Search

Purpose: Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has proved superior compared to conventional surgery (CS) regarding morbidity, length of hospital stay, rate of wound infection and time until recovery. An improved preservation of the postoperative immune function is assumed to contribute to these benefits though the role of the local peritoneal immune response is still poorly understood. Our study investigates the peritoneal immune response subsequent to abdominal surgery and compares it between laparoscopic and conventional surgery to find an immunological explanation for the clinically proven benefits of LS., Methods: Wistar rats (N = 140) underwent laparoscopic cecum resection (LCR; N = 28), conventional cecum resection (CCR; N = 28), laparoscopic sham operation (LSO; N = 28), conventional sham operation (CSO; N = 28), or no surgical treatment (CTRL; N = 28). Postoperatively, peritoneal lavages were performed, leukocytes isolated and analyzed regarding immune function and phagocytosis activity., Results: Immune function was inhibited postoperatively in animals undergoing LCR or CCR compared to CTRL reflected by a lower TNF-α (CTRL 3956.65 pg/ml, LCR 2018.48 pg/ml (p = 0.023), CCR 2793.78 pg/ml (n.s.)) and IL-6 secretion (CTRL 625.84 pg/ml, LCR 142.84 pg/ml (p = 0.009), CCR 169.53 pg/ml (p = 0.01)). Phagocytosis was not affected in rats undergoing any kind of surgery compared to CTRL. Neither cytokine secretion nor phagocytosis activity differed significantly between laparoscopic and conventional surgery., Conclusions: According to our findings the benefits associated with LS compared to CS cannot be explained by differences in the postoperative peritoneal innate immune response. Further studies are needed to elucidate the causes for a more favorable postoperative outcome in patients after LS compared to CS.

Purpose: Laparoscopic surgery (LS) is gaining popularity worldwide because of benefits like faster recovery, earlier hospital discharge, and better cosmetic results. In hemophiliacs, surgery in general harbors an increased risk for severe complications. Whether LS or conventional surgery (CS) should be recommended in these patients is controversial and therefore the issue of our present study., Methods: We performed a retrospective matched-pair analysis including laparoscopically operated non-hemophiliacs (LONH), laparoscopically operated hemophiliacs (LOH), and conventionally operated hemophiliacs (COH) concerning duration of surgery, drainages, hospital stay, complications, factor use (VIII, IX, and X), and blood values. Mann-Whitney U test was used (significance level P = 0.05)., Results: No significant differences were found in duration of surgery and drains in laparoscopically or conventionally operated hemophiliacs versus matched pairs. Complication rate did not differ among the different groups. Concerning the total duration of hospital stay (t-DHOS) and the postoperative duration of hospital stay (p-DHOS), there was no statistical difference between LOH versus matched LONH. However, in COH versus matched LOH, a longer time was required for preparation and recovery (t-DHOS, P = 0.04; p-DHOS, P < 0.001). Also, the median factor supply perioperatively including the day of surgery did not differ between laparoscopically versus conventionally operated hemophiliacs., Conclusions: Our study underscores the safety and benefits of laparoscopic procedures in hemophiliacs by showing a significantly shorter hospital stay for these patients resulting in reduced therapeutic costs and a faster mobilization. Still, the surgical and perioperative management of hemophiliacs continues to be a challenge requiring an experienced interdisciplinary team.