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 523 records · Page 29Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional technique in colonic and liver resection in a tumor-bearing small animal model.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic procedures in oncological surgery are either done in curative or palliative intent. We present two experiments comparing laparoscopic to conventional surgery in the curative and palliative setting regarding short-term (stress and immune alteration) and long-term aspects (survival time and recurrence rate). METHODS: We established two syngenic tumor-bearing small animal models for curative liver resection (Morris hepatoma 3924A, ACI rats) and palliative colon resection (BSp73 ASML, BOX rats). Male rats were operated on, performing laparoscopic and conventional liver resection as well as laparoscopic and conventional colon resection; control groups (anesthesia) were included. The following parameters of the stress and immune system were measured: corticosterone, neopterine, Il-1-b, Il-6, and body weight as a parameter of postoperative recovery. Analyzed long-term parameters were survival time, tumor weight, and recurrence rate (histology). RESULTS: After colon resection, analysis of variance showed significant differences in all short-term parameters, including body weight after laparoscopic versus conventional colon resection (p <0.05). In the case of laparoscopic versus conventional liver resection, only Il-6 showed globally statistically significant differences for the short-term parameters (p = 0.05). Long-term parameters were not significantly different between the laparoscopic and conventional groups, regardless of the type of resection (colon or liver) or the operative setting (curative or palliative). However, there were differences after curative liver resection compared to the control group (anesthesia alone). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the type of intraabdominal operation (colon or liver) may influence the degree of trauma of an operation more than the type of technique (laparoscopic or open). The perioperative alteration of stress and immune function has no implications on the long-term results, such as survival time or recurrence, neither in the curative nor in the palliative setting. The thesis that laparoscopic surgery results in less pain, which in turn means less stress and less alteration of the immune system and therefore results in a lower rate of postoperative metastasis is only valid for laparoscopic colonic resection in our model. The part of the thesis that states that fewer metastases should occur after laparoscopic oncological surgery cannot be confirmed in our study.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2004

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer has been gaining popularity in recent years, but few data exist to support the superiority of the laparoscopic approach over open repair. The objective of the current study was to compare the safety and efficacy of open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer in an evidence-based approach using meta-analytical techniques. METHODS: A search of electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, was conducted to identify relevant articles published between January 1990 and December 2002. Only studies in the English language comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer were recruited. All reports were critically appraised with respect to their methodology and outcome. Data from all included studies were extracted using standardized data extraction forms developed a priori. Both qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses were performed. The effect size of outcome parameters was estimated by odds ratio where feasible and appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 13 publications comprising 658 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall success rate of laparoscopic repair was 84.7% (n = 249). Postoperative pain was lower after laparoscopic repair than after open repair, supported by a significant reduction in postoperative analgesic requirement after laparoscopic repair. Meta-analyses demonstrated a significant reduction in the wound infection rate after laparoscopic repair, as compared with open repair, but a significantly higher reoperation rate was observed after laparoscopic repair. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer confers superior short-term benefits in terms of postoperative pain and wound morbidity. This approach is as safe and effective as open repair. Laparoscopic Graham-Steele patch repair of perforated duodenal or justapyloric ulcer is beneficial for patients without Boey's risk factors.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in 210 consecutive patients: outcomes, cost, and changes in practice patterns.

BACKGROUND: Initially slow to gain widespread acceptance within the urological community, laparoscopic nephrectomy is now becoming the standard of care in many centers. Our institution has seen a dramatic transformation in practice patterns and patient outcomes in the 2 years following the introduction of laparoscopic nephrectomy. We compare the experience with laparoscopic and open nephrectomy within a single medical center. METHODS: Data were collected for all patients undergoing elective nephrectomy (live donor, radical, simple, partial, and nephroureterectomy) between August 1998 and September 2002. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of the patients, 92 underwent open nephrectomy, and 118 were treated laparoscopically (87 hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy, 31 totally laparoscopic). There was one conversion (0.8%). Patient demographics and indications for surgery were equivalent for both groups. Mean operative time for laparoscopic nephrectomy (230 min) was longer than for open (187 min, p = 0.0001). Blood loss (97 ml vs 216 ml, p = 0.0001), length of stay (3.9 days vs 5.9 days, p = 0.0001), perioperative morbidity (14% vs 31%, p = 0.01), and wound complications (6.8% vs 27.1%, p = 0.0001) were all significantly less for laparoscopic nephrectomy. For live donors, time to convalescence was less (12 days vs 33 days, p = 0.02), but hospital charges were more for patients treated laparoscopically (19,007 dollars vs 13,581 dollars, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less blood loss, fewer hospital days, fewer complications, and more rapid recovery than open surgery. We believe that these benefits outweigh the higher hospital charges associated with the laparoscopic approach.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Laparoscopic vascular anastomoses: does robotic (Zeus-Aesop) assistance help to overcome the learning curve?

