RESUMEN
AIM: The aim of this work was to compare lymph node (LN) yield in patients operated on for right colon cancer (RCC) using a laparoscopic approach between those receiving an intracorporeal (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). METHOD: This is a retrospective multicentre study involving patients operated on for RCC in nine tertiary referral centres in Latin America during a 2-year period. The main comparative outcome between groups was the number of LNs harvested between groups. RESULTS: The study included 416 patients, 261 (62.7%) in the ECA group and 155 (37.3%) in the ICA group. Patients in the ECA group were elderly (66 vs. 61 years, p < 0.001). Patients receiving an ICA achieved a significantly higher LN yield than those receiving an ECA (24 vs. 18, p < 0.001). This group also had a lower percentage of patients achieving a substandard LN yield (<12 LNs) (10% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.001) and more patients achieving a high number of harvested LNs (>32 LNs) (15.5% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.039). In the multivariate analysis, ICA was independently related to the primary outcome (LN yield) (OR 3.28, p = 0.027, 95% CI 1.14-9.38). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, patients operated on for RCC who received an ICA achieved a higher LN yield. Further studies are needed to reconfirm these findings, and also to find an explanation for these results.
Asunto(s)
Anastomosis Quirúrgica , Neoplasias del Colon , Laparoscopía , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático , Ganglios Linfáticos , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Masculino , Femenino , Neoplasias del Colon/cirugía , Neoplasias del Colon/patología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático/métodos , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático/estadística & datos numéricos , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Laparoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Ganglios Linfáticos/cirugía , América Latina , Colectomía/métodos , Metástasis LinfáticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis. METHOD: A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.
Asunto(s)
Diverticulitis del Colon , Diverticulitis , Perforación Intestinal , Peritonitis , Humanos , Diverticulitis del Colon/complicaciones , Diverticulitis del Colon/cirugía , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Fuga Anastomótica/cirugía , Colostomía/efectos adversos , Perforación Intestinal/etiología , Perforación Intestinal/cirugía , Diverticulitis/cirugía , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/efectos adversos , Peritonitis/cirugía , Peritonitis/complicaciones , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Background: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) continues increasing worldwide, surgeons may need to perform more than one LCS per day to accommodate this higher demand. We aimed to determine the safety of performing consecutive LCSs by the same surgeon in a single workday. Materials and Methods: Consecutive LCSs performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2019 were included. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who underwent the first (G1) and those who underwent the second and the third (G2) colorectal resections in a single workday. LCSs were stratified into level I (low complexity), level II (medium complexity), and level III (high complexity). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: From a total of 1433 LCSs, 142 (10%) were included in G1 and 158 (11%) in G2. There was a higher rate of complexity level III LCS (G1: 23% versus G2: 6%, P < .0001) and a longer operative time (G1: 160 minutes versus G2: 139 minutes, P = .002) in G1. There were no differences in anastomotic leak, overall morbidity, or mortality rates. Mean length of hospital stay and readmission rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: Multiple consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections can be safely performed by the same surgeon in a single workday. This efficient strategy should be encouraged at high-volume centers with experienced colorectal surgeons.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Cirugía Colorrectal , Laparoscopía , Cirujanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has shown clear benefits that could also be useful in the emergency setting such as early reoperations after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic reintervention ("relaparoscopy") (RL) to manage postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database from 2000 to 2019. Patients who required a reoperation after undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. According to the approach used at the reoperation, the cohort was divided in laparoscopy (RL) and laparotomy (LPM). Demographics, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients underwent a reoperation after a laparoscopic colorectal surgery: 124 (78%) had RL and 35 (22%) LPM. Demographics were similar in both groups. Patients who underwent left colectomy were more frequently reoperated by laparoscopy (RL: 42.7% vs. LPM: 22.8%, p: 0.03). The most common finding at the reoperation was anastomotic leakage, which was treated more often by RL (RL: 67.7% vs. LPM: 25.7%, p: 0.0001), and the most common strategy was drainage and loop ileostomy (RL: 65.8% vs. LPM: 17.6%, p: 0.00001). Conversion was necessary in 12 patients (9.6%). Overall morbidity rate was 52.2%. Patients in the RL group had less postoperative severe complications (RL: 12.1% vs. LPM: 22.8, p: 0.01). Mortality rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Relaparoscopy is feasible and safe for treating early postoperative complications, particularly anastomotic leakage after left colectomy.