Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus endovascular repair in abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has shown promising initial results compared with traditional surgery, but its efficacy remains highly debated. The aim of this monocentric, retrospective study was to investigate differences in morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and HALS, in the medium- and long-term follow-up in a highly selected population. METHODS: We treated 977 patients consecutively for nonurgent AAA from January 2006 to December 2013; among them, 615 (62.9%) underwent open surgery, 173 (17.7%) HALS, and 189 (19.3%) EVAR. For this study, only patients treated with HALS or EVAR were considered. A subsequent selection process was carried out to identify the patients with clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology amenable to either of these treatments. The final study cohort included 229 patients; 92 (40.2%) underwent HALS and 137 (69.8%) received EVAR. The two populations were homogeneous for clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 57 ± 28 months (50 ± 24 months in the EVAR group and 67 ± 29 months in the HALS group; range, 2-110 months). No deaths and no statistically significant differences in severe complications or reinterventions were observed over the perioperative period (30 days). Length of stay was significantly shorter after EVAR, because the need for and length of stay in the intensive care unit were decreased. Three postoperative deaths (in-hospital mortality >30 days: HALS, 2.2%; EVAR, 0.7%; P = .7268) occurred owing to respiratory failure (two patients, one in each group) and multiorgan failure secondary to a bowel ischemia (one patient in the HALS group). Other deaths in the study population were not related to the procedure. In both groups, the major causes of death were cancer (24 cases [36.9%]), cardiovascular causes unrelated to AAA (16 [24.6%]), and chronic obstructive lung disease (10 [15.4%]). In the long-term follow-up period, there was a difference in the overall survival in favor of HALS when compared with EVAR (P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective, single-center study shows that, within a population of similar clinical and anatomic characteristics, treatment of AAA with EVAR or HALS does not result in significant differences in early morbidity and mortality. EVAR presents significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, whereas HALS presents a lower aneurysm-related reintervention rate and lower perioperative cost. The strict patient selection in this trial, as is generally the case with AAA treatment, is likely the key to success for both of these techniques.

Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgeries in elderly patients with right colon cancers: A case-control study.

An increasing proportion of patients aged more than 70 years old are suffering from colorectal cancers. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-terms outcomes between open surgery (OS) or conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in treatment of these elderly patients with right colon cancers.We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent right colon resections for cancers in our institution between June, 2009 and December, 2014. Short- and long-terms outcomes including surgical endpoints, postsurgical recovery data, postoperative morbidity and mortality, overall survival and disease-free survival were compared among OS, LS, and HALS groups. All data were analyzed by SPSS 22.0.Finally, 69 consecutive patients (OS = 26, LS = 24, HALS = 19) with right colon cancers were included in the analysis. Compared with OS, HALS was associated with less time to first anus exhaust (P = .013), first liquid diet (P = .045), and first soft diet (P = .036). Meanwhile, there were significant less operative time (P = .0027), blood loss (P < .001), and less time to first liquid diet (P = .009) in HALS, compared with LS. In regards to long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in overall survival and disease-free survival among the 3 groups.Compared with OS or LS, HALS may be more favorable in the treatment of elderly right colon cancers with decreased surgical time and postoperative recovery, and comparable cancer-specific survivals.

A novel hand-assisted laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is widely used today, there remain many technical challenges especially for right colon cancer in obese patients. Herein, we develop a novel hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with complete mesocolic excision (CME), D3 lymphadenectomy, and a total "no-touch" isolation technique (HALS-CME) in right hemicolectomy to overcome these issues. According to previous clinic practice, this novel procedure is not only feasible and safe but has several technical merits. However, the feasibility, short-term minimally invasive virtues, long-term oncological superiority, and potential total "no-touch" isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME should be confirmed by a prospective randomized controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned to the HALS-CME group or to the laparoscopic surgery with CME, D3 lymphadenectomy, and total "no-touch" isolation technique (LAP-CME) group, or to conventional laparoscopic surgery with CME and D3 lymphadenectomy (cLAP) group at a 1:1:1 ratio using a centralized randomization list. Primary endpoints include safety, efficacy, and being oncologically clear, and 3-year disease-free, progression-free, and overall survival. Second endpoints include operative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and incision length), pathologic evaluation (grading the plane of surgery, length of proximal and distal resection margins, distance between the tumor and the central arterial high tie, distance between the nearest bowel wall and the same high tie, area of mesentery resected, width of the chain of lymph-adipose tissue, length of the central lymph-adipose chain, number of harvested lymph nodes), and postoperative outcomes (pain intensity, postoperative inflammatory and immune responses, postoperative recovery). DISCUSSION: This trial will provide valuable clinical evidence for the feasibility, safety, and potential total "no-touch" isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME for right hemicolectomy. The hypothesis is that HALS-CME is feasible for the radical D3 resection of right colon cancer and offers short-term safety and long-term oncological superiority compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02625272 . Registered on 8 December 2015.

