Post-cholecystectomy bile duct injuries: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury (BDI) is still a major worrisome complication that is feared by all surgeons undergoing cholecystectomy. The overall incidence of biliary duct injuries falls between 0.2 and 1.3%. BDI classification remains an important method to define the type of injury conducted for investigation and management. Recently, a Consensus has been taken to define BDI using the ATOM classification. Early management brings better results than delayed management. The current perspective in biliary surgery is the laparoscopic role in diagnosing and managing BDI. Diagnostic laparoscopy has been conducted in various entities for diagnostic and therapeutic measures in minor and major BDIs. METHODS: 35 cases with iatrogenic BDI following cholecystectomy (after both open and laparoscopic approaches) both happened in or were referred to Alexandria Main University Hospital surgical department from January 2019 till May 2022 and were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were classified according to the ATOM classification. Management options undertaken were mentioned and compared to the timing of diagnosis, and the morbidity and mortality rates (using the Clavien-Dindo classification). RESULTS: 35 patients with BDI after both laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) (54.3%), and Open cholecystectomy (OC) (45.7%) (20% were converted and 25.7% were Open from the start) were classified according to ATOM classification. 45.7% were main bile duct injuries (MBDI), and 54.3% were non-main bile duct injuries (NMBDI), where only one case 2.9% was associated with vasculobiliary injury (VBI). 28% (n = 10) of the cases were diagnosed intraoperatively (Ei), 62.9% were diagnosed early postoperatively (Ep), and 8.6% were diagnosed in the late postoperative period (L). LC was associated with 84.2% of the NMBDI, and only 18.8% of the MBDI, compared to OC which was associated with 81.3% of the MBDI, and 15.8% of the NMBDI. By the Clavien-Dindo classification, 68.6% fell into Class IIIb, 20% into Class I, 5.7% into Class V (mortality rate), 2.9% into Class IIIa, and 2.9% into Class IV. The Clavien-Dindo classification and the patient's injury (type and time of detection) were compared to investigation and management options. CONCLUSION: Management options should be defined individually according to the mode of presentation, the timing of detection of injury, and the type of injury. Early detection and management are associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Diagnostic Laparoscopy was associated with lower morbidity and better outcomes. A proper Reporting checklist should be designed to help improve the identification of injury types.

Re-Operative Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is becoming increasingly common. It can be a challenging procedure, but its benefits can outweigh the associated risks. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature reporting re-operative laparoscopic surgery was carried out. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies and case series were included, with case reports being excluded. RESULTS: Seventeen articles dated from 2007 to 2020 were included in the systematic review. In total, 1555 patients were identified. Five hundred and seventy-four of them had a laparoscopic procedure and 981 an open re-operation. One hundred and eighty-three women had a laparoscopic operation. The median age ranged from to 44.9 years to 68.7 years. In seven studies, the indication of the index operation was malignancy, one study regarded re-laparoscopy for excision of lateral pelvic lymph nodes, and one study looked at redo surgery of ileal J pouch anal anastomosis. There were 16 mortalities in the laparoscopic arm (2.78%) and 93 (9.4%) in the open surgery arm. One hundred and thirty-seven morbidities were recorded in the open arm and 102 in the laparoscopic arm. Thirty-nine conversions to open occurred. The median length of stay ranged from 5.8 days to 19 days in laparoscopy and 9.7 to 34 days in the open surgery arm. CONCLUSIONS: Re-operative laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe when performed by experienced hands. The management of complications, recurrence of malignancy, and lateral pelvic floor dissection can be safely performed. The complication rate is low, with conversion to open procedures being relatively uncommon.

Redo-laparoscopy in the management of complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach for colorectal surgery has gradually become widely accepted for the treatment of both benign and malignant diseases thanks to its several advantages over the open approach. However, it is associated with the same potential postoperative complications. Some recent studies have analyzed the potential role of laparoscopy in early diagnosis and management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the outcomes of redo-laparoscopy (RL) for the management of early postoperative complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery, focusing on length of stay, morbidity and mortality. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines through MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Google Scholar from January 1990 to December 2019. The main outcomes examined were conversion rate, length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. A meta-analysis of all eligible studies was then conducted and forest plots were generated. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies involving 1394 patients who required reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal resection were included. In 539 (38.2%) of these patients, a laparoscopic approach was adopted. The most common indication for returning to the operating theater was anastomotic leakage (64.4% of all redo-surgeries, 67.7% of RL) and the most common type of intervention performed in RL was diverting stoma with or without anastomotic repair/redo (47.1%). Nine studies were included in the pooled analysis. The mean length of stay was significantly shorter in the RL group than in the redo-open one (WMD = - 0.90; 95% CI - 1.04 to - 0.76; Z = - 12,6; p < 0.001). A significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in the RL cohort (OR = - 0.91; 95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.23; Z = - 2.62; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is a valid and effective approach for the treatment of complications following laparoscopic primary colorectal surgery thanks to it is well-established advantages over the open approach, which remain noticeable even in redo-surgeries.

