Search

Background: The development of modern videoendoscopy enables surgeons to perform laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer., Aim: This manuscript evaluated the literature concerning clinically relevant differences in the short and long-term course after laparoscopic or conventional resection of colonic cancer., Methods: An investigation of meta-analyses from randomized controlled clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and conventional surgery for colonic cancer was carried out., Results: The incidence of intraoperative complications was higher during laparoscopic surgery, the duration of surgery was increased and blood loss was less when compared to open surgery. Overall morbidity and the incidence of surgical complications were decreased after laparoscopic surgery. General morbidity and mortality were not different after laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer. Duration of hospital stay was shorter but was also associated with the type of perioperative care (i.e. traditional or enhanced recovery). Following minimally invasive or conventional resection, the incidence of tumor recurrence (local and distant) and the duration of survival (overall and disease-free) showed no differences. Wound implantations were rare after both operative techniques but with a tendency to occur more often after laparoscopic than open resection., Conclusion: Laparoscopic resection of colonic cancer has clinically relevant short-term benefits for the patients and long-term results are not different from open colectomy. However, most of the patients included in randomized controlled trials underwent right or left colectomy and sigmoid or rectosigmoid resections. Data with a high level of evidence concerning carcinomas of the flexures or the transverse colon do not exist. Suitable patients with colonic cancer should undergo laparoscopic resection by experienced surgeons.

Background: Randomized trials in low-risk populations have failed to show any benefit for laparoscopic compared with open colorectal resection in terms of morbidity. Furthermore, it is not known whether laparoscopic colorectal resection would yield advantages if randomization were revealed during surgery after a diagnostic laparoscopy., Methods: Patients with cancer of the colon or upper rectum were randomly assigned to laparoscopic or open resection. All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to assess whether laparoscopic resection was feasible and the result of randomization was then revealed to the surgeon. Main endpoints were overall, general and surgical morbidity, and mortality., Results: Some 679 patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy which led to the exclusion of 207; 250 patients were allocated to laparoscopic and 222 to open resection. Conversion to laparotomy occurred in 28 patients (11.2 per cent). There were no differences in morbidity (overall 25.2 versus 23.9 per cent) or mortality (1.2 versus 0.9 per cent) between laparoscopic and open groups. Postoperative hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic resection (median (range) 10 (1-123) versus 12 (4-109) days; P = 0.032)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is associated with increased operating time but does not decrease morbidity even in a moderate-risk population., (Copyright (c) 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.)

Background: Randomised, controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews of RCT with meta-analysis are considered to be of highest methodological quality and therefore are given the highest level of evidence (Ia/b). Although, "low-quality" RCT may be downgraded to level of evidence IIb, the methodological quality of each individual RCT is not respected in detail in this classification of the level of evidence., Materials and Methods: Within a systematic Cochrane Review of RCT on short-term benefits of laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resections, the methodological quality of all included RCT was evaluated. All RCT were assessed by the Evans and Pollock questionnaire (E and P increasing quality from 0-100) and the Jadad score (increasing quality from 0-5)., Results: Publications from 28 RCT printed from 1996 to 2005 were included in the analysis. Methodological quality of RCT was only moderate [E & P 55 (32-84); Jadad 2 (1-5)]. There was a significant correlation between the E & P and the Jadad score (r = 0.788; p < 0.001). Methodological quality of RCT slightly increased with increasing number of patients included (r = 0.494; p = 0.009) and year of publication (r = 0.427; p = 0.03). Meta-analysis of all RCT yielded clinically relevant differences for overall and local morbidity when compared to meta-analysis of "high-quality" (E & P > 70) RCT only., Conclusion: The methodological quality of reports of RCT comparing laparoscopic and open colorectal resection varies considerably. In a systematic review, methodological quality of RCT should be assessed because meta-analysis of "high-quality" RCT may yield different results than meta-analysis of all RCT.