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Colorrectal , Laparoscopía , Fuga Anastomótica/etiología , Colectomía/efectos adversos , Humanos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Tiempo de Internación , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Reoperación/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence is growing about the benefits of laparoscopic resection with primary anastomosis (RPA) in perforated diverticulitis. However, the role of a diverting ileostomy in this setting is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic RPA with or without a proximal diversion in Hinchey III diverticulitis. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated Hinchey III diverticulitis during the period 2000-2019. The sample was divided into two groups: RPA without diversion (G1) and RPA with protective ileostomy (G2). Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day overall morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), and urgent reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes of interest included operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak rates. RESULTS: Laparoscopic RPA was performed in 94 patients: 76 without diversion (G1) and 18 with proximal loop ileostomy (G2). Mortality (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.6), urgent reoperation (G1: 7.9% vs. G2: 5.6%, p = 0.73), and anastomotic leak rates (G1: 5.3% vs. G2: 0%, p = 0.32) were comparable between groups. Higher overall morbidity (G1: 27.6% vs. G2: 55.6%, p = 0.02) and readmission rates (G1: 1.3% vs. G2: 11.1%, p = 0.03), and longer LOS (G1: 6.3 vs. G2: 9.2 days, p = 0.02) and operative time (G1: 182.4 vs. G2: 230.2 min, p = 0.003) were found in patients with proximal diversion. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic RPA had favorable outcomes in selected patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. The addition of a proximal ileostomy resulted in increased morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Further investigation is needed to establish which patients might benefit from proximal diversion.
Asunto(s)
Diverticulitis , Perforación Intestinal , Laparoscopía , Anastomosis Quirúrgica , Colon Sigmoide/cirugía , Diverticulitis/cirugía , Humanos , Ileostomía , Perforación Intestinal/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Introducción: En los últimos años ha habido una gran difusión de la cirugía laparoscópica para el manejo de la patología colorrectal. La dehiscencia anastomótica es una de las complicaciones más graves, con una elevada morbi-mortalidad. La reoperación por vía laparoscópica podría ser una opción válida para tratar esta complicación, manteniendo ciertos beneficios del abordaje miniinvasivo. Objetivos: Evaluar la factibilidad y seguridad del abordaje laparoscópico en el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía colorrectal y en forma secundaria comparar los resultados con la reoperación por vía convencional. Materiales y Método: Se analizó una serie retrospectiva, completada en forma prospectiva, se incluyeron 1693 pacientes (junio 2000 - septiembre 2018). Los pacientes que fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica se dividieron en dos grupos según el abordaje de la reoperación: laparoscópico (Grupo 1, G1) y laparotómico (Grupo 2, G2). Se compararon ambos grupos teniendo en cuenta factores demográficos, estadía hospitalaria, complicaciones, morbilidad y mortalidad. Las complicaciones se estratificaron según la clasificación de Dindo y Clavien, y se tuvieron en cuenta las más graves (categorías 3, 4 y 5). Para el análisis estadístico se utilizó el T student y chi cuadrado. Resultados: Ciento seis (6,26%) pacientes fueron reoperados por dehiscencia anastomótica. Ochenta y cinco (80%) fueron incluidos en el grupo 1 y 21 (20%) en el grupo 2. La única diferencia demográfica entre ambos grupos fue una mayor cantidad de pacientes obesos en el grupo laparoscópico (G1: 17 (20%) vs. G2: 0, p: 0,02). Hubo una tendencia hacia un intervalo menor entre la cirugía inicial y la reexploración, pero sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas (5,18 días vs. 6,23 días, p: 0,22). En 84 (79%) la conducta quirúrgica fue lavado y confección de ostomía proximal de protección (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p: 0,001). El desmonte de la anastomosis y la confección de ostomía terminal debió realizarse en 8 pacientes (G1: 4 vs G2: 4, p: 0,02). Nueve pacientes en G1 y 3 pacientes en G2 requirieron más de una cirugía (p: 0,63). Las complicaciones fueron similares entre ambos grupos, sólo se incluyeron los grados 3, 4 y 5 (G1: 21,2% vs G2: 28,6% p: 0,34). El promedio de estadía hospitalaria disminuyó con el abordaje laparoscópico (10,71 días vs. 11,57 días, p: 0,66), a pesar de que no hubo diferencia estadística entre ambos grupos. Conclusiones: La reintervención laparoscópica es un tratamiento válido y seguro para el manejo de la dehiscencia anastomótica en cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. (AU)
