PURPOSE: This study compared outcomes after laparoscopically assisted and open restorative proctocolectomy performed as a one-stage procedure, including anorectal mucosectomy and omission of ileal diversion. METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy between 1998 and 2006. Demographic data, surgical indications, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were evaluated. Anastomotic leaks were identified by radiologic, endoscopic, or intraoperative evidence. The primary outcome variables were complications, duration of operation, blood loss, intraoperative spillage of enteric contents, and the ability to complete the procedure in one stage. RESULTS: One-stage laparoscopically assisted restorative proctocolectomy was performed in 50 patients and open restorative proctocolectomy was performed in 155 patients. The mean operative time was longer for the laparoscopically assisted group (198.7 vs. 159.1 minutes; P = 0.006). The mean estimated blood loss was less among the patients in the laparoscopically assisted group (287.5 vs. 386.4 ml; P = 0.006). There were no significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically assisted one stage restorative proctocolectomy is a safe and technically feasible procedure. There seems to be no increase in the rate of postoperative complications compared with the open approach. Laparoscopically assisted restorative proctocolectomy should be considered in the surgical management of patients who require this procedure.
PURPOSE: This study compared outcomes after laparoscopically assisted and open restorative proctocolectomy performed as a one-stage procedure, including anorectal mucosectomy and omission of ileal diversion. METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent restorative proctocolectomy between 1998 and 2006. Demographic data, surgical indications, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were evaluated. Anastomotic leaks were identified by radiologic, endoscopic, or intraoperative evidence. The primary outcome variables were complications, duration of operation, blood loss, intraoperative spillage of enteric contents, and the ability to complete the procedure in one stage. RESULTS: One-stage laparoscopically assisted restorative proctocolectomy was performed in 50 patients and open restorative proctocolectomy was performed in 155 patients. The mean operative time was longer for the laparoscopically assisted group (198.7 vs. 159.1 minutes; P = 0.006). The mean estimated blood loss was less among the patients in the laparoscopically assisted group (287.5 vs. 386.4 ml; P = 0.006). There were no significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically assisted one stage restorative proctocolectomy is a safe and technically feasible procedure. There seems to be no increase in the rate of postoperative complications compared with the open approach. Laparoscopically assisted restorative proctocolectomy should be considered in the surgical management of patients who require this procedure.