Total Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy: Are There Advantages Compared with the Open and Hand-Assisted Approaches?

PURPOSE: A randomized, controlled trial comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with open surgery did not show an advantage for the laparoscopic approach. The trial was criticized because hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy was not considered a true laparoscopic proctocolectomy. The objective of the present study was to assess whether total laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy has advantages over hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with respect to early recovery. METHODS: Thirty-five patients underwent total laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy and were compared to 60 patients from a previously conducted randomized, controlled trial comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy and open restorative proctocolectomy. End points included operating time, conversion rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, morbidity, quality of life, and costs. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index were used to evaluate general and bowel-related quality of life. RESULTS: Groups were comparable for patient characteristics, such as sex, body mass index, preoperative disease duration, and age. There were neither conversions nor intraoperative complications. Median operating time was longer in the total laparoscopic compared with the hand-assisted laparoscopic group (298 vs. 214 minutes; P < 0.001). Morbidity and reoperation rates in the total laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and open groups were comparable (29 vs. 20 vs. 23 percent and 17 vs.10 vs. 13 percent, respectively). Median hospital-stay was 9 days in the total laparoscopic group compared with 10 days in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group and 11 days in the open group (P = not significant). There were no differences in quality of life and total costs. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant short-term benefits for total laparoscopic compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy with respect to early morbidity, operating time, quality of life, costs, and hospital sta

Totally laparoscopic versus conventional ileoanal pouch procedure – design of a single-centre, expertise based randomised controlled trial to compare the laparoscopic and conventional surgical approach in patients undergoing primary elective restorative proctocolectomy- LapConPouch-Trial

BACKGROUND: Restorative proctocolectomy is increasingly being performed minimal invasively but a totally laparoscopic technique has not yet been compared to the standard open technique in a randomized study. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two armed, single centre, expertise based, preoperatively randomized, patient blinded study. It is designed as a two-group parallel superiority study. Power calculation revealed 80 patients per group in order to recruit the 65 patients to be analysed for the primary endpoint. The primary objective is to investigate intra-operative blood loss and the need for blood transfusions. We hypothesise that intra-operative blood loss and the need for peri-operative blood transfusions are significantly higher in the conventional group. Additionally a set of surgical and non-surgical parameters related to the operation will be analysed as secondary objectives. These will include operative time, complications, postoperative pain, lung function, postoperative length of hospital stay, a cosmetic score and pre-and postoperative quality of life. DISCUSSION: The trial will answer the question whether there is indeed an advantage in the laparoscopic group in regard to blood loss and the need for blood transfusions. Moreover, it will generate data on the safety and potential advantages and disadvantages of the minimally invasive approach

Trends in the distribution of gestational age and contribution of planned births in New South Wales, Australia

§<p>Relative change was calculated by: [(2009 rate –1994 rate)/(1994 rate)].</p>*<p>100; Test-for-trend was significant for all factors except stillbirths and multiple births, P<0.001.</p>†<p>Low risk pregnancies defined as primiparae, aged 20–34 years, without pregnancy complications; and with a liveborn singleton infant, born in cephalic presentation and of normal fetal growth at the 10^th–90th birth weight percentile of the distribution for gestational age and infant sex. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0056238#pone.0056238-Cheng1" target="_blank">[16]</a>.</p>*<p>Numbers may not add up to totals due to missing data or rounding.</p

Long-Term Surgical Recurrence, Morbidity, Quality of Life, and Body Image of Laparoscopic-Assisted vs. Open Ileocolic Resection for Crohn’s Disease: A Comparative Study

PurposeSeveral studies have compared conventional open ileocolic resection with a laparoscopic-assisted approach. However, long-term outcome after laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection remains to be determined. This study was designed to compare long-term results of surgical recurrence, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted or open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.MethodsSeventy-eight consecutive patients who underwent ileocolic resection during the period 1995 to 1998 were analyzed; 48 underwent a conventional open approach in the Academic Medical Centre (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and 30 underwent a laparoscopic-assisted approach in the Leiden University Medical Centre (Leiden, The Netherlands). Primary outcome parameters were reoperation and readmission rate. Secondary outcome parameters were quality of life, body image, and cosmesis.ResultsThe two groups were comparable for characteristics of sex, age, and immunosuppressive therapy. Seventy-one patients had a complete follow-up of median 8.5 years. Resection for recurrent Crohn's disease was performed in 6 of 27 (22 percent) and 10 of 44 (23 percent) patients in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. Reoperations for incisional hernia were only performed after conventional open ileocolic resection (3/44 = 6.8 percent). Quality of life and body image were comparable, but cosmesis scores were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group.ConclusionsDespite small numbers, we found that surgical recurrence and quality of life after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection were comparable. Incisional hernias occurred only after open ileocolic resection, and laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection resulted in a significantly better cosmesis

Perioperative strategy in colonic surgery; LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care (LAFA trial)

BACKGROUND: Recent developments in large bowel surgery are the introduction of laparoscopic surgery and the implementation of multimodal fast track recovery programs. Both focus on a faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. The randomized controlled multicenter LAFA-trial (LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care) was conceived to determine whether laparoscopic surgery, fast track perioperative care or a combination of both is to be preferred over open surgery with standard care in patients having segmental colectomy for malignant disease. METHODS/DESIGN: The LAFA-trial is a double blinded, multicenter trial with a 2 × 2 balanced factorial design. Patients eligible for segmental colectomy for malignant colorectal disease i.e. right and left colectomy and anterior resection will be randomized to either open or laparoscopic colectomy, and to either standard care or the fast track program. This factorial design produces four treatment groups; open colectomy with standard care (a), open colectomy with fast track program (b), laparoscopic colectomy with standard care (c), and laparoscopic surgery with fast track program (d). Primary outcome parameter is postoperative hospital length of stay including readmission within 30 days. Secondary outcome parameters are quality of life two and four weeks after surgery, overall hospital costs, morbidity, patient satisfaction and readmission rate. Based on a mean postoperative hospital stay of 9 +/- 2.5 days a group size of 400 patients (100 each arm) can reliably detect a minimum difference of 1 day between the four arms (alfa = 0.95, beta = 0.8). With 100 patients in each arm a difference of 10% in subscales of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire and social functioning can be detected. DISCUSSION: The LAFA-trial is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence on the merits of fast track perioperative care and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients having segmental colectomy for malignant disease