Background: Laparoscopic resection of the sigmoid colon is generally considered as feasible option to open surgery, but standardised guidelines on surgical details have not been adopted yet. The aim of this survey was to investigate which techniques were applied by laparoscopic surgeons who are members of the Surgical Working Group for Minimal Invasive Surgery (CAMIC) of the German Surgical Society., Materials and Methods: In 2005, we conducted a written survey among all members of the CAMIC asking them for their routine surgical strategy of laparoscopic sigmoid resection in a standardised multiple-choice questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of 20 questions covering main technical issues of laparoscopic sigmoid resection including trocar and team positioning, mobilisation and resection of the left colon, specimen retrieval as well as anastomosing technique. The results were classified into four levels of consensus depending on the level of agreement between participating surgeons., Results: There were 292 surgeons who took part in the survey. Strong consensus (>95% agreement) was only found in 1 of 20 technical details: the operating surgeon standing at the patient right's side. Consensus (75-95% agreement) was found for: position of the first assistant standing to the patient's left side, size of the camera port is 10 mm, lateral mobilisation of the left hemicolon before ligating the inferior mesenteric artery, extracorporeal resection of the sigmoid via minilaparotomy, transrectal stapling of the colorectal anastomosis, intraoperative testing of the anastomosis for leakage, no regular suturing over the anastomosis and irrigating of the abdominal cavity after surgery., Conclusions: Variability of technical details of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy was surprisingly high among German laparoscopic surgeons. This fact should be considered when discussing clinical studies about laparoscopic sigmoidectomy because trocar position, type of minilaparotomy and dissection techniques may very well influence patient outcome after laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, publications of clinical results concerning laparoscopic sigmoid resection should include a precise description of the technical details of the operation.

Background and Aims: After rectal cancer surgery, postoperative general complications occur in 25-35% of all patients and postoperative hospital stay is 14-21 days. "Fast-track" rehabilitation has been shown to accelerate recovery, reduce general morbidity and decrease hospital stay after elective colonic surgery. Because the feasibility of "fast-track" rehabilitation in patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery has not been demonstrated yet, we demonstrate our initial results of "fast-track" rectal cancer surgery., Patients and Methods: Seventy consecutive unselected patients undergoing rectal cancer resection by one surgeon underwent a perioperative "fast-track" rehabilitation. Demographic and operative data, pulmonary function, pain and fatigue, local and general complications and mortality were assessed prospectively., Results and Findings: Thirty-six female and 34 male patients aged 65 (34-77) years underwent open (n=31) or laparoscopic (n=39) anterior resection with partial mesorectal excision (PME 27), anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and protective loop ileostomy (TME 29) or abdominoperineal excision with colostomy (APR 14). Overall, pulmonary function returned to >80% of preoperative value on day 2 (1-4) and the first bowel movement occurred on day 1 (0-3) after surgery. The incidence of local and general complications was 27 and 18%, respectively. Postoperative hospital stay was 8 (3-50) days overall, but shorter after PME [5 (3-47)] than TME [10 (5-42)] or APR [9 (5-50)] (p<0.01)., Interpretation and Conclusion: "Fast-track" rehabilitation was feasible in patients undergoing rectal cancer resection. Local morbidity was not increased, while general morbidity and postoperative hospital stay compared favourably to other series with "traditional" perioperative care.

Introduction: Laparoscopic (LAP) versus open (CON) colonic resection with traditional perioperative care has some short term benefits postoperatively regarding functional recovery. Whether these benefits may also occur when all patients are treated with multimodal "fast-track"-rehabilitation programs is questionable., Methods: Patients undergoing elective left sided colonic surgery were prospectively non randomised observed. The "fast-track" program included patient information, thoracic peridural analgesia, forced mobilisation and oral intake, and stress reduction. Endpoints were duration of postoperative ileus and hospital stay, general- and local complication, and pulmonary function., Results: 147 consecutive patients were operated on, 47 open and 100 laparoscopically. The time until oral intake was completed seemed to be shorter in the LAP-group (p=0.07) followed by a shorter hospital stay (p<0.01). The pulmonary function was postoperatively improved in the LAP-group compared to the CON-group (p<0,01). General complications (LAP 9% vs. CON 17%) were non significantly increased in the CON-group. Local complications increased in the CON-group (LAP 13% vs. CON 28%, p<0,05)., Conclusion: Even with perioperative "fast-track"-rehabilitation programs short term advantages were found in laparoscopic compared with open colonic surgery in a non randomised population. The clinical relevance should be examined in controlled randomised trials.

Background and Aims: An impaired visceral perfusion caused by pneumoperitoneum may contribute to morbidity after laparoscopic surgery. The following three therapeutic concepts: increasing cardiac preload, controlled vasodilation, or selective sympathetic antagonism, were evaluated regarding a possible increase of visceral blood flow during pneumoperitoneum with carbon dioxide., Methods: Forty three pigs were assigned to treatment with an increase of preload and vasodilation (group A) or selective sympathetic antagonism with esmolol (group B). In both groups, pigs were assigned to head-up, head-down, or supine position. Perfusion of the vena porta and renal artery was measured by transonic volume flow meters and documented before capnoperitoneum, after induction of a 14-mmHg capnoperitoneum in each body position, after controlled vasodilation with sodium nitroprusside, and after controlled increase of intravascular volume by colloidal infusion., Results: Increasing intravascular volume improved portal blood flow in all body positions (p<0.05), but not renal blood flow. Medication of esmolol did not alter the measured parameters in any body position compared to control. Vasodilation with sodium nitroprusside reduced renal blood flow in supine and in head-up position., Conclusion: An optimal intravascular volume was most effective in improving portal blood flow during capnoperitoneum in this trial. Esmolol had no negative effects on portal and renal blood flow. Patients with renal dysfunction might be treated carefully with sodium nitroprusside during capnoperitoneum.

