Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “COLECTOMY”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
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↗
PubMed2005

Is laparoscopic colectomy applicable to patients with body mass index >30? A case-matched comparative study with open colectomy.

PURPOSE: The benefits of early postoperative recovery, reduced postoperative pain, pulmonary dysfunction, and hospitalization after laparoscopic colectomy may improve outcome over open colectomy in obese patients. This case-matched study compares outcomes after open and laparoscopic colectomy. METHODS: A total of 94 laparoscopic colectomy patients with a body mass index >30 (Jan 1999-June 2003) were identified from a prospective database and matched to open colectomy cases for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, procedure, indication, and date of surgery. Operating time, length of stay, conversion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, reoperation, 30-day readmission rate, and costs were compared. Data are presented as means +/- standard deviations, and appropriate statistical tests were used. RESULTS: The two groups were matched for age (P = 0.06), gender (P = 1), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = 0.2), body mass index (P = 0.4), indication for surgery (P = 1), and procedure (P = 1). By using intention-to-treat-type analysis, there was no difference in median operating time (100 vs. 110 (mean, 123 vs. 112) minutes; P = 0.1), complications (21 vs. 24 percent; P = 0.74), readmission (17 vs. 10.6 percent; P = 0.3), reoperation rates (6.4 vs. 4.3 percent; P = 0.75), or direct costs (median, US. 3,368 dollars vs. US 3,552 dollars; mean, US 4,003 dollars vs. US 4,037 dollars; P = 0.14) between laparoscopic colectomy or open colectomy; however, the median length of stay (3 vs. 5.5 (mean, 3.8 vs. 5.8) days; P = 0.0001) was significantly shorter after laparoscopic colectomy. Twenty-eight patients required conversion for adhesions (n = 11), bleeding (n = 3), obesity-hindering vision or dissection (n = 9), large phlegmon or tumor (n = 4), and ureteric injury (n = 1). The mean operating time for conversions was 142 minutes and length of stay was 6.4 days. Compared with laparoscopically completed cases, the median length of stay (5 vs. 2 (mean, 6.4 vs. 2.8) days; P = 0.0001) and median operating times (150 vs. 95 (mean, 142 vs. 115) minutes; P = 0.02) were significantly higher in the converted group, but there was no difference in the complication (P = 0.8), readmission (P = 1), or reoperation (P = 0.7) rates. Compared with open colectomy, the operating time (P = 0.02) was significantly higher in the converted group but there were no significant differences in the length of stay (P = 0.18), complication (P = 1), readmission (P = 0.35), or reoperative (P = 1) rates. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colectomy can be performed safely in obese patients, with shorter postoperative recovery than that with open colectomy. Although obesity is associated with a high conversion rate, outcome in these converted cases is comparable to the matched open cases.

Body Mass Index↗
PubMed1996

Is complete laparoscopic colectomy superior to laparoscopic assisted colectomy?

