A.A.F.A. Veenhof

The "invisible cholecystectomy": A transumbilical laparoscopic operation without a scar.

BackgroundLooking to further reduce the operative trauma of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, we developed, in patients with no history of cholecystitis and a normal BMI, a scarless operation through the umbilicus. The operative technique, along with the results of the first 10 patients operated in this way, are fully described.Methods10 female patients underwent transumbilical scarless laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Through the umbilicus, two trocars of 5 mm were introduced parallel to another with a bridge of fascia between them (one for the 5-mm laparoscope and the other for the grasper). With the help of one 1-mm Kirschner wire, introduced at the subcostal line and bent with a special designed device, the gallbladder was pulled up and the triangle of Callot was dissected free, clipped, cut, and the gallbladder was subsequently resected. Finally the gallbladder was taken out through the umbilicus and the umbilicus reconstructed.Results10 female patients, mean age 36 years (range: 31–49), mean body mass index (BMI) 23 (range: 20–26), after one attack (six patients) or a second attack (four patients) and cholelithiasis confirmed by ultrasonography with no suspicion of inflammation were included in this preliminary study. Mean operative time was 70 minutes (range: 65–85) with no conversions; hospital stay was less than 24 hours with no complications.ConclusionLooking to reduce operative trauma and improve the cosmetic result following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a transumbilical operative technique has been developed. Results of the operative procedure in a selected group of patients are encouraging with no signs of inflammation and normal BMI. The umbilicus can be developed as a natural port for performing various operative procedures with the help of the traction produced by thin Kirschner wires.

Surgical stress response and postoperative immune function after laparoscopy or open surgery with fast track or standard perioperative care: a randomized trial.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of laparoscopic or open colectomy with fast track or standard perioperative care on patients immune status and stress response after surgery. Methods: Patients with nonmetastasized colon cancer were randomized to laparoscopic or open colectomy with fast track or standard care. Blood samples were taken preoperatively (baseline), and 1, 2, 24, and 72 hours after surgery. Systemic HLA-DR expression, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, growth hormone, prolactin, and cortisol were analyzed. Results: Nineteen patients were randomized for laparoscopy and fast track care (LFT), 23 for laparoscopy and standard care (LS), 17 for open surgery and fast track care (OFT), and 20 for open surgery and standard care (OS). Patient characteristics were comparable. Mean HLA-DR was 74.8 in the LFT group, 67.1 in the LS group, 52.8 in the OFT group, and 40.7 in the OS group. Repeated-measures 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed this can be attributed to type of surgery and not aftercare (P = 0.002). Interleukin-6 levels were highest in the OS group. Repeated-measures 2-way ANOVA showed this can be attributed to type of surgery and not aftercare (P = 0.001). C-reactive protein levels were highest in the OS group. Following repeated-measures 2-way ANOVA, this can be attributed to type of surgery and not aftercare (P = 0.022). Growth hormone was lowest in the LFT group. Following repeated-measures 2-way ANOVA, this can be attributed to type of aftercare and not to type of surgery (P = 0.033). No differences between the groups were seen regarding prolactin or cortisol. No differences in (infectious) complication rates were observed between the groups. Conclusions: This randomized trial showed that immune function of HLA-DR in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with fast track care remains highest. This can be attributed to type of surgery and not aftercare. These results may indicate a reason for the accelerated recovery of patients treated laparoscopically within a fast track program as described in the LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care (LAFA-Trial) (www.trialregister.nl, protocol NTR222).

Morbidity and complications of protective loop ileostomy

Objective  The creation of a loop ileostomy is considered suitable to protect a distal anastomosis in colorectal surgery. This technique is, however, associated with failure, complications and even mortality. The aim of this study was to quantify retrospectively the morbidity associated with an ileostomy and its subsequent closure.

Influence of circumferential resection margin on prognosis in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer approached through the transhiatal route

We studied the influence of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement on survival in patients with malignancies of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. One hundred ten consecutive patients undergoing a laparoscopic or open transhiatal esophagectomy for malignancy of the distal 5 cm of the esophagus, or a Siewert I gastroesophageal junction tumor were analyzed, retrospectively. Only patients with potentially resectable tumors were included. CRM status was defined as clear or involved (microscopic tumor within 1 mm of the resection margin). Statistical analysis was done by means of univariate and multivariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model. One hundred ten patients were analyzed. Sixty patients underwent open transhiatal esophagectomy, and 50 patients underwent laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy. There were 6 (5%) T(1), 18 (16%) T(2), and 86 (89%) T(3) tumors. CRM was clear in 68 (62%) patients and involved in 42 (38%) patients. Median survival in these groups was 50 vs. 20 months (P = 0.000). Since CRM involvement was only seen in T(3) tumors, this group was analyzed in detail. Median survival in the T(3)CRM(-) and T(3)CRM(+) group was 33 vs. 19 months (P = 0.004). For T(3)N(0) tumors, median survival in CRM(-) and CRM(+) was 40 and 22 months, respectively (P = 0.036). Median survival for T(3)N(1) tumors in CRM(-) and CRM(+) was 22 and 13 months, respectively (P = 0.049). Involvement of the circumferential resection margin was found to be an independent prognostic factor on survival in our study. It predicts a poor prognosis in patients with potentially resectable malignancies of the distal 5 cm of the esophagus and Siewert I adenocarcinomas of the gastro esophageal junction.

Laparoscopic versus Open Total Mesorectal Excision: A Comparative Study on Short-Term Outcomes

Background: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) is being used in rectal cancer more frequently. The aim of this study was to analyze the differences in short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic TME. Methods: In this nonrandomized consecutive study, the short-term outcomes of 100 patients undergoing TME for proven rectal cancer were analyzed. Results: Two groups of 50 patients underwent an open or laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer. Both groups were comparable. Laparoscopic surgery took longer to perform (250 vs. 197.5 min, p < 0.01), but was accompanied by less blood loss (350 vs. 800 ml, p < 0.01). Enteric function recovered sooner after laparoscopy. The numbers of major and minor complications were comparable between both groups, although fewer patients had major complications in the laparoscopic group (6 vs. 15 patients, p = 0.03). Hospital stay was shorter for patients who underwent a laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (10 vs. 12 days, p = 0.04). Median follow-up was 17 months for the laparoscopic group and 22 months for the open group. Survival analyses between the groups showed no statistical difference in disease-free and overall survival. Conclusion: This study shows that laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer is a safe and feasible technique with some short-term benefits over open TME.

Laparoscopic vs transverse incision right colectomy for colon carcinoma

Aim  We investigated whether laparoscopic right colectomy has short‐term and/or oncological advantages compared with transverse incision right colectomy.

Systematic approach of postoperative gastric conduit complications after esophageal resection.

Complications after esophagectomy related to ischemia of the graft are dreaded. Prompt assessment of the situation is essential. The series presented describes our experience regarding the evaluation of gastric tube complications. A score is presented classifying flexible endoscopy and CT-scan findings. A retrospective analysis from the charts of 47 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer was conducted. Patients who underwent upper endoscopy during admittance were entered in this study. Findings on flexible endoscopy and CT scan were systematic scored. According to the findings, different attitudes were taken. Between January 2006 and December 2007, 47 patients underwent esophagectomy for cancer. Eleven (23%) out of 47 patients were suspected to have complications related to the viability of the anastomosis. Median period to deterioration was 5 days. In 3 (27%) patients, stent placement was the only intervention necessary. In 2 (18%) patients, stent placement was combined with drainage of abscesses in the upper mediastinum. Five (46%) patients required a new right thoracotomy, with drainage of mediastinal abscesses and empyema. In 2 patients a limited resection and a new cervical anastomosis with a stent was created. Mean intensive care admission and hospital admittance was 30.2 days and 67.9 days, respectively. Two patients (18%) died during hospital admittance. All cervical anastomosis required postoperative dilatation. No complications related to the use of flexible endoscopy were seen. An aggressive policy is adopted in patients deteriorating following esophagectomy. CT-scanning of the thorax and a flexible endoscopy of the gastric conduit should always be performed. Direct therapy should be adopted without delay.

Thoracoscopic resection for esophageal cancer: A review of literature

Esophageal resection remains the only curative option in high grade dysplasia of the Barrett esophagus and non metastasized esophageal cancer. In addition, it may also be an adequate treatment in selected cases of benign disease. A wide variety of minimally invasive procedures have become available in esophageal surgery. Aim of the present review article is to evaluate minimally invasive procedures for esophageal resection, especially the approach performed through right thoracoscopy.

Risk Factors and Management of Presacral Abscess following Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Introduction:There is scant information regarding the incidence, risk factors and management of presacral abscesses following total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Methods:Gender, age, body mass index (BMI), neoadjuvant radiation therapy, ASA classification, tumor size, tumor localization and fecal diversion were investigated as independent risk factors for the development of a presacral abscess. Results: 261 patients were included, 26 patients (10%) developed a presacral abscess. Twenty-two patients (14.8%) with and 4 patients (3.6%) without neoadjuvant radiation therapy developed a presacral abscess (p = 0.003), respectively. Nine ASA 1 patients (5.7%), 8 ASA 2 patients (8.5%) and 3 ASA 3 patients (70%) developed a presacral abscess (p = 0.001). More presacral abscesses were observed after resection of larger tumors: 38 versus 30 mm (p = 0.041). No correlation between gender, age, BMI, tumor localization and the development of a prescaral abscess was found. Management of the presacral abscess, without overt leakage, was initially performed by drainage through the anastomosis following anterior resections and through the perineal suture line following abdominoperineal resections. Conclusion: Presacral abscess is a frequent (10%) complication following TME for rectal cancer. Patients in poor general condition, neoadjuvant radiation therapy and large tumors are at risks for developing a presacral abscess. Management, without overt leakage, is in our experience best executed by drainage through the anastomosis or perineal suture line.

Pull-through procedure as treatment for coloanal anastomotic dehiscence following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision

Dear Editor: Anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic rectal surgery remains a frequent and serious complication. Overall leak rates for laparoscopic anterior resections and coloanal anastomosis are reported to range from 7.3% to 17%. Several studies describing risk factors for anastomotic dehiscence have been published. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, old age, male gender and distal anastomosis are different reported factors. Anastomotic dehiscence, with or without protective loop ileostomy, can be limited to the pelvis as a local abscess that has to be drained or followed by general peritonitis, in which standard intervention is taking down the anastomosis with creation of a left colostomy. In the last case, restorative procedures are often very difficult to perform due to the short remaining rectal stump, making dissection very hazardous. The authors present a pull-through procedure in a male patient as treatment of coloanal anastomotic dehiscence, consequently preventing a definitive colostomy. A 60-year-old man with a proven rectal adenocarcinoma located 8 cm from the anal verge had a laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) following radiation therapy (five doses of 5 Gy) 6 weeks earlier. No perioperative complications occurred, and a stapled anastomosis was made approximately 3–4 cm from the anal verge at the level of the pelvic floor. The donuts were intact and the anastomosis was checked with methylene blue, after which a protective loop ileostomy was created. On day 6 after surgery, the patient developed signs of general peritonitis, most likely based on an anastomotic dehiscence. At laparotomy, a small posterior leak in the anastomosis was observed with general purulent peritonitis. Due to the low anastomosis in this patient and therefore the difficulty of creating a new anastomosis in the future, a pull-through procedure was performed in order to prevent a definitive colostomy, according to the wishes of the patient. The splenic flexure was mobilized, and the descending colon was pulled through the anus and fixated with two sutures. The protective loop ileostomy was preserved. After the pull-through procedure, no complications occurred and the patient was discharged from hospital after 10 days. Two weeks later, the pull-through colon was inspected under anesthesia. At this time, the entire circumference of the descending colon had already grafted onto the remaining rectum and the excess material of the pull-through graft was removed. Four weeks after the pull-through procedure, the loop ileostomy was closed under general anesthesia. After 4 months of follow-up, the patient is doing well with good continence and two to six defecations per day. Following laparoscopic TME with a low or coloanal anastomosis, leak rates of up to 17% have been reported. In the case of local pelvic abscess formation, the treatment includes an adequate drainage of the abscess, mostly through the anastomosis. In the case of a general peritonitis, it is often necessary to take down the anastomosis and create a colostomy. Frequently, this colostomy will be permanent due to the difficulty in restorative procedures. The very short remaining rectal stump, covered with scar tissue at the pelvic floor, makes re-anastomotic procedures Int J Colorectal Dis (2007) 22:1413–1414 DOI 10.1007/s00384-006-0191-9