Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Laparoscopes”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 433 records · Page 24Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Laparoscopic-assisted bowel resections in inflammatory bowel disease: state of the art.

The objectives of this paper are to review the rational, the present results and future of laparoscopic-assisted bowel surgery in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Only a few centres in the world report on laparoscopic bowel resection in IBD that include stoma surgery, ileocolic resection, left, right and (sub)total colectomy for Crohn's disease, and subtotal or restorative total proctocolectomy (ileal pouch anal procedures). The combined series report conversion rates between 2.5% and 22.2%. Ileocolic resection, stoma creation, stricturoplasty and segmental small bowel resection are associated with an acceptable length of surgery, but laparoscopic(-assisted) total colectomy or restorative proctocolectomy still demand up to 4-6 hours of operative time. The few randomised studies addressing laparoscopic-assisted (segmental) bowel surgery versus conventional surgery demonstrated significantly less pain, a quicker return to self-care and a shorter hospital stay. The results of the series reporting on laparoscopic-assisted (ileo)colectomy in IBD are similar to those from these randomised studies. Laparoscopic-assisted subtotal colectomy and restorative proctocolectomy have no benefit compared with conventional surgery other than superior cosmesis. Morbidity of laparoscopic (ileo)colectomy in IBD is low, that of laparoscopic-assisted subtotal colectomy and restorative proctocolectomy remains to be seen. The various laparoscopic bowel resections done in IBD are all feasible. The first series describing laparoscopic surgery for IBD indicate that laparoscopic-assisted segmental (ileo)colectomy is safe and is the preferred approach provided it is done in a centre specialised in the treatment of IBD and by skilled laparoscopic surgeons beyond the learning curve. Until now, laparoscopic-assisted subtotal colectomy and restorative proctocolectomy do not have the same short-term benefits as seen in other laparoscopic colorectal procedures. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a high life-time risk of having abdominal surgery and reoperations. The proposed advantages of laparoscopic surgery in this group of young patients might be higher than in patients with other colorectal diseases. Minimal physiologic insult in patients who already are under significant physiologic stress, less adhesion formation and superior cosmesis are important benefits over time. In a time where patient's demands will increase, the future of laparoscopic colonic surgery in IBD looks assured.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗
PubMed2005

Female sterilisation: a cohort controlled comparative study of ESSURE versus laparoscopic sterilisation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient satisfaction, discomfort, procedure time, success rate and adverse events of hysteroscopic (ESSURE, Conceptus Inc, San Carlos, USA) versus laparoscopic sterilisation. DESIGN: Cohort controlled comparative study. SETTING: The day surgery and outpatient unit of three large UK hospitals. POPULATION: Eighty-nine women requesting sterilisation were enrolled into the study. METHODS: A 2:1 ratio of ESSURE placement to laparoscopic sterilisation was undertaken. Laparoscopic sterilisation was carried out under general anaesthesia in the day surgery unit whereas all ESSURE procedures were carried out in a dedicated outpatient facility. All patients completed a self-assessment diary on days 7 and 90 post-operatively. Patient satisfaction, tolerance and discomfort were measured using an ordinal Likert style scale. Data were analysed using the chi(2) test for statistical significance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure is patient satisfaction with ESSURE versus laparoscopic sterilisation. This included satisfaction with the decision to proceed with the relevant sterilisation method, recovery from the procedure and overall satisfaction following either ESSURE or laparoscopic sterilisation. Secondary outcome measures include successful completion of procedure, procedure time, tolerance, patient discomfort and post-operative adverse events. RESULTS: All women who underwent laparoscopic sterilisation had the procedure successfully completed whereas the overall bilateral device placement rate for ESSURE was 81%. Patient satisfaction with their decision to undergo either ESSURE or laparoscopic sterilisation was high with 94% of the ESSURE group being 'very' or 'somewhat' satisfied at 90 days post-procedure versus 80% in the laparoscopic sterilisation group. At 90 days post-procedure 100% of women in the ESSURE group were 'very satisfied' with their speed of recovery versus 80% in the laparoscopic sterilisation group. The procedure time (defined from the time of insertion of the hysteroscope or laparoscope to its removal) took significantly longer for ESSURE than laparoscopic sterilisation (mean = 13.2 vs 9.7 minutes, P= 0.045). However, the time required for insertion of a Verres needle and insufflation of the abdominal cavity is a necessary part of the laparoscopic sterilisation and had it been included would bring the procedures times more in line with each other. The mean time spent in hospital was significantly shorter for the ESSURE group than the laparoscopic group (188.7 vs 396.1 minutes, P < 0.005). Eighty-two percent of women in the ESSURE group described their tolerance of the procedure between 'good and excellent' compared with only 41% of the laparoscopic sterilisation group (P= 0.0002). Only 31% of the ESSURE group reported moderate or severe pain following the procedure compared with 63% of the laparoscopic sterilisation group (P= 0.08). Only 11% of patients had problems immediately post-operatively in the ESSURE group compared with 27% in the laparoscopy group. Finally, in the more medium term (three months post-operatively), patients still had an advantage in terms of post-procedure adverse events in the ESSURE group (21%vs 50%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that ESSURE can be performed in the majority of women and, when successful, is associated with a greater overall patient satisfaction rate than laparoscopic sterilisation. Women also spend less time in hospital, have better tolerance of the procedure and describe less severe post-operative pain. However, the devices cannot be bilaterally placed in all cases and some women do not tolerate the procedure awake.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Laparoscopic vs open hemicolectomy for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopic resection in the management of colon cancer is still a subject of debate. In this clinical study, we compared the perioperative results and long-term outcome for two unselected groups of patients undergoing either laparoscopic or open hemicolectomy for colon cancer. METHODS: This prospective nonrandomized study was based on a series of 248 consecutive patients operated on by the same surgical team using the same type of surgical technique for right (RHC) and left (LHC) hemicolectomy, excluding segmental resections; the only difference was the type of access, which was either laparoscopic or open. The choice of type of access was left up to the patient after he or she had read the informed consent form. Operative time, length of stay, complications, and long-term outcome for the two groups were compared. Follow-up time ranged between 12 and 92 months (mean, 42). RESULTS: Between March 1992 and January 2000, 140 patients underwent a laparoscopic hemicolectomy (55 RHC and 86 LHC); at the same time, 107 patients (44 RHC and 63 LHC) were treated via an open approach. There were no conversions to open surgery in the laparoscopic RHC group, but six patients (7%) in the laparoscopic LHC group were converted. The mean operative time for laparoscopic surgery was significantly longer than the time for open surgery (190 vs 140 min for RHC, 240 vs 190 min for LHC,); however, with increasing experience, this time decreased significantly. The mean hospital stay for the patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures was significantly shorter in both the RHC and the LHC groups (9.2 vs 13.2 days for RHC, 10.0 vs 13.2 days for LHC). No statistically significant difference between the two laparoscopic and open groups was observed for the major complication rate (1.9% vs 2.3% for RHC, 7.5% vs 6.3% for LHC). The patient in the laparoscopic RHC group were lost to follow-up. The local recurrence rate was lower after laparoscopic surgery in both arms (5.4% vs 9% for RHC, 1.5% vs 7.5% for LHC), but the differences were not statistically significant. Two port site recurrences were observed in the laparoscopic groups, one after RHC (2.7%) and one after LHC (1.5%). Metachronous metastases rates were similar for the two groups (16.2% vs 15.1% for RHC, 4.4% vs 5.7% for LHC). Cumulative survival probability at 48 months after laparoscopic RHC was 0.865, as compared to 0.818 after open surgery, and 0.971 after laparoscopic LHC, as compared to 0.887 after open surgery. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that laparoscopic hemicolectomy for colonic cancer can be performed safely, with morbidity, mortality, and long-term results comparable to those of open surgery.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