Much debate has centered around what constitutes a true laparoscopic colon resection. Purists argue that intracorporeal division of the mesentery and anastomosis confer a benefit over a "laparoscopic assisted" procedure. The aim of this study was to further examine this issue. Data were prospectively collected on 102 consecutive laparoscopic colon resections. Five procedures were converted to open cases and were excluded from analysis. Procedures were divided into two groups. Group 1 (n = 34) consisted of complete laparoscopic procedures (no abdominal incision was made): abdominoperineal resection (3), Hartmann's reversal (3), end colostomy (7), low anterior resection (5), proctectomy (1), sigmoid colectomy (15). Group 2 (n = 63) consisted of laparoscopic "assisted" procedures (i.e., an incision was made to facilitate anastomosis, division of the mesentery, and/or specimen retrieval): Ileocolic resection (6), restorative proctocolectomy (26), right colectomy (19), subtotal colectomy/end ileostomy (5), subtotal colectomy/ileorectal anastomosis (7). Length of hospitalization and duration of postoperative ileus were compared. A subset analysis of right colectomy (intracorporeal mobilization and extracorporeal division of the mesentery and anastomosis) versus sigmoid colectomy (intracorporeal mobilization, division of the mesentery and anastomosis) was also performed. There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospital stay (Group 1, 7.47 +/- 2.75 days; Group 2, 7.78 +/- 5.55 days) or duration of postoperative ileus (Group 1, 3.24 +/- 1.56 days; Group 2, 3.68 +/- 1.58 days). Similarly, in the sigmoid colectomy versus right colectomy subset analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in length of hospital stay (sigmoid colectomy, 7.92 +/- 2.90 days; right colectomy, 6.40 +/- 1.50 days) or duration of postoperative ileus (sigmoid colectomy, 3.36 +/- 1.39 days; right colectomy, 3.18 +/- 1.07 days). Our data demonstrate that intracorporeal division of the mesentery and anastomosis confer no advantage over the laparoscopic assisted procedures. Data were prospectively collected on 102 consecutive laparoscopic colon resections. There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospital stay or duration of postoperative ileus regardless of whether intracorporeal or extracorporeal mesenteric division and anastomosis were undertaken. These data demonstrate that a completely laparoscopic procedure does not appear to offer any advantage as compared to a laparoscopic assisted one.

Abdomen↗
PubMed2002

Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) has emerged as the preferred minimally invasive surgical strategy for diseases of the colon. The safety and efficacy of LAC for colon cancer are unknown, and the nature and magnitude of any quality-of-life (QOL) benefit resulting from LAC for colon cancer is also unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term QOL outcomes after LAC vs open colectomy for colon cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy [COST]). Between September 1994 and February 1999, 37 of 48 centers provided data for the QOL component of the trial for 449 consecutive patients with clinically resectable colon cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on the Symptoms Distress Scale (SDS), Quality of Life Index, and a single-item global rating scale at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months postoperative; duration of postoperative in-hospital analgesic use; and length of stay. RESULTS: Of 449 patients, 428 provided QOL data. In an intention-to-treat analysis comparing SDS pain intensity, SDS summary, QOL Index summary, and global rating scale scores at each time point, the only statistically significant difference observed between groups was the global rating scale score for 2 weeks postsurgery. The mean (median) global rating scale scores for 2 weeks postsurgery were 76.9 (80) for LAC vs 74.4 (75) for open colectomy (P =.009). While in the hospital, patients assigned to LAC required fewer days of both parenteral analgesics compared with patients assigned to open colectomy (mean [median], 3.2 [3] vs 4.0 [4] days; P<.001) and oral analgesics (mean [median], 1.9 [1] vs 2.2 [2] days; P =.03). CONCLUSION: Only minimal short-term QOL benefits were found with LAC for colon cancer compared with standard open colectomy. Until ongoing trials establish that LAC is as effective as open colectomy in preventing recurrence and death from colon cancer, this procedure should not be offered to patients with colon cancer.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Single-stage treatment for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing subtotal colectomy with segmental resection following intraoperative irrigation. The SCOTIA Study Group. Subtotal Colectomy versus On-table Irrigation and Anastomosis.

This multicentre study is the first prospective randomized trial to compare subtotal colectomy with segmental resection and primary anastomosis following intraoperative irrigation for the management of malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. Of the 91 eligible patients recruited by 12 centres, 47 were randomized to subtotal colectomy and 44 to on-table irrigation and segmental colectomy. Hospital mortality and complication rates did not differ significantly, but 4 months after operation increased bowel frequency (three or more bowel movements per day) was significantly more common in the subtotal colectomy group (14 of 35 versus four of 35, chi 2 = 6.06, 1 d.f., P = 0.01). More patients in the subtotal colectomy group reported that they had consulted their general practitioner with bowel problems than did those in the segmental resection group (15 of 37 versus three of 35, chi 2 = 8.17, 1 d.f., P = 0.004). Segmental resection following intraoperative irrigation is the preferred option except when there is caecal perforation or if synchronous neoplasms are present in the colon, when subtotal colectomy is more appropriate.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Is laparoscopic subtotal colectomy better than open subtotal colectomy in children?

