Comparison between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective trial of the Club Coelio.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). METHOD: Patients' inclusion criteria were uncomplicated gallstones, BMI ≤30, ASA score ≤2, and no past surgery in the upper abdomen. Five surgeons performed only SILC and seven only CLC. Data analyzed included operative time, morbidity, quality of life (QOL), cosmetic result, and global patient satisfaction. The last three parameters were evaluated 3 months after surgery. QOL was assessed with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) questionnaire. Cosmetic result and patient satisfaction were rated using a 5-grade Likert scale. RESULTS: This study included 104 patients operated on between April and June 2010. A SILC was performed in 35 patients and a CLC in 69. The preoperative characteristics of the two groups were similar. Median operative time for SILC was higher than that for CLC: 55 versus 40 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications (0 vs. 2) and postoperative GIQLI scores (123 ± 13 vs. 121 ± 18) were not significantly different between groups. Cosmetic result and patient satisfaction were better for SILC than for CLC. The percentages of results rated as excellent were 68 versus 37 % (p < 0.006) and 80 versus 57 % (p < 0.039), respectively. For the whole group, multivariate statistical analysis revealed that postoperative GIQLI score and cosmetic result were independent predictive factors of patient satisfaction. The percentages of satisfaction rated as excellent were greater in patients who had a postoperative GIQLI score ≥130 (92 vs. 49 %, odds ratio [OR] = 4, p < 0.001) and in patients who had an excellent cosmetic result (82 vs. 47 %, OR = 7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CLC, SILC is associated with a longer operative time, an equivalent morbidity and QOL, and a better cosmetic result. The improved aesthetic result also leads to a better global patient satisfaction.

Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus milligan-morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial with 2-year postoperative follow up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH group) performed using a circular stapler with that of the Milligan-Morgan technique (MM group). The goals of the study were to evaluate the efficacy and reproducibility of stapled hemorrhoidopexy and define its place among conventional techniques. METHODS: A series of 134 patients were included at 7 hospital centers. They were randomized according to a single-masked design and stratified by center (with balancing every 4 patients). Patients were clinically evaluated preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 1 year, and a minimum of 2 years after treatment. Patients completed a questionnaire before and 1 year after surgery to evaluate symptoms, function, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 2.21 years +/- 0.26 (1.89-3.07). Nine patients (7%) could not be monitored at 1 or 2 years, but 4 of these 9 nevertheless filled in the 1-year questionnaire. The patients in the SH group experienced less postoperative pain/discomfort as scored by pain during bowel movement (P < 0.001), total analgesic requirement over the first 3 days (according to the World Health Organization [WHO] class II analgesics [P = 0.002]; class III [P = 0.066]), and per-patient consumption frequency of class III analgesics (P = 0.089). A clear difference in morphine requirement became evident after 24 hours (P = 0.010). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SH group (SH 2.2 +/- 1.2 [0; 5.0] versus MM 3.1 +/- 1.7 [1; 8.0] P < 0.001). At 1 year, no differences in the resolution of symptoms were observed between the 2 groups, and over 2 years, the overall incidence of complications was the same, specifically fecaloma (P = 0.003) in the MM group and external hemorrhoidal thrombosis (P = 0.006) in the SH group. Impaired sphincter function was observed at 1 year with no significant difference between the groups for urgency (12%), continence problems (10%), or tenesmus (3%). No patient needed a second procedure for recurrence within 2 years, although partial residual prolapse was detected in 4 SH patients (7.5%) versus 1 MM patient (1.8%) (P = 0.194). CONCLUSION: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy causes significantly less postoperative pain. The technique is reproducible and can achieve comparable outcomes as those of the MM technique as long as the well-described steps of the technique are followed. Like with conventional surgery, anorectal dysfunction can occur after stapled hemorrhoidopexy in some patients. Its effectiveness in relieving symptoms is equivalent to conventional surgery, and the number of hemorrhoidal prolapse recurrences at 2 years is not significantly different. Hemorroidopexy is applicable for treating reducible hemorrhoidal prolapse.

Improved sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer with high-dose preoperative radiotherapy: the lyon R96-02 randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The potential advantage of high-dose preoperative radiotherapy to increase tumor response and improve the chance of sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the role of escalating the dose of preoperative radiation to increase sphincter-saving procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with rectal carcinoma located in the lower rectum, staged T2 or T3, Nx, or M0 with endorectal sonography, and not involving more than two-thirds circumference, were randomly assigned to one of two groups: preoperative external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT; 39 Gy in 13 fractions over 17 days) versus the same EBRT with boost (85 Gy in three fractions) using endocavitary contact x-ray. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2001, 88 patients were enrolled onto the study. A significant improvement was seen in favor of the contact x-ray boost for complete clinical response (24% v 2%) and for a complete or near-complete sterilization of the operative specimen (57% v 34%). A significant increase in sphincter preservation was observed in the boost group (76% v 44%; P =.004). At a median follow-up of 35 months, there was no difference in morbidity, local relapse, and 2-year overall survival. CONCLUSION: A dose escalation with endocavitary irradiation provides increased tumor response and sphincter preservation with no detrimental effect on treatment toxicity and early clinical outcome.