PURPOSE: A standard laparoscopic-assisted operation can be conducted with colorectal anastomosis performed after extraction of specimen and insertion of a pursestring via a small left iliac fossa or suprapubic incision, or completed via hand-assisted laparoscopic technique with a 7-cm to 8-cm suprapubic incision. This study compares the short-term outcomes of either technique. METHODS:Sixty-three consecutive patients undergoinglaparoscopic-assisted ultralow anterior resection or total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were examined. The laparoscopic-assisted group (n = 31) had standard laparoscopic-assisted resection, whereas the hand-assisted laparoscopic group (n = 32) had a 7-cm to 8-cm suprapubic incision to allow an open colorectal anastomosis. In patients who were obese or have had multiple abdominal surgeries, the hand-assisted approach was generally favored. All patients had a diverting ileostomy. RESULTS: There was no conversion in either group. Mean operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic-assisted group (188.2 vs. 169.8 minutes; P < 0.0001). Mean duration for narcotic analgesia (1.65 vs. 3.38 days, P < 0.0001), mean time to flatus (1.97 vs. 3.19 days, P < 0.0001), and mean duration of intravenous hydration (2.45 vs. 3.88 days, P < 0.0001) were longer in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group. However, the mean length of hospital stay (5.8 vs. 5.9 days, P = 0.379) was similar. There was no major surgical complication in either group; chest infection, wound infection, and thrombophlebitis were similar between the laparoscopic-assisted group and the hand-assisted laparoscopic group. Adequacy of specimen harvest (distal tumor margins, P = 0.995; circumferential resection margin, P = 0.946; number of lymph nodes, P = 0.845) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although both laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries are safe and feasible for ultralow anterior resection, the hand-assisted technique significantly shortens operating time.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: A standard laparoscopic-assisted operation can be conducted with colorectal anastomosis performed after extraction of specimen and insertion of a pursestring via a small left iliac fossa or suprapubic incision, or completed via hand-assisted laparoscopic technique with a 7-cm to 8-cm suprapubic incision. This study compares the short-term outcomes of either technique. METHODS: Sixty-three consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted ultralow anterior resection or total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were examined. The laparoscopic-assisted group (n = 31) had standard laparoscopic-assisted resection, whereas the hand-assisted laparoscopic group (n = 32) had a 7-cm to 8-cm suprapubic incision to allow an open colorectal anastomosis. In patients who were obese or have had multiple abdominal surgeries, the hand-assisted approach was generally favored. All patients had a diverting ileostomy. RESULTS: There was no conversion in either group. Mean operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic-assisted group (188.2 vs. 169.8 minutes; P < 0.0001). Mean duration for narcotic analgesia (1.65 vs. 3.38 days, P < 0.0001), mean time to flatus (1.97 vs. 3.19 days, P < 0.0001), and mean duration of intravenous hydration (2.45 vs. 3.88 days, P < 0.0001) were longer in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group. However, the mean length of hospital stay (5.8 vs. 5.9 days, P = 0.379) was similar. There was no major surgical complication in either group; chest infection, wound infection, and thrombophlebitis were similar between the laparoscopic-assisted group and the hand-assisted laparoscopic group. Adequacy of specimen harvest (distal tumor margins, P = 0.995; circumferential resection margin, P = 0.946; number of lymph nodes, P = 0.845) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although both laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries are safe and feasible for ultralow anterior resection, the hand-assisted technique significantly shortens operating time.
Authors: Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh; Joseph C Carmichael; Steven Mills; Alessio Pigazzi; Ninh T Nguyen; Michael J Stamos Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: P P Bianchi; C Ceriani; A Locatelli; G Spinoglio; M G Zampino; A Sonzogni; C Crosta; B Andreoni Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: R Siegel; M A Cuesta; E Targarona; F G Bader; M Morino; R Corcelles; A M Lacy; L Påhlman; E Haglind; K Bujko; H P Bruch; M M Heiss; M Eikermann; E A M Neugebauer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: P G Vaughan-Shaw; A T King; T Cheung; N E Beck; J S Knight; P H Nichols; K P Nugent; S A Pilkington; J A Smallwood; A H Mirnezami Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Douglas M Overbey; Michelle L Cowan; Patrick W Hosokawa; Brandon C Chapman; Jon D Vogel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 4.584