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 505 records · Page 28Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

Laparoscopic appendicectomy: a trainee's perspective.

Minimally invasive surgery is rapidly becoming an integral part of general surgery. Many general surgeons have been trained to undertake laparoscopic cholecystectomy. It has been recommended that laparoscopic appendicectomy should be the training operation for junior surgeons. The aim of our study was to assess whether laparoscopic appendicectomy training can safely be introduced to junior surgeons in a district general hospital. During the 11 month study period, 27 laparoscopic and 38 open appendicectomies were performed. The median anaesthetic time was 80 min for laparoscopic and 52.5 min for open appendicectomies. Laparoscopic appendicectomies cost, on average, 618 pounds and open appendicectomies 770 pounds per case. The complication rate between the two procedures was equal. We therefore showed that laparoscopic appendicectomy by junior surgeons is both safe and cost-effective. Although the registrar did most of the laparoscopic appendicectomies, with resultant less operating for the SHO, laparoscopic appendicectomy provided the SHO with training in diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopic dissection. We conclude that basic laparoscopic training should be introduced early in surgical training, after which laparoscopic appendicectomy is a safe procedure for surgical trainees.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

The costs and effects of laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic procedures are performed commonly in children. In general, the cost containment of laparoscopic surgery in children has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of laparoscopic appendectomy with those of open appendectomy. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial between November 1, 1997, and April 30, 2000. For analysis, cost of supplies, operation room use, and recovery in the hospital and after discharge was evaluated. Costs common to both groups were not determined. SETTING: Operations performed in a university hospital.Patients Eighty-seven children aged 4 to 15 years who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. Patients were randomized to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Intervention Laparoscopic appendectomies performed with the same standard set of reusable equipment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost surplus of the laparoscopic procedure and recovery after surgery were evaluated, to determine the costs and effects of laparoscopic appendectomy compared with those of open appendectomy in children. RESULTS: Excess operating and complication costs per procedure were 96 euros (EUR) in laparoscopic appendectomy. The increased operative expenses were offset by a shorter hospital stay, resulting in a marginal difference of 53 EUR in itemized total costs between the 2 procedures (total cost, 1023 EUR in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 970 EUR in the open appendectomy group). After laparoscopic appendectomy, children returned to school and sports earlier than those who had had an open appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy was marginally more expensive, but it allowed earlier return to normal daily activities than open appendectomy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis were evaluated in a 2-year retrospective review. Results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 66 patients with acute inflammation of the gallbladder were compared with those of the standard open procedure for this condition (43 patients) and routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy (227 patients). The laparoscopic procedure for acute cholecystitis was successful in 46 of 66 patients. There was no difference in mean operating time when the inflamed gallbladder was removed laparoscopically or at open surgery (82 versus 84 min); however, each procedure took longer than did routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy (mean 69 min; P < 0.01). There was no difference in analgesic requirement between patients who underwent laparoscopic removal of an acutely inflamed gallbladder and those in the other two groups. Postoperative recovery was significantly faster than that after open surgery (P < 0.01), but took longer than that following routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy (P < 0.01). Inability to identify the cystic duct was the most common reason for conversion to open operation, which occurred in 20 cases of acute cholecystitis. Bile duct injury occurred in one of 66 patients with acute cholecystitis treated laparoscopically, two of 227 cases of routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy but in no patient who underwent open cholecystectomy. In conclusion, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is technically achievable in the majority of patients with acute cholecystitis. The conversion rate is high but, if the procedure is completed successfully, postoperative recovery is more rapid than that after open surgery. However, the method carries a higher incidence of complications and should be attempted only by experienced surgeons.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1994

