Laparoscopic-assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for primary Crohn's disease in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized for laparoscopic-assisted or open surgery. Primary outcome parameter was postoperative quality of life (QoL) during 3 months of follow-up, measured by SF-36 and GIQLI questionnaire. Secondary parameters were operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, postoperative morphine requirement, pain, and costs. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were not different. Conversion rate was 10% (n=3). Median operating time was longer in laparoscopic compared with open surgery (115 versus 90 minutes; P<0.003). Hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (5 versus 7 days; P=0.008). The number of patients with postoperative morbidity within the first 30 days differed between the laparoscopic and open group (10% versus 33%; P=0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in QoL between the groups during follow-up. Significant time effects were found on all scales of the SF-36 (P<0.001) and the GIQLI score (P<0.001). QoL declined in the first week, returned to baseline levels after 2 weeks, and was improved 4 weeks and 3 months after surgery. Median overall costs during the 3 months follow-up were significantly different: euro6412 for laparoscopic and euro8196 for open surgery (P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Although QoL measured by SF-36 and GIQLI questionnaires was not different for laparoscopic-assisted compared with the open ileocolic resection, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs were significantly lower.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and total GIQLI score (P < 0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were 16.728 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095). CONCLUSIONS: Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure.