Impact of previous abdominal surgery on colorectal laparoscopy results: a comparative clinical study.

To assess the results of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients who have previously undergone abdominal surgery. Between November 2002 and June 2004, 86 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease at our hospital. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they had previously undergone abdominal surgery (previous surgery group, n = 27) or not (nonprevious surgery group, n = 59). Data were prospectively collected for statistical analyses of demographic, clinical, and histologic variables. Groups were comparable in age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, diagnosis, technique performed, and tumor size and distance to anal verge. There was no difference in perioperative complication rates. A higher conversion rate was found in the previous surgery group (26.1% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.02). In patients with tumor diseases, resection evaluations were no different regarding specimen length, distal and radial resection margins, or number of lymph nodes harvested. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has proved to be a reliable technique for patients who have previously undergone abdominal surgery, its results comparable to those obtained with patients who have not.

The use of preoperative endoscopic tattooing in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery for endoscopically advanced tumors: a prospective comparative clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic India ink marking techniques are often used for the intraoperative location of colonic polyps and early stage neoplasms. The aim of this study was to compare how effective this technique is compared with conventional localization methods, as well as its influence on the results of colorectal laparoscopy (LSCRC) for endoscopically advanced tumors. METHODS: From January 2003 to January 2005, 47 patients with colorectal carcinomas were included in the study. In one group, lesions were localized preoperatively by endoscopic India ink tattooing (n = 21; tattooed group, TG), while conventional methods were used in the others (n = 26; non-tattooed group, NTG). Patients' perioperative clinical and pathoanatomical data were prospectively collected. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in age, sex distribution, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), technique performed, tumor size and proportion of patients who had previous abdominal surgery. Three patients presented ink spillage without clinical repercussions. Visualization of the correct resection site was higher in the TG (100% vs. 80.8%, P = 0.03). Operative time (147.3 +/- 46.2 vs. 187.0 +/- 52.7 minutes, P = 0.02) and blood loss (99.3 +/- 82.8 vs. 163.6 +/- 96.6 cc, P = 0.03) were lower in the TG. There were no differences between groups regarding peristalsis, introduction of oral intake, hospital stay or intra- and postoperative complication rates. No differences were observed amongst pathoanatomical data studied. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative endoscopic tattooing is a safe and effective technique for intraoperative localization of advanced colorectal neoplasms, improving the operative results of LSCRC.

A comparative clinical study of short-term results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer during the learning curve.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal carcinoma (LSRC) during the learning curve throughout the introduction of this technique at our medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2003 to April 2004, 40 patients undergoing surgery were assigned to laparoscopic surgery group (LSG) (n=20) or conventional surgery group (CSG) (n=20). Data were prospectively collected to statistically analyze clinical, anatomopathological, and economic variables. RESULTS: Groups were comparable in age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, surgical technique performed, tumor size and distance, Dukes' stage, and proportion of patients with previous abdominal surgery and radiotherapy. There was no difference in operative time. LSG blood loss was lower (p<.0001). LSG peristalsis and oral intake began earlier (p<.0001). LSG hospital stay was shorter (p<.0001). Intraoperative complications (10% LSG vs 15% CSG) and overall morbidity (35% LSG vs 45% CSG) were no different. LSG did not record any anastomotic leakages. Two patients (10%) were converted to open surgery. Regarding oncologic adequacy of resection, specimen length and number of nodes harvested were no different. LSG distal and radial resection margins were greater (p<.0001; p=.03). LSG operative costs were greater (p<.0001). However, CSG hospitalization costs were higher (p<.001). There was no overall difference (p=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: LSRC has been a reliable and efficient technique during the learning curve at our hospital.