Postoperative adhesions represent 75% of all acute small bowel obstructions. Although open surgery is considered the standard approach for adhesiolysis, laparoscopic approach is gaining popularity.
A ...retrospective study with data from a prospectively maintained data base of all patients undergoing surgical treatment for adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) from January 2007 to May 2016 was conducted. Postoperative outcomes comparing open vs laparoscopic approaches were analysed. An intention to treat analysis was performed. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of ASBO.
262 patients undergoing surgery for ASBO were included. 184 (70%) and 78 (30%) patients were operated by open and laparoscopic approach respectively. The conversion rate was 38.5%. Patients in the laparoscopic group were younger (p < 0.001), had fewer previous abdominal operations (p = 0.001), lower ASA grade (p < 0.001), and less complex adhesions were found (p = 0.001). Operative time was longer in the open group (p = 0.004). Laparoscopic adhesiolysis was associated with a lower overall complication rate (43% vs 67.9%, p < 0.001), lower mortality (p = 0.026), earlier oral intake (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001). Specific analysis of patients with single band and/or internal hernia who did not need bowel resection, also demonstrated fewer complications, earlier oral intake and shorter length of stay. In the multivariate analysis, the open approach was an independent risk factor for overall complications compared to the laparoscopic approach (Odds Ratio = 2.89; 95% CI 1.1-7.6; p = 0.033).
Laparoscopic management of ASBO is feasible, effective and safe. The laparoscopic approach improves postoperative outcomes and functional recovery, and should be considered in patients in whom simple band adhesions are suspected. Patient selection is the strongest key factor for having success.
To assess the minimally invasive surgery into the step-up approach procedures as a standard treatment for severe acute pancreatitis and comparing its results with those obtained by classical ...management.
Retrospective cohort study comparative with two groups treated over two consecutive, equal periods of time were defined: group A, classic management with open necrosectomy from January 2006 to June 2010; and group B, management with the step-up approach with minimally invasive surgery from July 2010 to December 2014.
In group A, 83 patients with severe acute pancreatitis were treated, of whom 19 underwent at least one laparotomy, and in 5 any minimally invasive surgery. In group B, 81 patients were treated: minimally invasive surgery was necessary in 17 cases and laparotomy in 3. Among operated patients, the time from admission to first interventional procedures was significantly longer in group B (9 days vs. 18.5 days; p = 0.042). There were no significant differences in Intensive Care Unit stay or overall stay: 9.5 and 27 days (group A) vs. 8.5 and 21 days (group B). Mortality in operated patients and mortality overall were 50% and 18.1% in group A vs 0% and 6.2% in group B (p < 0.001 and p = 0.030).
The combination of the step-up approach and minimally invasive surgery algorithm is feasible and could be considered as the standard of treatment for severe acute pancreatitis. The mortality rate deliberately descends when it is used.
•The main risk factor is the infection of pancreatic necrosis and organ failure.•Triad: control acute inflammatory process and sepsis; and delay surgical treatment.•We designed a retrospective comparative cohort study with two groups.•The step-up approach allows optimization critical condition.•MIS allow to planning the surgical procedures.
The International Summit on Laparoscopic Pancreatic Resection (ISLPR) was held in Coimbatore, India, on 7th and 8th of October 2016 and thirty international experts who regularly perform laparoscopic ...pancreatic resections participated in ISPLR from four continents, i.e., South and North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to ISLPR, the first conversation among the experts was made online on August 26th, 2016 and the structures of ISPLR were developed. The aims of ISPLR were; i) to identify indications and optimal case selection criteria for minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) in the setting of both benign and malignant diseases; ii) standardization of techniques to increase the safety of MIPR; iii) identification of common problems faced during MIPR and developing associated management strategies; iv) development of clinical protocols to allow early identification of complications and develop the accompanying management plan to minimize morbidity and mortality. As a process for interactive discussion, the experts were requested to complete an online questionnaire consisting of 65 questions about the various technical aspects of laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Two further web-based meetings were conducted prior to ISPLR. Through further discussion during ISPLR, we have created productive statements regarding the topics of Disease, Implementation, Patients, Techniques, and Instrumentations (DIPTI) and hereby publish them as “Coimbatore Summit Statements”.
To compare perioperative outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) performed through the laparoscopic route or by open surgery.
Laparoscopic PD is being progressively performed in selected patients.
