Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND/AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy of the jejunal pouch reconstruction following subtotal proximal and distal gastrectomy, a retrospective study examining the postoperative condition of patients who underwent different methods of reconstruction after gastrectomy for cancer was undertaken. METHODOLOGY/METHODS:Various parameters indicative of postoperative function were evaluated at one year postoperatively, and two major groups were examined. The "proximal gastrectomy" group was composed of patients who underwent either 1) proximal gastrectomy with an interposed jejunal pouch (PG-pouch), 2) proximal gastrectomy with simple jejunal interposition (PG-inter), or 3) total gastrectomy with simple jejunal interposition (TG). The "distal gastrectomy" group was composed of patients who underwent either 4) distal gastrectomy with an interposed jejunal pouch (DG-pouch), 5) distal gastrectomy with simple jejunal interposition (DG-inter), or 6) distal gastrectomy with Billroth 1 reconstruction (B-1). RESULTS:Volume of meal intake was better preserved and the incidence of abdominal symptoms were less frequent in the PG-pouch and DG-pouch groups. In the PG-inter, DG-inter and DG-pouch groups, none of the patients experienced heartburn or had endoscopic findings consistent with reflux esophagitis, while 2 patients (20.0%) in the PG-pouch group complained of heartburn with evidence of reflux esophagitis on endoscopy. Increase in blood acetaminophen level was milder in both the PG-pouch and DG-pouch groups, signifying improved gastric emptying. CONCLUSIONS:The jejunal pouch interposition following proximal and distal gastrectomy seems to confer clinical benefit in terms of postoperative function, especially in the form of meal intake, abdominal symptoms, and gastric emptying. The side effect of an improved reservoir may be the incidence of reflux esophagitis seen in 2 patients in the PG-pouch group.

The use of laparoscopic techniques when surgical therapy is required for the treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis has been slow to develop; the surgery is extensive, and the instruments are limited. The often urgent nature of the surgery, along with the fragile inflamed colon, have contributed to the limited development of this surgical approach. Yet there is a paradox, as these patients have often anticipated surgery and thus are extremely frightened about it, or must undergo a major operation under urgent circumstances. In this setting, it would seem that a minimally invasive surgical approach would make sense if safe and reasonable, because healing, scarring, and patient fears can be minimized. We are encouraged by the experience we have gained over the past several years in performing these complex laparoscopic cases. The development of some of the newer surgical technologies has shortened operative times. Several recent studies have demonstrated short-term advantages with the laparoscopic approach compared with standard open operations for mucosal ulcerative colitis. Thus, this new approach is a viable and valuable option that may be offered to some patients with mucosal ulcerative colitis.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The endorectal advancement flap is a surgical procedure used in the treatment of anorectal and rectovaginal fistulas. There is a wide range of success rates published in the literature. This study was undertaken to examine the success rate of primary endorectal advancement flap in our own institution. We attempted to identify factors that influence the rate of healing. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed on 105 patients (43 males) who underwent their first endorectal advancement flap at our institution between January 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999. Ninety-nine patients were available for follow-up. Sixty-two patients had anorectal and 37 had rectovaginal fistulas. The causes of fistula included cryptoglandular (48 patients), Crohn's disease (44), obstetric injury (5), trauma (1), and other (1). RESULTS:The median follow-up was 17.1 (range, 0.4-66.9) months. The median age was 42 (range, 16-78) years. Recurrence was seen in 36 patients (36.4 percent); thus, the primary rate of healing was 63.6 percent. Factors that were associated with higher rates of success were increased age (P = 0.011), greater body surface area (P = 0.012), history of incision and drainage of a perianal abscess preceding advancement flap (P = 0.010), previous placement of a seton drain (P = 0.025), and short duration of fistula (P = 0.003). Factors that negatively influenced the healing rate of the flap were the diagnoses of Crohn's disease (P = 0.027) and rectovaginal fistula (P = 0.002). Length of hospitalization, discharge on oral antibiotics, and the presence of a diverting stoma did not influence the rate of healing. Prednisone was associated with a distinct trend toward failure, with none of the patients on high-dose prednisone (greater than 20 mg/day) having achieved long-term healing. No fistulas recurred after a period of 15 months. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The endorectal advancement flap is an effective method of repair for both anorectal and rectovaginal fistulas, even though the success rate may not be as optimistic as in some other published studies. Patient selection is imperative, realizing that a higher rate of failure may be present in Crohn's disease and rectovaginal fistulas. Control of sepsis before endorectal advancement flap with drainage of a perianal abscess and/or seton placement, whenever possible, is indicated.

BACKGROUND:Amplification of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene and overexpression of the HER2 protein have been associated with an unfavorable prognosis. We determined the efficacy of an anti-HER2 immunotoxin, erb-38 [e23(dsFv)PE38], against human gastric cancer cells. METHODS:Immunotoxin was made by fusing the disulfide-stabilized Fv fragments (dsFv) of a monoclonal antibody e23 to a truncated mutant of M(r) 38 Pseudomonas exotoxin (PE38) that lacks its cell-binding domain. RESULTS:The immunotoxin-mediated cytotoxicity directly correlated with the expression levels of the HER2 gene and protein in human gastric cancer cells. Interestingly, MKN-45P cells, a variant line of MKN-45 producing peritoneal dissemination and ascites in vivo, expressed a higher level of HER2 and were more sensitive to erb-38 than MKN-45 cells. RFB-4, a control anti-CD22 immunotoxin, was cytotoxic against none of the tested human gastric cancer cells, also suggesting that the lysis mediated by erb-38 was specific for HER2 expression. Three consecutive iv injections of erb-38 at doses of 0.5 or 5 microg/body eradicated experimental liver metastases and peritoneal disseminations produced by MKN-45P in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that an erb-38 anti-HER2 immunotoxin has specific antitumor activities against human gastric cancer cells overexpressing HER2.