BACKGROUND: Reduction in length of stay has several advantages, including healthcare costs, patient choice, and minimizing hospital acquired infections. Additionally, length of stay is a surrogate marker of rate of recovery from the physiological insult of anaesthesia and surgery and complications thereof. A well-documented short-term benefit of laparoscopic compared to open colorectal resection is reduced length of stay. METHODS: This was a review of prospectively collected data on all laparoscopic colorectal resections performed in our unit. We analyzed patients having primary colorectal anastomosis, to assess the effect of conversion compared to completion laparoscopically. Furthermore we compared those with or without diverting stoma, for the effect of stoma formation on postoperative length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen patients had a colorectal resection. Of these 133 (62%) were left-sided or rectal resections. Resection with primary colorectal anastomosis was undertaken in 112 patients. A defunctioning stoma was performed in 13/112 (12%), and 32/112 (29%) were converted as the procedure could not be completed laparoscopically. Conversion was not significantly associated with increased LOS with weighted median of 6.5 and 6 days for conversion and no conversion, respectively. However, stoma formation significantly increased LOS to a median of 10 days compared with a median of 6 days in patients without a stoma (p = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U). CONCLUSIONS: The need for conversion, if performed in a timely and appropriate manner, has little impact on patient outcome compared to those completed laparoscopically, with no significant increase in LOS in our experience. In contrast, a diverting stoma does prolong LOS and some of the benefits of laparoscopic surgery may be lost unless patients requiring a stoma are identified preoperatively and have intensive pre- and postoperative stoma training.
BACKGROUND: Reduction in length of stay has several advantages, including healthcare costs, patient choice, and minimizing hospital acquired infections. Additionally, length of stay is a surrogate marker of rate of recovery from the physiological insult of anaesthesia and surgery and complications thereof. A well-documented short-term benefit of laparoscopic compared to open colorectal resection is reduced length of stay. METHODS: This was a review of prospectively collected data on all laparoscopic colorectal resections performed in our unit. We analyzed patients having primary colorectal anastomosis, to assess the effect of conversion compared to completion laparoscopically. Furthermore we compared those with or without diverting stoma, for the effect of stoma formation on postoperative length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen patients had a colorectal resection. Of these 133 (62%) were left-sided or rectal resections. Resection with primary colorectal anastomosis was undertaken in 112 patients. A defunctioning stoma was performed in 13/112 (12%), and 32/112 (29%) were converted as the procedure could not be completed laparoscopically. Conversion was not significantly associated with increased LOS with weighted median of 6.5 and 6 days for conversion and no conversion, respectively. However, stoma formation significantly increased LOS to a median of 10 days compared with a median of 6 days in patients without a stoma (p = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U). CONCLUSIONS: The need for conversion, if performed in a timely and appropriate manner, has little impact on patient outcome compared to those completed laparoscopically, with no significant increase in LOS in our experience. In contrast, a diverting stoma does prolong LOS and some of the benefits of laparoscopic surgery may be lost unless patients requiring a stoma are identified preoperatively and have intensive pre- and postoperative stoma training.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Antonio M Lacy; Juan C García-Valdecasas; Salvadora Delgado; Antoni Castells; Pilar Taurá; Josep M Piqué; Josep Visa Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-06-29 Impact factor: 79.321
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
Authors: Joseph C Carmichael; Deborah S Keller; Gabriele Baldini; Liliana Bordeianou; Eric Weiss; Lawrence Lee; Marylise Boutros; James McClane; Scott R Steele; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Yuxiang Wen; Murad A Jabir; Michael Keating; Alison R Althans; Justin T Brady; Bradley J Champagne; Conor P Delaney; Scott R Steele Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-12-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Juan Mata; Julio F Fiore; Nicolo Pecorelli; Barry L Stein; Sender Liberman; Patrick Charlebois; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Fábio Lopes de Queiroz; Antonio Lacerda-Filho; Adriana Cherem Alves; Fábio Henrique de Oliveira; Paulo Rocha França Neto; Rodrigo de Almeida Paiva Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 2.102