BACKGROUND: Considerable training is necessary to master laparoscopic suturing and knot-tying. Robotic systems are assumed to facilitate these skills and shorten the learning curve. The effect of laparoscopic experience and robotic assistance on the learning curve of vascular anastomoses was studied. METHODS: A laparoscopically experienced surgeon and a laparoscopically inexperienced surgeon made alternating laparoscopic vascular anastomoses and robot-assisted laparoscopic vascular anastomoses using a Zeus-Aesop surgical robotic system with various prosthetic conduits and suture materials in a laparoscopic training box. RESULTS: Neither laparoscopic method influenced the quality score or leakage rate, but with laparoscopic experience, significantly fewer failures were made. Suturing and knot-tying were faster with laparoscopic experience both with and without the robotic system, and fewer stitch actions and knot actions were performed. The learning curves of both surgeons were not improved by the robotic system. CONCLUSIONS: Experience is the most important factor in the performance of laparoscopic vascular anastomoses. The robotic system was not helpful in shortening the learning curve.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗
PubMed2001

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery: an emerging technique.

BACKGROUND: Some surgeons are finding that the placement of one hand in the abdomen during laparoscopic procedures returns tactile feedback lost during purely laparoscopic surgery and facilitates dissection, retraction, and control of bleeding. Studies comparing patient postoperative discomfort after laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic procedures have not found a significant difference. METHODS: This article is a review of the current literature on hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and of the different hand-assisted devices on the market. Included in the review are opinions of expert laparoscopic surgeons who have used hand-assisted devices. RESULTS: More than 100 hand-assisted laparoscopic procedures have been described in the literature. At least four different companies are involved in hand-assisted laparoscopic devices. Three of these companies currently are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is not necessary for all laparoscopic procedures. Hand-assisted laparoscopic technique is advantageous for certain procedures and clinical situations such as en bloc resections and removal of solid organ tumors, large colon tumors, and the kidney after donor nephrectomy. This technique offers benefits when a large incision is necessary to complete surgery such an open colon anastomosis.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed1999

Laparoscopic gastro- and hepaticojejunostomy for palliation of pancreatic cancer: a case controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with pancreatic cancer are irresectable at the time the diagnosis is made. Therefore, they are in need of palliative treatment that can guarantee minimal morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay. To address this need, we designed a study to test the feasibility of laparoscopic gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy and to compare their results with those achieved with open techniques. METHODS: We performed a case control study of a new concept in laparoscopic palliation based on the findings of preoperative imaging and diagnostic laparoscopy. Laparoscopic side-to-side gastroenterostomy and end-to-side hepaticojejunostomy (Roux-en-Y) were done in irresectable cases. Of 14 patients who underwent laparoscopic palliation, three had a laparoscopic double bypass, seven had a gastroenterostomy, and four underwent staging laparoscopy only. The results were compared with a population of 14 matched patients who had conventional palliative procedures. RESULTS: Postoperative morbidity was 7% vs 43% for laparoscopic and open palliation, respectively (p < 0.05). There were no mortalities in the laparoscopic group, as compared to 29% in the group who had open bypass surgery (p < 0.05). Postoperative hospital stay averaged 9 days in the laparoscopic group and 21 days in the open group (p < 0.06). Operating time tended to be shorter in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.25). Morphine derivatives were necessary for a significantly shorter period after laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary experience strongly suggests that laparoscopic palliation can reduce the three major drawbacks of open bypass surgery-i.e., high morbidity, high mortality, and long hospital stay.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Cost structure of laparoscopic and open sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: similarities and differences.