PURPOSE: The role of laparoscopic colectomy is not defined clearly. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open subtotal colectomy in children with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Eight consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic subtotal colectomy were compared with 10 consecutive patients undergoing open subtotal colectomy. All patients were refractory to medical management on immunosuppressive regimens. Operating time, length of postoperative stay and intravenous narcotic use, time to return of intestinal function, and perioperative complications were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Operating times were significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (mean laparoscopic, 4 hours 40 minutes v mean open 2 hours 25 minutes; P <.01). There was no difference between the 2 groups in length of postoperative intravenous narcotics or hospital stay. Ileostomy output occurred earlier (mean laparoscopic, 2.5 days v mean open 3.8 days; P =.01), and there was a trend toward earlier oral intake in the laparoscopic group. A total of 6 complications occurred in 4 patients in the laparoscopic group compared with 5 complications in 5 patients in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative clinical outcomes, including complication rates, are similar with laparoscopic and open subtotal colectomy. Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy can be performed safely in children with improved cosmesis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

Proposed phase III trial comparing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for colon cancer.

Despite many important medical advances, surgery remains the primary treatment modality for most of the 109,000 individuals who are newly diagnosed with colon cancer each year. Surgery not only provides extirpation of the primary tumor that relieves symptoms and prevents complications but also provides important staging information. Although oncologic results from open colectomy are well established, these traditional resective and staging techniques are challenged by the introduction of minimal-access surgery. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which shortens postoperative recovery and decreases disabilities and cost, has become the preferred surgical approach to cholelithiasis. Many propose that minimal-access surgery of the colon may offer similar advantages. Laparoscopic-assisted segmental resections of the colon can be performed using laparoscopic techniques to ligate vasculature and mobilize and exteriorize bowel and extracorporal techniques to resect and anastomose bowel. Collective preliminary data from a consortium of experienced laparoscopic surgeons support that laparoscopic-assisted colectomy is safe, feasible, and reduces recovery times and disabilities. Since differences between laparoscopic-assisted and open colectomy have not been rigorously tested, and concern has been raised regarding the adequacy of this technique for staging and treating colon cancer, a prospective randomized multi-institutional trial is proposed. The primary aim of such a trial will be to test the hypothesis that disease-free survival and overall survival are equivalent, regardless of whether patients receive laparoscopic-assisted or open colectomy. The secondary aim of the trial will be to determine the safety of of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy compared with open colectomy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗
PubMed1996

Prospective comparison of gastric emptying after laparoscopic-aided colectomy versus open colectomy.

Laparoscopic colectomy has been associated with a shorter postoperative ileus when compared to open colectomy, although the mechanism is unclear. This study is designed to evaluate gastric emptying following open colectomies (OC) versus laparoscopic-aided colectomies (LAC) using serial serum acetaminophen levels (ACE), which correlate with gastric emptying. The study groups were limited to patients undergoing either right or left colectomy who received general anesthetic. Patients with diabetes mellitus or other colon resections were excluded. Postoperative analgesia was provided with intramuscular ketorolac and opioids for breakthrough pain. Patients received 500 mg ACE at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively, and ACE levels were measured 5, 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes following ingestion. The OC and LAC groups were matched in terms of operation performed. There were multiple carcinomas in the OC group, and none in the LAC group. Normal control values were also obtained for ACE absorption curves. Of all the time intervals tested at both 24 and 48 hours, there was only a single time interval (30 minutes at the 48-hour testing interval) in which there was a significant difference between the OC and LAC groups. In both the OC and LAC groups, there were multiple time intervals when the ACE levels were significantly different when compared to controls. The results indicate no significant difference in gastric emptying as measured by acetaminophen absorption in postoperative colectomy patients. Therefore, although laparoscopic patients have a clinically shorter postoperative ileus, the mechanism for this reduction appears unrelated to gastric emptying.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2000

Laparoscopic colectomy compares favorably with colectomy by laparotomy for reduction of postoperative ileus.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the length of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing colectomy by either laparotomy or laparoscopy. METHODS: A total of 166 patients were studied. These patients were divided into two groups: Group 1, in which colectomy was done laparoscopically, and Group 2, consisting of patients undergoing laparotomy. Both groups contained 83 patients who were matched for disease severity, indications for surgery, and procedure. Indications for surgery included sigmoid diverticulitis in 12 (14 percent) patients, polyps in 22 (27 percent), Crohn's disease in 21 (25 percent), colorectal cancer in 11 (13 percent), stoma reversal in 8 (10 percent), rectal prolapse in 3 (4 percent), and other indications in 6 (7 percent) in each group. Operations were colectomy with anastomosis (42 ileocolic, 26 colorectal, 6 colocolic, 4 ileorectal, and 2 ileal J pouch) or without anastomosis (3 abdominoperineal resections) performed by the same surgeons during the same time period January 1993 to October 1996). The nasogastric tube was removed from all patients immediately after surgery in both groups. All patients received a clear liquid diet on the first postoperative day, followed by a regular diet as tolerated. The nasogastric tube was reinserted if two or more episodes of emesis of more than 200 ml occurred in the absence of bowel movement. Patients were discharged from the hospital when tolerating a regular diet without evidence of ileus. Statistical analysis was performed using unpaired t-test and Fisher's exact probability test. RESULTS: The male-to-female ratio was 38 to 45 in both groups. A total of 10 (12 percent) and 23 (28 percent) patients in Group 1 and Group 2 had emesis (P = 0.02), and the rate of nasogastric tube reinsertion was 5 (6 percent) and 13 (16 percent), respectively (P > 0.05). There were significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 relative to the lengths of ileus (3.5 +/- 1.3 vs. 5.4 +/- 1.7 days, respectively; P < 0.001), hospitalization (6.6 +/- 3.3 vs. 8.1 +/- 2.5 days, respectively; P < 0.002), and operative time (170 +/- 60 vs. 114 +/- 46 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). The morbidity rate was 16 (19.2 percent) and 18 (21.6 percent) in the laparoscopy and laparotomy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although early oral intake is safe and can be tolerated by 84 percent of patients after colectomy by laparotomy, laparoscopic colectomy reduced the lengths of both postoperative ileus and hospitalization.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗
PubMed1995

Laparoscopic assisted colectomies versus open colectomy.

Minimally invasive techniques are having an impact on a variety of surgical procedures. Before their widespread acceptance as the standard of care, studies need to document their efficacy in comparison to open techniques. This study compared 25 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies to 25 open colectomies all performed within the last five years by the same surgeon. In terms of adequacy of resection, laparoscopic assisted colectomy compared favorably with open colectomy in both length of resection (15.7 cm vs 19.3 cm) and average number of nodes (6 vs 10). In addition to lessening patient discomfort, the other advantages were earlier return of bowel function (regular diet postoperative day 2 vs postoperative day 5) and shorter length of stay (4 vs 8 days). Operating costs were significantly greater, but this was offset by the shorter length of stay. This study supports laparoscopic assisted colectomy as a technically safe procedure with substantial patient benefits.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2001

Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional laparoscopic colectomy with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost.