Laparoscopic surgery for Crohn's disease: reasons for conversion.

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors influencing conversion from a laparoscopic to an open procedure in patients requiring surgery for Crohn's disease. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic management of patients with complications of Crohn's produces better outcomes than traditional open approaches, but it is difficult to determine before surgery who will be amenable to laparoscopic management. In this series, a laparoscopic approach was offered to virtually all patients to determine reasons for laparoscopic failure. METHODS: Data regarding patients who underwent attempted laparoscopic procedures for Crohn's (January 1993 to June 2000) were collected prospectively. The bowel was mobilized laparoscopically and extracorporeal anastomoses were performed. Conversion to open surgery was defined as creation of an incision of more than 5 cm. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients (age 37 +/- 1.1 years, 58% female) underwent 113 attempted laparoscopic interventions. Indications for surgery included obstruction (77%), failure of medical management (35%), fistula (27%), and perineal sepsis (4%). Sixty-eight procedures (60%) were completed laparoscopically. Procedures completed laparoscopically included ileocecectomy (n = 46), small bowel resection (n = 22), fecal diversion (n = 7), intestinal stricturoplasty (n = 7), resection of prior ileocolonic anastomosis (n = 5), segmental colectomy (n = 1), and lysis of adhesions (n = 1). Forty-five procedures (40%) were converted as a result of adhesions (n = 21), extent of inflammation or disease (n = 9), size of the inflammatory mass (n = 7), inability to dissect a fistula (n = 5), or inability to assess anatomy (n = 3). Factors associated with conversion were internal fistula as an indication for surgery, smoking, steroid administration, extracecal colonic disease, and preoperative malnutrition. In laparoscopic patients, mean times to passage of flatus and first bowel movement were 3.6 +/- 0.2 days and 4.4 +/- 0.2 days, respectively. Mean time to discharge was 6 +/- 0.2 days. CONCLUSIONS: Attempted laparoscopic management is safe and effective if there is an appropriate threshold for conversion to an open procedure. Conversion factors identified in this study largely reflect technical challenge and severity of disease. Patients taking steroids and those with known fistulas or colonic involvement threaten laparoscopic failure, but many of these patients can be managed laparoscopically and have better outcomes. By understanding the reasons for conversion, it is hoped that the chances of laparoscopic success can be improved by modifying standard preoperative medical management or using additional technological capabilities (e.g., robotics).

