Endowrist versus wrist: a case-controlled study comparing robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains a technically challenging procedure. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) techniques in performing TME for patients with rectal cancers. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent RAL TME for rectal cancers was performed. These cases were matched for age, sex, and stage of malignancy with patients who underwent HAL TME. Data collected included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, comorbid conditions, types of surgical resections and operative times, perioperative complications, length of hospital stays, and histopathologic outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: From August 2008 to August 2011, 19 patients, with a median age of 62 (range, 47 to 92) years underwent RAL TME. Eight (42.1%) patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The median docking and operative times were 10 (range, 3 to 34) and 390 (range, 289 to 771) minutes, respectively. There was 1 (5.3%) conversion to open surgery. The grade of mesorectal excision was histopathologically reported as complete in all 19 cases. Positive circumferential margin was reported in 1 (5.3%) patient.Comparing the 2 groups, more patients in the RAL group received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (8 vs. 3; P=0.048). The operative times were longer in the RAL group (390 vs. 225 min; P<0.001). A higher proportion of patients in the HAL group required conversion to open surgery (5 vs. 1; P=0.180) and developed perioperative morbidities (3 vs. 7; P=0.269). The median length of hospitalization was comparable between both groups (RAL: 7 vs. HAL: 6 d; P=0.476).The procedural cost was significantly higher in the RAL group (US$12,460 vs. US$8560; P<0.001), whereas the nonprocedural cost remained comparable between the 2 groups (RAL: US$4470 vs. HAL: US$4500; P=0.729). CONCLUSIONS: RAL TME is associated with lower conversion and morbidity rates compared with HAL TME. The longer operating times and higher procedural costs are current limitations to its widespread adoption.

Managing Deep Postanal Space Sepsis via an Intersphincteric Approach: Our Early Experience.

PURPOSE: Managing deep postanal (DPA) sepsis often involves multiple procedures over a long time. An intersphincteric approach allows adequate drainage to be performed while tackling the primary pathology at the same sitting. The aim of our study was to evaluate this novel technique in managing DPA sepsis. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent this intersphincteric technique in managing DPA sepsis from February 2008 to October 2010 was performed. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with a median age of 43 years (range, 32 to 71 years) and comprised of 94.1% (n = 16) males formed the study group. In all patients, an internal opening in the posterior midline with a tract leading to the deep postanal space was identified. This intersphincteric approach operation was adopted as the primary procedure in 12 patients (70.6%) and was successful in 11 (91.7%). In the only failure, the sepsis recurred, and a successful advancement flap procedure was eventually performed. Five other patients (29.4%) underwent this same procedure as a secondary procedure after an initial drainage operation. Only one was successful. In the remaining four patients, one had a recurrent abscess that required drainage while the other three patients had a tract between the internal opening and the intersphincteric incision. They subsequently underwent a drainage procedure with seton insertion and advancement flap procedures. CONCLUSION: Managing DPA space sepsis via an intersphincteric approach is successful in 70.6% of patients. This single-staged technique allows for effective drainage of the sepsis and removal of the primary pathology in the intersphincteric space.

Laparoscopic versus an open colectomy in an emergency setting: a case-controlled study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopy continues to be increasingly adopted for elective colorectal resections. However, its role in an emergency setting remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomies performed for emergency colorectal conditions. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic colectomies for various surgical conditions was performed. These patients were matched for age, gender, surgical diagnosis and type of surgery with patients who underwent emergency open colectomies. RESULTS: Twenty-three emergency laparoscopic colectomies were performed from April 2006 to October 2011 for patients with lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding (6), colonic obstruction (4) and colonic perforation (13). The hand-assisted laparoscopic technique was utilized in 15 cases (65.2%). There were 4 (17.4%) conversions to the open technique. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (175 minutes vs. 145 minutes, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospitalization was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 days vs. 7 days, P = 0.15). The overall postoperative morbidity rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.93), with only 3 patients in each group requiring postoperative surgical intensive-care-unit stays or reoperations. There were no mortalities. The cost analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences in the procedural (P = 0.57) and the nonprocedural costs (P = 0.48) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Emergency laparoscopic colectomy in a carefully-selected patient group is safe. Although the operative times were longer, the postoperative outcomes were comparable to those of the open technique. The laparoscopic group did not incur a higher cost.

To LIFT or to flap? Which surgery to perform following seton insertion for high anal fistula?

BACKGROUND: The ideal surgery following seton insertion for high anal fistulas remains debatable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the success between the endorectal advancement flap and the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract techniques as the definitive procedure following seton placement. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, between April 2006 and July 2011. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: After seton placement for high anal fistulas, 31 and 24 patients underwent the endorectal advancement flap and the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Failure was defined as the nonhealing of the surgical wounds or persistent discharge at the external opening. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients with a median age of 49 (range, 19-74) years in the endorectal advancement flap group. The median interval from the seton procedure to the flap procedure was 13 (range, 4-284) weeks. Over a median follow up of 6 (range, 2-26) months, 29 (93.5%) patients had successful outcomes. There were 24 patients, median age 41 (range, 16-75) years, in the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract group. The median interval from the seton placement to the definitive surgery was 14 (range, 8-74) weeks. Over a median follow-up of 13 (range, 4-67) months, 15 (62.5%) patients had successful outcomes. Hence when performed as the initial definitive procedure after a seton, the endorectal advancement flap technique had a significantly higher success rate in comparison with the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract approach (93.5% vs 62.5%) (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In patients who have had seton placement for high anal fistulas, the endorectal advancement flap technique is associated with better short-term outcomes in comparison with the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract technique.

