Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The use of laparoscopy surgery in the management of rectal cancer is controversial, especially in the mid and low rectum. The aim of this study was to determine oncologic and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer. METHODS:Between January 1999 and December 2006, 185 patients had surgery for rectal cancer; 103 these patients had mid and low rectal cancer. The source of data was inpatient/outpatient medical records. Telephone interviews were conducted for all patients. Actuarial survival was calculated with use of the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS:Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was performed in 58 (56.3%) patients, and pure laparoscopic surgery in 45 (43.7%) patients. Mean follow-up time was 42.1 months. The conversion rate was 2.9%. All specimen margins were negative. The anastomotic leak rate was 7.8% (n = 8). There was no 30-day mortality. Local recurrence rate was 5% at five years. Overall survival was 91% and disease-free survival was 73.1% at five years. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic surgical techniques for mid and low rectal cancer seem safe and feasible with acceptable oncologic and long-term outcomes. Further studies, comparing laparoscopic and open methods, are warranted.

BACKGROUND:Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) requires a larger incision compared with standard laparoscopic surgery (SLS). Whether this leads to more longterm complications, such as incisional hernia (IH) and small bowel obstruction (SBO), has not been studied to date. This study compares the rates of SBO and IH after HALS and SLS in patients undergoing operations for colon and rectal diseases. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:From a colorectal database, 536 consecutive patients were identified who underwent bowel resection using HALS (n = 266) and SLS (n = 270) between 2001 to 2006. All medical records were reviewed, and all subjects were contacted by telephone for accurate followup. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests, where appropriate. RESULTS:Median followup was 27 months (range 1 to 72 months). Overall conversion rate was 2.2% (SLS, n = 4; HALS, n = 8). Median incision size in HALS (75 mm; range 60 to 140 mm) was larger than SLS (45 mm; range 30 to 130 mm; p < 0.01). Despite the larger wound, the incidence of IH was similar between both approaches (HALS, n = 16 [6.0%] versus SLS, n = 13 [4.8%]; p < 0.54). Rate of SBO was also comparable (HALS, n = 11 [4.1%] versus SLS, n = 20 [7.4%]; p = 0.11). Wound infections occurred similarly between both groups (HALS, n = 18 [6.8%]; SLS, n = 13 [4.8%]; p = 0.33). Converted patients had a higher rate of IH compared with nonconverted ones (25% versus 5%; p = 0.02), although the rate of SBO was similar (8.3% versus 5.7%; p = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS:HALS does not lead to more longterm complications of IH and SBO when compared with SLS for resections of the colon and rectum.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The study investigated the impact of prior abdominal surgery on conversions and outcomes of laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS:A consecutive series of 414 patients with cancer or adenomas who underwent a laparoscopic right colectomy from March 1996 to November 2006 were studied for surgical conversions and outcomes. Conversion was defined as an incision length > 7 cm. RESULTS:Patients with prior abdominal surgery (n = 191) were compared with patients with no prior abdominal surgery (n = 223), and showed no significant differences in age, ASA classification, length of stay, operative time, blood loss, harvested nodes, tumor size, and specimen length. Significantly more wound infections occurred in the prior abdominal surgery group (22 vs.12, P = 0.023). Body mass index > 30 showed a three-fold increased risk of conversion. Fifteen percent of the no prior abdominal surgery patients and 17 percent of the prior abdominal surgery patients were converted (P > 0.05). Conversion was associated with a longer mean length of stay (8.8 days) relative to laparoscopically completed cases (6.3 days) regardless of prior abdominal surgery history (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic right colectomy for neoplasia was not associated with a higher conversion rate or morbidity in patients with prior abdominal surgery. Prior abdominal surgery is not a contraindication to laparoscopic right colectomy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study was designed to compare short-term outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. straight laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS:Eleven surgeons at five centers participated in a prospective, randomized trial of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoid/left colectomy and total colectomy. The study was powered to detect a 30-minute reduction in operative time between hand-assisted laparoscopic and straight laparoscopic groups. RESULTS:There were 47 hand-assisted patients (33 sigmoid/left colectomy, 14 total colectomy) and 48 straight laparoscopic patients (33 sigmoid/left colectomy, 15 total colectomy). There were no differences in the patient age, sex, body mass index, previous surgery, diagnosis, and procedures performed between the hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic groups. Resident participation in the procedures was similar for all groups. The mean operative time (in minutes) was significantly less in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group for both the sigmoid colectomy (175 +/- 58 vs. 208 +/- 55; P = 0.021) and total colectomy groups (time to colectomy completion, 127 +/- 31 vs. 184 +/- 72; P = 0.015). There were no apparent differences in the time to return of bowel function, tolerance of diet, length of stay, postoperative pain scores, or narcotic usage between the hand-assisted laparoscopic and straight laparoscopic groups. There was one (2 percent) conversion in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group and six (12.5 percent) in the straight laparoscopic group (P = 0.11). Complications were similar in both groups (hand-assisted, 21 percent vs. straight laparoscopic, 19 percent; P = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS:In this prospective, randomized study, hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in significantly shorter operative times while maintaining similar clinical outcomes as straight laparoscopic techniques for patients undergoing left-sided colectomy and total abdominal colectomy.