Laparoscopic surgery--anesthetic implications.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a relatively new surgical procedure which is enjoying ever-increasing popularity and presenting new anesthetic challenges. The advantages of shorter hospital stay and more rapid return to normal activities are combined with less pain associated with the small limited incisions and less postoperative ileus compared with the traditional open cholecystectomy. The efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy and hemicolectomy has been recently evaluated. However, there have been no prospective randomized studies to date comparing laparoscopic with traditional laparotomy techniques. The physiological effects of prolonged pneumoperitoneum and the longer duration of surgery with the laparoscopic techniques are of concern. The application of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair may be limited because, unlike traditional surgical hepair, general anesthesia is required and concerns have been expressed about the duration of surgery and the possibility of hernia recurrence. Notwithstanding case reports and series describing successful diaphragmatic and hiatus hernia repair using a laparoscopic surgical technique, the frequently encountered complications of cervical surgical emphysema, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum, attributed to passage of insufflating gas through weak points or defects in the diaphragm, must be of major concern. Anesthesiologists must maintain a high index of suspicion for these potential complication and must undertake appropriate monitoring. If there is clinical evidence of a tension pneumothorax, immediate chest tube decompression is indicated. Intraoperative complications of laparoscopic surgery are mostly due to traumatic injuries sustained during blind trocar insertion and physiological changes associated with patient positioning and pneumoperitoneum creation. The choice of anesthetic technique for upper abdominal laparoscopic procedures is most frequently limited to general anesthesia. Controlled ventilation avoids hypercarbia, and an anesthetic technique incorporating antiemetics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents has reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The use of nitrous oxide during laparoscopic procedures remains controversial. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a major advance in the management of patients with symptomatic gall-bladder disease. However, in the present era of cost containment, older and sicker patients may present for this procedure on the day of surgery without adequate preoperative evaluation. Anesthesiologists should thus be prepared to recommend deflation of the pneumoperitoneum and possibly conversion to an open procedure if hemodynamic, oxygenation, or ventilation difficulties arise during the procedure.

Anesthesia↗
PubMed2001

Three-dimensional navigated laparoscopic ultrasonography: first experiences with a new minimally invasive diagnostic device.

BACKGROUND: A three-dimensional (3D) display of diagnostic imaging methods is technically feasible and increasingly important. However, the technical integration of laparoscopic ultrasound and 3D image reconstruction has not yet been realized. For this purpose, an electromagnetic navigation system was integrated into the tip of a conventional laparoscopic ultrasound probe. This first experience with a certified prototype of a navigated 3D laparoscopic ultrasound probe is reported. METHODS: Navigated 3D laparoscopic ultrasound was compared with the imaging data of 3D-navigated transcutaneous ultrasound and 3D computed tomography (CT) scan. The 3D CT scan served as the "gold standard." Clinical applicability, imaging quality, diagnostic potential, and accuracy in volumetric assessment of various well-defined hepatic lesions were analyzed. RESULTS: Navigated 3D laparoscopic ultrasound facilitates exact definition of tumor location and margins. As compared with the "gold standard" of the 3D CT scan, 3D laparoscopic ultrasound has a mild tendency to underestimate the volume of the region of interest (ROI) (D 3.1%). A comparison of 3D laparoscopy and transcutaneous 3D ultrasonography clearly demonstrated that the former is more accurate for volumetric assessment of the ROI. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional laparoscopic ultrasound imaging with a navigated probe is technically feasible. The technique facilitates detailed ultrasound evaluation of laparoscopic procedures involving visual, in-depth, and volumetric perception of complex liver pathologies. Navigated 3D laparoscopic ultrasound may have the potential to improve the significance of laparoscopic ultrasonography, and additionally to become a valuable technology for planning and improving interventions guided by laparoscopic ultrasound.

Carcinoma, Hepatocellular↗
PubMed2004

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: evolution to a clinically useful technique.

PURPOSE: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy has traversed three phases of distinct development. This review was designed to trace the evolution of hand-assisted colectomy from an infrequently used technique to a clinically useful surgical approach to diseases of the colon and rectum. METHODS: This review compiles previously reported and published experiences with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy. RESULTS: During the first phase of development of hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy, surgeons explored what could be accomplished by a hand inserted into the abdomen through the specimen extraction site as an adjunct to laparoscopic techniques. Case reports and small trials found that manually assisted laparoscopic techniques permitted more rapid completion of laparoscopic-assisted colectomies. In the second phase, surgeons used early devices that facilitated the insertion of the surgeon's hand into the abdomen and helped to maintain the pneumoperitoneum. Larger series and small, randomized trials indicated a time-saving advantage to hand-assisted techniques and similar short-term outcomes as laparoscopic-assisted colectomies. In the current third phase, surgeons are using a new generation of hand-access devices that extend the options for hand-assisted techniques. These devices, like earlier devices, facilitate hand insertion, protect the wound, act as the retrieval site for the specimen, and serve as the portal for construction of extracorporeal anastomoses. In addition, these new devices can serve as laparoscopic trocar sites. This permits selective use of hand-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted techniques at various times in the same operation. These new devices have not undergone clinical trials, and therefore, a final appraisal must await future publication of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy has evolved into a clinically useful surgical technique. New devices facilitate the performance of these operations and permit the surgeon to switch between hand-assisted and laparoscopic techniques.