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized study of outcomes, quality of life, and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and costs of laparoscopic and open gastric bypass (GBP). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic GBP has been reported to be a safe and effective approach for the treatment of morbid obesity. The authors performed a prospective randomized trial to compare outcomes, QOL, and costs of laparoscopic GBP with those of open GBP. METHODS: From May 1999 to March 2001, 155 patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 to 60 kg/m2 were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 79) or open (n = 76) GBP. The two groups were similar in age, sex ratio, mean BMI, and comorbidities. Main outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative complications, percentage of excess body weight loss, and time to return to activities of daily living and work. Changes in QOL were assessed using the SF-36 Health Survey and the bariatric analysis of reporting outcome system (BAROS). Operative and hospital costs of the two operations were also compared. RESULTS: There were no deaths in either group. Mean operative time was longer for laparoscopic GBP than for open GBP, but operative blood loss was less. Two (2.5%) of the 79 patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to laparotomy. Median length of hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic GBP patients (3 vs 4 days). The rate of postoperative anastomotic leak was similar between groups. Wound-related complications such as infection (10.5 vs 1.3%) and incisional hernia (7.9 vs 0%) were more common after open GBP; late anastomotic stricture was less frequent after open GBP (2.6 vs 11.4%). Time to return to activities of daily living and work were shorter after laparoscopic GBP than after open GBP. Weight loss at 1 year was similar between groups. Preoperative SF-36 scores were similar between groups; however, at 1 month after surgery, laparoscopic patients had better physical conditioning, social functioning, general health, and less body pain than open GBP patients. At 6 months, the BAROS outcome was classified as good or better in 97% of laparoscopic GBP patients compared with 82% of open GBP patients. Operative costs were higher for laparoscopic GBP patients, but hospital costs were lower. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic GBP is a safe and cost-effective alternative to open GBP. Despite a longer operative time, patients undergoing laparoscopic GBP benefited from less blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, and faster convalescence. Laparoscopic GBP patients had comparable weight loss at 1 year but a more rapid improvement in QOL than open GBP patients. The higher initial operative costs for laparoscopic GBP were adequately offset by the lower hospital costs.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1997

Laparoscopic sonography of peripancreatic tumors: preliminary experience.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the use of laparoscopic sonography in patients with suspected peripancreatic tumors and to assess the impact of laparoscopic sonography on patient management. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 24 patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy underwent CT, laparoscopy, and laparoscopic sonography. The pancreas, peripancreatic vasculature, liver, and porta hepatis were evaluated in each patient. Metastases (hepatic, peritoneal, or nodal), extrapancreatic extension of tumor, or vascular encasement was considered evidence of unresectable disease. Histopathology was the standard of reference; unresectable disease was confirmed by biopsy. At the completion of the laparoscopic sonography, each examination was scored according to impact analysis categories that had been prospectively established. RESULTS: Peripancreatic vasculature was adequately shown by laparoscopic sonography in 22 patients (92%), of whom 12 patients had histopathologic evidence of vascular encasement. All 12 cases of vascular encasement were revealed by laparoscopic sonography, and 10 of 12 cases of vascular encasement were revealed by CT. Liver lesions were seen in eight patients (33%). One hemangioma was shown solely by laparoscopic sonography; the other seven liver lesions were revealed by CT, laparoscopy, or both. In six patients (25%), laparoscopic sonography was used to guide biopsy of lesions that were not seen by laparoscopy. Impact analysis showed that laparoscopic sonography provided additional information in eight patients (33%) and altered management in four patients (17%). Of those patients for whom laparoscopic sonography altered management, three patients underwent successful resection after laparoscopic sonography two of these patients had suspected vascular encasement on CT but laparoscopic sonography revealed normal vessels, and the third patient had CT evidence of a liver lesion that was shown to be a cyst on laparoscopic sonography. A fourth patient was spared laparotomy when laparoscopic sonography revealed unsuspected vascular encasement. CONCLUSION: Preliminary experience suggests that laparoscopic sonography may aid diagnosis and alter management in patients with suspected pancreatic neoplasms.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2006

