Toyooki Sonoda

Identifying important predictors for anastomotic leak after colon and rectal resection: prospective study on 616 patients.

Objective:The purpose of this study was to identify patient, clinical, and surgical factors that may predispose patients to anastomotic leak (AL) after large bowel surgery. Background:Anastomotic leak is still one of the most devastating complications following colorectal surgery. Knowledge about factors predisposing patients to AL is vital to its early detection, decision making for surgical time, managing preoperative risk factors, and postoperative complications. Methods:This was a prospective observational, quality improvement study in a cohort of 616 patients undergoing colorectal resection in a single institution with the main outcome being AL within 30 days postoperatively. Some of the predictor variables were age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), radiation and chemotherapy, immunomodulator medications, albumin, preoperative diagnoses, surgical procedure(s), surgical technique (laparoscopic vs open), anastomotic technique (staple vs handsewn), number of major arteries ligated at surgery, surgeons experience, presence of infectious condition at surgery, intraoperative adverse events, and functional status using 36-Item Short Form General Health Survey. Results:Of the 616 patients, 53.4% were female. The median age of the patients was 63 years and the mean body mass index was 25.9 kg/m2. Of them, 80.3% patients had laparoscopic surgery and 19.5% had open surgery. AL occurred in 5.7% (35) patients. In multivariate analysis, significant independent predictors for leak were anastomoses less than 10 cm from the anal verge, CCI of 3 or more, high inferior mesenteric artery ligation (above left colic artery), intraoperative complications, and being of the male sex. Conclusions:Multiple risk factors exist that predispose patients to ALs. These risk factors should be considered before and during the surgical care of colorectal patients.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic vs. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Trial

PurposeThis study was designed to compare short-term outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. straight laparoscopic colorectal surgery.MethodsEleven 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.ResultsThere 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 (175u2009±u200958 vs. 208u2009±u200955; Pu2009=u20090.021) and total colectomy groups (time to colectomy completion, 127u2009±u200931 vs. 184u2009±u200972; Pu2009=u20090.015). 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 (Pu2009=u20090.11). Complications were similar in both groups (hand-assisted, 21 percent vs. straight laparoscopic, 19 percent; Pu2009=u20090.68).ConclusionsIn 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.

Laparoscopic total colectomy: hand-assisted vs standard technique

Background: Although hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopically assisted surgery (LAP), little is known about its role in total colectomy. The objectives of the study were to compare the outcomes in patients undergoing total colectomy via either HALS or LAP and to determine what benefits HALS might have in extensive colorectal procedures. Methods: We reviewed the data for 23 patients who underwent total proctocolectomy (TPC) or total abdominal colectomy (TAC) using either a HALS or LAP technique. Results: There were 12 HALS (five TPC, seven TAC) and 11 LAP (seven TPC, four TAC) for ulcerative colitis (n = 17), familial polyposis (n = 5), and colonic inertia (n = 1). One LAP was converted (9.1%). The operative time was shorter for HALS than for LAP (210 vs 273 min; p = 0.03). Blood loss and incision length were similar. Postoperative recovery and morbidity rates were comparable. Conclusion: HALS reduces the operative time but patient morbidity rates and recovery are similar to LAP. HALS may be preferable for extensive colorectal procedures such as TPC and TAC.

One-stage laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: an alternative to the conventional approach?

AbstractPURPOSE: There is significant concern in the current literature over the safety of laparoscopic techniques in removal of the entire colon and rectum. The purpose of this study was to examine the results of a one-stage laparoscopic-assisted restorative proctocolectomy in patients with mucosal ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a single institution experience. nMETHODS: All patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted one-stage restorative proctocolectomy (29 mucosal ulcerative colitis; 3 familial adenomatous polyposis) over a 24-month period were followed up prospectively for short-term and long-term complications and functional outcome. nRESULTS: There were 32 patients (17 males), with a median age of 32 years (range, 16–29 years). There were no conversions to open surgery. There were two intraoperative complications, an inconsequential rectal perforation during mobilization and one staple line misfire. There were 11 postoperative complications: 3 obstruction/ileus, 2 pouchitis, 2 wound infections, 2 strictures, 1 pelvic abscess, and 1 pouch leak (at the top of the “J”). Three patients required reoperation (1 temporary ileostomy, 1 lysis of adhesions, and 1 transpouch drainage). The median number of bowel movements was seven per day (range, 2–15). nCONCLUSION: A one-stage laparoscopic-assisted restorative proctocolectomy can be performed effectively and safely. Given that techniques in laparoscopic large-bowel surgery are still evolving rapidly, the role of this operation in the surgical treatment of patients with mucosal ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis is likely to expand in the near future. n

Laparoscopic vs. hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis.

IntroductionSigmoid 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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 ± 4.1xa0cm, 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 thecomplicated group.ConclusionsOutcomes 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.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery using GelPort

Background: An easily usable hand access device will optimize success in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). The authors describe their initial series of HALS colorectal resections using GelPort to evaluate their current technique and results with this new device. Methods: A retrospective study investigated 33 HALS colorectal procedures including total colectomy (n = 16) and low anterior resection (n = 10). All operative data, including intraoperative GelPort performance, were prospectively recorded and retrospectively analyzed. Results: In this study, 3 (9.1%) of 33 HALS procedures were converted to open surgery, and 4 (13.3%) of 30 HALS procedures required minimal enlargement of incisions to facilitate extracorporeal procedures. The operative time was 263 ± 85 min, and the blood loss was 282 ± 148 ml. There were no device malfunctions. Three major complications (9.1%) and 7 minor wound infections (21%) were noted postoperatively. The mean hospital stay was 7.9 ± 3.8 days. Conclusion: When performed with GelPort, HALS is safely and reliably applicable for various colorectal procedures.

Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing curative laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: 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: 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.

Intraoperative carbon dioxide colonoscopy: a safe insufflation alternative for locating colonic lesions during laparoscopic surgery

BackgroundIntraoperative colonoscopy (IOC) is useful for locating colonic pathologies during laparoscopy, but bowel distention compromises the subsequent visualization and procedure. Carbon dioxide (CO2), with its rapid absorption, has been proved effective for alleviating bowel distention in ambulatory settings. Its intraoperative role, however, has never been studied. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and advantages of CO2-insufflated IOC during laparoscopy.MethodsFor this study, CO2-insufflated IOC was performed for 20 patients under CO2 pneumoperitoneum. Parameters, including end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) and minute volume, were prospectively registered. Time until resolution of bowel distention was determined by laparoscopic evaluation.ResultsAll lesions were located by CO2-insufflated IOC in 15 min. During IOC, ETCO2 increased, but remained within normal values, and was quickly compensated with minimal hyperventilation. Bowel distention totally disappeared in 21 min, allowing immediate initiation of laparoscopic procedures under adequate visualization.ConclusionsThe findings show that CO2-insufflated IOC during laparoscopy is feasible, safe, and of practical value for minimizing bowel distention without impeding the subsequent visualization and procedure.

Gastrointestinal recovery after laparoscopic colectomy: results of a prospective, observational, multicenter study

BackgroundAlthough evidence suggests that laparoscopic colectomy (LC) results in faster gastrointestinal (GI) recovery than open bowel resection, previous studies were performed at single institutions or generally not controlled for diet introduction or perioperative care, making the results difficult to interpret. A prospective, observational, multicenter study was planned to investigate GI recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), and postoperative ileus (POI)-related morbidity after LC.MethodsPatients scheduled to undergo LC or hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) bowel resection and to receive opioid-based postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia were enrolled in 16 U.S. centers. The study design was similar to that for trials of alvimopan phase 3 open laparotomy bowel resection using a standardized accelerated postoperative care pathway. The primary end points were time to upper and lower GI recovery (GI-2: toleration of solid food and bowel movement) and postoperative LOS. The secondary end points included POI-related morbidity (postoperative nasogastric tube insertion or investigator-assessed POI resulting in prolonged hospital stay or readmission), conversion rate, and protocol-defined prolonged POI (GI-2xa0>xa05 postoperative days).ResultsIn this study, 148 patients received hemicolectomy by the LC (42 left and 67 right) or HAL (39 left) approach. The conversion rate was 18.8% (25.4% LC left, 17.3% HAL left, 15% LC right). The mean time to GI-2 recovery was 4.4xa0days, and the mean postoperative LOS was 4.9xa0days, neither of which varied substantially by surgical approach. Prolonged POI occurred for 15 patients (10.1%), and POI-related morbidity occurred for 17 patients (11.5%). No patients were readmitted because of POI, whereas 3 patients (2%) were readmitted for all other causes.ConclusionsMean GI recovery and LOS after LC were accelerated compared with those for patients in open laparotomy bowel resection clinical trials or those reported in large hospital databases (0.7 and 1.7–2.2xa0days, respectively). Overall POI-related morbidity was similar between the open bowel resection and LC populations, demonstrating that POI continues to present with important morbidity regardless of the surgical approach.

Evaluation of the Safety, Efficacy, and Versatility of a New Surgical Energy Device (THUNDERBEAT) in Comparison with Harmonic ACE, LigaSure V, and EnSeal Devices in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUNDnTHUNDERBEAT™ (TB) (Olympus, Japan) simultaneously delivers ultrasonically generated frictional heat energy and electrically generated bipolar energy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the versatility, bursting pressure, thermal spread, and dissection time of the TB compared with commercially available devices: Harmonic(®) ACE (HA) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, USA), LigaSure™ V (LIG) (Covidien, USA), and EnSeal(®) (Ethicon).nnnMETHODSnAn acute study was done with 10 female Yorkshire pigs (weighing 30-35u2009kg). Samples 2u2009cm long of small (2-3u2009mm)-, medium (4-5u2009mm)-, and large (6-7u2009mm)-diameter vessels were created. One end of the sample was sent for histological evaluation, and the other was used for burst pressure testing in a blinded fashion. Versatility was defined as the performance of the surgical instrument based on the following five variables, using a score from 1 to 5 (1=worst, 5=best), adjusted by coefficient of variable importance with weighted distribution: hemostasis, 0.275; histologic sealing, 0.275; cutting, 0.2; dissection, 0.15; and tissue manipulation, 0.1. There were 80 trials per vessel group and 60 trials per instrument group, giving a total of 240 samples.nnnRESULTSnVersatility score was higher (P<.01) and dissection time was shorter (P<.01) using TB compared with the other three devices. Bursting pressure was similar among TB and the other three instruments. Thermal spread at surgery was similar between TB and HA (P=.4167), TB and EnSeal (P=.6817), and TB and LIG (P=.8254). Difference in thermal spread was noted between EnSeal and HA (P=.0087) and HA and LIG (P=.0167).nnnCONCLUSIONnTB has a higher versatility compared with the other instruments tested with faster dissection speed, similar bursting pressure, and acceptable thermal spread. This new energy device is an appealing, safe alternative for cutting, coagulation, and tissue dissection during surgery and should decrease time and increase versatility during surgical procedures.