Colectomy↗
PubMed1992

Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy.

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair could represent an attractive alternative to conventional inguinal herniorrhaphy if it can be shown to result in less perioperative morbidity (primarily postoperative pain) or a decreased long-term recurrence rate. The data addressing either of these concerns will be forthcoming in ensuing years. The variations in the laparoscopic approach to the preperitoneal space and the differences in dissection and fixation techniques outlined in this article reflect the fact that the procedure is still evolving, and there is not yet a consensus on the best laparoscopic herniorrhaphy. It is likely that there will not be one laparoscopic technique applicable to all inguinal hernias. Rather, the patient's body habitus and the type of hernia encountered at laparoscopy will persuade the surgeon to use one of several techniques. Once a consensus is reached among surgeons as to the optimal laparoscopic hernia repair(s), it will be possible to begin gathering data concerning perioperative morbidity and recurrence rates. Only then can the question be answered whether laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy has any advantages over the conventional extraperitoneal operation. A multicenter prospective nonrandomized trial has been initiated by our group in an attempt to determine whether laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy has efficacy. The exact technique employed by the individual centers has not been strictly regulated, but general guidelines have been given. It is hoped that this project will provide information on whether laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy is a useful alternative to conventional repair. Most of the laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy techniques described in this article expose the patients to the inherent risks of initial laparoscopic penetration of the abdomen and the long-term possibility of adhesions to the sites where the peritoneum has been breached. Because these risks are not present in a conventional repair, the laparoscopic technique must have other advantages if it truly is to obtain a place in the armamentarium of general surgeons.

Anesthesia↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a safe procedure.

Acute cholecystitis is increasingly managed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Some reports have shown conversion and complication rates that are increased in comparison to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study reviews the combined experience of two hospitals where the intention was to perform early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. A total of 152 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (evidence of acute inflammation clinically and pathologically) were identified. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was required in 14 cases (9%) in the total series. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed within 2 days of admission in 76% (115 of 152) of patients. Conversion was significantly less likely in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 days of admission (4 of 115) compared to those undergoing surgery beyond 2 days (10 of 37; P<0.0001). Eleven patients (7%) had postoperative complications; however, there were no cases of injury to the biliary system and no perioperative deaths. This series shows that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely in patients with acute cholecystitis and suggests that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is preferable to delaying surgery. Although the conversion rate to open surgery is higher than for elective cholecystectomy, the majority of patients (91%) still derive the well-recognized benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is an acceptable approach to acute cholecystitis for the experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

Surgical strategies in the laparoscopic therapy of cholecystolithiasis and common duct stones.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to examine the current approach and different strategies adopted for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Germany. METHODS: A retrospective survey was conducted at 859 (n = 1200; 67.6%) hospitals in Germany. Data from 123 090 patients who had undergone cholecystectomy were analysed. RESULTS: 71.9% of the operations were finished laparoscopically (n = 88 537) whereas 22.5% were carried out using the open technique. Conversion to open surgery was required in 7.1% of the laparoscopically started operations. When common bile duct stones were diagnosed preoperatively, 74.4% of the participants favoured the primary endoscopic extraction, following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In cases of intraoperative diagnoses, laparoscopic cholecystectomy was finished and postoperative primary endoscopic extraction was carried out in more than half of the hospitals (58.4%). Sixteen per cent converted to an open operation with simultaneous exploration of the common duct. Laparoscopic desobstruction of the common bile duct was extremely rare (4.4%). Compared with open cholecystectomy, the results show a lower incidence of postoperative reinterventions (0.9 vs 1.8%) and fatal outcomes (0.04 vs 0.53%) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In contrast, common bile duct injuries were more frequent in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (0.32 vs 0.12%). The median duration of hospitalization was 6.1 days (range: 2.8-12) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with 10.4 days (range: 3-28) in the open cholecystectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard procedure for the treatment of uncomplicated gallstone disease. There are reasonable differences between the hospitals in type of cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, management of common duct stones and intraoperative diagnostics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, even after adjustment for differences in patient comorbidities.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1996

