A qualitative study of groin hernia management in adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: Groin hernias in adolescents are rare and their management is associated with challenges for surgeons as some adolescents are fully grown, whereas others are not. Current groin hernia guidelines only differentiate between young children and adults; hence, no guidelines exist that may aid surgeons in handling adolescents. The aim of this study was to explore surgeons' considerations on the management of groin hernias in adolescents. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using pilot-tested individual semi-structured interviews. The participants were surgical specialists with experience in groin hernia repair in adolescents aged 10-17 years. Data were analysed using content analysis where essential quotes were extracted from transcripts and coded, categorised and interpreted into themes. RESULTS: Sixteen surgeons were included. Their considerations were reflected in four themes: 1) mesh-related concerns, 2) watchful waiting, 3) growth and 4) lack of evidence and guidelines. Surgeons performed sutured repairs on adolescents who are still growing due to concerns about mesh-related complications. A watchful waiting strategy was used by some to postpone surgery until adolescents were fully grown, thereby enabling mesh repair. Methods for evaluating growth varied and were not standardised. Finally, surgeons highlighted the need for evidence and guidelines to support their decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a lack of consensus and uniformity on the management of groin hernias in adolescents. Increased research efforts producing clinical guidelines are needed. FUNDING: This study was funded by the Michaelsen Foundation, the Aage and Johanne Louis-Hansens Foundation, Direktør Emil C. Hertz and Hustru Inger Hertz' Foundation, and the Torben and Alice Frimodts Foundation. The funders had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Optimal peripheral nerve block after minimally invasive colon surgery - a study protocol for a randomised trial.

Introduction Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks are used for post-operative pain management, but their efficacy remains unclear. We aim to investigate the effect of two TAP block methods in minimally invasive colon surgery. Methods This will be a double-blind, randomised and controlled multicentre trial including 360 adults who are planned for elective minimally invasive colon surgery with curative intent for colon neoplasia. The participants are randomised to one of three arms: active ultrasound-guided TAP (US-TAP) and placebo laparoscopic assisted TAP (L-TAP), placebo US-TAP and active L-TAP, or placebo US-TAP and placebo L-TAP. The primary outcome is morphine dose equivalents administered during the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes are pain on the first post-operative day, length of stay, post-operative nausea and vomiting, and quality of recovery measured using the Quality of Recovery 15 questionnaire. Statistical analysis will determine any superiority of US-TAP and L-TAP versus placebo, and any non-inferiority of L-TAP compared with US-TAP. The latter will only be tested if superiority to placebo is shown. Primary and secondary outcomes will be analysed as intention-to-treat regarding superiority and as intention-to-treat and per protocol regarding non-inferiority. Conclusion This will be the first ever blinded multicentre trial comparing L-TAP, US-TAP and placebo in daily clinical practice. The study has the potential to determine the role of the TAP in minimally invasive colon surgery. Funding A and JC Tvergaards Fond, Helen Rudes Fond, Fru Olga Bryde Nielsens Fond, Aage og Johanne Louis-Hansen Fond, Medicine and Treatment Research Fund of the Danish Regions and a Research Grant from Copenhagen University Hospital - North Zealand Hospital. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04311099.

The outcome of laparoscopic assisted orchidopexy in very young children: A single hospital experience.