BACKGROUND: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) represents a useful alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). Its potential advantages--(a quicker, safer procedure and less need to convert to open surgery) are due to the recovery of tactile feedback. However, HALS requires the performance of a mini-laparotomy when surgery commences, and the wound is stretched and compressed throughout the procedure. In addition, it is associated with a more intense manipulation of the intraabdominal viscera. All of these factors increase the surgical trauma, it is not known whether HALS maintains the minimally invasive characteristics of conventional LS. Therefore, we set out to study the applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost of HALS compared with conventional LS using colectomy as a model. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy with HAL colectomy. The aims of the study were to assess (a) perioperative features, including time, advantages, and conversion; (b) the patient's immediate clinical response, including recovery of bowel sounds, refeeding time, postoperative pain, local and general morbidity, and hospital stay; (c) the effect on the inflammatory response, using interleukin-6 (ILG) and C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements; (d) oncological issues, including intraoperative cytology and features of the specimen; and (d) the relative costs of the two procedures. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were enrolled in the study, 27 laparoscopic and 27 HALS. The operative times were similar, but HALS was associated with a far lower conversion rate--7% vs 23%. Immediate clinical outcomes, oncological features, and costs were similar for the two procedures, but HALS was associated with a significantly greater increase in IL6 and CRP than the conventional laparoscopic procedure. CONCLUSION: This comparative study shows that HALS simplifies difficult intraoperative situations, reducing the need for conversion. Although it is a more aggressive procedure, HALS preserves the features of a minimally invasive approach, maintains all of the oncological features of conventional laparoscopic surgery, and does not increase the cost. HALS should therefore be considered as a useful adjunct when difficult situations arise during conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy for colorectal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of patients followed up for at least 4 years.

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term outcome of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC) with that of open colectomy (OC) for carcinoma in patients followed up for a minimum of 4 years. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 118 patients who underwent LAC between January 1993 and September 1999, and compared the results with those of 163 selected patients who underwent OC during the same period. RESULTS: Curative surgery was performed in 114 of the LAC patients. Because recurrence did not develop in any of the patients with stage I cancer, we analyzed the patterns of recurrence only in those with stage II or III disease; 58 patients were analyzed in the laparoscopic group and 130 in the open colectomy group. In the LAC group, 7 (12.1%) patients had recurrence after a median follow-up of 58 months and in the OC group, 19 (14.6%) patients had recurrence after a median follow-up of 56.5 months. The 5-year disease-free rate was similar in the LAC (87.8%) and OC (85.5%) groups (P = 0.75 by the log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy is effective and safe for the treatment of colorectal carcinomas under the criteria used in this study. However, further validation of these results is recommended.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2004

Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the perioperative parameters and outcomes achieved with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) vs open colectomy (OC) for the management of benign and malignant colorectal disease, including cancer patients treated with curative intent. METHODS: Sixty eligible patients were randomized to either HALC (n = 30) or OC (n = 30) treatment groups. We used Pearson's chi-square and two-sample t-tests to compare the differences in demographics and perioperative parameters. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender distribution, disease pattern, operative procedure, comorbidity, or history of abdominal surgery. The HALC patients had significantly shorter hospital stays and incision lengths, faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, less analgesic use and blood loss, and lower pain scores on postoperative days 1, 3, and 14. There were no significant differences in operative time, complications, or time to return to normal activity. CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) is safe and produces better therapeutic results in terms of perioperative parameters than OC.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Laparoscopic colectomy vs traditional colectomy for diverticulitis. Outcome and costs.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis. METHODS: Fourteen consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy (LSC) for diverticulitis were evaluated. Medical records from a control group of 14 matched patients undergoing traditional open sigmoid colectomy (OSC) for diverticulitis were reviewed for comparison. RESULTS: Mean age, operative time, morbidity, and mortality of the LSC and OSC groups were not significantly different. However, the mean estimated blood loss (171cc vs 321cc), days to p.o. liquids (2.9 vs 6.1), and postoperative stay (6.3 vs 9.2 days) were all significantly less in the LSC patients. Although the mean operating room charges were greater in the LSC patients ($10,589 vs $8,207) the mean total hospital charges ($29,981 vs $36,745) and costs ($11,528 vs $13,426) were markedly less. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OSC for diverticulitis, LSC results in a more rapid return of bowel function and shortened hospital stay. Despite the greater operating room charges of LSC, the total hospital charges and costs are lessened.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Cytokine and hormonal responses in laparoscopic-assisted colectomy and conventional open colectomy.