PURPOSE: Although laparoscopic colectomy has demonstrated a variety of advantages, it remains unclear whether the reductions in length of stay and faster return of bowel function will offset potential increases in cost caused by operating time and instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to compare the direct cost structure of elective open and laparoscopic resection for sigmoid diverticulitis. METHODS: We compared consecutive elective open and laparoscopic sigmoid colectomies (n = 71 and n = 61, respectively) performed from March 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000. Data collected included age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesia score, indication for surgery, morbidity, mortality, conversion (laparoscopic only), operating time, and length of hospital stay. Direct cost data were provided by Stanford's integrated hospital cost management and decision software. Indirect costs and total costs were not addressed. Data were analyzed by Student's t-test and chi-squared test where appropriate. Significance was set at P < 0.05. All data are presented as mean +/- standard error of the mean. RESULTS: There were 132 elective sigmoid colectomies for diverticular disease (61 laparoscopic and 71 open procedures). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age, male/female ratio, or body mass index. Operating time was similar (109 +/- 7 minutes for laparoscopic procedures vs. 101 +/- 7 minutes for open procedures). The laparoscopic group had a significantly shorter length of stay (3.1 +/- 0.2 vs. 6.8 +/- 0.4 days), fewer pulmonary complications (1 (1.6 percent) vs. 4 (5.6 percent)) and fewer wound infections (0 vs. 5 (7 percent)). Conversion to open colectomy was required in 4 (6.6 percent) of 61 patients. Readmission occurred in three laparoscopic colectomy patients (4.9 percent) and four open colectomy patients (5.6 percent). There was one operative death in the laparoscopic group (1.6 percent) and no deaths in the open group. Total direct cost per case was significantly less for laparoscopic procedures ($3,458 +/- 437) than for open colectomies ($4321 +/- 501; P < 0.05, Student's t-test), and operating costs were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrate that laparoscopic colectomy is a cost-effective means of electively managing sigmoid diverticular disease. This operative approach may become very important in an era of increasing constraints on hospital occupancy rates and access to nursing services in many regions of the country.

Colectomy↗
PubMed2003

Prospective comparison of laparoscopic vs. open resections for colorectal adenocarcinoma over a ten-year period.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to define the long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We analyzed our experience via a prospective, nonrandomized, longitudinal cohort study. The period of study extended from April 1991 to May 2001. Laparoscopic resection was offered selectively in the absence of a large mass, invasion into abdominal wall or adjacent organs, and multiple prior abdominal operations. Every laparoscopic resection performed with curative intent for adenocarcinoma was included. Twenty percent of patients whose procedures were converted to open resection were included in the laparoscopic-resection group because of intention to treat. Oncologic outcome measures of this group were compared with a computerized, case-matched, open-resection group, the case-matching variables being age, gender, site of primary tumor (colon vs. rectum), and TNM stage. The laparoscopic-resection group was followed up prospectively, and data were updated regularly. The follow-up techniques consisted of a combination of office visits, telephone calls, and the United States Social Security Death Index database. RESULTS: The laparoscopic-resection group consisted of 172 patients with a mean age of 67 (range, 27-85) years. The open-resection group consisted of 172 patients with a mean age of 69 (range, 30-90) years. Mean follow-up was 52 (range, 3-128) months. Complete (100 percent) follow-up data were available. The TNM stage distribution was 63 Stage I (37 percent), 51 Stage II (30 percent), 47 Stage III (27 percent), and 11 Stage IV (6 percent) tumors for the laparoscopic-resection group and 65 Stage I (38 percent), 48 Stage II (28 percent), 51 Stage III (29 percent), and 8 Stage IV (5 percent) tumors for patients in the open-resection group (P = 0.75, not significant). Thirty-day mortality was 1.2 percent (2 deaths) in the laparoscopic-resection group and 2.4 percent (4 deaths) in the open-resection group (P > 0.05, not significant). Early and late complication incidences were comparable. Local recurrence was observed in three patients (1.7 percent) in the laparoscopic resection group with the primary tumor in the colon and in three patients (1.7 percent) with the primary tumor in the rectum, for a total incidence of local recurrence in the laparoscopy group of 3.5 percent (6 patients). In the open-resection group, local recurrence was observed in two patients (1.2 percent) among those with primary tumor site in the colon and in three patients (1.7 percent) in the group with primary tumor in the rectum, for a total incidence of local recurrence in the open-resection group of 2.9 percent (5 patients). One of the local recurrences in the laparoscopy group occurred in the port/extraction site, for an incidence of 0.6 percent. Metastasis occurred in 18 patients (10.5 percent) in the open group and in 21 (12.2 percent) in the laparoscopy group. Stage-for-stage overall five-year survival rates were similar in the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis performed for colonic vs. rectal primary adenocarcinoma confirmed that TNM stage for stage-overall survival was similar in the laparoscopic and open-resection groups (log-rank P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the drawbacks of a nonrandomized study, no adverse long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer were observed in a single center's experience during a ten-year period.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Laparoscopic pancreatic resection: Is it worthwhile?