BACKGROUND:Iatrogenic perforation of the colon during elective colonoscopy is a rare but serious complication. Treatment using laparoscopic methods is a novel approach, only described in the recent literature. We hypothesized that laparoscopic treatment of iatrogenic colon perforation would result in equal therapeutic efficacy, less perioperative morbidity, smaller incisions and decreased length of stay, and an overall better short-term outcome compared to open methods. METHODS:We reviewed our prospectively collected patient database from July 2001 to July 2005 and compared the intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic primary repair versus those who had open primary repairs of iatrogenically perforated large bowel. RESULTS:The laparoscopic (mean age 70 years; range 20-91 years; 18 percent male) and open (mean age 68 years; range 36-87 years; 43 percent male) groups were similar with regard to age. Overall, patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 11) versus open (n = 7) repair had comparable operative (OR) times (mean 104 minutes, range 60-150 minutes versus mean 98 minutes, range 40-130 minutes, p = 0.04), shorter length of stay [LOS, (5.1 +/- 1.7 days versus 9.2 +/- 3.1 days, p = 0.01)], fewer complications (two versus five, p = 0.02) and shorter incision length (16 +/- 14.7 mm versus 163 +/- 54.4 mm, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:A laparoscopic approach to iatrogenic colon perforation results in decreased morbidity, decreased length of stay, and a shorter incision length compared to an open method. In those cases where it is feasible and the surgical skills exist, a laparoscopic attempt at colon repair should probably be the initial clinical approach.

Adoption of laparoscopic rectal dissection has been limited partially because of technical difficulties related to rectal exposure and effective retraction. We introduce a simple but effective method of retracting the distal rectum by using a Gelport hand-assisted laparoscopic device. Our method facilitates laparoscopic rectal dissection while obviating the need for intracorporeal manual retraction.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis can be technically challenging because of severe inflammation in the left-lower quadrant and pelvis. We hypothesized that hand-assisted laparoscopic technique may facilitate laparoscopic completion of this surgery while retaining the short-term benefits associated with "pure" laparoscopic surgery, in which an incision is made only for extracting the specimen. This study was designed to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent totally laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. METHODS:We reviewed our prospectively collected patient database from July 2001 to June 2004 and compared the intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomies for diverticulitis. Complicated patients (with abscess or fistulas) also were separately analyzed. RESULTS:The hand-assisted laparoscopic (mode age, 57 years; 48 percent male) and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (mode age, 56 years; 90 percent male) groups were similar with regard to age and gender. Overall, patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 21) vs. hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 21) sigmoidectomies had a significantly longer operative time (197 +/- 42 vs. 171 +/- 34 minutes, P = 0.04) and shorter incision length (5 +/- 2.1 vs. 9.3 +/- 4.1 cm, P = 0.0001). Patients with complicated diverticulitis (n = 14; abscess, colovesical fistula, enterocolic fistula) who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomies (n=4) had a significantly longer operative time compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (n = 10) group (255 +/- 18 vs. 177 +/- 34 minutes, P = 0.001). Conversion rate for the laparoscopic group was significantly higher (3/4 vs. 1/10, P = 0.04, Fisher exact) when complicated diverticulitis was present. There were no differences in postoperative outcomes or incision lengths in the complicated group. CONCLUSIONS:Outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis are similar to those seen in the pure laparoscopic method, with lower conversion rates and shorter operative times. Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis is an attractive alternative to a "pure" laparoscopic method in complicated cases.