Search

Little is known about the clinical or patient-reported outcomes with non-operative management of ventral hernias. The aim of this prospective study is to determine the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing initial non-operative treatment of their ventral hernia. This was a prospective observational study of patients undergoing non-operative management of ventral hernias. Primary outcome was rate of surgical repair of the ventral hernias. Secondary outcomes included rate of emergency repair, elective repair, and emergency room visits. In addition, validated measurement tools for patient satisfaction and cosmetic satisfaction with their abdomen, abdominal pain, and patient function (modified Activities Assessment Scale, AAS) were utilized. Of 128 patients who underwent non-operative management of a ventral hernia, 99(77.3%) patients were followed for a median (interquartile range) of 12.2(10.4–13.5) months. Twenty (20.2%) patients had at least 1 emergency room visit associated with their hernia. One-quarter (n = 2323.2%) underwent ventral hernia repair following enrollment. Twenty (20.2%) underwent elective repair, and 3 (3.0%) underwent emergent repair. Based on the modified AAS survey, patients who were managed non-operatively experienced no change in patient centered outcomes, while patients converted to operative management had improved scores. While the short-term risk of emergency surgery with non-operative management of ventral hernias is moderate, the chance of an emergency room visit and surgery is high. Patients who undergo non-operative management of their ventral hernias have no change in patient-reported outcomes at one year, while those converted to operative management experience improvement.

Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients. A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese cohorts (BMI

Population-based studies evaluating laparoscopic colectomy and outcomes compared with open surgery have concentrated on elective resections. As such, data assessing non-elective laparoscopic colectomies are limited. Our goal was to evaluate the current usage and outcomes of laparoscopic in the urgent and emergent setting in the USA.A national inpatient database was reviewed from 2008 to 2011 for right, left, and sigmoid colectomies in the non-elective setting. Cases were stratified by approach into open or laparoscopic groups. Demographics, perioperative clinical variables, and financial outcomes were compared across each group.A total of 22,719 non-elective colectomies were analyzed. The vast majority (95.8 %) was open. Most cases were performed in an urban setting at non-teaching hospitals by general surgeons. Colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to perform a case laparoscopic than general surgeons (p 0.001). Demographics were similar between open and laparoscopic groups; however, the disease distribution by approach varied, with significantly more severe cases in the open colectomy arm (p 0.001). Cases performed laparoscopically had significantly better mortality and complication rates. Laparoscopic cases also had significantly improved outcomes, including shorter length of stay and hospital costs (all p 0.001).Our analysis revealed less than 5 % of urgent and emergent colectomies in the USA are performed laparoscopically. Colorectal surgeons were more likely to approach a case laparoscopically than general surgeons. Outcomes following laparoscopic colectomy in this setting resulted in reduced length of stay, lower complication rates, and lower costs. Increased adoption of laparoscopy in the non-elective setting should be considered.

There is an increasing emphasis on optimizing and measuring surgical quality. The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive techniques have been proven; however, direct comparison of outcomes across platforms has not been performed. Our goal was to compare operative times and quality across three minimally invasive platforms in colorectal surgery. A prospective database was reviewed for elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) cases from 2008 to 2014. Patients were stratified into multiport laparoscopic, single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches (RALS). Demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to predict the demographic and procedural factors and outcomes associated with each platform. The main outcome measures were operative time and surgical quality by approach. A total of 1055 cases were evaluated—28.4 % LAP, 18.5 % RALS, and 53.1 % SILS. RALS had the most complex patients, pathology, and procedures. The main diagnosis for RALS was rectal cancer (49.5 %), patients predominantly underwent pelvic surgery (72.8 %), had higher rates of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (p

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of a novel multimodal pain management strategy on intraoperative opioid requirements, postoperative pain, narcotic use, and length of stay.Consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were managed with an experimental protocol. The protocol uses a post-induction, pre-incision bilateral TAP block and local peritoneal infiltration at port sites with long-acting liposomal bupivacaine (20 mL long-acting liposomal bupivacaine, 30 mL 0.25 % bupivacaine, 30 mL saline). Experimental patients were matched on age, body mass index, gender, comorbidity, diagnosis, and procedure to a control group that received no block or local wound infiltration. Both groups followed a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. Demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. The main outcome measures were intraoperative opioids, postoperative pain, opioid use, and length of stay.Fifty patients were analyzed-25 experimental and 25 controls. Patients were well matched on all demographics. In both cohorts, the main diagnosis was colorectal cancer and primary procedure performed a segmental resection. Operative times were similar (p = 0.41). Experimental patients received significantly less intraoperative fentanyl (mean 158 mcg experimental vs. 299 mcg control; p 0.01). The experimental group had significantly lower initial (p 0.01) and final PACU pain scores (p = 0.04) and shorter LOS (3.0 vs. 4.1 days, p = 0.04) compared to controls. Experimental patients trended toward shorter PACU times and lower opioid use and daily pain scores throughout the hospital stay. Postoperative complication and readmission rates were similar across groups. There were no reoperations or mortality.Our multimodal pain management strategy reduced intraoperative opioid administration. Postoperatively, improvements in PACU time, postoperative pain and narcotic use, and lengths of stay were seen in the experimental cohort. With the favorable finding from the pilot study, further investigation is warranted to fully evaluate the impact of this pain management protocol on patient satisfaction, clinical and financial outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients. Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and non-obese cohorts (BMI