Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO2 pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®.

BACKGROUND: AirSeal® is a valve-free insufflation system that enables a stable pneumoperitoneum with continuous smoke evacuation and CO2 recirculation during laparoscopic surgery. Comparative evidence on the use of AirSeal® and standard CO2 insufflator in laparoscopic general surgery procedures is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between AirSeal® and standard CO2 insufflators in patients undergoing the most frequently performed laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-eight patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, colorectal surgery and hernia repair were randomized to either AirSeal® (group A) or standard pressure CO2 insufflator (group S). The primary endpoints were operative time and level of postoperative shoulder tip pain (Visual Analog Scale). Secondary outcomes included Clavien-Dindo grade complications, surgical side effect and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to either group A (n = 101) or group S (n = 97) and were analyzed by intention-to-treat. There was no significant difference in mean operative time between the groups (median [IQR]; 71 min [56-94] in group A vs. 69 min [52-93] in group S; p = 0.434). Shoulder tip pain levels were significantly lower in group S (VAS 0 [0-3] in group S vs. 2 [0-4] in group A; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in complications, surgical side effects (subcutaneous emphysema was not observed in any group) and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial showed that using the AirSeal® system did not reduce operative time and was associated with a higher postoperative shoulder tip pain compared to standard CO2 insufflator for short elective surgeries. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740011).

A proposal for a tailored approach to diverting ostomy for colorectal anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: The use of a protective stoma represents an important issue in colorectal surgery. Although evidence suggests that loop ileostomy may be superior, the optimal method for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis still remains controversial. Aim of this study was to make an evidence-based proposal for a tailored approach to the use of diverting colostomy or ileostomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients subjected to creation and closure of a diverting loop colostomy or loop ileostomy between May 2007 and November 2014 in our institution was performed. Early and late complications, mortality and morbidity, time between formation and closure of the stoma in respect to adjuvant chemotherapy and the length of hospital stay were assessed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Outcomes of 167 patients (m=95; f=72) undergoing a loop colostomy (N.=130) or ileostomy (N.=37) were analyzed. The most frequent diagnosis was malignancy (64.1%), followed by abdominal emergency operations (18.6%) and complicated diverticular disease (17.4%). There was no mortality. Adjuvant chemotherapy (26.3%) resulted in delayed stoma reversal (P<0.001). Complications following construction of the stoma such as electrolyte disorder (P<0.001), renal insufficiency (P=0.048), and skin irritation (P=0.003) occurred significantly more often within the ileostomy group. Within the colostomy group, the rate of stoma prolapse (P=0.074) tended to be higher. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Loop transverse colostomy could be the preferred technique for older patients to avoid electrolyte disorder and renal insufficiency. Further prospective trials with documentation of electrolyte metabolism and quality of life should follow.

Preoperative diagnosis of hiatal hernia: barium swallow X-ray, high-resolution manometry, or endoscopy?

BACKGROUND: The assessment of hiatal hernias (HH) is typically done with barium swallow X­ray, upper endoscopy, and by high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM). The aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of these methods in terms of HH detection and their correlation to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis of patients with symptoms of GERD was carried out. The performance of endoscopy and HRM in diagnosing HH was assessed, taking barium swallow X­ray as a reference. Furthermore, statistically comparative analysis between detected hernias and the presence of reflux disease in ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring (MII) was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 112 patients were analyzed. Barium swallow X­ray showed no correlation either to HR manometrically or to endoscopically assessed HH. Significant accordance in the detection rate of HH was proved between HRM and gastroesophagoscopy (p < 0.001). Only endoscopically assessed HH showed a significant correlation with GERD (p = 0.047). No correlation between detected hernias and GERD could be found either with HRM or with barium swallow X­ray. CONCLUSIONS: Barium swallow X­ray provided the highest rate of HH detection (76.8%). For the reliable exclusion of HH prior to treatment, all three mentioned investigations appear to be necessary in order of low conformity.