A series of 23 patients who had undergone an attempted laparoscopic Whipple (n = 10) or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (n = 9) or laparoscopic enucleation (n = 4) since January 1992 were retrospectively reviewed. In the laparoscopic Whipple group (6 women and 4 men; mean age 71 [range 33 to 82] years), eight had malignant periampullary tumors and two had chronic pancreatitis. The rate of conversion to an open procedure was 40%, and complications were seen in the nonconverted group. The average operative time was 8.5 hours, and the hospital stay was 22.3 days. However, in the laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and enucleation groups, there were seven women and six men (mean age 46.5 [range 27 to 75] years). Of these, nine patients had a planned laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (8 for islet cell tumors and 1 for chronic pancreatitis) and four had a planned laparoscopic enucleation (all 4 for islet cell tumors). The conversion rate for these patients was 36%, and the mean operative time was 4.5 hours for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and 3 hours for laparoscopic enucleation. The hospital stay was 5 days and 4 days, respectively. Although this series was small, no benefit seemed to be derived from the use of a complete laparoscopic Whipple procedure. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and enucleation were technically easier to perform and seemed to benefit patients by shortening their hospital stay with no recurrence of disease.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although a number of trials have analyzed the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, the clinical advantages, and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic appendectomy in the management of acute and perforated appendicitis are still not clearly defined. The aim of this study was to examine utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy using a national administrative database of academic medical centers and teaching hospitals. METHODS: Using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes, we obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for all patients who underwent appendectomy for acute and perforated appendicitis between 1999 and 2003 (n = 60,236). Trends in utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy were examined over the 5-year period. The outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy were compared including length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, complications, observed and expected (risk-adjusted) in-hospital mortality, and costs. RESULTS: Overall, 41,085 patients underwent open appendectomy and 19,151 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. The percentage of appendectomy performed by laparoscopy increased from 20% in 1999 to 43% in 2003 (P <0.01). Compared with patients who underwent open appendectomy, patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were more likely female, more likely white, had a lower severity of illness, and were less likely to have perforated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (2.5 days vs 3.4 days), lower rate of 30-day readmission (1.0% vs 1.3%), and lower rate of overall complications (6.1% vs 9.6%). There was no significant difference in the observed to expected mortality ratio between laparoscopic and open appendectomy (0.5 vs 0.6, respectively). The mean cost per case was similar between the two groups (US$ 6,242 vs US$ 6,260). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy at academic centers has increased more than two-fold between 1999 and 2003. Patients selected for laparoscopic appendectomy have less advanced appendicitis and have a shorter length of stay and fewer complications without increasing the inpatient care cost.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Minimizing knot tying during reconstructive laparoscopic urology.