Background: A reduced peritoneal fibrinolytic capacity after surgery is currently accepted to be the main cause for postoperative adhesions. The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to determine the fibrinolytic activity in peritoneal fluid after laparoscopic as compared to conventional colorectal resection., Methods: A randomized controlled trial in parallel with the multicenter trial Lapkon II was conducted. Peritoneal fluid was sampled via drain at 2, 8, and 24 h after elective laparoscopic (n=14; LAP) and conventional (n=16; CON) colorectal resections. Activities and concentrations of tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA), plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 (PAI-1) and t-PA/PAI complex were determined in all specimen by ELISA kits., Results: There was no difference in age, sex or body mass index between both groups. Postoperatively, t-PA activity decreased in both groups and was lower 2 h after closing the abdomen in the laparoscopic group (p<0.05). PAI-1 activity and concentration increased in both groups. Difference between the groups was measured for PAI-1 concentration after 24 h (p<0.05). There were no differences between the groups regarding t-PA concentrations, PAI-1 activity and t-PA/PAI complex., Conclusions: After closing the abdominal cavity, postoperative changes in fibrinolytic capacity of peritoneal fluid can be determined in samples collected by a drain. However, there were no major differences in the postoperative course of fibrinolytic capacity in peritoneal fluid after laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resections.

Background: Colorectal resections are common surgical procedures all over the world. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is technically feasible in a considerable amount of patients under elective conditions. Several short-term benefits of the laparoscopic approach to colorectal resection (less pain, less morbidity, improved reconvalescence and better quality of life) have been proposed., Objectives: This review compares laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resection with regards to possible benefits of the laparoscopic method in the short-term postoperative period (up to 3 months post surgery)., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1991 to 2004. We also handsearched the following journals from 1991 to 2004: British Journal of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, Annals of Surgery, Surgery, World Journal of Surgery, Disease of Colon and Rectum, Surgical Endoscopy, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, Der Chirurg, Zentralblatt für Chirurgie, Aktuelle Chirurgie/Viszeralchirurgie. Handsearch of abstracts from the following society meetings from 1991 to 2004: American College of Surgeons, American Society of Colorectal Surgeons, Royal Society of Surgeons, British Assocation of Coloproctology, Surgical Association of Endoscopic Surgeons, European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons, Asian Society of Endoscopic Surgeons., Selection Criteria: All randomised-controlled trial were included regardless of the language of publication. No- or pseudorandomised trials as well as studies that followed patient's preferences towards one of the two interventions were excluded, but listed separately. RCT presented as only an abstract were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: Results were extracted from papers by three observers independently on a predefined data sheet. Disagreements were solved by discussion. 'REVMAN 4.2' was used for statistical analysis. Mean differences (95% confidence intervals) were used for analysing continuous variables. If studies reported medians and ranges instead of means and standard deviations, we assumed the difference of medians to be equal to the difference of means. If no measure of dispersion was given, we tried to obtain these data from the authors or estimated SD as the mean or median. Data were pooled and rate differences as well as weighted mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects models., Main Results: 25 RCT were included and analysed. Methodological quality of most of these trials was only moderate and perioperative treatment was very traditional in most studies. Operative time was longer in laparoscopic surgery, but intraoperative blood was less than in conventional surgery. Intensity of postoperative pain and duration of postoperative ileus was shorter after laparoscopic colorectal resection and pulmonary function was improved after a laparoscopic approach. Total morbidity and local (surgical) morbidity was decreased in the laparoscopic groups. General morbidity and mortality was not different between both groups. Until the 30th postoperative day, quality of life was better in laparoscopic patients. Postoperative hospital stay was less in laparoscopic patients., Authors' Conclusions: Under traditional perioperative treatment, laparoscopic colonic resections show clinically relevant advantages in selected patients. If the long-term oncological results of laparoscopic and conventional resection of colonic carcinoma show equivalent results, the laparoscopic approach should be preferred in patients suitable for this approach to colectomy.