Introduction: In recent years there has been a great diffusion of laparoscopic surgery for the management of colorectal pathology. Anastomotic dehiscence is one of the most serious complications, with high morbidity and mortality. Laparoscopic reoperation could be a valid option to treat this complication, maintaining certain benefits of the minimally invasive approach. Objectives: To evaluate the viability and safety of the laparoscopic approach in the management of anastomotic dehiscence in colorectal surgery and as a secondary end point to compare the results with those of reoperation by conventional approach. Material and Methods: A series of 1693 patients that underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery was analyzed, from a prospective database (June 2000 - September 2018). Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach performed in the reoperative surgery: laparoscopy (G 1) or laparotomy (G 2). Demographic data, hospital stay, type of complication, morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Dindo-Clavien classification was used to stratify postoperative complications and only categories 3, 4 and 5 were included. Data were statistically analyzed with Student Ìs t test and chi-square test.Results: A hundred six patients (6.26%) were reoperated because of AL, 85 (80%) by laparoscopy and 21 (20%) by conventional surgery. The only demographic difference between both groups was that more obese patients were included in G1 (G1: 17, 20% vs. G2: 0, p=0.02). Interval of time between surgeries was lower in G1 without statistical difference (5.18 vs. 6.23 days, p=0.22). In 84 patients (79%) abdominal lavage and loop ostomy was performed (G1: 74 vs. G2: 10, p=0.001). Anastomosis takedown was required in 8 patients (G1: 4 vs. G2: 4, p=0.02). 9 patients in G1 and 3 in G2 needed more than one reexploration (p= 0.63). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups, grades 3, 4 and 5 were included (G1: 21, 2% vs. G2: 28.6%, p= 0.34). In average hospital stay was decreased in G1 (10.7 vs. 11.6 days, p=0.66), without statistical difference. Conclusion: Laparoscopic reintervention can be a safe treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Dehiscencia de la Herida Operatoria/cirugía , Laparoscopía , Cirugía Colorrectal/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Reoperación , Análisis Multivariante , Estudios Retrospectivos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , LaparotomíaAsunto(s)
Humanos , Peritonitis/cirugía , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Diverticulitis/complicaciones , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Peritonitis/etiología , Lavado Peritoneal , Enfermedad Aguda , Diverticulitis/cirugía , Perforación Intestinal/cirugía , Perforación Intestinal/etiologíaRESUMEN
Introducción: La sigmoidectomía por diverticulitis perforada es una cirugía de urgencia comúnmente realizada por cirujanos generales. Está descripta la correlación positiva entre el volumen del cirujano y los mejores resultados postoperatorios. Sin embargo, existe escasa evidencia de la influencia de la especialización en cirugía colorrectal sobre los resultados de la sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis perforada. Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto de la especialización en cirugía colorrectal en los resultados postoperatorios de la sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis Hinchey III. Diseño: Estudio retrospectivo sobre una base de datos cargada de forma prospectiva. Material y métodos: Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a sigmoidectomía laparoscópica por diverticulitis perforada Hinchey III. La muestra fue dividida en dos grupos: pacientes operados por un cirujano colorrectal (CC) y aquellos operados por un cirujano general (CG). Las variables demográficas, operatorias y postoperatorias fueron comparadas entre los grupos. El objetivo primario fue determinar si existían diferencias en la proporción de anastomosis primaria, morbilidad y mortalidad a 30 días entre los grupos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 101 pacientes en el análisis; 58 operados por CC y 43 por CG. Los pacientes operados por CC presentaron una mayor proporción de anastomosis primaria (CC: 98,3% vs. CG: 67,4%, p<0,001). Los CG realizaron más estomas (CC: 13,8% vs. CG: 46,5%, p<0,001), presentaron un mayor índice de conversión (CC: 20,6% vs. CG: 39,5%, p=0,03) y una mayor estadía hospitalaria (CC: 6,2 vs. CG: 10,8 días, p<0,001). La morbilidad global (CC: 34,4% vs. CG: 46,5%, p=0.22), dehiscencia anastomótica (CC: 3,5% vs. CG: 6,8%, p=0.48) y la mortalidad (CC: 1,7% vs. CG: 9,3 %, p=0,08) fueron similares entre ambos grupos. Conclusión: La sigmoidectomía laparoscópica de urgencia realizada por CG presenta similar morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatoria que la realizada por CC. Sin embargo, la participación del especialista se asoció a una mayor frecuencia de anastomosis primarias, menos estomas y una estadía hospitalaria más corta.