OBJECTIVES: Intracorporeal knot tying during urologic reconstructive surgery is one of the most technically challenging skills of laparoscopic surgery. We describe our experience using the Lapra-Ty clip to substitute for knot tying. METHODS: Our technique for minimizing knot tying entails the use of the Lapra-Ty clip during closure of the collecting system and renal parenchyma for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, the vesicourethral anastomosis during robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and the collecting system during laparoscopic pyeloplasty. From October 2002 to July 2005 at our institution, 75 patients underwent laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, 300 underwent robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and 14 underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty. We reviewed the charts retrospectively for intraoperative and postoperative parameters related to the use of these clips. RESULTS: In the laparoscopic partial nephrectomy group, the mean tumor size, warm ischemia time, and estimated blood loss was 2.53 cm, 30.1 minutes, and 189 mL, respectively. Two postoperative urine leaks (2.7%) developed, and 3 patients experienced postoperative bleeding (4%). In the robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group, the mean operative time was 295 minutes and the mean estimated blood loss was 303.6 mL. Only 3 patients had a urine leak (1%), and 4 patients had bladder neck contracture (1.3%). With regard to the laparoscopic pyeloplasty group, the mean operative time and estimated blood loss was 224 minutes and 36 mL, respectively. No intraoperative complications or urinary leaks occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Lapra-Ty clip, we have safely and efficiently supplemented knot tying in patients undergoing reconstructive laparoscopic surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Laparoscopic training and practice in gynecologic oncology among Society of Gynecologic Oncologists members and fellows-in-training.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO) members performing laparoscopic procedures and to determine SGO members' and fellows' opinions regarding indications for and the adequacy of training in laparoscopy. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to SGO members and fellows-in-training in December 2002. Anonymous responses were collected by mail or through a Web site. The survey was mailed twice and was estimated to take 5 min to complete. The data were analyzed using frequency distributions and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six SGO members (45%) and fifty-seven fellows (49%) responded. Among SGO members, 272 (84%) currently performed laparoscopic surgeries. Reasons cited for performing laparoscopy were decreased length of hospital stay (74%), improved patient quality of life (57%), patient preference (48%), improved cosmesis (46%), and better visualization (18%). Among those who did not perform laparoscopy, 50% cited increased operating time as their main reason. When asked to indicate the laparoscopic procedure most commonly performed in their practice, 69% reported diagnosis of an adnexal mass; 11%, prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomies; and 10%, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and lymph node staging for uterine cancer. Only 3% of SGO respondents performed more than 50% of their procedures laparoscopically, and all respondents reported converting from laparoscopy to laparotomy less than 25% of the time. Most respondents had limited laparoscopic training during their fellowships: 39% received none, and 46% received limited (less than five procedures per month) training. Nevertheless, 78% of SGO respondents rated their laparoscopic skills as either very good or good. Among fellows, only 25% believed they were receiving very good or good laparoscopic training. Eighty percent of SGO respondents believe that at least six procedures per month were necessary for adequate training, yet only 33% of fellows performed that many procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Most SGO respondents used laparoscopy for selective indications, and most developed their laparoscopic skills after their fellowship training. SGO respondents believed laparoscopic instruction is an important part of training, but most fellows perceived their laparoscopic training as inadequate.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Optimal teaching environment for laparoscopic splenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Traditional surgical teaching depends on graduated acquisition of skill learned in residency. The introduction of minimal access techniques after residency training has created a new paradigm dependent on animate course experiences and limited preceptor training. The outcome of performance of a new skill "learned" in these settings has not been assessed. The purpose of this study was to test the benefit of an animate course compared with a precepted operating room experience in learning to perform a laparoscopic splenectomy. METHODS: All attending surgeons who had taken a 1-day course to learn laparoscopic splenectomy (n = 37) and those who had undergone an intraoperative preceptorship (in their hospital) by the lead author (n = 15) were polled to ascertain their previous experience with laparoscopy and with laparoscopic splenectomy since the intervention. The course included lectures, operative videos, and an animal lab. Statistical differences were measured using a t test. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 37 (86.5%) taking the course and all 15 of the precepted surgeons responded. There was no difference between the groups regarding prior laparoscopic experience (P = 0.73), laparoscopic training during residency (P = 0.74), academic or private practice (P = 0.48), or follow-up since the intervention (P = 0.36). The participants graded the courses (1 to 5, 5 = excellent) at an average of 4.72. Fourteen of 15 precepted surgeons have performed laparoscopic splenectomy as compared with 2 of 32 taking courses (nonprecepted surgeons; P <0.0001). The number of laparoscopic splenectomies performed totaled 112 for precepted surgeons and 4 for nonprecepted surgeons (P = 0.0003). The nonprecepted surgeons performed significantly more open splenectomies than laparoscopic (95 versus 13 respectively, P = 0.02). Reasons quoted not to proceed with laparoscopic splenectomy included waiting for the perfect patient, concern of hilar management, and splenic size. CONCLUSION: Surgeons precepted in their own operating room performed a laparoscopic splenectomy more readily than those gaining experience from a course only (93% versus 6%, respectively) despite no difference in their preintervention experience and having the opportunity to do so. The expectation of the eventual performance of advanced laparoscopic techniques depends on a precepted experience.

