after curative resection. The aim of this review is to summarise current evidence on laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Review of literature following Medline search using key words 'laparoscopic', 'colorectal' and 'surgery'.Laparoscopic colorectal surgery proved to be safe, cost-effective and with improved short-term outcomes. However, further studies are needed to assess the role of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and the value of enhanced recovery protocols in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections.
| S-EPMC2966156 | biostudies-literature