BACKGROUND: Hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colorectal resection remains controversial. Critics believe HAL methods lead to decreased use of laparoscopically assisted (LA) methods. Proponents believe selective HAL use increases minimally invasive surgery (MIS) use rates. This study assessed general and body mass index (BMI)-specific HAL and LA colorectal resection use by surgeons who embraced both methods. METHODS: This study retrospectively investigated 1,122 patients who underwent colorectal resection during an 8-year period. Surgical method, type of colorectal resection, BMI, comorbidities, incision length, and short-term outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The surgical methods included LA (60 %), HAL (25 %), and open (OP 15 %) procedures. The HAL group mean BMI was higher than that of the LA group (P < 0.0001), and the HAL use rate varied directly with BMI. The HAL technique was used for 48 % of the rectal, 36 % of the sigmoid, and 4 % of the right colorectal resections. The incision length was directly proportional to BMI for all the methods. Although the HAL incision lengths were significantly longer than the LA incision lengths for a BMI lower than 40 kg/m(2), there was no difference when the BMI was 40 kg/m(2) or higher. The comorbidities were greater in the HAL group than in the LA sigmoid colorectal resection group (P = 0.001). The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was similar for the HAL and LA patients but longer for the open surgery patients (P < 0.0001 vs HAL group). The major complications, reoperations, and 30-day mortality rates were low and comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The HAL methods were used primarily for sigmoid and rectal colorectal resections and for higher BMI patients with more comorbidities. The mean incision length difference between the HAL and LA methods was 3.9 cm, but neither the LOS nor the major postoperative complications differed significantly. Selective use of HAL together with LA methods led to a MIS use rate of 85 % and facilitated MIS for high BMI patients. Together, the methods are complementary and may increase the number of minimally invasive surgeries performed.
BACKGROUND: Hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colorectal resection remains controversial. Critics believe HAL methods lead to decreased use of laparoscopically assisted (LA) methods. Proponents believe selective HAL use increases minimally invasive surgery (MIS) use rates. This study assessed general and body mass index (BMI)-specific HAL and LA colorectal resection use by surgeons who embraced both methods. METHODS: This study retrospectively investigated 1,122 patients who underwent colorectal resection during an 8-year period. Surgical method, type of colorectal resection, BMI, comorbidities, incision length, and short-term outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The surgical methods included LA (60 %), HAL (25 %), and open (OP 15 %) procedures. The HAL group mean BMI was higher than that of the LA group (P < 0.0001), and the HAL use rate varied directly with BMI. The HAL technique was used for 48 % of the rectal, 36 % of the sigmoid, and 4 % of the right colorectal resections. The incision length was directly proportional to BMI for all the methods. Although the HAL incision lengths were significantly longer than the LA incision lengths for a BMI lower than 40 kg/m(2), there was no difference when the BMI was 40 kg/m(2) or higher. The comorbidities were greater in the HAL group than in the LA sigmoid colorectal resection group (P = 0.001). The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was similar for the HAL and LA patients but longer for the open surgery patients (P < 0.0001 vs HAL group). The major complications, reoperations, and 30-day mortality rates were low and comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The HAL methods were used primarily for sigmoid and rectal colorectal resections and for higher BMI patients with more comorbidities. The mean incision length difference between the HAL and LA methods was 3.9 cm, but neither the LOS nor the major postoperative complications differed significantly. Selective use of HAL together with LA methods led to a MIS use rate of 85 % and facilitated MIS for high BMI patients. Together, the methods are complementary and may increase the number of minimally invasive surgeries performed.
Authors: Stefan Maartense; Michalda S Dunker; J Frederick Slors; Miguel A Cuesta; Dirk J Gouma; Sander J van Deventer; Ad A van Bodegraven; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Charles A Lascano; Orit Kaidar-Person; Samuel Szomstein; Raul Rosenthal; Steven D Wexner Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: E M Targarona; E Gracia; J Garriga; C Martínez-Bru; M Cortés; R Boluda; L Lerma; M Trías Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2001-10-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Peter W Marcello; James W Fleshman; Jeffrey W Milsom; Thomas E Read; Tracey D Arnell; Elisa H Birnbaum; Daniel L Feingold; Sang W Lee; Matthew G Mutch; Toyooki Sonoda; Yan Yan; Richard L Whelan Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2008-04-17 Impact factor: 4.585
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
Authors: Jacopo Martellucci; Carlo Bergamini; Alessandro Bruscino; Paolo Prosperi; Pietro Tonelli; Antonio Todaro; Andrea Valeri Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 2.571