Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a 10-year experience of an evolving technique.

AIM: Restorative proctocolectomy is the definitive procedure for ulcerative colitis. The potential benefits of a minimal invasive approach make it appropriate to consider this approach provided that there are no adverse effects. The aim of the present study was to report our experience of laparoscopic assisted and 'total' laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy (LRPC) and to highlight the difficulties encountered and the functional results obtained. METHOD: Electronic data were prospectively collected from all patients who underwent laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy (LRPC) from October 1999 to April 2010. RESULTS: Seventy-two (40 male) patients [median body mass index 24 (19-48) kg/m(2) ] underwent LRPC over 10 years. Three had cancer. Forty-two had undergone a previous colectomy (laparoscopic in 38). There were 40 W- and 32 J-pouch reconstructions; seven were single-port procedures. The median operation time was 210 (75-330) min. There were five (7%) conversions, one of which resulted in immediate pouch failure. The median time to full diet was 36 (4-168) h, with a median hospital stay of 7 (2-64) days. There were seven (10%) readmissions. Complications were immediate (3%), early (22%) and long term (11%). The incidence of failure (excision or indefinite diversion) was 2.7%. The stoma has been closed in 67 patients. Median frequency of defaecation was 4/24 h, with normal continence in 90% and the ability to defer during the day in 98%. There was no new case of impotence or dyspareunia. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy is safe and gives good results when performed by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Medium-term results of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for obstructed defecation and symptomatic rectal-anal intussusception.

AIM: Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) is an increasingly accepted treatment for obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS) associated with internal rectal prolapse (IRP) and rectocoele. The aim of this study is to evaluate the medium to long-term outcomes of STARR for ODS. METHOD: The intermediate-term results of STARR used over a 9-year period were reviewed from the analysis of a prospectively maintained database. Patients were followed for a median period of 98 (95% CI 85-112, range 5-386) weeks. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-four (234 woman) patients of median age 54 (19-90) years underwent STARR over a 9-year period. Preoperative symptoms included pelvic pain (93%), incomplete evacuation (90%), urgency (74%), a sensation of obstruction (65%) and rectal digitation (27%). Thirteen had the solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. Of 326 patients with follow-up data, 249 (76%) were followed beyond 1 year and 149 (43%) beyond 2 years. The ODS score improved [14.6 ± 5.4 pre vs 1.6 ± 3.1 post (P < 0.0001)] as did the faecal incontinence (FI) score [3.5 ± 3.3 pre vs 0.4 ± 1.3 post (P < 0.0001)]. Fifteen (4.3%) patients reported deterioration in FI, and 11 (3.2%) experienced new onset minor incontinence. Urgency was 72% at 8 weeks, 20% at 16 weeks, 11.5% at 52 weeks and 5% at 1.5 years. None of the 29 patients followed beyond 4 years reported urgency. Urgency was unrelated to sex, age or preoperative ODS symptoms (Mantel-Cox log-rank). Recurrent symptoms of ODS occurred in 4.9%. Eighty-one per cent of patients were highly satisfied with STARR and would recommend or have it again. CONCLUSION: STARR was successful for the treatment of selected patients with ODS and IRP. Postoperative faecal urgency rapidly decreases with time. It is not possible to predict who will develop urgency.

Single incision laparoscopic (SILS) restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileoanal pouch is the definitive procedure in ulcerative colitis. The potential benefits afforded by a single incision laparoscopic (SILS) approach make it appropriate to consider. METHODS: Electronic data were prospectively collected from all patients who underwent SILS restorative proctocolectomy (SILS-RPC) between June 2009 and June 2010. RESULTS: Ten consecutive patients (4 male), with median BMI = 22 (range = 20-28 kg/m(2)) underwent SILS-LRPC over a 1-year period. Three had undergone a previous emergency laparoscopic colectomy. A single-port device (Covidien SILS™ or Olympus TriPort™) was positioned at the site of the existing or proposed temporary ileostomy (2.5-cm incision). The colon and rectum were extracted through the SILS site (n = 8) or transanally following a mucosectomy (n = 2). A 20-cm J pouch was constructed extracorporeally and returned via the ileostomy site. Pouch-anal anastomosis was performed intracorporeally (n = 8) or hand-sutured (n = 2) and a diverting loop ileostomy was created at the SILS port site. The median operation time was 185 min (range = 100-381). There were no conversions or additional ports required. Median time to full diet was 36 h (range = 4-48 h) with a median hospital stay of 3 days (range = 2-8 days). There were no 30-day readmissions. Complications included surgical emphysema with temperature and a panic attack. Nine stomas have been closed. All patients have spontaneity of defecation, with a median pouch frequency of four per day, including once at night. All are fully continent and able to defer during the day. One reported a dry ejaculate for 10 weeks. CONCLUSION: SILS restorative proctocolectomy is safe with good early functional outcomes when performed by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery is feasible in complex colorectal resections and could enable day case colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Fast-track surgery accelerates recovery, reduces morbidity, and shortens hospital stay. However, the benefits of laparoscopic versus open surgery remain unproven within a fast-track program. Case reports of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) colectomies are appearing with claims of cosmetic advantage and decreased parietal trauma. This report describes the largest case series of LESS colorectal surgery and its effects on recovery. METHODS: In this series, 20 consecutive unselected patients underwent LESS colorectal surgery including right hemicolectomy (n = 3), extended right hemicolectomy, high anterior resection (n = 2), low anterior resection involving total mesorectal excision (TME; n = 3), ileocolic anastomosis (n = 2, including 1 redo surgery), colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (n = 4, including 1 with ventral mesh rectopexy), panproctocolectomy (n = 2), proctocolectomy and ileoanal pouch (n = 2) and an abdominoperineal excision of rectum. Single-port conventional instrumentation and transversus abdominus plane (TAP) block analgesia were used. The indications included cancer (n = 8), Crohn's disease (n = 4), ulcerative colitis (n = 3) complicated diverticulosis (n = 2), and slow-transit constipation (n = 3). Eight of the patients had undergone previous surgery. RESULTS: Most of the cases (90%) were managed successfully using the LESS technique and conventional instrumentation. Two operations (10%) were converted to standard laparoscopy, due to insufficient theater time and an unstable port. The operative time ranged from 45 to 240 min (median, 110 min). A normal diet was tolerated within 6 h by 7 patients and in 12 to 16 h (overnight) by 11 patients. Complications included anastomotic bleed (n = 1), ileus (n = 2), acute renal failure secondary to hyperphosphatemia and hypocalcemia (n = 1), urine retention (n = 1), and wound infection (n = 1). The median hospital stay was 46 h (range, 7-384 h). Eight patients were discharged within 24 h. There was one readmission (5%). CONCLUSION: Laparoendoscopic single-site colorectal resection using conventional instrumentation is feasible and safe when performed by an experienced team. The LESS approach may have advantages in terms of minimal pain, cosmesis, lower costs, and faster recovery. A randomized trial is required to confirm whether LESS offers a true patient benefit over standard laparoscopic resection.

Surgery for carcinoid tumours of the lower gastrointestinal tract.

INTRODUCTION: Carcinoid tumours are rare neoplasms that originate from neuroendocrine cells of the primitive gastrointestinal tract. Mid- and hind-gut tumours comprise the majority of these rare tumours. With many recent advances in medical treatment the role and importance of surgery and the surgeon needs to be assessed. METHOD: A Medline, Pubmed and Embase databases search was undertaken. All relevant articles were cross-referenced. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Incidental findings of carcinoid tumours should be treated at initial surgery whilst elective surgery and further management should be undertaken in specialist centres by a multidisciplinary team. Asymptomatic patients have a better prognosis than those with symptoms. In advanced cases surgery combined with chemotherapy and liver resection is appropriate. The outlook for the majority of cases is good.

Carcinoid tumour of the appendix.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal carcinoid tumours are found in 0.3-0.9 per cent of patients undergoing appendicectomy. Controversy exists over the management following appendicectomy, especially with regard to the role of right hemicolectomy in patients with tumours smaller than 2 cm in diameter. METHODS AND RESULTS: The literature pertaining to the behaviour of appendiceal carcinoids was reviewed in order to formulate indications for right hemicolectomy. Metastatic disease from appendiceal carcinoids is a rare occurrence, but is more common when lesions are larger than 2 cm in diameter. The risk-benefit balance of right hemicolectomy needs to be better defined, and an improved understanding of tumour cell biology may aid prognostic accuracy and decision-making. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence on which to base clear indications for right hemicolectomy in patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal carcinoid. Acceptable indications are carcinoids larger than 2 cm in size, any high-grade malignant carcinoid (including those with a high mitotic index), mesoappendiceal invasion, lesions at the base of the appendix with tumour-positive margins, and goblet cell adenocarcinoid tumours.