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a surgical training programme.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the introduction of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy on surgical training, and the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed by residents compared with those of surgeons. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: University hospital, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: 943 Patients who underwent cholecystectomies from January 1987-December 1993 by residents and surgeons. In 527 patients the cholecystectomy was open and in 416 laparoscopic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The percentage of cholecystectomies done by residents in the period 1987-1993. The outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomies done by surgeons and residents in terms of duration of operation, conversion rate, postoperative complications, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Before the laparoscopic era about 70% of all cholecystectomies were done by residents. After its introduction in 1990, the residents did 38% of the laparoscopic cholecystectomies in 1991, 39% in 1992, and 64% in 1993. There were no differences in outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of duration of operation, conversion rate, postoperative complications and hospital stay between surgeons and residents. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy caused a temporary decline in the number of cholecystectomies done by residents. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was integrated as a standard surgical procedure in the residents' training programme within two years of its introduction. The outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomies done by supervised residents and surgeons was similar, and so laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be part of residents' training.

Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic↗
PubMed2002

Learning laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safely: a report on 100 cases.

HYPOTHESIS: There is concern that learning laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is associated with increased morbidity. We propose that with a team approach LLDN can be learned safely, without increased donor morbidity or graft failure, even during the early portion of a learning curve. DESIGN: Case series with cohort comparison. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The laparoscopic group consisted of 100 donors and 100 recipients; the open group, 50 donors and 50 recipients. INTERVENTIONS: A team approach that combines laparoscopic and urologic expertise was used to perform 100 cases of LLDN. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Donor morbidity and graft function in the laparoscopic group were compared with those in the open group. RESULTS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy was completed in 99 patients. One patient required conversion to open donor nephrectomy because of intraoperative hemorrhage. Minor complications occurred in 6 laparoscopic group donors (6%) and 3 open group donors (6%). Laparoscopic and open group donors were of similar age. Operative times were longer for laparoscopic group donors (231 vs 209 minutes). Mean hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic group donors (3.3 vs 4.7 days). Graft function was comparable between the laparoscopic and open groups, with equivalent postoperative creatinine levels. Graft survival was comparable. Recipient ureteral complications occurred with less frequency (2% vs 6%) in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: By forming an operative team that combines expertise in laparoscopy with expertise in live donor nephrectomy, surgeons can learn LLDN safely. Adoption of the techniques developed by those who pioneered the procedure can further minimize the morbidity associated with a learning curve.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Laparoscopic-assisted mini laparatomy with colectomy.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic colectomy, as many claim, is technically feasible. However, none can definitely attest to its superiority over or even equivalence to traditional open laparotomy. The goal of this study is to assess results of laparoscopic colectomy via a new approach compared with traditional colectomy. METHODS: The study involves 12 cases of laparoscopic mini laparotomy with colectomy and another 12 cases of traditional colectomy. Laparoscopic mini laparotomy is performed with the same equipment used in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Through a small 5-cm to 6-cm incision, the surgeon's left hand inserts into the peritoneal cavity and participates in the laparoscopic mobilization of the bowel along with other laparoscopic instruments. Mesenteric division and bowel anastomosis are performed through the same incision extracorporeally. RESULTS: The preliminary result of the study shows that, compared with traditional surgery, laparoscopic mini laparotomy with colectomy offers reduction in the frequency of usage of intramuscular analgesics, better cosmetic results, earlier food intake, and shorter hospital stay. The only disadvantage of laparoscopic mini laparotomy with colectomy is that it takes longer operative time, which may decrease with more experience. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic mini laparotomy with colectomy is an alternative method of laparoscopic colectomy. It seems to offer a similar morbidity and better results compared with colectomy in open laparotomy.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Laparoscopic resections for colorectal carcinoma. A three-year experience.

