Biomedical subjects

Gordie K Kaban

Publications and source records attributed to Gordie K Kaban.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Immunologic effects of hand-assisted surgery on peritoneal macrophages: comparison to open and standard laparoscopic approaches.

BACKGROUND: Exaggerated activation of peritoneal immunity after major abdominal surgery activates peritoneal macrophages (PMs), which may lead to a relative local immunosuppression. Although laparoscopy (L) is known to elicit a smaller attenuation of peritoneal host defenses, compared with open (O) surgery, effects of the hand-assisted (HA) approach have not been investigated to date. METHODS: Eighteen pigs underwent a transabdominal nephrectomy via O, HA, or L approach. PMs were harvested at 4, 12, and 24 hours through an intraperitoneal drain and stimulated in vitro with lipopolysaccharide. The production of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) by the purified macrophage cultures was measured with the use of a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique. Statistical comparison was performed by using analysis of variance and Student t test. RESULTS: In vitro lipopolysaccharide-induced IL-6 and TNF-alpha production by PMs increased over the 24-hour period in all 3 groups. Stimulated PMs harvested at 12 and 24 hours postoperatively secreted higher levels of IL-6 in the O group, compared with both the HA group (P = .02, P = .01) and L group (P = .04, P = .001). PMs harvested at 4, 12 and 24 hours postoperatively also produced more TNF-alpha in O group, compared with both the HA group (P = .03, P = .03, and P = .01) and L group (P = .01, P = .05 and P = .03). There was no significant difference between H and L groups in production of either cytokine. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal surgery attenuates peritoneal host defenses regardless of the surgical approach employed. However, for the first time, we demonstrated that the HA approach, similar to laparoscopy, is superior to open surgery in the degree of PM activation. Overall, in addition to clinical benefits of minimal access, HA surgery may confer an immunologic advantage over laparotomy.

Abdomen↗

PubMed2006

Benefits of laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a 10-year single institution experience.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open adrenalectomies and to assess the impact of the availability of advanced laparoscopy on adrenal surgery at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data of all patients who underwent adrenalectomy at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center over a 10-year period. RESULTS: Sixty-four consecutive patients underwent adrenalectomy during the study periods. There were 19 open (OA) and 45 laparoscopic (LA) adrenalectomies performed. There was no significant difference between the average size of adrenal masses removed for the LA and the OA groups [4.3 vs. 5.5 cm, respectively (P=0.23)]. LA proved superior to OA, resulting in shorter operative times (171 vs. 229 min, P=0.02), less blood loss (96 vs. 371 mL, P<0.01), shorter time to regular diet (1.9 vs. 4.4 d, P<0.001), and shorter hospital stay (2.5 vs. 5.8 d, P=0.02). In addition, the average annual number of adrenalectomies increased significantly since the establishment of our advanced laparoscopic program (10.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: LA offers superior results when compared to OA in terms of operative time, blood loss, return of bowel function, duration of hospital stay, and functional recovery. The availability of advanced laparoscopy has resulted in a significant increase in the number of adrenalectomies performed at our institution without a shift in surgical indications.

Adrenal Gland Neoplasms↗

PubMed2005

Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial.

HYPOTHESIS: The use of smaller instruments during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been proposed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmesis. However, despite several recent trials, the effects of the use of miniaturized instruments for LC are not well established. We hypothesized that LC using miniports (M-LC) is safe and produces less incisional pain and better cosmetic results than LC performed conventionally (C-LC). DESIGN: A patient- and observer-blinded, randomized, prospective clinical trial. SETTING: A tertiary care, university-based hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy-nine patients scheduled for an elective LC who agreed to participate in this trial were randomized to undergo surgery using 1 of the 2 instrument sets. The criteria for exclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV, age older than 70 years, liver or coagulation disorders, previous major abdominal surgical procedures, and acute cholecystitis or acute choledocholithiasis. INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with either conventional or miniaturized instruments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' age, sex, operative time, operative blood loss, intraoperative complications, early and late postoperative incisional pain, and cosmetic results. RESULTS: Thirty-three C-LCs and 34 M-LCs were performed and analyzed. There were 8 conversions (24%) to the standard technique in the M-LC group. No intraoperative or major postoperative complications occurred in either group. The average incisional pain score on the first postoperative day was significantly less in the M-LC group (3.9 vs 4.9; P = .04). No significant differences occurred in the mean scores for pain on postoperative days 3, 7, and 28. However, 90% of patients in the M-LC group and only 74% of patients in the C-LC group had no pain (visual analog scale score of 0) at 28 days postoperatively (P = .05). Cosmetic results were superior in the M-LC group according to both the study nurse's and the patients' assessments (38.9 vs 28.9; P<.001, and 38.8 vs 33.4; P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be safely performed using 10-mm umbilical, 5-mm epigastric, 2-mm subcostal, and 2-mm lateral ports. The use of mini-laparoscopic techniques resulted in decreased early postoperative incisional pain, avoided late incisional discomfort, and produced superior cosmetic results. Although improved instrument durability and better optics are needed for widespread use of miniport techniques, this approach can be routinely offered to many properly selected patients undergoing elective LC.

Analgesia↗

PubMed2003

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

The introduction of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) has occurred in several surgical specialties. It allows the laparoscopic surgeon to insert a hand into the peritoneal cavity, through a small incision, while maintaining pneumoperitoneum. This technique has been made possible through the engineering of several unique devices. By returning the hand to the peritoneal cavity, the surgeon is allowed the return of tactile sensation, atraumatic retraction, blunt dissection, and digital vascular control. Proper device placement is mandatory. The principles include port-site triangulation, conversion to a convenient open incision if necessary, location away from bony prominences, and placement to minimize hand fatigue. Application and advantages of HALS can be shown in several procedures; specifically, laparoscopic splenectomy in cases of splenomegaly, laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy, and laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. Its use in these procedures does not appear to be detrimental to the benefits associated with a completely laparoscopic technique, and may offer advantages. It may alter the learning curve regarding advanced laparoscopic procedures for the neophyte laparoscopic surgeon, and allow them to perform operations they otherwise would not attempt. For the experienced laparoscopic surgeon, it may allow them to complete operations laparoscopically they might otherwise have to convert. In time, HALS may have a larger role in many advanced surgical procedures.

Equipment Design↗