Minimally-invasive liver resection in pediatric patients: initial experience and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (MILR) is an evolving procedure in the adult population for benign and malignant lesions, offering less morbidity while maintaining acceptable outcomes. However, there lacks a published MILR experience in the pediatric population besides case reports. This report describes a pediatric MILR experience in terms of pathology, clinical specifics, and patient outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 36 pediatric patients undergoing MILR for benign and malignant conditions. MILR was performed by pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and a hybrid laparoscopic assisted method. Data points reviewed include patient demographics, pathology, operative technique, complications, and recurrence. RESULTS: Patients with benign (15) and malignant (21) conditions underwent segmentectomy, sectionectomy, or hemihepatectomy by MILR. Thirty-one were completed with pure laparoscopy and 20 underwent hemihepatectomy. Operative time and blood loss correlated with magnitude of resection with five patients requiring a blood transfusion. Complications were minor and included a seroma, port infection, port dehiscence, line infection, and hypertrophic scar. At median follow-up of 12 months (range 6-36 months), there were no mortalities, re-operations, or recurrences. DISCUSSION: MILR can be performed in pediatric patients for benign and malignant conditions with good technical and oncologic outcomes and low morbidity.

How does elective laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair compare to endovascular aneurysm repair?

A best evidence topic in surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was how elective laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair compared to endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in terms of survival. There were 229 papers found using the reported search, with 8 papers (5 prospective studies, 1 retrospective study, 1 randomized trial and 1 systematic review) representing the best evidence to answer the question proposed. Current evidence suggests that EVAR is the preferred surgical approach for AAA repair, due to shorter hospital stay and lower perioperative morbidity and mortality rates, as opposed to an open surgical approach. Despite this, EVAR is subject to a number of limitations, including device restrictions in patients with anatomical variations as well as increased risk of future complications stemming from device implantation. We discuss a key study that showed that complications in the EVAR group commonly included endoleak type II and graft thrombosis. More importantly, there were similar rates of complications between those patients receiving EVAR and those receiving minimally invasive aortic surgery. The evidence suggests that elective laparoscopic AAA repair has a favourable safety profile comparable with that of EVAR, with low conversion rates as well as similar mortality and morbidity rates. This has been illustrated in several studies. We discuss a prospective randomized trial of 100 patients, which compared EVAR with hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. This study showed no deaths in either group after the procedure or at follow-up after 12 months, with similar complication rates between the groups. While the evidence suggests that EVAR is less invasive, it does not always significantly alter the postoperative course or length of hospital stay for patients. We conclude from the evidence available that elective laparoscopic AAA repair may have a role in those patients who are unsuitable for EVAR. Unfortunately, few studies exist directly comparing these two techniques, and those that do are subject to limitations, for example, study population bias, small sample sizes and a lack of comparison in the literature between the common AAA repair techniques.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains one of the most challenging techniques to learn. METHODS: The authors collected studies that have compared hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal disease over the past 17 years. Data of interest for HALS and open surgery were subjected to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve studies that included 1,362 patients were studied. In total, 2.66% of HALS procedures were converted to laparotomy. Compared with the open surgery group, blood loss, rate of wound infection, and ileus in the HALS group decreased, and incision length, recovery of gastrointestinal function, and hospitalization period were shorter. There were no significant differences in operating time, hospitalization costs, mortality, and complications, including urinary tract infection, pneumonia, and anastomotic leak, between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: HALS has the advantages of minimal invasion, lower blood loss, shorter incision length, and faster recovery, and it can shorten the length of hospitalization without an increase in costs. The drawbacks are that a small number of patients who undergo HALS may need to be converted to laparotomy, and the oncologic safety and long-term prognosis are not clear.