INTRODUCTION: Early orchidopexy has been linked to improved long term outcomes of fertility and reduced malignancy rates. However, the optimal age of intervention has been subject to change over the years. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to study males aged 6 months or less who undergo laparoscopic assisted orchidopexy for intraabdominal testes to establish the safety, efficacy, and benefit in the defined age group. STUDY DESIGN: We prospectively assessed 19 boys at or below 6 months of age, who had laparoscopic assisted orchidopexy for intraabdominal undescended testes at Salmaniya Medical Complex in Bahrain between January 2014 and December 2018. We examined: demographics, laterality, testicular locations, testicular volumes, operative time, complications, and durations of hospitalization and follow-up. Ultrasound-derived testicular volumes were assessed before and after orchidopexy. They were calculated using the Hansen formula (Testicular volume = 0.52 × length [L] × width [W]2 [1]. They were then compared with reference ranges from a Dutch cohort study of 769 healthy boys. Successful outcomes were correct intrascrotal position with minimal complications and normal testicular volumes. RESULTS: A total of 19 males were operated at a mean age of 5.6 months and followed for a mean of 2.35 years. Of these, 7 had left-sided and 12 had right-sided cryptorchidism. Testicular locations were noted intra-operatively; 10 were above the internal ring, 5 near the iliac vessels, and 4 close to the kidney. The mean operative time was 59.58 minutes. Only 2 minor complications occurred and no cases of testicular atrophy. None of the patients required hospital-stay beyond 24 hours. The success rate was 89.46% in achieving correct scrotal position. Testicular volumes were normal before and after orchidopexy. They significantly increased after orchidopexy (P ≤ 0.05). The testicular growth rate after 24 months was slightly higher than normal. DISCUSSION: In line with previous studies we were 89.46% successful in re-positioning testes [2]. In contrast to studies intervening at older ages which associated intra-abdominal testes with greater risks of complications, we found few minor complications and no testicular atrophy [3,4]. Testicular volumes in the affected testes were normal, contrary to decreased volumes found by other researchers [5]. Limitations of this study are the small number of patients and short follow-up which limits assessment of long-term outcomes. CONCLUSION: Early orchiopexy is safe and effective. Laparoscopic assisted orchidopexy at an early age was beneficial and resulted in normal testicular volumes before and after surgery.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy - a protocol for a randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: A minimally invasive approach in colorectal surgery reduces surgical stress compared with open surgery. Today, the gold standard in the treatment of right-sided colonic cancer is a minimally invasive approach, which can be performed with either a "minimally invasive assisted" technique - a combination of open and minimally invasive surgery with an extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) or with a "totally minimally invasive" technique with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The prevailing technique is ECA, but there is no conclusive evidence on the superiority of one technique over the other, and randomised trials comparing ICA with ECA are warranted. We hypothesised that ICA will yield improved recovery compared with ECA. METHODS: This is a triple blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing robotic right colectomy with ECA with robotic right colectomy with ICA. We plan to include 100 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive right colectomies in two colorectal centres in Denmark. The primary outcome is patient-reported post-operative recovery, and secondary outcomes are additional measures of post-operative recovery (pain, analgesics, nausea and vomiting, time to first flatus/bowel movement, length of hospital stay), operative time, intraoperative complications, conversions, readmissions, reoperations, 30- and 90-day morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: The results of this randomised controlled trial will contribute with valuable knowledge on the best surgical management of right-sided colonic cancer. FUNDING: The study has received unrestricted grants from the Louis-Hansen Foundation, Jacob & Olga Madsen's foundation, Trigon Foundation, Toyota Foundation, Dagmar Marshalls Foundation, Vissing Foundation, The Kjaer Foundation and the Nyegaard foundation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03130166.

Transvaginal hybrid-NOTES vs. traditional laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis: a short-term comparative study.

The aim was to compare short-term results of transvaginal hybrid-NOTES (NSR) with traditional laparoscopic technique in sigmoid resection (LSR) in cases of diverticulitis. Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery has been evolved as a minimally invasive procedure to reduce the operative trauma due to the absence of specimen extraction through the abdominal wall causing less postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay. Despite the increasing use and published case series of NSR for diverticulitis as a laparoscopic procedure with transvaginal stapling and specimen extraction, there are no studies comparing this procedure with LSR. Twenty NSR patients operated at the Cologne-Merheim Medical Center have been documented and compared with 20 female LSR patients matched for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (ASA), Hansen/Stock classification, and age. To ensure comparability regarding peri- and postoperative care, only procedures performed by the same surgeon were included. Procedural time, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion rate, postoperative pain, the duration of an epidural catheter, analgesic consumption, and postoperative length of hospital stay were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the sum of pain levels (p = 0.930), length of procedure (p = 0.079), intra- and postoperative complications, as well as duration of an epidural catheter. On the contrary, there were significant positive effects for NSR on morphine requirement at day seven and eight (p = 0.019 and p = 0.035 respectively) as well as the postoperative length of hospital stay (p = 0.031). This retrospective study reveals significant positive effects for NSR compared to LSR regarding length of hospital stay as well as morphine consumption after removal of the epidural catheter, whereas there were no significant differences in complication rate and procedural time. In summary, NSR is an adequate alternative to traditional laparoscopic sigmoid resection considering the surgeons experience and the patient's personal preferences.

Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Diverticular disease is a common condition in Western industrialised countries. Most individuals remain asymptomatic throughout life; however, 25% experience acute diverticulitis. The standard treatment for acute diverticulitis is open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery - a minimal-access procedure - offers an alternative approach to open surgery, as it is characterised by reduced operative stress that may translate into shorter hospitalisation and more rapid recovery, as well as improved quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgical resection compared with open surgical resection for individuals with acute sigmoid diverticulitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 23 February 2017); Ovid Embase (1974 to 23 February 2017); clinicaltrials.gov (February 2017); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (February 2017). We reviewed the bibliographies of identified trials to search for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing elective or emergency laparoscopic sigmoid resection versus open surgical resection for acute sigmoid diverticulitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the domains of risk of bias from each included trial, and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for outcomes such as hospital stay, and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs for quality of life and global rating scales, if researchers used different scales. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with 392 participants met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in three European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, and Germany). The median age of participants ranged from 62 to 66 years; 53% to 64% were female. Inclusion criteria differed among studies. One trial included participants with Hinchey I characteristics as well as those who underwent Hartmann's procedure; the second trial included only participants with "a proven stage II/III disease according to the classification of Stock and Hansen"; the third trial considered for inclusion patients with "diverticular disease of sigmoid colon documented by colonoscopy and 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, one at least being documented with CT scan, 1 episode of complicated diverticulitis, with a pericolic abscess (Hinchey stage I) or pelvic abscess (Hinchey stage II) requiring percutaneous drainage."We determined that two studies were at low risk of selection bias; two that reported considerable dropouts were at high risk of attrition bias; none reported blinding of outcome assessors (unclear detection bias); and all were exposed to performance bias owing to the nature of the intervention.Available low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgical resection may lead to little or no difference in mean hospital stay compared with open surgical resection (3 studies, 360 participants; MD -0.62 (days), 95% CI -2.49 to 1.25; I² = 0%).Low-quality evidence suggests that operating time was longer in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the open surgery group (3 studies, 360 participants; MD 49.28 (minutes), 95% CI 40.64 to 57.93; I² = 0%).We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative pain between day 1 and day 3 more effectively than open surgery. Low-quality evidence suggests that laparoscopic surgery may improve postoperative pain at the fourth postoperative day more effectively than open surgery (2 studies, 250 participants; MD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.25).Researchers reported quality of life differently across trials, hindering the possibility of meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence from one trial using the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire six weeks after surgery suggests that laparoscopic intervention may improve quality of life, whereas evidence from two other trials using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3 and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index score, respectively, suggests that laparoscopic surgery may make little or no difference in improving quality of life compared with open surgery.We are uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery improves the following outcomes: 30-day postoperative mortality, early overall morbidity, major and minor complications, surgical complications, postoperative times to liquid and solid diets, and reoperations due to anastomotic leak. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from the present comprehensive review indicate that evidence to support or refute the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgical resection for treatment of patients with acute diverticular disease is insufficient. Well-designed trials with adequate sample size are needed to investigate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery towards important patient-oriented (e.g. postoperative pain) and health system-oriented outcomes (e.g. mean hospital stay).

Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has no advantages over open approach: midterm results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection (LSR) for symptomatic diverticular disease is supposed to have significant short-term advantages compared to open surgery (open sigmoid resection (OSR)). This opinion is rather based on inferences from trials on colonic resections for malignant diseases or minor laparoscopic surgery. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare quality of life as well as morbidity and clinical outcome after LSR vs. OSR following a midterm follow-up period. METHODS: Patients presenting with a symptomatic sigmoid diverticular disease stage II/III (Stock/Hansen) were randomly allocated to LSR or OSR in a prospective multicenter trial. Endpoints included the quality of life assessed with a standardized questionnaire, postoperative mortality, and complications within the follow-up of 12 months after operation. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients randomized between 2005 and 2008 in 12 centers could be analyzed. The recruitment was aborted for nonachievement of the planned sample size. Seventy-five patients were allocated to LSR, and 68 received OSR. Nine operations were converted to OSR (9%) and analyzed as intention to treat. Groups were comparable for age, gender, body mass index, comorbidity, and indication for surgery. Operation time was longer for LSR (p < 0.001). Quality of life did not differ between LSR and OSR, either during the early postoperative course or after 12 months (p = 0.172). Also, mortality and morbidity, including subgroups of major and minor morbidity, were compared. CONCLUSION: LSR was not superior to OSR regarding postoperative quality of life and incidence of complications in this trial.

Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Over the past decade, our technique of MIE has evolved considerably. In the incipient phase of our experience, we used a totally laparoscopic approach similar to that described in the initial reports from DePaula and colleagues and Swanstrom and Hansen. However, it was soon apparent that there were several critical disadvantages to a purely laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic transhiatal mobilization of the esophagus offers suboptimal visualization of important periesophageal structures, including the inferior pulmonary vein and the left mainstem bronchus. Moreover, decreased visibility hindered hemostatic division of periesophageal vessels and negatively impacted the completeness of the mediastinal lymph node dissection. These problems are further exacerbated in taller patients. In light of these considerations, we soon transitioned to a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic McKeown approach (thoracoscopic mobilization of the intrathoracic esophagus, laparoscopic gastric tube creation, cervical anastomosis). To this date, the great majority of our minimally invasive esophagectomies (>500 cases) have been performed with this 3-field technique. Indeed, the procedure has been the mainstay of our experience in the past 10 years with reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with many other open series. In our experience, perhaps the most significant technical concern with this operation is the cervical dissection. Recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, perturbations in pharyngeal transit, and swallowing dysfunction even in the absence of recurrent nerve injury are not infrequent. Moreover, as described in open series using a cervical anastomosis, anastomotic stricture and leak have been shown to occur with increased frequency [35]. In short, there is a significant learning curve with the cervical dissection. Out of these concerns emerged our more recent experience with completely thoracoscopic-laparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. However, we did first evolve through a transition phase whereby a mini-thoracotomy (hybrid approach) was performed for creation of the intrathoracic anastomosis. We believe that the experience with totally thoracoscopic-laparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy will ultimately reproduce the low morbidity and mortality we have previously published with our established MIE technique. The omission of a cervical dissection has reduced our recurrent nerve injury rate to zero. From a theoretical standpoint, one would presume that pharyngeal transit problems and oropharyngeal swallowing dysfunction should be reduced as well with a chest anastomosis. It should be emphasized that there is a steep operator learning curve associated with this approach. Indeed, thoracoscopic port placement is critical, as poorly positioned trocars can result in difficulty maneuvering instruments through the rigid chest wall. Additionally, both blood and lung can obscure visualization of the esophagus, which lies at the dependent aspect of the operative field. Prone positioning has been described as an alternative approach that may facilitate operative exposure and address such technical concerns. Low rates of anastomotic leak (3%), low mortality (1.5%), and equivalent stage-specific survival compared with open series have been shown with this thoracoscopic prone approach [36]. In conclusion, our technique of MIE has evolved such that laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy has become our preferred approach. Although somewhat early in our experience, we are convinced that this operative technique is feasible with reproducible results. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are comparable with our previously established MIE with cervical anastomosis while essentially eliminating recurrent nerve injury, limiting the length of the gastric conduit required, and allowing a more aggressive gastric resection margin. Recent data from other publications also suggests that lymph node yields may be improved, although insufficient data exist at this time to comment on oncologic results or outcomes with this technique.

Laparoscopic aspects of lepromatous leprosy.

The authors performed laparoscopy on eight patients (six females and two males) with lepromatous leprosy. The findings show that goose flesh hepatomegaly (100% of the cases), and red or gray splenomegaly (75% of the cases) can be considered as laparoscopic hallmarks of lepromatous leprosy.