Re-laparoscopy in the treatment of anastomotic leak following laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak still represents the most feared surgical complication following colorectal resection and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic reoperation for symptomatic anastomotic leak (AL) after laparoscopic right colectomy with mechanical intracorporeal anastomosis (IA). METHODS: From January 2012 to December 2019, 428 consecutive laparoscopic right colectomy with IA were performed. Overall symptomatic AL rate requiring reoperation was 5.8% (26/428). Data on patient demographics as well as operative findings, time elapsed from primary surgery and from the onset of symptoms of anastomotic leak, time and duration of re-laparoscopy, ICU stay, morbidity, mortality rate, length of hospital stay and readmission, were all retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Laparoscopic approach was attempted in 23 (88.4%) hemodynamically stable patients. Conversion rate was 21.4%. Reasons for conversion were gross fecal peritonitis (n = 2), colonic ischemia (n = 1), severe bowel distension (n = 2). Eighteen (78.2%) patients underwent successfully laparoscopic (LPS) reoperation. A repair of the anastomotic defect was done in 11 (61.1%) patients, while in 7 patients the intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis was refashioned. A diverting ileostomy was done in 22.2% of cases (n = 4). A second reoperation for leak persistence was necessary in two cases (11.1%). Median (range) length of postoperative hospital stay from re-laparoscopy was 15.5 (9-53) days. Overall morbidity rate was 38.7%. Mortality rate was 5.5% (n = 1) CONCLUSION: laparoscopic re-intervention for the treatment of anastomotic leak following LPS right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis in hemodynamically stable and highly selected patients in the experienced hands of dedicated laparoscopic surgeons, is a safe option with acceptable morbidity and mortality rate.

Previously implanted intra-peritoneal mesh increases morbidity during re-laparoscopy: a retrospective, case-matched cohort study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) with intra-peritoneal mesh placement is standard surgical treatment of abdominal wall hernias. During laparoscopic re-intervention, we examined adhesions that develop after previous intra-peritoneal mesh placement and ascertained morbidity and risk of adverse events. METHODS: This is a retrospective, case-matched comparison of three patient groups-previous intra-peritoneal mesh (Group A), previous abdominal surgery (Group B) and no previous abdominal surgery (Group C). Matching was based on surgical procedure performed during laparoscopic re-intervention in Group A. Adhesions were described as grade, extent of previous mesh/scar involvement, involvement of abdominal quadrants and dissection technique required for adhesiolysis, each component being assigned value from 0 to 4. Total adhesion score (TAS) was generated as summative score for each patient (0 to 16). Access/adhesiolysis-related injuries, additional port requirement, deviations from planned surgery, operative time and length of hospital stay was noted. Relative risk of adverse events, i.e., inadvertent injuries and deviations from planned surgery, was calculated for Group A. RESULTS: Adhesion characteristics were most severe (highest TAS) in Group A. Access injuries occurred in 5, 4, 1.3% in Groups A, B, C, respectively. Adhesiolysis-related injury rate was 9%, 2.6% in Groups A, B, respectively. Relative risk of adverse events was 4 for Group A (compared to Groups B and C combined). Additional port requirement was highest for Group A. Mean operative time and length of hospital stay was significantly longer in Group A for LVHR. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-peritoneal mesh placement is associated with adhesion formation that may increase risk during subsequent laparoscopic surgery.

A systematic review of the role of re-laparoscopy in the management of complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

The benefits of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with both benign and malignant colorectal disease have been well established. Re-laparoscopy in patients who develop complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery has recently been reported by some groups and the aim of this systematic review was to summarise this literature. A literature search of PubMed, Medline and EMBASE identified a total of 11 studies that reported laparoscopic re-intervention for complications in 187 patients following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The majority of these patients required re-intervention in the immediate postoperative period (i.e. less than seven days). Anastomotic leakage was the commonest complication requiring re-laparoscopy reported (n = 139). Other complications included postoperative hernia (n = 12), bleeding (n = 9), adhesions (n = 7), small bowel obstruction (n = 4), colonic ischaemia (n = 4), bowel and ureteric injury (n = 3 respectively) and colocutaneous fistula (n = 1). Ninety-seven percent of patients (n = 182) who underwent re-laparoscopy had their complications successfully managed by re-laparoscopy, maintaining the benefits of the laparoscopic approach and avoiding a laparotomy. We conclude that re-laparoscopy for managing complications following laparoscopic colorectal surgery appears to be safe and effective in highly selected patients.