UNLABELLED: Laparoscopic resection for carcinoma of the colon and rectum is currently under intense scrutiny. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review our three-year experience of laparoscopic surgery for colon and rectal carcinoma. METHODS: From October 1991 to September 1994, 76 laparoscopic procedures were performed for colorectal neoplasia (32 males and 44 females; mean age, 69 years). Fifty-five procedures were done for carcinoma, 16 for large polyps, and five for diversion in patients with unresectable cancer. For resectable tumors, the average size was 4 cm; staging was as follows: Dukes A, 10 patients; Dukes B1, 11; Dukes B2, 18; Dukes C1, 1; Dukes C2, 9; and Dukes D, 8. Fourteen cases (25 percent) that were converted to open procedures were compared with the 41 cases that were completed laparoscopically for differences in tumor size, surgical margins, number of lymph nodes harvested, length of hospital stay, and evidence of recurrence. Procedures completed laparoscopically were then compared with a group of open controls completed during the same time period. RESULTS: During the first six months, the conversion rate was 32 percent but dropped to 8 percent in the last six months. There were a total of 19 complications (25 percent), of which 8 (14 percent) were directly related to the laparoscopic technique. The mean number of lymph nodes harvested in laparoscopic resection for carcinoma was 8.5, and the average closest tumor margin was 4.5 cm. When laparoscopic resections were compared with converted and standard open colectomies, there was no significant difference in tumor margins or numbers of nodes resected. Length of stay was significantly shorter for anterior resections completed laparoscopically than for converted or conventional colectomies. Although this was also the trend for right hemicolectomies, it did not reach statistical significance. Mean follow-up of the group completed laparoscopically was 16.7 months, during which there was one recurrence. There were no trocar site recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: This early experience seems to indicate that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma does not per se compromise surgical oncologic principles and encourages us to continue our critical appraisal of this technique.

Colectomy↗
PubMed1998

Colorectal cancer: comparison of laparoscopic with open approaches.

PURPOSE: We compared laparoscopic with open colectomy for treatment of colorectal cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing colectomy for colorectal cancer between January 1991 and March 1996 at a large private metropolitan teaching hospital. Operative techniques included open (n=90) and laparoscopic (n=80) colectomy. Laparoscopic colectomy was further subdivided into the following groups: facilitated (n=62), with extracorporeal anastomosis; near-complete (n=9), with small incision for specimen delivery only; complete (n=3), with specimen removal through the rectum; and converted to an open procedure (n=6). Main outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, time to oral intake, length of postoperative hospitalization, morbidity, lymph node yield, recurrence, survival, and costs. RESULTS: Operative time was equivalent in the laparoscopic and open groups (laparoscopic, 161 minutes; open, 163 minutes; P=0.94). Blood loss was less for the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 104 ml; open, 184 ml; P=0.001), and resumption of oral intake was earlier (laparoscopic, 3.9 days; open, 4.9 days; P=0.001), but length of hospitalization was similar. Mean lymph node yield in the laparoscopic group was 12 compared with 16 in the open group (P=0.16). Rates of morbidity, recurrence, and survival were similar in both groups. No port-site recurrences occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and open colectomy were therapeutically similar for treatment of colorectal cancer in terms of operative time, length of hospitalization, recurrence, and survival rates. The laparoscopic approach was superior in blood loss and resumption of oral intake.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Re-establish pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection? Randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Operating room time and anastomosis-related morbidity of laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection with anastomosis performed in an open fashion through a horizontal suprapubic incision or laparoscopically after re-establishing pneumoperitoneum were compared. METHODS: A randomized trial was performed on patients with recurrent uncomplicated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon during a 14-month period. Inclusion criteria were persistence of symptoms despite medical treatment and two previous admissions. Exclusion criteria included complicated diverticulitis, suspected cancer, and previous extensive abdominal surgery. Because skin incisions were similar and patients were randomly assigned in the operating room, the trial was performed as double blind. RESULTS: There were no deaths. Two patients were excluded before randomization. Three patients were not treated as allocated because of conversion to open surgery. Aside from previous abdominal-surgery rates, 16 patients with laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resections after re-establishing pneumoperitoneum and 15 patients with laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resections with anastomosis performed in an open fashion through a horizontal suprapubic incision were well-matched for age, gender, weight, American Society of Anesthesiology class, previous admissions, skin-incision length, size of circular stapler, and mobilization of splenic flexure. There were no significant differences in morbidity rates (3/16 vs. 3/15), complete doughnuts (16/16 vs. 15/15), blood loss (300 vs. 200 ml), flatus (4 vs. 4 days), solid-food resumption (5 vs. 6 days), stay (8.5 vs. 9 days) in laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection after re-establishing pneumoperitoneum and laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection with anastomosis performed in an open fashion through a horizontal suprapubic incision groups, respectively. Patients with laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection after re-establishing pneumoperitoneum had statistically longer operating room time (295 vs. 190 minutes; P < 0.01). Median follow-up was 12 and 10 months in 10 patients with laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection after re-establishing pneumoperitoneum and 11 patients with laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection with anastomosis performed in an open fashion through a horizontal suprapubic incision, respectively. One patient with laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection with anastomosis performed in an open fashion through a horizontal suprapubic incision had an anastomotic stenosis endoscopically dilated. CONCLUSIONS: Nonrestoration of pneumoperitoneum after laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection allows a decrease in operating room time and a similar outcome.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Prospective randomized comparison of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy in men.