Background: Although the pneumoperitoneum decreases venous reflux from the lower extremities, the rate of thromboembolic complcations seems to be lower after laparoscopic than after conventional procedures. Therefore, it has been assumed that laparoscopic surgery better preserves the intravasal fibrinolytic capacity. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of the operative technique on intravasal fibrinolytic capacity in colorectal resection., Methods: Randomized controlled trial conducted in parallel with the multicenter trial LAPKON II comparing the long-term effects of elective laparoscopic (group I) and conventional (group II) resections for colorectal cancer. Blood samples were taken from 30 patients preoperatively, at the beginning and end of surgery as well as 2, 8, and 24 hr postoperatively. Activities and concentrations of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1), tPA/PAI complex, fibrinogen, and D-dimers were determined in all specimen with ELISA tests. Area under the curve values (AUC) were calculated for all parameters., Results: Patient characteristics and indication for surgery were not different between both groups. Preoperative values of fibrinolytic parameters were similar in both groups. Postoperatively, tPA activity decreased significantly in both groups, but AUC values for tPA and PAI-1 activity (p = 0.23; p = 0.68); concentration of tPA, PAI-1, and tPA/PAI complex (p = 0.52; p = 0.78; p = 0.95); and concentration of fibrinogen and D-dimers (p = 0.67; p = 0.71) did not differ between the groups., Conclusions: An intravasal fibrinolytic "shutdown" occurs not only after conventional but also after laparoscopic colorectal resection. Both operative techniques had similar effects on postoperative intravasal fibrinolytic capacity. Therefore, the lower incidence of thromboembolic complications after laparoscopic colorectal resections does not seem to be caused by a lesser depression of the intravasal fibrinolytic capacity.

Background and Aims: Reduced fibrinolytic activity of the peritoneum seems to be the main cause of postoperative adhesions. This prospective randomized trial compared the peritoneal fibrinolytic activity between laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resection., Methods: Parietal peritoneal biopsy specimens were taken in standardized elective laparoscopic ( n=14) and conventional ( n=16) colorectal resections at the beginning and at the end of surgery. Activities and concentrations of tissue-plasminogen activator (tPA), plasminogen activator (PAI) type 1, and tPA/PAI complex were determined by ELISA kits., Results: There was no difference in age, sex, or body mass index between the two groups. Perioperative tPA activity decreased in both groups without differences between the groups. Concentrations and activities of tPA, PAI-1, and tPA/PAI complex did not differ between the groups at any time., Conclusion: Peritoneal concentrations and activities of tPA, PAI-1, and tPA/PAI complex are similar during laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resections. A capnoperitoneum of 12 mmHg over 3 h did not affect the peritoneal fibrinolytic activity

Design: The efficacy of laparoscopic resection of colorectal tumours was evaluated in a prospective observational study., Patients: All patients with elective laparoscopic resection for colorectal tumours between 1995 and 1997 were included., Main Results: Laparoscopic resections were accomplished in 70 patients with a mean age of 61.9 +/- 15.6 years--most of them (n = 45) left-sided. The operative time was 232 +/- 75 minutes and the estimated blood loss 235 +/- 123 ml. In six patients (8.6%) laparoscopic-assisted procedures were performed, and no patient had to be converted to a conventional midline incision. Intraoperative complications occurred in one patient, postoperative general complications in 2.9% and surgical complications in 5.7%. Clinically relevant anastomotic leaks were not recorded. No patient died postoperatively. Reconvalescence was short, first bowel movement was documented after 3.3 +/- 1.3 days. Postoperative hospital stay was 10.1 +/- 3.1 days., Conclusion: Laparoscopic resection of colorectal tumours can be accomplished with a low complication rate with proper selection of patients and experience of the surgical team. However, the indication for laparoscopic resection must consider all aspects of an oncological treatment.

To evaluate whether laparoscopic appendectomy shortens the convalescence and the postoperative period until return to work when compared to conventional appendectomy, a prospective randomized trial was performed. The major endpoint of the study was the time until return to work; minor endpoints were postoperative pain, fatigue, operative time and postoperative morbidity. In all, 54 patients with a mean age of 29.5 +/- 10.1 years were randomized to open (n = 28) or laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 26). Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) rating, job status as well as histologic degree of inflammation of the appendix were comparable in the two groups. Operative time was 59.2 +/- 15.8 min for laparoscopic and 59.8 +/- 24.4 min for conventional appendectomy (P = 0.9). Some 16 laparoscopic appendectomies (62%) were performed by board-certified surgeons, while 23 conventional appendectomies (82%) were performed by residents (P = 0.003). Postoperative morbidity was comparable between the two groups. After laparoscopic appendectomy, pain was rated significantly lower on the first, second and fourth postoperative day when compared to the conventional group. There were no difference in postoperative fatigue between the groups. Time to return to work was 17.0 +/- 6.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 18.2 +/- 6.0 days in the conventional group (p = 0.5). Laparoscopic appendectomy has no advantages in terms of convalescence and time to return to work when compared to open appendectomy and should therefore be limited to selected cases.