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic, laparoscopically assisted (hereafter together described as laparoscopic surgery) and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in comparison with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from 2000 to May 2005. A review of economic evaluations was undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2001. This review was updated from 2000 until July 2005. REVIEW METHODS: Data from selected studies were extracted and assessed. Dichotomous outcome data from individual trials were combined using the relative risk method and continuous outcomes were combined using the Mantel-Haenszel weighted mean difference method. Summaries of the results from individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses were also presented. An economic evaluation was also carried out using a Markov model incorporating the data from the systematic review. The results were first presented as a balance sheet for comparison of the surgical techniques. It was then used to estimate cost-effectiveness measured in terms of incremental cost per life-year gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for a time horizon up to 25 years. RESULTS: Forty-six reports on 20 studies [19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one IPD meta-analysis] were included in the review of clinical effectiveness. The RCTs were of generally moderate quality with the number of participants varying between 16 and 1082, with 10 having less than 100 participants. The total numbers of trial participants who underwent laparoscopic or open surgery were 2429 and 2139, respectively. A systematic review of four papers suggested that laparoscopic surgery is more costly than open surgery. However, the data they provided on effectiveness was poorer than the evidence from the review of effectiveness. The estimates from the systematic review of clinical effectiveness were incorporated into a Markov model used to estimate cost-effectiveness for a time horizon of up to 25 years. In terms of incremental cost per life-year, laparoscopic surgery was found to be more costly and no more effective than open surgery. With respect to incremental cost per QALY, few data were available to differentiate between laparoscopic and open surgery. The results of the base-case analysis indicate that there is an approximately 40% chance that laparoscopic surgery is the more cost-effective intervention at a threshold willingness to pay for a QALY of pound 30,000. A second analysis assuming equal mortality and disease-free survival found that there was an approximately 50% likelihood at a similar threshold value. Broadly similar results were found in the sensitivity analyses. A threshold analysis was performed to investigate the magnitude of QALY gain associated with quicker recovery following laparoscopic surgery required to provide an incremental cost per QALY of pound 30,000. The implied number of additional QALYs required would be 0.009-0.010 compared with open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection is associated with a quicker recovery (shorter time to return to usual activities and length of hospitalisation) and no evidence of a difference in mortality or disease-free survival up to 3 years following surgery. However, operation times are longer and a significant number of procedures initiated laparoscopically may need to be converted to open surgery. The rate of conversion may be dependent on experience in terms of both patient selection and performing the technique. Laparoscopic resection appears more costly to the health service than open resection, with an estimated extra total cost of between pound 250 and pound 300 per patient. In terms of relative cost-effectiveness, laparoscopic resection is associated with a modest additional cost, short-term benefits associated with more rapid recovery and similar long-term outcomes in terms of survival and cure rates up to 3 years. Assuming equivalence of long-term outcomes, a judgement is required as to whether the benefits associated with earlier recovery are worth this extra cost. The long-term follow-up of the RCT cohorts would be very useful further research and ideally these data should be incorporated into a wider IPD meta-analysis. Data on the long-term complications of surgery such as incisional hernias and differences in outcomes such as persisting pain would also be valuable. Once available, further data on both costs and utilities should be included in an updated model. At this point, further consideration should then be given as to whether additional data should be collected within ongoing trials. Few data were available to assess the relative merits of HALS. Ideally, there should be more data from methodologically sound RCTs. Further research is needed on whether the balance of advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery varies within subgroups based on the different stages and locations of disease. Research relating to the effect of experience on performance is also required.

Colorectal Neoplasms↗
PubMed2002

Financial analysis of open versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy are rapidly becoming established procedures in select patients with renal cell carcinoma and upper tract transitional cell carcinoma, respectively. We present a retrospective comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy from a financial standpoint. The effect of the learning curve on costs incurred was also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Detailed itemized cost data on 18 contemporary cases of open radical nephrectomy performed from September 1997 to July 1998 were compared with similar data on 20 initial laparoscopic cases performed from September 1997 to July 1998 and 15 more recent laparoscopic radical nephrectomy cases performed from August 1998 to July 1999. Financial data were also compared on 14 contemporary patients each who underwent open radical nephroureterectomy from June 1997 to December 1999, initial laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy from June 1997 to December 1998 and more recent laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy from January 1999 to October 2000. Yearly financial costs were adjusted for inflation by a 4% annual rate to reflect year 2000 data. RESULTS: For radical nephrectomy mean operative time in the 18 open, 20 initial laparoscopic and 15 recent laparoscopic cases was 185.3, 205.7 and 147.3 minutes, respectively. Mean specimen weight was 555, 616 and 558 gm., and mean hospital stay was 132, 31 and 23 hours, respectively. Compared with open radical nephrectomy mean total costs associated with initial laparoscopy were 33% greater (p = 0.0003). Mean intraoperative costs were 102% greater and mean postoperative costs were 50% less. In contrast, the more recent laparoscopic cases were an overall mean of 12% less expensive than open surgery (p = 0.05). Mean intraoperative costs were only 33% greater and mean postoperative costs were 68% less. For radical nephroureterectomy mean operative time in the 14 open, 14 initial laparoscopic and 14 recent laparoscopic cases was 246, 196 and 195 minutes, respectively. Mean specimen weight was 442, 517 and 531 gm., and mean hospital stay was 142, 63 and 32 hours, respectively. Compared with open radical nephroureterectomy mean total costs associated with initial laparoscopic cases were 28% greater (p = 0.03). Mean intraoperative costs were 65% greater and mean postoperative costs were 27% less. In contrast, the more recent laparoscopic cases were an overall mean of 6% less expensive than open surgery (p = 0.63). Mean intraoperative costs were only 31% greater and mean postoperative costs were 62% less. CONCLUSIONS: Initially in the learning curve laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy were 33% and 28% financially more expensive, respectively, than their open counterparts. However, with increased operator experience and efficiency resulting in more rapid operative time and decreased hospitalization laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy are currently 12% and 6% less expensive, respectively, than their open counterparts at our institution.

