AIM OF THE STUDY: This study reports our early experience in two-stage video assisted restorative proctocolectomy (RPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From May 1999 to May 2003, 12 video assisted RPCs were performed (mucosal ulcerative colitis: n = 11; familial adenomatous polyposis: n = 1). These patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index and indication for surgery, with 12 patients who underwent RPC by laparotomy (open group). RESULTS: Median operative time was significantly longer in the video assisted RPC group (400 min; range: 360-490) vs open group (300 min; range: 210-390) (P = 0.003). A conversion in midline laparotomy (under the umbilicus) was necessary in 3/12 patients (25%) in the video assisted RPC group. Return to bowel function and oral intake occurred two days earlier after video assisted RPC (respectively, P = 0.009 and P = 0.0001) but length of stay was not significantly shorter in this group. A complication occurred in 3/12 patients (25%) in both groups, which lead to a reoperation in one patient in the open group (ns). CONCLUSION: Two-stage videoassisted RPC is feasible at the cost of a lengthening of operative time, Nevertheless postoperative results after video assisted RPC are comparable to those obtained after RPC by laparotomy.
AIM OF THE STUDY: This study reports our early experience in two-stage video assisted restorative proctocolectomy (RPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From May 1999 to May 2003, 12 video assisted RPCs were performed (mucosal ulcerative colitis: n = 11; familial adenomatous polyposis: n = 1). These patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index and indication for surgery, with 12 patients who underwent RPC by laparotomy (open group). RESULTS: Median operative time was significantly longer in the video assisted RPC group (400 min; range: 360-490) vs open group (300 min; range: 210-390) (P = 0.003). A conversion in midline laparotomy (under the umbilicus) was necessary in 3/12 patients (25%) in the video assisted RPC group. Return to bowel function and oral intake occurred two days earlier after video assisted RPC (respectively, P = 0.009 and P = 0.0001) but length of stay was not significantly shorter in this group. A complication occurred in 3/12 patients (25%) in both groups, which lead to a reoperation in one patient in the open group (ns). CONCLUSION: Two-stage videoassisted RPC is feasible at the cost of a lengthening of operative time, Nevertheless postoperative results after video assisted RPC are comparable to those obtained after RPC by laparotomy.
Authors: Benjamin Coquet-Reinier; Stéphane V Berdah; Jean-Charles Grimaud; David Birnbaum; Pierre-Alain Cougard; Marc Barthet; Ariadne Desjeux; Vincent Moutardier; Christian Brunet Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 4.584