The anatomy of failures following the ligation of intersphincteric tract technique for anal fistula: a review of 93 patients over 4 years.

BACKGROUND: Although the ligation of intersphincteric tract technique is a promising sphincter-preserving option in managing anal fistulas, failures are still seen. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to illustrate the patterns of failures and recurrences following the ligation of intersphincteric tract procedure for anal fistulas. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, from April 2006 to September 2010. PATIENTS: Ninety-three patients were evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent the ligation of intersphincteric tract procedure for anal fistulas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Failure was defined as nonhealing of the surgical wound or fistula. Recurrence was defined as the reappearance of the fistula after initial healing. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 23 (range, 1-85) weeks, there were 7 failures and 6 recurrences. The median time to healing was 4 (range, 1-12) weeks. The freedom from failure or recurrence at 1 year following the ligation of intersphincteric tract procedure was 78% (95% CI: 66%-90%). All 7 failures had discharge at the intersphincteric wound. Four had an unhealed internal opening, and 3 had isolated failures at the intersphincteric wound. Endoanal ultrasonography revealed a less complicated anatomy that enabled successful treatment with either local application of silver nitrate (n = 3) or fistulotomy (n = 4). All 6 recurrences had a demonstrable tract from the previous internal opening to an external opening with healing of the intersphincteric wound. The median time to recurrence was 22 (range, 15-33) weeks from the ligation of the intersphincteric tract procedure. Fistulotomy, repeat ligation of intersphincteric tract, or anocutaneous advancement flap procedure was successfully performed subsequently. CONCLUSION: In patients with early failures, the medialization of the external opening to the intersphincteric wound simplified subsequent management. All recurrences should be reevaluated and managed accordingly.

Artificial bowel sphincter implantation for faecal incontinence in Asian patients.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the outcomes with the American Medical Systems artificial bowel sphincter (ABS) implantation for the treatment of intractable faecal incontinence in an Asian population. METHODS: Six Asian patients who underwent ABS implantation between March 2004 and December 2007 for the treatment of faecal incontinence were reviewed. RESULTS: The ABS was successfully implanted in six patients [mean age 50 (20-73) years; 4 males]. The most common causes of incontinence were congenital anomaly of the anus (imperforate anus status post a pull-through procedure) and status-post ultralow anterior resection. Two patients required device explantation due to postoperative infection. One eventually required a colostomy. After a mean follow-up of 22 (4-36) months, four patients continued to have a functional artificial bowel sphincter. Faecal incontinence severity scores improved from a mean of 13 (12-14) to 6 (0-9) postactivation. Anal manometry showed an increase in mean resting pressures (19.2 +/- 7.5 mmHg vs. postimplantation with cuff inflated 45.0 +/- 12.0 mmHg). The comparative preoperative and postactivation faecal incontinence quality of life scores showed improvement in all aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with successful ABS implantation benefited from improved outcomes in function and quality of life. Infection was the most common cause of failure in our patients.

Is laparoscopic colectomy as cost beneficial as open colectomy?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy has yet to gain widespread acceptance in cost-conscious health-care institutions. The aim of the present study was to define the cost-benefit relationship of laparoscopic versus open colectomy. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy (LC) by a single colorectal surgeon between August 2004 and September 2005 were reviewed. Cases were matched with a historical cohort undergoing elective open colectomy (OC) between June 2003 and July 2004. Demography, perioperative data, histopathology and cost were compared. RESULTS: Both groups had similar demographics. Most resections (90.6%) were for cancer. Operative time was significantly longer for LC compared to OC (180 min vs 110 min, P < 0.001). Four patients (12.5%) in the LC group required conversion. LC patients, however, had lower median pain scores (3, 2 and 1 vs 6, 4 and 2 at 24, 48 and 72 h postoperatively, P < 0.001), faster resolution of ileus (3 vs 4 days, P < 0.001) and earlier discharge (6 vs 9 days, P < 0.001) compared to the OC group. As a result, overall hospital cost for both procedures was not significantly different (US$7943 vs US$7253, P = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colectomy is as cost-beneficial in the short term as open colectomy.

Management of acute bleeding per rectum.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding per rectum is a common indication for acute hospital admissions to the colorectal department. The frequencies of aetiologies in Singapore are different from those in Western populations. A retrospective analysis of the demography, pathology and management of acute bleeding per rectum was performed to determine the outcome and difference in aetiology from the West. METHODS: During the 1-year period from 1 October 1995 to 30 September 1996, 547 patients were admitted to Singapore General Hospital form the emergency department for acute bleeding per rectum. There were 377 males and 170 females; the mean age was 42 years (range, 15-97 years). RESULTS: Of the patients admitted, 87% wer admitted due to perianal conditions diagnosed at bedside proctoscopy, where haemorrhoids mad up 94%. One percent bled from the upper gastrointestinal tract, while 12% bled from colorectal pathology. Massive bleeding form the colorectum was uncommon. Less than one third of the 47 patients required blood transfusions. Colonoscopy was the most useful diagnostic tool for bleeding from the colorectum. The more common colonic pathologies were diverticular disease (33%), adenomas (18%), and malignancy (26%), accounting for the majority of acute patient admissions. Colonic causes of bleeding were less common and were most stable. There were differences in the frequencies of aetiologies in our population compared ot Western populations. Understanding the common pathologies and outcomes guides the management fo our patients.