Aged↗
PubMed1993

A review of the results of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

Proponents of laparoscopic appendectomy emphasize the advantages of laparoscopic operation--decreased hospitalization, paralytic ileus, postoperative pain and wound complications, including infection. This study compared open laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic appendectomy. To compare the two techniques, patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at four hospitals were compared with patients undergoing open appendectomy during a six month period. Excluded were incidental appendectomies and patients with perforated appendicitis. An equal number of pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic and open procedures were included in the analysis to avoid bias, because most of the laparoscopic appendectomies were performed in the adult patient population (age of more than 16 years). A University Medical Center, a Veterans Administration and two community hospitals were the settings. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 54) had an average age of 25.7 +/- 1.5 (range of six to 59 years). These patients were compared with 121 patients undergoing open appendectomy whose average age was 23.7 +/- 1.8 (range of three to 83 years). The race and gender distribution were similar in the two groups. Traditional open appendectomy was compared with a group of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Variables evaluated were operating room time, number of patients who reported nausea, days until patient tolerated a regular diet, days of hospitalization, postoperative pain medication and wound infection rate. Results are expressed as the mean plus or minus standard error of the mean. Analysis of variance was used to compute continuous variables and Fischer's exact test was used for discrete variables. The laparoscopic approach was attempted in 61 patients and completed in 54 patients. Open appendectomy was performed upon 121 patients. Nineteen patients (18 who underwent open operation and one patient who underwent laparoscopic operation) were excluded from further analysis because of perforated appendicitis. The open procedure took less time (p < 0.05). However, there were more wound infections than in the laparoscopic group (seven of 103 versus zero of 53; p = 0.09). Patients with acute appendicitis recuperated more quickly from the laparoscopic procedure, as evidenced by the time until eating regular diet, period of hospitalization, incidence of nausea and pain medications on postoperative day one (p < 0.05). The absence of wound infections after laparoscopic appendectomy can be attributed to the practice of placing the appendix in a sterile bag or into the trocar sleeve before removal from the abdomen. Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces the period of hospitalization, postoperative ileus, nausea and postoperative pain in patients with acute appendicitis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

A review of laparoscopic ureteral injury in pelvic surgery.

The objective of this study was to review the body of literature in reference to ureteral injury during laparoscopic surgeries and to determine: 1) the reported rates of ureteral injury; 2) the initial laparoscopic surgeries during which ureteral injury occurred; 3) the time of injury recognition (intra- versus postoperative); 4) the type, 5) the location, and 6) the mode of injury repair; and 7) the surgical laparoscopic instruments involved in ureteral injury. The appropriate medical subject heading (MSH) terms were selected and used in a search of the Medline computerized database and the online American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists database. World literature published in the English language on ureteral injury during laparoscopic surgery between 1966 and 2003 was reviewed.A total of 70 reported instances of ureteral injury during laparoscopic surgery were identified among 2491 reported cases in which ureteral laparoscopic complications were discussed. Incidences of injury ranged from <1% to 2%. These 2491 cases of laparoscopy were presented as a mixed group, which included case reports, small series of studies, as well as longer, consecutive studies. In 18 of the 70 (25.7%) cases, the initial laparoscopic procedures during which ureteral injury occurred were not described or specified. In cases in which the type of laparoscopic surgery was specified, 14 of the 70 (20.0%) total cases of ureteral injury occurred during laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH). Ureteral injury was identified intraoperatively in 6 of 70 (8.6%) cases, postoperatively in 49 of 70 (70.0%) cases, and, in 15 of 70 (21.4%) cases, the time of diagnosis was not specified. In 36 of the 70 (51.4%) reported injuries, the type of injury was not specified or described. In instances in which the types of injury were described, transection occurred most commonly, accounting for 14 of 70 (20.0%) injuries. The location of ureteral injury was not specified in 46 of the 70 (65.7%) cases. When location was specified, injuries most often occurred at or above the pelvic brim, accounting for 10 of the total 70 (14.3%). Electrocautery was involved in 17 of the 70 (24.3%) cases of ureteral injury, but in 34 of the 70 (48.6%) cases, the surgical laparoscopic instrument involved was not reported. A laparotomy was used to repair the ureteral injury in 43 of 70 (61.4%) cases.Ureteral injuries reported in peer-reviewed journals often lack detailed presentation of the initial laparoscopic surgeries during which ureteral injury occurred, or of the type, the location, and the instrumentation involved in ureteral injury. A high incidence of ureteral injury was found among the laparoscopic procedures analyzed in this review. Laparoscopically-assisted vaginal hysterectomy was the leading procedure in which injury occurred, and instruments involved in electrocoagulation were associated with the most injuries incurred during laparoscopic surgery.