Background: Sigmoid resection for perforated diverticulitis is one of the most common emergency surgeries and often performed by general surgeons. Relationship between high-volume surgeons and improved postoperative outcomes is well established. However, the influence of colorectal specialization on outcomes after emergency laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis is not well described. Aim: Evaluate the impact of colorectal surgery training on the outcomes after emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected database.Method: Patients undergoing emergent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for perforated (Hinchey III) diverticulitis were identified and stratified by involvement of colorectal or general surgeon. This study was conducted from 2000 to 2018 at a teaching hospital. Primary outcome measures were primary anastomosis, postoperative morbidity and mortality.Results: A total of 101 patients were identified; 58 by colorectal and 43 by general surgeons. Patients in the colorectal surgeon group had higher rates of primary anastomosis (CS: 98, 2% vs. GS: 67, 4%, p<0.001). General surgeons performed more ostomies (CS: 13, 8% vs. GS: 46, 5%, p<0.001), had a higher conversion rate (CS: 20, 6% vs. GS: 39, 5%, p=0.03) and longer mean length of hospital stay (CS: 6, 2 vs. GS: 10, 8 days, p<0.001). Overall morbidity (CS: 34, 4% vs. GS: 46, 5%, p=0.22), anastomotic leak rate (CC: 3,5% vs. CG: 6,8%, p=0.48) and mortality (CS: 1, 7% vs. GS: 9,3 %, p=0.08) were similar between groups. Conclusion: Emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection by general surgeons wasn Ìt associated with higher rates of postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leakage or mortality. However, patients operated by colorectal surgeons had higher rates of primary anastomosis, lower rates of ostomy, conversion and shorter length of hospital stay.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Laparoscopía/métodos , Cirugía Colorrectal/métodos , Diverticulitis del Colon/cirugía , Perforación Intestinal/cirugía , Peritonitis/cirugía , Peritonitis/complicaciones , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Colon Sigmoide/cirugía , Cuidados Preoperatorios , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodosRESUMEN
Anastomotic leak (AL) is the most feared complication after colorectal surgery and time to diagnosis is variable. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patient who had an AL during or after hospital discharge. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections without proximal diversion during the period 2008-2018 was conducted. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who had AL during hospitalization (G1) and those who had AL after hospital discharge (G2). Demographics, operative variables and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. A total of 853 patients were included; AL was diagnosed in 60 (7%) patients and was more frequent during initial hospitalization than after hospital discharge (G1: 49 (82%) vs. G2: 11 (18%), p < 0.001). Demographics were similar between groups. Most patients were treated with laparoscopic lavage and diverting ileostomy in both groups (G1: 92% vs. G2: 82%, p = 0.30). Severity of peritonitis at reoperation and length of hospital stay after AL were similar between groups (G1: 11 vs. G2: 9 days, p = 0.54). Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 57% vs. G2: 36%, p = 0.31), mortality (G1: 10% vs. G2: 27%, p = 0.15) and intestinal reconstruction rate (G1: 92% vs. G2: 100%, p = 1) were similar between groups. Outpatient onset of anastomotic leak did not increase the severity of peritonitis, had no impact on the type of treatment performed, and showed similar postoperative morbidity and mortality as compared to those having AL during hospitalization.