An ...open-label single-center RCT was conducted between February 2013 and September 2017. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were operative time, transfusion requirements, specific pancreatic complications (pancreatic or biliary fistula, pancreatic hemorrhage, and delayed gastric emptying), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, comprehensive complication index (CCI) score, poor quality outcome (PQO), and the quality of pathologic resection. Analyses were performed on an intention to treat basis.
Of 86 patients assessed for PD, 66 were randomized (34 laparoscopic approach, 32 open surgery). Conversion to an open procedure was needed in 8 (23.5%) patients. Laparoscopic versus open PD was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (median 13.5 vs. 17 d; P = 0.024) and longer median operative time (486 vs. 365 min; P = 0.0001). The laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly better outcomes regarding Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (5 vs. 11 patients; P = 0.04), CCI score (20.6 vs. 29.6; P = 0.038), and PQO (10 vs. 14 patients; P = 0.041). No significant differences in transfusion requirements, pancreas-specific complications, the number of lymph nodes retrieved, and resection margins between the two approaches were found.
Laparoscopic PD versus open surgery is associated with a shorter LOS and a more favorable postoperative course while maintaining oncological standards of a curative-intent surgical resection.
ISRCTN93168938.
Open necrosectomy, the standard surgical treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN), presents a high rate of postoperative complications and an associated mortality of 20–60%. In the last decade ...various minimally invasive approaches (MIA) have been proposed for the treatment of IPN and the results seem to improve on those reported with open necrosectomy. These MIA include: percutaneous, retroperitoneal, endoscopic (endoluminal) and laparoscopic (transperitoneal). The adoption of the step-up approach in the management of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) facilitates the implementation of MIA as the surgical treatment of choice in most cases. Since MIA require the expertise of radiologists, endoscopists and surgeons, patients suffering SAP should be treated by multidisciplinary teams in referral centers. We describe the MIA currently available and discuss their advantages, disadvantages, and results.
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of a new technique for liver resection based on a radiofrequency-assisted (485 kHz) device that has shown high ...performance in the animal setting in both transection speed and blood loss per transection area. Eight patients with colorectal hepatic metastasis underwent 11 partial hepatectomies using the proposed technique for both parenchyma division and hemostasis. Main outcome measures were blood loss per transection area and transection speed. No other instruments (including sutures or clips) were used in any of the cases; temporary vascular occlusion performed was not performed. No blood transfusions were required and no mortality or morbidity linked to the hepatic procedure were observed. The median blood loss per transection area and the median transection speed were .79 mL/cm2 (range, .05–7.37 mL/cm2 ) and 1.28 cm2 /min (range, .49–1.87 mL/cm2 ), respectively. During the follow-up period (range, 4–12 mo) no late complications were detected and postoperative patients were free from hepatic recurrence. The proposed radiofrequency-assisted device was shown to achieve parenchymal division and hemostasis simultaneously, resulting in extremely reduced blood loss.
The aim of the study was to validate and optimize the alternative Fistula Risk Score (a-FRS) for patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in a large pan-European cohort.
...MIPD may be associated with an increased risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The a-FRS could allow for risk-adjusted comparisons in research and improve preventive strategies for high-risk patients. The a-FRS, however, has not yet been validated specifically for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD.
A validation study was performed in a pan-European cohort of 952 consecutive patients undergoing MIPD (543 laparoscopic, 258 robot-assisted, 151 hybrid) in 26 centers from 7 countries between 2007 and 2017. The primary outcome was POPF (International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery grade B/C). Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC; discrimination) and calibration plots. Validation included univariable screening for clinical variables that could improve performance.
Overall, 202 of 952 patients (21%) developed POPF after MIPD. Before adjustment, the original a-FRS performed moderately (AUC 0.68) and calibration was inadequate with systematic underestimation of the POPF risk. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy (odds ratio 4.6, 95 confidence interval CI 2.8-7.6) and male sex (odds ratio 1.9, 95 CI 1.4-2.7) were identified as important risk factors for POPF in MIPD. The updated a-FRS, consisting of body mass index, pancreatic texture, duct size, and male sex, showed good discrimination (AUC 0.75, 95 CI 0.71-0.79) and adequate calibration. Performance was adequate for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy.
The updated a-FRS (www.pancreascalculator.com) now includes male sex as a risk factor and is validated for both MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy. The increased risk of POPF in laparoscopic MIPD was associated with single-row pancreatojejunostomy, which should therefore be discouraged.
PDF