Education, Medical, Continuing↗
PubMed1996

A clinical outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy are controversial, and the results of recent clinical studies have contradictory conclusions. We performed a cost analysis comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies to assess potential efficacy of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: All patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) from January 1, 1991 through January 1, 1995 were analyzed. Potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach were examined in five major categories: hospital length of stay, total hospital charges, operative time, operating room charges, and postoperative complications. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of perforation for outcome analysis. RESULTS: There were 163 appendectomies performed in 82 men and 81 women. Twenty-seven (17%) patients had laparoscopic evaluation, of which 21 underwent attempted laparoscopic appendectomy. Among nonperforated patients, laparoscopic appendectomy did not reduce hospital stay compared with open appendectomy, but did lead to greater hospital charges ($7760 vs $5064; P < 0.001). Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group (104 vs 74 minutes; P < 0.001) compared with open appendectomies. Operating room charges for laparoscopic appendectomies exceeded charges for the open approach ($4740 vs $1870; P < 0.001). Complication rates were similar (laparoscopic, 19% vs open, 16%; NS). The false diagnostic rate for women was four times greater than for men among patients undergoing open appendectomy (31% vs 8%; P < 0.01). Patients with perforation undergoing a midline incision had a longer hospital stay (9.5 vs 5.9; P < 0.02) than patients operated on through a right lower quadrant incision. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, laparoscopic appendectomy, while safe, was more expensive and was not associated with better clinical outcome compared with open appendectomy patients.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2006

Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparison of procedures and techniques.

PURPOSE: We performed a meta-analysis of the literature to define the current expectations of complications during laparoscopic renal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: References were searched in the MEDLINE database from 1995 to 2004 using the terms complications and laparoscopic nephrectomy. Inclusion criteria were any series with greater than 20 cases, patient age older than 16 years and any complications listed for certain procedures, including laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, HA laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, LPN, HALPN, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, HA laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic simple nephrectomy, laparoscopic nephroureterectomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy. A data extraction form was created to categorize major or minor complications. A 5 member panel adhered to the strict criteria and extracted data from articles that met inclusion criteria. Data were entered into a spreadsheet and a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Initial review identified 73 of 405 references that were acceptable for retrieval and data extraction, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. The overall major and minor complication rates of laparoscopic renal surgery were 9.5% and 1.9%, respectively. There was a significant difference between the major complication rates of LPN and HALPN (21.0% vs 3.3%, p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that patients who undergo laparoscopic renal surgery may have an overall major complication rate of 9.5%. The highest major complication rate is associated with technically challenging LPN (21%). There appears to be a significantly higher wound complication rate associated with HA surgery in comparison to that of standard laparoscopy (1.9% vs 0.2%, p <0.05).

Humans↗
PubMed2006

Laparoscopic versus open simple prostatectomy: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy has recently been developed to remove large prostatic adenomas causing bladder outflow obstruction. To our knowledge the advantages of the laparoscopic vs the standard open approach to this procedure remain undefined. We compared laparoscopic and open simple prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Perioperative data on the first 30 consecutive laparoscopic simple prostatectomies performed by 1 surgeon were collected prospectively and compared with retrospectively collected data on a series of 30 consecutive open simple prostatectomies. A Millin and a transvesical-prostatic technique were used in the laparoscopic group and a transvesical technique was used in the open group. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in prostatic size, patient age or body mass index between the 2 groups. In the laparoscopic group the mean International Prostate Symptom score +/- SD improved from 22.4 +/- 6.9 to 5.7 +/- 3.6 and the urinary flow rate improved from 8.1 +/- 2.5 to 24.6 +/- 12.1 ml per minute (each p <0.001). Mean total blood loss (367 +/- 363 vs 643 +/- 647 ml), irrigation time (0.33 +/- 0.7 vs 4 +/- 3.5 days), duration of catheterization (4 +/- 1.7 vs 6.8 +/- 4.7 days) and hospital stay (5.1 +/- 1.8 vs 8 +/- 4.8 days) were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Mean operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (115 +/- 30 vs 54 +/- 19 minutes). Of the 30 patients in the laparoscopic group 24 did not require bladder irrigation. There was no apparent difference in the incidence or severity of complications. There was no difference in perioperative parameters or functional results between the 2 different laparoscopic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy has inherent advantages over the open technique. Further studies are indicated to determine whether this technique should be considered the treatment of choice for prostatic adenomas too large for safe endoscopic resection.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