Gynecologic Surgical Procedures↗
PubMed2003

Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequently performed operation in general surgery. The standard method for inguinal hernia repair had changed little over a hundred years until the introduction of synthetic mesh. This mesh can be placed by either using an open approach or by using a minimal access laparoscopic technique. Although many studies have explored the relative merits and potential risks of laparoscopic surgery for the repair of inguinal hernia, most individual trials have been too small to show clear benefits of one type of surgical repair over another. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare minimal access laparoscopic mesh techniques with open techniques. Comparisons of open mesh techniques versus open non-mesh techniques have been considered in a separate Cochrane review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Registry for relevant randomised controlled trials. The reference list of identified trials, journal supplements, relevant book chapters and conference proceedings were searched for further relevant trials. Through the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboration (EUHTC) communication took place with authors of identified randomised controlled trials to ask for information on any other recent and ongoing trials known to them. Specialists involved in research on the repair of inguinal hernia were contacted to ask for information about any further completed and ongoing trials. The world wide web was also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic groin hernia repair with open groin hernia repair were eligible for inclusion. Trials were included irrespective of the language in which they were reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Individual patient data were obtained, where possible, from the responsible trialist for all eligible studies. All reanalyses were cross-checked by the reviewers and verified by the trialists before inclusion. Where IPD were unavailable additional aggregate data were sought from trialists and published aggregate data checked and verified by the trialists. IPD were available for 25 trials, additional aggregated data for seven and published data only for nine. Where possible, time to event analysis for hernia recurrence and return to usual activities were performed on an intention to treat principle. The main analyses were based on all trials. Sensitivity analyses based on the data source and trial quality were also performed. Pre-defined subgroup analyses based on recurrent hernias, bilateral hernias and femoral hernias were also carried out. MAIN RESULTS: 41 published reports of eligible trials were included involving 7161 participants. Sample sizes ranged from 38 to 994, with follow-up from 6 weeks to 36 months. Duration of operation was longer in the laparoscopic groups (WMD 14.81 minutes, 95% CI 13.98 to 15.64; p<0001). Operative complications were uncommon for both methods but more frequent in the laparoscopic group for visceral (Overall 8/2315 versus 1/2599) and vascular (Overall 7/2498 versus 5/2758) injuries. Length of hospital stay did not differ between groups (WMD -0.04 days, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; p=0.05, but return to usual activity was earlier for laparoscopic groups (HR 0.56, 95%CI 0.51 to 0.61; p<0.0001 - equivalent to 7 days). The data available showed less persisting pain (Overall 290/2101 versus 459/2399; Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.64; p<0.0001), and less persisting numbness (Overall 102/1419 versus 217/1624; Peto OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.4286 to 0.49; p<0.0001) in the laparoscopic groups. In total, 86 recurrences were reported amongst 3138 allocated laparoscopic repair and 109 amongst 3504 allocated to open repair (Peto OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08; p = 0.16). The use of mesh during laparoscopic hernia repair is associated with a reduction in the risk of hernia recurrence, significantly so for the transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP) versus open non-mesh repair (overall 26/1440 versus preperitoneal repair (TAPP) versus open non-mesh repair (overall 26/1440 versus 47/1119; Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; p=0.0009). However, no difference was detected when comparing laparoscopic methods with open mesh methods of hernia repair. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The use of mesh during laparoscopic hernia repair is associated with a relative reduction in the risk of hernia recurrence of around 30-50%. However, there is no apparent difference in recurrence between laparoscopic and open mesh methods of hernia repair. The data suggests less persisting pain and numbness following laparoscopic repair. Return to usual activities is faster. However, operation times are longer and there appears to be a higher risk of serious complication rate in respect of visceral (especially bladder) and vascular injuries.

Hernia, Inguinal↗
PubMed2000

Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in the elderly: matched-control study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine rates of complications and extent of benefits for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy compared with open colectomy in patients older than age 75. METHODS: Forty-two patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (1992-1998) were matched to 42 open colectomy patients for gender, age, year of surgery, operating surgeon, and procedure. Health status (American Society of Anesthesiology score), previous abdominal surgery, conversion rate, surgical outcome, and need for assistance at admission and dismissal (independence vs. home with assistance vs. nursing facilities) were reviewed. RESULTS: Mean ages were 81.2 and 80.5 years for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and open colectomy, respectively (P = not significant). Twenty-one laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and 23 open colectomy patients were females. American Society of Anesthesiology scores were comparable, as were rates of previous abdominal surgery (57 percent for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs. 62 percent for open colectomy; P = not significant). Mean operative times were longer for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (190 minutes for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs. 142 minutes for open colectomy; P < 0.001); operating room times progressively decreased from 221 minutes in 1992 to 1995 to 147 in 1998 for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (P < 0.001). The conversion rate for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy was 14.3 percent. There were no deaths in either group, and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy was associated with fewer morbidities (14.3 percent for laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs. 33.3 percent for open colectomy; P = 0.04), narcotic usage (2.7 vs. 4.8 days; P < 0.001), time to return to bowel movements (3.9 vs. 5.9 days; P < 0.001), and length of hospital stay (6.5 vs. 10.2 days; P < 0.001). Independent status at admission in 37 laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and 38 open colectomy patients was maintained at discharge by 35 laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs. 29 open colectomy patients (P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy is safe and beneficial, including preservation of postoperative independence, to the elderly when compared with open colectomy.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