Asunto(s)
Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Colon/cirugía , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/métodos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Alta del Paciente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Recto/cirugía , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Fuga Anastomótica/diagnóstico , Fuga Anastomótica/cirugía , Femenino , Humanos , Ileostomía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Morbilidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Irrigación Terapéutica/métodos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic primary anastomosis (PA) without diversion for diverticulitis has historically been confined to the elective setting. Hartmann's procedure is associated with high morbidity rates that might be reduced with less invasive and one-step approaches. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of laparoscopic PA without diversion in Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease during the period 2000-2018. The sample was divided in two groups: elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for recurrent diverticulitis (G1) and emergent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for Hinchey III diverticulitis (G2). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 415 patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease. PA without diversion was performed in 351 patients; 278 (79.2%) belonged to G1 (recurrent diverticulitis) and 73 (20.8%) to G2 (perforated diverticulitis). Median age, gender, and BMI score were similar in both groups. Patients with ASA III score were more frequent in G2 (p: 0.02). Conversion rate (G1: 4% vs. G2: 18%, p < 0.001), operative time (G1: 157 min vs. G2: 183 min, p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stay (G1: 3 days vs. G2: 5 days, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in G2. Overall postoperative morbidity (G1: 22.3% vs. G2: 28.7%, p = 0.27) and anastomotic leak rate (G1: 5.7% vs. G2: 5.4%, p = 0.92) were similar between groups. There was no mortality in G1 and one patient (1.3%) died in G2 (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sigmoid resection without diversion is feasible and safe in patients with perforated diverticulitis. In centers with vast experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, patients undergoing this procedure have similar morbidity and mortality to those undergoing elective sigmoidectomy.
Asunto(s)
Colectomía , Colon Sigmoide/cirugía , Diverticulitis/cirugía , Perforación Intestinal/cirugía , Laparoscopía , Estudios de Factibilidad , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has obtained wide acceptance over the last two decades. However, some studies suggest that there is an increased rate of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) when is compared with open appendectomy. Since postoperative IAA is associated with high morbidity, identifying predictive factors of this complication may help to prevent it. The aim of this study was to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for IAA after LA. METHODS: From January 2005 to June 2015, all charts of consecutive patients underwent to LA were revised. Demographics, clinical and intraoperative variables were analyzed. Independent risk factors for postoperative IAA were determined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1300 LA were performed. The mean age was 34.7 (14-94) years. Two hundred and twenty-five patients (17.3%) had complicated appendicitis with perforation and peritonitis. The conversion rate was 2.3% (30 cases). The average hospital stay was 1.6 (0-27) days. There were 30 (2.3%) postoperative IAA. In the multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) >30 (p 0.01), leukocytosis >20,000/mm3 (p 0.02), perforated appendicitis (p < 0.001) and operative time >90 min (p 0.04) were associated with the development of postoperative IAA. There was no mortality in the series. CONCLUSION: Patients with obesity, leukocytosis >20,000/mm3, perforated appendicitis and surgical time longer than 90 min have a higher chance of having a postoperative IAA. A close postoperative follow-up would be necessary in these situations in order to prevent and identify IAA after LA.