Esophagectomy using a thoracoscopic approach with an open laparotomic or hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal stage for esophageal cancer: analysis of survival and prognostic factors in 315 patients.

UNLABELLED: Survival and prognostic factors were analyzed in 315 patients with esophageal cancer undergoing thoracoscopic-assisted esophagectomy (TAE). The 5-year survival rate of 57.8% was satisfactory, indicating the oncological feasibility of TAE. Perioperative outcomes affected overall survival in the whole cohort but not in the subgroup treated with 2 endoscopic stages. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the oncological feasibility of thoracoscopic-assisted esophagectomy (TAE) for esophageal cancer and to clarify the prognostic impact of perioperative factors after TAE. BACKGROUND: Favorable perioperative outcomes of TAE versus open surgery have been demonstrated. However, survival data after TAE in a large cohort are limited, and no information on the prognostic influence of perioperative factors after TAE is available. METHODS: Prospectively collected data for 315 patients undergoing TAE for esophageal cancer were analyzed. Survival was compared with the Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis between 2 surgical approaches: thoracoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic esophagectomy (THLE) and thoracoscopic and open laparotomic esophagectomy (TOE). Factors affecting overall survival were identified with Cox multivariate regression analysis in the whole cohort and the THLE subgroup. RESULTS: THLE and TOE were performed in 153 and 162 patients, respectively. The overall 5-year survival of the whole cohort was 57.8%, with no difference between the THLE and the TOE group. Multivariate analysis of the 315 patients identified the following prognostic factors: blood loss, blood transfusion, intensive care unit stay, cardiovascular complications, pathological T and N stages, lymphatic invasion, intramural metastasis, and number of metastatic nodes. In the THLE subgroup, cerebral comorbidity, histological subtype, pathological T stage, and number of metastatic nodes were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: TAE was oncologically feasible. Perioperative factors affected survival in the whole cohort, but did not in the THLE subgroup. However, the reduced perioperative factor effect in this subgroup would be small because the survival rates of the 2 surgical approaches were equal.

Laparoscopic treatment of splenomegaly: a case for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

HYPOTHESIS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is a safe therapeutic approach to remove megaspleens of any size. Conventional laparoscopic splenectomy for splenomegaly is difficult because of limited exposure and complex vascular control, with increased risk of intraoperative bleeding and conversion to open surgery. HALS can overcome some of these limitations, reducing the risk of conversion to open surgery and resulting in a postoperative course similar to that of conventional laparoscopy. DESIGN: Single-institution single-surgeon retrospective review. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: An analysis was performed of all patients with splenomegaly (splenic weight, >700 g) seen during a 10-year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative data, indications for splenectomy, splenic weight, operative variables, clinical outcome, and rates of conversion to open surgery, complications, and operative mortality were compared between patients undergoing HALS vs conventional laparoscopy. RESULTS: Splenomegaly was present in 85 patients, of whom 43 underwent HALS splenectomy and 42 underwent conventional laparoscopic splenectomy. The HALS group had larger spleens. Rates of conversion to open surgery and operative mortality were similar in the HALS group vs the conventional laparoscopy group (2.3% [1 of 43] vs 2.4% [1 of 42] and 2.3% [1 of 43] vs 0.0% [0 of 42], respectively), with no difference in hospital length of stay in the absence of morbidity. Portal system thrombosis was the most serious complication. CONCLUSIONS: HALS can minimize surgical trauma in patients with massive splenomegaly who otherwise would be candidates only for open surgery and results in a clinical outcome similar to that of conventional laparoscopy. With the availability of HALS, any patient with splenomegaly can be offered a minimally invasive surgical option. Portal system thrombosis is common, regardless of the surgical technique.