Laparoscopic vs open inguinal hernia repair. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is controversial. The aim of this study was to find out whether it is justified to switch from the predominantly modified Bassini repair which the authors had been using to laparoscopic repair. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial in 120 eligible patients admitted for elective hernia repair in a university hospital. RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal mesh repair; the other 60 patients had an open repair, mostly with the modified Bassini technique. Operative time for laparoscopic repair was significantly longer, mean (s.d.) 95 (28) min vs 67 (27) min (p < 0.001). The mean analogue pain score during the first 24 h after surgery was 36.2 (20.2) in the laparoscopic group and 49.3 (24.9) in the open group (p = 0.006). The requirement for narcotic injections and postoperative disability in walking 10 m and getting out of bed were also significantly less following laparoscopic repair. The postoperative hospital stay was not significantly different, mean 2.6 (1.2) days for laparoscopic repair and 3.0 (1.5) days for open repair (p = 0.1). Patients were able to perform light activities without pain or discomfort sooner after laparoscopic repair, median interquartile range 8 (5-14) days vs 14 (8-19) days (p = 0.013). Patients also resumed heavy activities sooner, but not significantly, after laparoscopic repair, median 28 (17-60) days vs 35 (20-56) days (p = 0.25). The return to work was not significantly different, median 14 (8-25) days after laparoscopic repair and 15 (11-21) days after open repair (p = 0.14). After a mean follow-up of 32 months one patient developed a recurrent hernia 3 months after a laparoscopic repair. Laparoscopic repair was more costly than open repair by approximately $400. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was associated with less early postoperative pain and disability and earlier return to full activities than open repair, but there were no benefits regarding postoperative hospital stay and return to work; laparoscopic repair was also more costly.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocecal Crohn's disease.

PURPOSE: Elective laparoscopic-assisted resection of terminal ileal Crohn's disease is slowly gaining acceptance as an alternative to conventional surgery, based on the advantages of earlier return of bowel function, reductions in length of stay, and smaller wounds in a population likely to require reoperation. There is limited documentation of the cost-effectiveness of this approach, particularly with the reported longer operating times. The purpose of this study was to compare laparoscopic and open resections for terminal ileal Crohn's disease. METHODS: We compared contemporaneous cohorts of patients undergoing initial elective laparoscopic or open resection for ileocecal Crohn's disease between June 1, 1999 and October 31, 2000 at a single institution. Operative approach was at the discretion of the surgeon. Data collected included age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, indication for surgery, morbidity, mortality, conversion (laparoscopic-resection group only), operating-room time, length of hospital stay, direct cost per case, 30-day readmission, and return to work. All data are presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Data analysis was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t-test where appropriate. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 45 evaluable patients (laparoscopic-resection group, 21; open-resection group, 24). One procedure was considered a conversion because of the 13-cm incision required to exteriorize the phlegmon (conversion rate, 4.8 percent). The median age (laparoscopic-resection group, 31 years; open-resection group, 39 years) and gender distributions (male/female: laparoscopic-resection group, 129; open-resection group, 915) were significantly different between the two groups. Resumption of oral intake (operating-room day vs. second postoperative day; P < 0.05) and resumption of intestinal function (2 vs. 4 days; P < 0.05) were significantly faster in the laparoscopic-resection patients. The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for the laparoscopic-resection patients (3 (2-3) vs. 5 (4-6) days; P < 0.05). The 30-day readmission rate in the laparoscopic-resection group was 9.6 percent (221), whereas none of the open-resection patients required rehospitalization. The overall complication rates were comparable for the laparoscopic-resection and open-resection patients (14.3 vs. 16.7 percent; P not significant), although there was one anastomotic leak and one intra-abdominal abscess in the laparoscopic-resection group, requiring readmission and reintervention (9.6 percent; P not significant). The direct cost per case was significantly lower for the laparoscopic-resection group ($2,547 vs. $2,985; P < 0.05, Student's t-test). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic-assisted approach to ileocecal Crohn's disease results in a shortened length of stay and seems economically advantageous to open surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Laparoscopic colectomy vs. open colectomy for sigmoid diverticular disease.

PURPOSE: The feasibility of laparoscopic colectomy for colon surgery has now been well established. Most of the studies on laparoscopic colectomies include all types of colonic pathologies without discrimination. Our goal was to compare laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy open sigmoid colectomy for simple sigmoid diverticular disease, to assess whether it can be done safely and whether the proposed advantages could be realized. METHODS: We evaluated the differences in outcomes of 66 laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients and 88 open sigmoid colectomy patients. We report a five-year outcomes analysis of 154 patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. We compared age, gender, history of prior abdominal surgery, estimated blood loss, operative time, total conversions with reason for conversion, time until a liquid diet was started, postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, operation costs, and total hospital charges incurred for both laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy and open sigmoid colectomy. RESULTS: Mean age and gender were similar in the two groups. However, the mean estimated blood loss (143 ml 314 ml), time until a liquid diet was started (2.9 4.9 days), and hospital length of stay (4.8 8.8 days) were all significantly less in laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients. The mean operative time for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy was 212 minutes as compared with 143 minutes for open sigmoid colectomy ( < 0.05). Conversion rate of laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy to open procedure was 19.7 percent. All laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients received a lighted ureteral stent preoperatively, which was removed at the end of surgery. Relevant complications for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy open sigmoid colectomy were as follows: anastomotic leak in 1 3 (1.5 3.4 percent) patients, hematuria in 64 6 (97 6.8 percent) patients, with an average duration for 2.93 3 days, urinary tract infection in 5 4 (7.6 4.5 percent) patients, and ureteral injury in 1 2 (1.5 2.2 percent) patients. Although the mean operating room charges were greater in the laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy patients ($9,566 $7,306) the mean hospital charges ($13,953 $14,863) were less. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy as the modality of treatment for diverticular disease. Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy seems to be a reliable, safe and efficacious treatment modality with better outcomes for diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon. The operative time for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is decreasing as surgeons gain more experience.

