Reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Does the laparoscopic approach have any advantages? / Reintervención tras complicaciones en cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. ¿Aporta ventajas el abordaje laparoscópico?

INTRODUCTION: The laparoscopic approach in colorectal complications is controversial because of its difficulty. However, it has been proven that it can provide advantages over open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic approach in reoperations for complications after colorectal surgery with the open approach taking into account the severity of the patient prior to reoperation. METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2006 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients requiring urgent surgical procedures for complications in the postoperative period were divided in two groups: laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). To control clinical severity prior to reoperation, The Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 763 patients were studied, 40 required urgent surgery (24 OS/16 LS). More ileostomies were performed in the LS group (68.7% vs. 29.2%) and more colostomies in the OS group (37.5% vs. 6.2%), p<0.05. MPI was higher in OS group (27.31±6.47 [19-35] vs. 18.36±7.16 [11-24], p<0.001). Hospital stay after re-intervention, oral tolerance and surgical wound infection, were favorable in LS (p<0.05 in all cases). In patients with MPI score ≤26, laparoscopic approach showed shorter hospital stay after re-intervention, less stay in the critical care unit after re-intervention, earlier start of oral tolerance and less surgical wound infection (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A laparoscopic approach in re-intervention for complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery associates a faster recovery reflected in a shorter hospital stay, earlier start of oral tolerance and a lower abdominal wall complication rate in patients with low severity index.

Single-port Colectomy VS Multi-port Laparoscopic Colectomy. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of More Than 2800 Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Multiport laparoscopic surgery in colon pathology has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique. Interest in reducing aggressiveness has led to other procedures being described, such as SILS. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate feasibility and security of SILS technique in colonic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A meta-analysis of twenty 7 observational studies and one prospective randomized trial has been conducted by the use of random-effects models. RESULTS: A total amount of 2870 procedures was analyzed: 1119 SILS and 1751 MLC. We did not find statistically significant differences between SILS and MLC in age (WMD 0.28 [-1.13, 1.68]; P=.70), BMI (WMD -0.63 [-1.34, 0.08]; P=.08), ASA score (WMD -0.02 [-0.08, 0.04]; P=.51), length of incision (WMD -1.90 [-3.95, 0.14]; P=.07), operating time (WMD -2.69 (-18.33, 12.95]; P=.74), complications (OR=0.89 [0.69, 1.15]; P=.37), conversion to laparotomy (OR=0.59 [0.33, 1.04]; P=.07), mortality (OR=0.91 [0.36, 2.34]; P=.85) or number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD 0.13 [-2.52, 2.78]; P=.92). The blood loss was significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD -42.68 [-76.79, -8.57]; P=.01) and the length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD -0.73 [-1.18, -0.28]; P=.001). CONCLUSION: Single-port laparoscopic colectomy is a safe and effective technique with additional subtle benefits compared to multiport laparoscopic colectomy. However, further prospective randomized studies are needed before single-port colectomy can be considered an alternative to multiport laparoscopic surgery of the colon.