Laparoscopic colectomy: medial versus lateral approach.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy can be performed using 2 approaches: lateral or medial. However, it is unknown if one of these techniques provides better results. Thus, the object of the present study is to assess whether one of the approaches has any potential benefits over the other. METHODS: A comparative, retrospective study was performed that included all patients scheduled for left and right laparoscopic colon resection for both neoplastic and benign diseases between June 2000 and June 2006. The following factors were assessed: operation time, recovery variables (bowel sounds, passage of gases, intake of liquids and solids), length of hospital stay, and morbidity and mortality rates. The population was divided into 4 groups: right colectomy using a lateral approach (RL); right colectomy using a medial approach (RM); left colectomy using a lateral approach (LL); and left colectomy using a medial approach (LM). RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were evaluated: RL: 16 (8%); RM: 37 (18.3%); LL: 110 (54.4%); LM: 39(19.3%). No differences in recovery parameters were observed between the right colectomies. However, the presence of bowel sounds and solid intake was significantly earlier in the patients subjected to left colectomies using a medial approach. A tendency toward a higher conversion rate was observed in left colectomies with lateral approach (LL: 18 vs. LM: 1, P=0.052). The operation time was significantly shorter when a medial approach was used for both right and left colectomies (RL: 185.6 min vs. RM: 148.6 min, P=0.009; LL: 205.5 min vs. LM: 139.9 min, P<0.0001). No differences in the morbidity and mortality rates were found between lateral and medial approach in both types of colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a medial approach in a laparoscopic colectomy provides short-term benefits compared with a lateral approach.

Morbilidad de las ileostomías temporarias / Morbidity of temporary ileostomies

Antecedentes: La morbilidad de las ileostomías oscila entre un 11 y 70 por ciento. Objetivo: Evaluar la morbilidad de las ileostomías temporarias. Lugar de aplicación: Centro de alta complejidad. Diseño: Estudio retrospectivo. Población: 93 pacientes con ileostomías temporarias. Método: Se evaluaron los pacientes en los que se realizaron ileostomías temporarias entre Septiembre de 1999 y Junio de 2006. Se analizó la morbilidad de las ileostomías, antes y luego del cierre. Tres técnicas de cierre fueron evaluadas: enterorrafia (21 por ciento), enterectomía con enterorrafia (16. 1 por ciento) y anastomosis latero-lateral mecánica (60.9 por ciento). Resultados: Se incluyeron 93 pacientes. Los motivos de desfuncionalización fueron: resección anterior ultrabaja en 29 (31 por ciento) casos, pouch ileoanal en 33 (35.5 por ciento) pacientes, y otras causas en 31 (33.3 por ciento). La morbilidad global fue 39.8 por ciento. Las complicaciones más frecuentes fueron: dermatitis (15 por ciento), suboclusión (10.7 por ciento) y alto débito (7.5 por ciento). No existieron diferencias significativas en la morbilidad al comparar el tipo de cirugía (urgencia vs. electiva), ni la causa (benigna vs. neoplasia). El cierre se efectuó en 87 pacientes (93.5 por ciento), en un período medio de 2.3 ± 2.8 meses. La morbilidad global fue 17.2 por ciento; dehiscencia de anastomosis (6.9 por ciento), suboclusión intestinal (2.3 por ciento), perforaciones periileostómicas (3.4 por ciento). La tasa de reoperación fue 9.2 por ciento. Un 6.9 por ciento presentó eventraciones y 3.4 por ciento infecciones de herida. Al comparar las complicaciones entre las técnicas de cierre intestinal, no hubo diferencias significativas. Conclusiones: La morbilidad de las ileostomías antes del cierre no fue despreciable, la mayoría fueron complicaciones menores. Luego del cierre no hubo diferencias significativas entre las tres técnicas.

Background: The morbidity of ileostomies has been reported between 11 and 70 per cent. Aim: Evaluate the morbidity of temporary loop ileostomies. Place of application: High complexity center. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: Ninety three patients with temporay loop ileostomies were included between September 1999 and June 2006. The end point was morbidity before and after closure of the ostomies. Three techniques were analized: enterorraphy (21 per cent), bowel resection with enterorraphy (16.1 per cent), and lineal stappled anastomosis (60.9 per cent). Results: Ninety three patients were included. The causes of construction the ileostomies were: low anterior resection in 29 (31 per cent) cases, ileoanal pouch in 33 (35.5 per cent) patients, and other causes in 31 (33.3 per cent). The overall morbidity was 39.8 per cent. The most frecuent complications were: skin scoriation (15 per cent), Small bowel occlusion (10.7 per cent), and high output (7.5 per cent). There were no statistical difference between the type of surgery (emergency vs. elective), neither the causes (benign vs. neoplasia). The ileostomy closure was performed in 87 (93.5 per cent) patients, in a median time of 2.3 ± 2.8 months. The overaIl morbidity was 17.2 per cent: anastomotic leakeage (6.9 per cent), small bowel occlusion (2.3 per cent), paraileostomic perforations (3.4 per cent). The reoperation rate was 9.2 per cent. There were 6.9 per cent of eventrations and 3.4 per cent of wound infections. There were no statistical differences when the three techniques of closure were compared. Conclusions: Complications of ileostomies before closure were not few, but most were minor. After closure there were no statistical differences between surgical techniques.

Laparoscopic-assisted proctocolectomy using complete intracorporeal dissection.

PURPOSE: Although many studies have demonstrated good results using laparoscopic proctocolectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), most surgical procedures require at least one additional incision larger than 5 cm to complete the surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of laparoscopic proctocolectomy with ileoanal J pouch, with a complete intracorporeal dissection using a 4-5 cm right lower quadrant (RLQ) incision. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from all patients with UC that were subjected to a proctocolectomy with ileoanal J pouch between August 2003 and December 2006. The dissection was performed completely by laparoscopy using a medial-lateral approach for the colon and a total mesorectal excision for the rectum. Once the rectum was resected laparoscopically, a 4-5 cm incision in the RLQ was performed to resect the specimen and then an end or a loop ileostomy was implanted at the RLQ wound. The surgery was performed in two (proctocolectomy with ileoanal J pouch and loop ileostomy) or three steps (subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy with sigmoid fistula; proctectomy with ileoanal J pouch; and loop ileostomy). RESULTS: A total of 47 surgical procedures were performed in 32 patients with a mean age of 34.5 +/- 15.7 years, of which 56% were male. The mean body mass index was 21 +/- 16 kg/m(2); 50% of patients underwent surgery in two steps and the other 50% in three steps. Surgery was converted in five (10.6%) cases due to megacolon in one case, narrow pelvis in two, and difficult rectal dissection in two; the overall morbidity rate was 14.9%. Two patients required reoperation and no mortality was registered. The mean operative time was 248 +/- 62 min; proctocolectomy 292 +/- 61 min, subtotal colectomy 203 +/- 43 min, and proctectomy 248 +/- 47 min. The mean hospital stay was 4.8 +/- 1.9 days, and the mean interval time to close loop ileostomies was 64 +/- 12 days. CONCLUSIONS: A complete laparoscopic proctocolectomy dissection is feasible and safe for surgical treatment of UC.