Colectomy↗
PubMed2006

Consequences of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic procedures converted to open approaches have been associated with higher complication rates than laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Laparoscopic colorectal resections have relatively high conversion rates compared with other laparoscopic procedures. This study was designed to evaluate outcomes of conversions compared with laparoscopic and open colorectal resections. METHODS: We reviewed 498 consecutive colorectal resections performed between 1995 and 2002. Procedures were divided into laparoscopic colorectal resections, open colorectal resections, or conversions. Demographics, underlying disease, type of procedure performed, and operative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 238 laparoscopic procedures performed, 182 were completed laparoscopically and 56 (23 percent) required conversion; 260 were performed open. Conversions were associated with greater blood loss (200 (range, 50-750) vs. 100 (range, 30-900) ml), longer time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40-504) vs. 72 (range, 12-420) hr), and longer length of stay (6 (range, 2-67) vs.. 5 (range, 2-62) days) than the laparoscopic colorectal resections group. There was no difference in operative time, transfusion requirements, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or mortality between conversions and laparoscopic colorectal resections. Conversions resulted in fewer patients requiring transfusions (4 vs. 14 percent), shorter time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40-504) vs. 93 (range, 24-240) hr), and shorter length of stay (6 (range, 2-67) vs. 7 (range, 2-180) days) than in the open colorectal resections group. There were no differences in complications or mortality between the conversion group and the open colorectal resections group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal resections has a relatively high conversion rate; however, the converted cases have outcomes similar to open colorectal resections. In fact, the converted group required fewer blood transfusions than the open group. Experience and good judgment are fundamental for timely conversion of a laparoscopic procedure to open to decrease complication rates. Despite a high conversion rate, surgeons should consider laparoscopic colorectal resections, because even when necessary, conversion does not result in poorer outcomes than laparoscopic colorectal resections or open colorectal resections.

Colectomy↗
PubMed2004

Extended experience in the use of laparoscopic ultrasound to detect pelvic nodal metastasis in patients with cervical carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of laparoscopic ultrasound (USG) to detect pelvic nodal metastasis in patients with early stage cervical carcinoma. METHODS: Laparoscopic USG was used to search for pelvic lymph node metastasis in stage Ia2 to IIa cervical carcinoma patients before radical hysterectomy. Suspicious lymph nodes identified by laparoscopic USG were removed laparoscopically for pathological confirmation by frozen section. If nodal metastasis was diagnosed, radical hysterectomy would be cancelled but enlarged lymph nodes were removed preferably by laparoscopic approach before closing the abdomen. These patients were treated with radiotherapy after recovering from the surgery. By comparing the laparoscopic USG and pathological findings of lymph nodes removed with or without radical hysterectomy, diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic USG was determined. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were recruited and the final analysis included 90 patients. Laparoscopic USG found suspicious lymph nodes in 17 patients and nodal metastases were confirmed pathologically in 14 of them. Three patients with macroscopic and five patients with microscopic pelvic nodal metastases were missed by laparoscopic USG. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of laparoscopic USG in detecting pelvic lymph node metastasis were 87.8%, 63.6%, 95.6%, 82.4%, and 89%, respectively. Macroscopic metastatic nodes were successfully removed laparoscopically in 11 out of 14 patients and laparotomy was required for the other three patients. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic USG can be performed with no major morbidity. This technique is sensitive in detecting macroscopic but not microscopic metastatic pelvic lymph nodes. Removal of macroscopic metastatic nodes identified via laparoscopic USG via laparoscopic approach could be accomplished in majority of patients.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to length of operation, complications, hospital stay, and recovery time. METHODS: Adult patients (older than 14 years of age) with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic appendectomy over a 9-month period. All patients received preoperative antibiotics. The operative time was calculated as beginning with the incision and ending when the wound was fully closed. Patients that were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy were considered a separate group. Return to normal activity and work were determined by questioning during postoperative clinic, telephone, or mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a total of 169 patients randomized, 88 to the open and 81 to the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar demographically. Of the 81 laparoscopic patients, 13 (16%) were converted to open. In the open group, 70 patients (79.5%) had acute appendicitis and 21 (23.9%) had perforative appendicitis. In the laparoscopic group, 62 patients (76.5%) had acute appendicitis and 10 (12.3%) had perforative appendicitis. There was no statistical difference in the return to activity or work between the laparoscopic and open groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (102.2 minutes vs. 81.7 minutes, p < 0.01). The hospital stay of 2.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days in the open group was statistically (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the hospital stay for those with acute appendicitis (1.89 days vs. 2.61 days, p = 0.067) compared with those with a normal appendix but with pelvic inflammatory disease (1.1 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.11). There was a significant difference in patients with perforative appendicitis (1.5 days vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.01). The hospital cost for patients having laparoscopic appendectomy was $6077 and for an open appendectomy $7227 (p = 0.164). There were no increased complications associated with the laparoscopic technique. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, hospital stay, cost, return to activity, and return to work. There was a greater operative time involved with the laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach for the routine patient with appendicitis.

Adult↗