Asunto(s)
Absceso Abdominal/etiología , Apendicectomía/efectos adversos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Absceso Abdominal/complicaciones , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Apendicitis/complicaciones , Apendicitis/cirugía , Índice de Masa Corporal , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Leucocitosis/complicaciones , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis Multivariante , Obesidad/complicaciones , Tempo Operativo , Peritonitis/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
AIM: To analyze the results of laparoscopic colectomy in complicated diverticular disease. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at an academic teaching hospital. Data were collected from a database established earlier, which comprise of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colectomy for diverticular disease between 2000 and 2013. The series was divided into two groups that were compared: Patients with complicated disease (abscess, perforation, fistula, or stenosis) (G1) and patients undergoing surgery for recurrent diverticulitis (G2). Recurrent diverticulitis was defined as two or more episodes of diverticulitis regardless of patient age. Data regarding patient demographics, comorbidities, prior abdominal operations, history of acute diverticulitis, classification of acute diverticulitis at index admission and intra and postoperative variables were extracted. Univariate analysis was performed in both groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty patients were included: 28% (72 patients) belonged to G1 and 72% (188 patients) to G2. The mean age was 57 (27-89) years. The average number of episodes of diverticulitis before surgery was 2.1 (r 0-10); 43 patients had no previous inflammatory pathology. There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to conversion rate and hospital stay (G1 18% vs G2 3.2%, P = 0.001; G1: 4.7 d vs G2 3.3 d, P < 0.001). The anastomotic dehiscence rate was 2.3%, with no statistical difference between the groups (G1 2.7% vs G2 2.1%, P = 0.5). There were no differences in demographic data (body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology and previous abdominal surgery), operative time and intraoperative and postoperative complications between the groups. The mortality rate was 0.38% (1 patient), represented by a death secondary to septic shock in G2. CONCLUSION: The results support that the laparoscopic approach in any kind of complicated diverticular disease can be performed with low morbidity and acceptable conversion rates when compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis.
RESUMEN
Several benefits have been described in laparoscopic surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and the results of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after LCRS. Between May 2001 and March 2014, all charts of consecutive patients who underwent LCRS and developed an incisional hernia were evaluated. Patients with parastomal hernias or those with less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic repair group (LR) and open repair group (OR). Demographics, surgical factors, and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. The incisional ventral hernia rate was 7 % (90/1290), and 82 incisional hernia repairs were performed. In 49 patients (60 %) an open approach was performed, and there were 33 laparoscopic repairs (2 converted due to small bowel injury). Mean age was 62 years. Average body mass index was 27.4 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The mean defect size was 56 (4-527) cm2, and there were no differences between the groups (LR: 49 cm2 vs OR: 63 cm2; p = NS). Average operative time was 107 (45-240) minutes (LR: 93 min vs OR: 116 min, p = 0.02). OR showed a higher rate of postoperative complications (OR: 51 % vs LR: 18 %, p = 0.003) and increased hospital stay (OR: 2.77 ± 4 days vs LR: 0.7 ± 0.4 days; p = 0.02). The recurrence rate was 15 % (12 patients, 6 each group; p = NS) after a follow-up of 48 (r: 6-141) months. Laparoscopic approach for incisional hernia repair after LCRS seems to be safe and feasible. Patients who received laparoscopic approach showed significantly less postoperative complications and shorter hospital staying. These observations suggest that mini-invasive surgery may be the initial approach in patients who develop an incisional hernia after LCRS.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Colorrectal/efectos adversos , Herniorrafia/métodos , Hernia Incisional/cirugía , Laparoscopía/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo/efectos adversos , Femenino , Hernia Ventral/cirugía , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , RecurrenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic approach is related to, among others, educing abdominal wall complications such as incisional hernia (IH). However, there are scarce data concerning laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The aim of this study was to evaluate related factors and incidence of IH following this approach. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery with laparoscopic approach in a single center was performed. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and also converted to open surgery were included. Uni- and multi-variate analyses were performed using the following variables: age; gender; type of surgery (left, right, total, or segmental colectomy); comorbidities [diabetes and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD)]; previous surgery; colorectal disease (benign and malignant); operative time; surgical site infection (SSI); and body mass index (BMI). Midline incisions (right colectomy) and off-midline incisions (left colectomies and rectal resections) were also compared. RESULTS: During a period of 12 years, 1051 laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. The incidence of IH was 6% (n = 63). Univariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 kg/m(2) [p < 0.01, OR: 2.3 (1.3-4.7)], SSI [p < 0.01, OR: 6.5 (3.4-12.5)], operative time >180 min [p < 0.01, OR: 2.1 (1.2-3.6)] and conversion to open surgery (p = 0.01, OR: 2.4 [1.1-5.0]) were related to incisional hernias. BMI and SSI have a statistically significant relation with the incidence of IH in multivariate analysis (p < 0.01). No statistical difference between right and left colectomy was observed (6.6 vs. 6.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The incidence of IH after LCRS seems to be acceptable. BMI over 30 kg/m(2) and SSI are strongly associated to this complication.