Peng Zhang1, Jie Bai1, Xiaoming Shuai1, Weilong Chang1, Jinbo Gao1, Xinghua Liu1, Guobin Wang1, Kaixiong Tao2. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1277 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, 430022. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1277 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, 430022. tao_kaixiong@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nowadays, laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) not only has the same oncologic safety of open surgery and but also has the common advantages of laparoscopic surgery. However, given the difficulty in operation and long operative time, laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy construction is rarely practiced and reported. In this study, we describe technique of extraperitoneal colostomy using circular stapler following LAPR and demonstrate its efficacy and safety. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data of 42 patients who underwent LAPR with circular stapler-assisted extraperitoneal colostomy in our department between July 2011 and June 2014. RESULTS: The mean time for extraperitoneal colostomy construction was 25 min (18-33 min). The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery time, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were 160 min (115-225 min), 45 ml (10-250 ml), 33 h (26-45 h), and 8.6 days (6-13 days), respectively; 4.8 % of the patients had postoperative short-term complications. There were no stenosis, prolapse, and parastomal hernia observed in follow-up period. At 6 months after operation, 26 patients (62 %) claimed to be satisfied with their postoperative stool habits, 29 patients (69 %) had sensation to defecate per stoma, and 11 (26.2 %) patients had the ability to defer defecation for solid or liquid stool per stoma. CONCLUSION: Circular stapler-assisted extraperitoneal colostomy is an easy, effective, and safe technique following LAPR and appears to minimize the occurrence of stomal complications and improve the quality of life for patients.
BACKGROUND: Nowadays, laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) not only has the same oncologic safety of open surgery and but also has the common advantages of laparoscopic surgery. However, given the difficulty in operation and long operative time, laparoscopic extraperitoneal colostomy construction is rarely practiced and reported. In this study, we describe technique of extraperitoneal colostomy using circular stapler following LAPR and demonstrate its efficacy and safety. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data of 42 patients who underwent LAPR with circular stapler-assisted extraperitoneal colostomy in our department between July 2011 and June 2014. RESULTS: The mean time for extraperitoneal colostomy construction was 25 min (18-33 min). The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery time, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were 160 min (115-225 min), 45 ml (10-250 ml), 33 h (26-45 h), and 8.6 days (6-13 days), respectively; 4.8 % of the patients had postoperative short-term complications. There were no stenosis, prolapse, and parastomal hernia observed in follow-up period. At 6 months after operation, 26 patients (62 %) claimed to be satisfied with their postoperative stool habits, 29 patients (69 %) had sensation to defecate per stoma, and 11 (26.2 %) patients had the ability to defer defecation for solid or liquid stool per stoma. CONCLUSION: Circular stapler-assisted extraperitoneal colostomy is an easy, effective, and safe technique following LAPR and appears to minimize the occurrence of stomal complications and improve the quality of life for patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Circular stapler; Extraperitoneal colostomy; Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection; Rectal cancer
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