Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy in the elderly: experience from a UK centre

BACKGROUND Gastric cancer has a high incidence in the elderly in the UK, with a significant number of patients aged 75 years or more. While surgery forms the mainstay of treatment, evidence pertaining to the management of gastric cancer in the Western population in this age group is scarce. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted total and distal gastrectomies at our centre from 2005 to 2015. Patients aged 70 years or above were included in the elderly group. RESULTS A total of 60 patients underwent laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy over a 10-year period, with a predominance of male patients. There was no significant difference in the rate of overall surgical and non-surgical complications, in-hospital mortality, operation time and length of hospital stay, between the elderly and non-elderly groups. Univariate analysis, performed for risk factors relating to anastomotic leak and surgical complications, showed that age over 70 years and higher American Association of Anesthesiologists grades are associated with a higher, though not statistically significant, number of anastomotic leaks (P = 1.000 and P = 0.442, respectively) and surgical complications (P = 0.469 and P = 0.162, respectively). The recurrence rate within the first 3 years of surgery was significantly higher in the non-elderly group compared with the elderly group (Log Rank test, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (Log Rank test, P = 0.619). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy is safe and feasible in an elderly population. There is a need for well-designed, prospective, randomised studies with quality of life data to inform our practice in future

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program in Patients Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are multimodal, evidence-based approaches to optimize patient outcome after surgery. However, the use of ERAS protocols to improve morbidity and recovery time without compromising safety following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains to be elucidated. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ERAS protocols compared with conventional perioperative care (CPC) in patients following PD. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library were searched between January 2000 and June 2015. The patients who underwent PD with ERAS protocols or CPC were eligible. The studies that compared postoperative length of hospital stay (PLOS), postoperative complications, or in-hospital costs in the 2 groups were included. A meta-analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to estimate the postoperative outcomes between the 2 groups and identified the potential confounders. We used the methodological index for nonrandomized studies checklist to assess methodological qualities. Weighted mean differences (WMD) or odds ratios (OR) were calculated with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The publication bias tests were also performed through the funnel plots. In total, 14 nonrandomized comparative studies with 1409 ERAS cases and 1310 controls were analyzed. Implementation of an ERAS protocol significantly reduced PLOS (WMD: −4.17 days; 95%CI: −5.72 to −2.61), delayed gastric emptying (OR: 0.56; 95%CI: 0.44–0.71), overall morbidity (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54–0.74), and in-hospital costs compared to CPC (all P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in other postoperative outcomes. Age, gender, and ERAS component implementation did not significantly contribute to heterogeneity for PLOS as shown by meta-regression analysis. Our study suggested that ERAS was as safe as CPC and improved recovery of patients undergoing PD, thus reducing in-hospital costs. General adoption of ERAS protocols during PD should be recommended

Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background A reliable system for grading operative difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy would standardise description of findings and reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a difficulty grading system (Nassar scale), testing its applicability and consistency in two large prospective datasets. Methods Patient and disease-related variables and 30-day outcomes were identified in two prospective cholecystectomy databases: the multi-centre prospective cohort of 8820 patients from the recent CholeS Study and the single-surgeon series containing 4089 patients. Operative data and patient outcomes were correlated with Nassar operative difficultly scale, using Kendall’s tau for dichotomous variables, or Jonckheere–Terpstra tests for continuous variables. A ROC curve analysis was performed, to quantify the predictive accuracy of the scale for each outcome, with continuous outcomes dichotomised, prior to analysis. Results A higher operative difficulty grade was consistently associated with worse outcomes for the patients in both the reference and CholeS cohorts. The median length of stay increased from 0 to 4 days, and the 30-day complication rate from 7.6 to 24.4% as the difficulty grade increased from 1 to 4/5 (both p < 0.001). In the CholeS cohort, a higher difficulty grade was found to be most strongly associated with conversion to open and 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.903, 0.822, respectively). On multivariable analysis, the Nassar operative difficultly scale was found to be a significant independent predictor of operative duration, conversion to open surgery, 30-day complications and 30-day reintervention (all p < 0.001). Conclusion We have shown that an operative difficulty scale can standardise the description of operative findings by multiple grades of surgeons to facilitate audit, training assessment and research. It provides a tool for reporting operative findings, disease severity and technical difficulty and can be utilised in future research to reliably compare outcomes according to case mix and intra-operative difficulty

Parietex™ Composite mesh versus DynaMesh(®)-IPOM for laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is widely accepted and safe but the type of mesh used is still debated. We retrospectively compared postoperative outcomes with two different meshes commonly used in LIVHR. METHODS This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent incisional hernia repair between January 2008 and December 2010. Two meshes were used: Parietex™ Composite (Covidien, New Haven, CT, USA) and the DynaMesh(®)-IPOM (FEG Textiltechnik mbH, Aachen, Germany). The two groups were compared with respect to recurrence rates, incidence of seroma and intestinal obstruction. RESULTS Among the 88 patients who underwent LIVHR, 75 patients (85.2%) presented with primary incisional hernia, 10 (11.4%) presented with a first recurrence and 3 (3.4%) presented with a second recurrence. Median follow-up was 53.6 months (range 40-61 months). 12.9% of patients had recurrence in the Parietex™ Composite mesh group (n=62) in comparison to 3.8% in the DynaMesh(®)-IPOM mesh group (n=26; P=0.20). DynaMesh(®)-IPOM was associated with a significantly higher incidence of intestinal obstruction secondary to adhesions (11.5% vs. 0%, P=0.006) and lower incidence of seroma and haematoma formation compared to Parietex™ composite mesh group (0% vs. 6.4% of patients; P=0.185). CONCLUSIONS LIVHR is a safe and feasible technique. Dynamesh(®)-IPOM is associated with a significantly higher incidence of adhesion related bowel obstruction, albeit with a lower incidence of recurrence, seroma and haematoma formation compared with Parietex™ Composite mesh. However, there is a need for further well-designed, multicentre randomised controlled studies to investigate the use of these meshes

Intestinal ischemia following laparoscopic surgery: a case series

Introduction: Intestinal ischemia is a rare complication of laparoscopic surgery. Its prognosis depends on a high index of suspicion and effective early treatment. Case presentation: In the present report, we describe three cases where intestinal ischemia developed following laparoscopic surgery. Case 1 concerns a 52-year-old Caucasian man who developed large bowel ischemia following laparoscopic adjustable gastric band surgery. Case 2 concerns an 82-year-old Caucasian woman who developed fatal intestinal ischemia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Case 3 concerns a 58-year old Caucasian woman who developed right-sided lower intestinal ischemia following open cholecystectomy. Conclusions: Intestinal ischemia is a rare complication of laparoscopic surgery. The identification of high-risk patients is an essential primary preventive measure. A high index of suspicion is required to make an early diagnosis, which may help improve outcomes