BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of colorectal resections are performed laparoscopically each year. In 2010, 42% of all colorectal procedures in The Netherlands were performed laparoscopically. Although the anastomotic leakage rate is 3%-19% of all patients, little is known about laparoscopic options for re-intervention. Our study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic re-intervention compared with open surgery following colorectal surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who required a surgical re-intervention for an anastomotic leak, bowel perforation, or abscess after laparoscopic colorectal surgery between January 2008 and June 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, operative management, morbidity, hospital stay, and mortality were collected and analyzed for each patient. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included. Eighteen patients had a laparotomy following laparoscopy, and 38 patients had a laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopy. The median age was 65 years, with a median body mass index of 26 kg/m(2). Four patients had a previous laparotomy, and 73% had surgery for malignant colorectal disease. The length of hospital stay was 20 days in the laparoscopic group versus 31 days in the open group (P=.044). Six out of 38 versus 7 out of 18 patients required an additional re-intervention (P=.056). Fewer patients developed fascial dehiscence in the laparoscopic group (P=.033). In-hospital mortality was 4 out of 18 in the open group compared with 2 out of 38 in the laparoscopic group (P=.077). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic re-intervention could be a safe and feasible treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These promising results need to be further investigated in a prospective study to reduce uncertainty in the patient's condition and perioperative findings.
BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of colorectal resections are performed laparoscopically each year. In 2010, 42% of all colorectal procedures in The Netherlands were performed laparoscopically. Although the anastomotic leakage rate is 3%-19% of all patients, little is known about laparoscopic options for re-intervention. Our study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic re-intervention compared with open surgery following colorectal surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who required a surgical re-intervention for an anastomotic leak, bowel perforation, or abscess after laparoscopic colorectal surgery between January 2008 and June 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic data, operative management, morbidity, hospital stay, and mortality were collected and analyzed for each patient. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included. Eighteen patients had a laparotomy following laparoscopy, and 38 patients had a laparoscopic re-intervention following laparoscopy. The median age was 65 years, with a median body mass index of 26 kg/m(2). Four patients had a previous laparotomy, and 73% had surgery for malignant colorectal disease. The length of hospital stay was 20 days in the laparoscopic group versus 31 days in the open group (P=.044). Six out of 38 versus 7 out of 18 patients required an additional re-intervention (P=.056). Fewer patients developed fascial dehiscence in the laparoscopic group (P=.033). In-hospital mortality was 4 out of 18 in the open group compared with 2 out of 38 in the laparoscopic group (P=.077). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic re-intervention could be a safe and feasible treatment for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These promising results need to be further investigated in a prospective study to reduce uncertainty in the patient's condition and perioperative findings.
Authors: Sami A Chadi; Abe Fingerhut; Mariana Berho; Steven R DeMeester; James W Fleshman; Neil H Hyman; David A Margolin; Joseph E Martz; Elisabeth C McLemore; Daniela Molena; Martin I Newman; Janice F Rafferty; Bashar Safar; Anthony J Senagore; Oded Zmora; Steven D Wexner Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Diego Cuccurullo; Felice Pirozzi; Antonio Sciuto; Umberto Bracale; Camillo La Barbera; Francesco Galante; Francesco Corcione Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 4.584