Literature DB >> 17375318

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in Germany--a standardised procedure?

Jens Neudecker1, Robert Bergholz, Tido Junghans, Julian Mall, Wolfgang Schwenk.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection of the sigmoid colon is generally considered as feasible option to open surgery, but standardised guidelines on surgical details have not been adopted yet. The aim of this survey was to investigate which techniques were applied by laparoscopic surgeons who are members of the Surgical Working Group for Minimal Invasive Surgery (CAMIC) of the German Surgical Society.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2005, we conducted a written survey among all members of the CAMIC asking them for their routine surgical strategy of laparoscopic sigmoid resection in a standardised multiple-choice questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of 20 questions covering main technical issues of laparoscopic sigmoid resection including trocar and team positioning, mobilisation and resection of the left colon, specimen retrieval as well as anastomosing technique. The results were classified into four levels of consensus depending on the level of agreement between participating surgeons.
RESULTS: There were 292 surgeons who took part in the survey. Strong consensus (>95% agreement) was only found in 1 of 20 technical details: the operating surgeon standing at the patient right's side. Consensus (75-95% agreement) was found for: position of the first assistant standing to the patient's left side, size of the camera port is 10 mm, lateral mobilisation of the left hemicolon before ligating the inferior mesenteric artery, extracorporeal resection of the sigmoid via minilaparotomy, transrectal stapling of the colorectal anastomosis, intraoperative testing of the anastomosis for leakage, no regular suturing over the anastomosis and irrigating of the abdominal cavity after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Variability of technical details of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy was surprisingly high among German laparoscopic surgeons. This fact should be considered when discussing clinical studies about laparoscopic sigmoidectomy because trocar position, type of minilaparotomy and dissection techniques may very well influence patient outcome after laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, publications of clinical results concerning laparoscopic sigmoid resection should include a precise description of the technical details of the operation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17375318     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-007-0172-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  27 in total

Review 1.  Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines.

Authors:  A S Adams; S B Soumerai; J Lomas; D Ross-Degnan
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.038

Review 2.  Diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease: results of a consensus development conference. The Scientific Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

Authors:  L Köhler; S Sauerland; E Neugebauer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  [Methodological basis for the development of consensus recommendations].

Authors:  J C Hoffmann; I Fischer; W Höhne; M Zeitz; H-K Selbmann
Journal:  Z Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in cancer patients: long-term complications, quality of life, and survival.

Authors:  Marco Braga; Matteo Frasson; Andrea Vignali; Walter Zuliani; Vittorio Civelli; Valerio Di Carlo
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy).

Authors:  M Jacobs; J C Verdeja; H S Goldstein
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc       Date:  1991-09

6.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.

Authors:  D L Sackett; W M Rosenberg; J A Gray; R B Haynes; W S Richardson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-01-13

7.  Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs. microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  W Schwenk; J Neudecker; J Mall; B Böhm; J M Müller
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma: prospective randomised trial.

Authors:  Ka Lau Leung; Samuel P Y Kwok; Steve C W Lam; Janet F Y Lee; Raymond Y C Yiu; Simon S M Ng; Paul B S Lai; Wan Yee Lau
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-04-10       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

Authors:  Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  [Medial mobilisation of the left hemicolon].

Authors:  A Sigel; A Zerz; B Mölle; J Knaus; M Zünd; M Thurnheer; T Clerici; J Lange
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 0.955

View more
  2 in total

1.  Laparoscopic assisted sigmoid resection for diverticular disease.

Authors:  Sven Petersen; Wolfgang Schwenk
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Nationwide implementation of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes and long-term survival in a population-based cohort.

Authors:  Kjartan Stormark; Kjetil Søreide; Jon Arne Søreide; Jan Terje Kvaløy; Frank Pfeffer; Morten T Eriksen; Bjørn S Nedrebø; Hartwig Kørner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.584

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.