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is an important mediator of the acute phase response and a sensitive marker of tissue damage. This study was conducted to investigate the fluctuation of serum cytokine and hormonal levels during the perioperative period after laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC), and the data were compared with those after conventional open colectomy (OPEN). The subjects comprised eight patients who underwent OPEN and eight who underwent LAC. Blood samples were obtained by peripheral vein puncture before the induction of anesthesia, then 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48, and 72 h after skin incision to measure the levels of serum IL-6, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol, and antidiuretic hormone (ADH). The level of serum IL-6 increased significantly during the perioperative course in both groups; however, the level 4 h after the commencement of surgery and the peak level were significantly lower in the LAC group than in the OPEN group (P < 0.05). Plasma ACTH, cortisol, and ADH rapidly increased in both groups, but there was no significant difference between them. The IL-6 levels in collected ascites samples were not significantly different between the two groups. The changes in serum IL-6 levels indicate that LAC is less invasive than conventional open colectomy. These findings corresponded well with the clinical courses of the patients who underwent the two types of operations.

Adrenocorticotropic Hormone↗
PubMed2000

The usefulness, indications, and complications of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy in comparison with those of open colectomy for colorectal carcinoma.

The technique of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) was developed for benign and malignant diseases of the colon and rectum; however, its feasibility and the associated clinical outcome remain unclear. We reviewed 45 patients who underwent LAC (LAC group) and 62 patients who underwent traditional open surgery (Open group) for colorectal carcinoma in our hospital, and compared the clinical data between the two groups in an effort to determine whether LAC is really minimally invasive and if it enhances the quality of life. So that the backgrounds of the patients in both groups were almost the same, we only compared data of patients with colorectal carcinoma of stages 0, I, and II. The duration of surgery in the Open group was significantly shorter for all procedures except sigmoid resection, but the blood loss was not significantly different between any of the procedures except for right colectomy. The time to the first passing of flatus and restarting oral intake, length of hospital stay, and duration of epidural analgesia were significantly shorter in the LAC group. The morbidity and mortality rates in the LAC group were almost the same as those in the Open group at 29.5% and 3.3% versus 22.6% and 1.6%, respectively. However, five major complications of LAC for advanced colorectal carcinomas might be prevented by performing an open procedure. In conclusion, LAC is a safe and minimally invasive surgical technique following which we can expect a faster recovery; however, patients with advanced colorectal carcinomas must be carefully selected for this operation.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2002

Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Although early reports on laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) in patients with colon cancer suggested that it reduces perioperative morbidity, its influence on long-term results is unknown. Our study aimed to compare efficacy of LAC and open colectomy (OC) for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer in terms of tumour recurrence and survival. METHODS: From November, 1993, to July, 1998, all patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon were assessed for entry in this randomised trial. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were the same in both groups. The main endpoint was cancer-related survival. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. FINDINGS: 219 patients took part in the study (111 LAC group, 108 OC group). Patients in the LAC group recovered faster than those in the OC group, with shorter peristalsis-detection (p=0.001) and oral-intake times (p=0.001), and shorter hospital stays (p=0.005). Morbidity was lower in the LAC group (p=0.001), although LAC did not influence perioperative mortality. Probability of cancer-related survival was higher in the LAC group (p=0.02). The Cox model showed that LAC was independently associated with reduced risk of tumour relapse (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82), death from any cause (0.48, 0.23-1.01), and death from a cancer-related cause (0.38, 0.16-0.91) compared with OC. This superiority of LAC was due to differences in patients with stage III tumours (p=0.04, p=0.02, and p=0.006, respectively). INTERPRETATION: LAC is more effective than OC for treatment of colon cancer in terms of morbidity, hospital stay, tumour recurrence, and cancer-related survival.

Adenocarcinoma↗