OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and short-term outcomes of 100 laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) versus 200 conventional open IPAA patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Outcomes of laparoscopic IPAA (LAP-IPAA) have been incompletely characterized. Previous reports are characterized by small numbers of patients and rarely include case-matched or randomized trial methodology. This report describes 100 LAP-IPAA patients case matched to 200 open IPAA patients. METHODS:Between 1998 and 2004, 100 consecutive LAP-IPAA patients (75 laparoscopic assisted, 25 hand assisted) were identified and case matched to 200 open IPAA control patients by age, operation, gender, date of operation, and body mass index. Operative and postoperative outcomes at 90 days were compared. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (180 female) with a median age of 32 years (range, 17-66 years), and a median body mass index of 23 kg/m (range, 16-34 kg/m) underwent IPAA (100 LAP-IPAA, 200 open IPAA). Diagnosis (chronic ulcerative colitis 97%, familial adenomatous polyposis 3%) and previous operative history were equivalent between groups. One intraoperative complication occurred in each group. Overall, the laparoscopic conversion rate was 6%. Median operative time was longer for the LAP-IPAA group (333 minutes versus 230 minutes, P < 0.0001). LAP-IPAA patients had shorter median time to regular diet (3 versus 5 days), time to ileostomy output (2 versus 3 days), length of stay (4 versus 7 days), and decreased IV narcotic use (all P < 0.05. Postoperative morbidity was equivalent (LAP-IPAA = 33%, open IPAA = 37%), mortality was nil, and readmission rates were equal (LAP-IPAA = 21%, open IPAA = 22%). Reoperation was required in 3% of LAP-IPAA and 6.5% of open IPAA patients (P < 0.2) during the first 3 months. CONCLUSION:LAP-IPAA is equivalent to open IPAA in terms of safety and feasibility. In addition, LAP-IPAA provides significant improvements in short-term recovery outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and short-term outcomes of 100 laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) versus 200 conventional open IPAA patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Outcomes of laparoscopic IPAA (LAP-IPAA) have been incompletely characterized. Previous reports are characterized by small numbers of patients and rarely include case-matched or randomized trial methodology. This report describes 100 LAP-IPAA patients case matched to 200 open IPAA patients. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2004, 100 consecutive LAP-IPAA patients (75 laparoscopic assisted, 25 hand assisted) were identified and case matched to 200 open IPAA control patients by age, operation, gender, date of operation, and body mass index. Operative and postoperative outcomes at 90 days were compared. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients (180 female) with a median age of 32 years (range, 17-66 years), and a median body mass index of 23 kg/m (range, 16-34 kg/m) underwent IPAA (100 LAP-IPAA, 200 open IPAA). Diagnosis (chronic ulcerative colitis 97%, familial adenomatous polyposis 3%) and previous operative history were equivalent between groups. One intraoperative complication occurred in each group. Overall, the laparoscopic conversion rate was 6%. Median operative time was longer for the LAP-IPAA group (333 minutes versus 230 minutes, P < 0.0001). LAP-IPAA patients had shorter median time to regular diet (3 versus 5 days), time to ileostomy output (2 versus 3 days), length of stay (4 versus 7 days), and decreased IV narcotic use (all P < 0.05. Postoperative morbidity was equivalent (LAP-IPAA = 33%, open IPAA = 37%), mortality was nil, and readmission rates were equal (LAP-IPAA = 21%, open IPAA = 22%). Reoperation was required in 3% of LAP-IPAA and 6.5% of open IPAA patients (P < 0.2) during the first 3 months. CONCLUSION:LAP-IPAA is equivalent to open IPAA in terms of safety and feasibility. In addition, LAP-IPAA provides significant improvements in short-term recovery outcomes.
Authors: A Hashimoto; Y Funayama; H Naito; K Fukushima; C Shibata; T Naitoh; K Shibuya; K Koyama; K Takahashi; H Ogawa; S Satoh; T Ueno; T Kitayama; S Matsuno; I Sasaki Journal: Surg Today Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: P W Marcello; J W Milsom; S K Wong; K A Hammerhofer; M Goormastic; J M Church; V W Fazio Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: H H Chen; S D Wexner; A J Iroatulam; A J Pikarsky; O Alabaz; J J Nogueras; A Nessim; E G Weiss Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Stefan D Holubar; Kirsten Hall Long; Edward V Loftus; Bruce G Wolff; John H Pemberton; Robert R Cima Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.585