Carlos Vaccaro1, Marcos Gonzalez2, Tatiana Ruffa3, Juan Pablo Campana4, Ricardo Mentz5, Catalina Poggi6, Fernando Rubinstein7, Peter Marcello8. 1. Hospital italiano de buenos aires. carlos.vaccaro@hospitalitaliano.org.ar. 2. Hospital italiano de buenos aires. marcos.gonzalez@hospitalitaliano.org.ar. 3. Hospital italiano de buenos aires. tatiana.ruffa@hospitalitaliano.org.ar. 4. Hospital italiano de buenos aires. juan.campana@hospitalitaliano.org.ar. 5. Hospital italiano de buenos aires. ricardo.mentz@hospitalitaliano.org.ar. 6. Hospital italiano de buenos aires. catalina.poggi@hospitalitaliano.org.ar. 7. Instituto de efectividad clinica y sanitaria. frubinstein@iecs.org.ar. 8. Lahey Hospital & Medical Center. peter.w.marcello@lahey.org.
Abstract
Introduction: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopic approach (SL) that requires the use of a specific device to maintain the pneumoperitoneum. Our group has described an original double glove technique to replace it. Our purpose was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing HALS using this original technique vs SL. Methods: Retrospective review of a prospective database including patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resections between 2004 to 2020 at the Hospital Italiano, Argentina. Logistic regression analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability weighting were used to estimate adjusted treatment effects for perioperative outcomes. Results: HALS (n=458) and SL (n=1692) cases were demographically similar. HALS was associated with a shorter operative time (170.3 vs 206.9 minutes, p<0.001). Such difference was even more pronounced in obese (44.1 min), large patients (37.5 min), complex procedures (33.8 min) and surgeries carried out by non-trained surgeons (57,6 vs 31,6 minutes, p<0.001). Hand-assisted was associated with a lower conversion rate (5% vs 9.9%, p<0.001) with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.45 (95%CI 0.28-0.73). No difference in hospital stay, morbidity, and readmission rates was found. Conclusions: HALS with double-glove technique is comparable to SL in terms of postoperative outcomes keeping reduced operative time and conversion rates, especially in obese patients undergoing complex procedures. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
Introduction: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopic approach (SL) that requires the use of a specific device to maintain the pneumoperitoneum. Our group has described an original double glove technique to replace it. Our purpose was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing HALS using this original technique vs SL. Methods: Retrospective review of a prospective database including patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resections between 2004 to 2020 at the Hospital Italiano, Argentina. Logistic regression analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability weighting were used to estimate adjusted treatment effects for perioperative outcomes. Results: HALS (n=458) and SL (n=1692) cases were demographically similar. HALS was associated with a shorter operative time (170.3 vs 206.9 minutes, p<0.001). Such difference was even more pronounced in obese (44.1 min), large patients (37.5 min), complex procedures (33.8 min) and surgeries carried out by non-trained surgeons (57,6 vs 31,6 minutes, p<0.001). Hand-assisted was associated with a lower conversion rate (5% vs 9.9%, p<0.001) with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.45 (95%CI 0.28-0.73). No difference in hospital stay, morbidity, and readmission rates was found. Conclusions: HALS with double-glove technique is comparable to SL in terms of postoperative outcomes keeping reduced operative time and conversion rates, especially in obese patients undergoing complex procedures. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
Authors: Monirah Alnasser; Eric B Schneider; Susan L Gearhart; Elizabeth C Wick; Sandy H Fang; Adil H Haider; Jonathan E Efron Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Bradley N Reames; Kyle H Sheetz; Seth A Waits; Justin B Dimick; Scott E Regenbogen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helen M Heneghan; Sean T Martin; Ravi P Kiran; Wisam Khoury; Luca Stocchi; Feza H Remzi; Jon D Vogel Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Benjamin Clapp; William Klingsporn; Brittany Harper; Ira L Swinney; Christopher Dodoo; Brian Davis; Alan Tyroch Journal: JSLS Date: 2019 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.172