Postsurgical outcomes assessment following varicocele ligation: laparoscopic versus subinguinal approach.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare and objectively assess the postsurgical outcome parameters of both laparoscopic and open subinguinal techniques for varicocele ligation in infertile men. METHODS: A total of 41 evaluable patients with a history of infertility, abnormal semen analysis, and clinically diagnosed varicoceles underwent surgical ligation either by the insufflative intraperitoneal laparoscopic (n = 15), gasless laparoscopic (n = 7), or the open subinguinal (n = 19) approach. Most procedures (39 of 41) were performed in the outpatient setting, and patients were followed postoperatively for a minimum of 6 months. Postsurgical outcome was assessed by physical examination and review of a patient questionnaire quantifying the graded pain severity, analgesic requirements, and number of days to return to work. RESULTS: The average operative time was 82.3 +/- 26.5 minutes for insufflative intraperitoneal laparoscopic varicocelectomy, 170 +/- 55 minutes for gasless laparoscopic varicocelectomy, and 35.6 +/- 13.5 minutes for the open subinguinal approach. The analgesic requirement was 13.7 +/- 9.9 tablets for the insufflative laparoscopic group, 22.5 +/- 11 tablets for the gasless laparoscopic group, and 10.9 +/- 10.3 tablets for the open subinguinal group. The average number of days to return to work was 4.9 +/- 2.7 for the insufflative group, 6.6 +/- 2.6 for the gasless group, and 5.1 +/- 3.7 for the open subinguinal group. CONCLUSIONS: These results show no superiority of laparoscopic techniques over the standard open subinguinal technique with respect to hospital stay, analgesic requirements, or return to work. Laparoscopic techniques require excessive operative time, may have attendant complications, and require general anesthesia, limitations that preclude their routine application in varicocele ligation. However, the laparoscopic approach may have a role in the setting of other concurrently performed laparoscopic procedures.

Absenteeism↗
PubMed2005

Laparoscopic nephrectomy: new standard of care?

OBJECTIVE: The pace of implementation of a laparoscopic nephrectomy programme is affected by factors including surgical expertise, case load, learning curves and outcome audits. We report our experience in introducing a laparoscopic nephrectomy programme over a 3-year period. METHODS: From January 2001 to December 2003, 187 nephrectomies were performed (105 by conventional surgery, 82 by laparoscopy). Hand-assisted laparoscopy was used predominantly. The indications for surgery, factors affecting the approach and outcome parameters were studied. A cost comparison was made between patients with similar-sized renal tumours undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgery. RESULTS: Most operations were performed for malignancy in both the open (70%) and laparoscopic (67%) surgery groups. The laparoscopic approach was most commonly used in upper tract transitional cell cancers (TCCs; 70% of 30 patients) and benign pathologies (49% of 35 patients), followed by radical nephrectomies (34% of 99 patients) and donor nephrectomies (44% of 23 patients). There was a rapid rise in laparoscopic surgeries, from 30% in 2001 to 58% in 2002. The median hospital stay was 5.8 days in the laparoscopic group and 8.1 days in the open surgery group. The procedure cost for laparoscopic surgery was 4,943 dollars compared with 4,479 dollars for open surgery. However, due to a shorter hospital stay, the total hospital cost was slightly lower in the laparoscopic group (7,500 dollars versus 7,907 dollars). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach for various renal pathologies was quickly established with a rapid increase in the number of laparoscopic procedures.

Humans↗