A prospective, randomized trial was performed to compare open appendectomy with laparoscopic appendectomy in men with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Sixty-four patients with a median age of 25 years (range 18-84 years) were randomized to open appendectomy (n = 31) or laparoscopic (n = 33) appendectomy. Of the 64 men, 56 (87.5%) had appendicitis (27 open, 29 laparoscopic procedures). The mean operating times were 50.6 +/- 3.7 minutes (+/- SEM) for open and 58.9 +/- 4.0 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy (p = 0.13). Five (15%) patients randomized to laparoscopic appendectomy had an open operation. The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer for open appendectomy (3.8 +/- 0.4 days) than for laparoscopic appendectomy (2.9 +/- 0.3 days) (t = 2. 05,df = 62,p = 0.045). The complication rate after open appendectomy (25.8%) was not significantly different from that after laparoscopic appendectomy (12.1%). There was a single postoperative death due to a pulmonary embolus in the laparoscopic group and a single death due to cardiac and renal failure in the open group. The mean time to return to normal activities was significantly longer following open appendectomy (19.7 +/- 2.4 days) than after laparoscopic appendectomy (10.4 +/- 0.9 days), (t = 3.75,df = 49,p = 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic appendectomy in men has significant advantages in terms of a more rapid recovery compared to open appendectomy. There were no significant disadvantages to laparoscopic appendectomy compared to open appendectomy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Pilot study of new training model for laparoscopic surgery.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether an assessment exercise performed on a laparoscopic trainer model reliably reflects previous laparoscopic experience and can therefore be used to accurately assess laparoscopic skills in surgical trainees. Subjects were recruited from a cross-section of surgical trainees and students at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children and the Institute of Child Health. Subjects were required to complete a baseline laparoscopic surgical skills questionnaire and an exercise on a new laparoscopic trainer model. Nine subjects completed both the baseline questionnaire and the exercise. These subjects exhibited a wide range of previous experience in laparoscopic surgery. Subjects with higher self-assessment scores had the lowest exercise scores (i.e. better scores; P=0.003). Furthermore, the exercise score was strongly negatively correlated with the baseline number of training modalities received (P=0.007) and the laparoscopic experience score (P=0.027). The assessment exercise on a novel laparoscopic trainer was capable of differentiating between subjects with little laparoscopic experience and those with more extensive previous laparoscopic training. The correlation between the exercise score and measured baseline variables suggests that the scoring system used in this model is sensitive and specific to measuring skills relevant to laparoscopic surgery.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2002

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery in patients with chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, technological advances and technical refinements to laparoscopic instruments have encouraged some surgeons to explore the application of laparoscopic methods to benign disorders of the pancreas. The aim of this report was to evaluate the feasibility and outcome of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery in patients with chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: One group of five patients with disease of nonalcoholic origin localized in the body-tail of the pancreas underwent distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels; a second group of six patients with symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts (alcoholic origin in four cases and idiopathic in two cases) underwent laparoscopic transgastric drainage. For distal pancreatectomy and spleen salvage, the patient's positioning was half-lateral decubitus with the left side up. Four ports were used. A comparison was made with 41 patients with chronic, pancreatitis who underwent conventional open distal pancreatectomy. For the patients with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, the mean operative time was 4 h (range 3-5). RESULTS: There were no pancreatic-related complications, but one patient was reoperated for perforation of duodenal ulcer. The mean hospital stay was 6 days and the mean time to resume normal daily activities was 3 weeks. Laparoscopic pseudocyst drainage was performed in four patients via laparoscopic anterior gastrostomy and two patients via laparoscopic intraluminal cystogastrostomy. The mean operative time was 100 min (range 60-160). There was no morbidity. The mean hospital stay was 5 days, and the mean time to resume normal daily activities was 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: This study provides information about the possibilities of performing laparoscopic surgery in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with preservation of the splenic vessels and laparoscopic transgastric drainage are feasible and safe techniques. They offer obvious advantages, such as reduction of the parietal damage to the abdomen, a shorter hospital stay, and an earlier postoperative recovery than can be obtained with conventional open pancreatic resection.

Adult↗