Prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic vs. conventional surgery for refractory ileocolic Crohn's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons have been reluctant to apply laparoscopic techniques to Crohn's disease surgery because of concerns with evaluating and excising inflamed tissue using laparoscopic methods. Additionally in Crohn's disease surgery, laparoscopic techniques have not been demonstrated to have clear advantages over conventional ones. METHOD: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic vs. conventional techniques in 60 patients (25 males), median age 34.4 (range, 10-60.1) years, undergoing elective ileocolic resection for refractory Crohn's disease. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulmonary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients assigned to laparoscopic and 29 to the conventional group, all had isolated Crohn's disease of the terminal ileum plus or minus the cecum. Median length of the incision was 5 cm in the laparoscopic group and 12 cm in the conventional group. Overall recovery of 80 percent of forced expiratory volume (one second) and forced vital capacity was a median of 2.5 days for laparoscopic and 3.5 days for conventional (P = 0.03). There was no difference in the amount of morphine equivalents used between groups postoperatively. Flatus and first bowel movement returned a median of 3 and 4 days, respectively, after laparoscopic vs. 3.3 and 4 days, respectively, after conventional surgery (P = 0.21). Median length of stay was five (range, 4-30) days for laparoscopic, and six (range, 4-18) days for conventional surgery. Major complications occurred in one patient in each group. Minor complications occurred in four laparoscopic and eight conventional patients (P < 0.05). There were no deaths. Two laparoscopic patients were converted to conventional as a result of adhesions or inflammation. All patients recovered well and there were no clinical recurrences in the follow-up period (median, 20; range, 12-45 months). CONCLUSIONS: Within a single institution, single surgical team, prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques offered a faster recovery of pulmonary function, fewer complications, and shorter length of stay compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery for palliation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to review our experience with laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery for palliative purposes and to assess its safety and efficacy. METHODS: This was a prospective analysis of 30 patients with incurable colorectal cancer considered for laparoscopic surgery for palliative purposes. RESULTS: Resection of a single segment of the bowel was performed in 15 patients (6 right and 1 left colectomies and 8 proctosigmoidectomies). One patient underwent both right colectomy and sigmoidectomy because of double lesions. Stoma creation only was performed in 11 patients (5 colostomies and 6 ileostomies). Three patients were converted to an open procedure. For resection, median operative time was 170 minutes, and median estimated blood loss was 150 ml. For stoma creation, median operative time was 60 minutes, and median blood loss was 50 ml. There were no intraoperative complications. Postoperative death occurred in two severely debilitated patients after stoma creation. One patient developed a pulmonary embolism eight days postoperatively, later dying of pulmonary failure. Another patient died six hours after loop colostomy. Autopsy was refused. There were no other postoperative complications. Median time to passage of flatus was two days and of stool five days after resection and two days for both flatus and stool after stoma creation. Median time to discharge was eight days after resection and seven days after stoma creation. All patients were able to eat and recover normal bowel function. Among the resection group, six patients died (median time to death, 12 months) during a median follow-up period of 13 months. Among the stoma creation group, five patients died (median time to death, 8 months) during median follow-up period of ten months. There were no port-site recurrences. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach for patients with incurable colorectal cancer can provide effective palliation with avoidance of a major laparotomy in the majority of cases.

Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: case-matched comparative study with open restorative proctocolectomy.

PURPOSE: A laparoscopic approach to restorative proctocolectomy is new and has not been compared recently with the traditional open procedure. By using prospectively gathered data, laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy procedures in mucosal ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis patients were compared by using a case-matched design. METHODS: Forty patients, composing 20 consecutive laparoscopic cases (13 mucosal ulcerative colitis, 7 familial adenomatous polyposis), were matched for age, gender, and body mass index with 20 open cases (13 mucosal ulcerative colitis, 7 familial adenomatous polyposis) performed during the same time period. Mucosal ulcerative colitis patients were also matched for severity of disease by using hemoglobin and albumin levels, whole blood count, and steroid dependency. A loop ileostomy was made in 12 of 13 laparoscopic mucosal ulcerative colitis patients, all open mucosal ulcerative colitis patients, and no familial adenomatous polyposis patients. RESULTS: The median age was 25 (range, 9-61) years. There were no intraoperative complications in either group and no conversions in the laparoscopic group. The operative times (median, range) were significantly longer in laparoscopic cases (330, 180-480 minutes) vs. open cases (230, 180-300 minutes), P < 0.001. Bowel function returned more quickly in laparoscopic cases (2, 1-8 days) vs. open cases (4, 1-13 days), P = 0.03; and the length of stay was shorter in laparoscopic cases (7, 4-14 days) vs. open cases (8, 6-17 days), P = 0.02. For diverted patients, the median length of stay was reduced by two days in laparoscopic cases (6, 4-14 days) vs. open cases (8, 6-17 days), P = 0.01. Complications occurred in 4 of 20 laparoscopic patients (3 obstruction/ileus and 1 pelvic abscess) and 5 of 20 open patients (2 obstruction and ileus, 1 each anastomotic leak and abscess, peptic ulceration, and episode of dehydration). CONCLUSIONS: Return of intestinal function and length of stay are reduced in the laparoscopic group compared with open group. A laparoscopic approach to restorative proctocolectomy has the potential of becoming an appealing alternative to conventional restorative proctocolectomy surgery.

A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled studies using laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery have not demonstrated clear advantages to these procedures compared with conventional ones, and surgeons are concerned about unusual early recurrences reported after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic (LAP) and conventional (CON) techniques in 109 patients undergoing bowel resection for colorectal cancers or polyps. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulmonary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients assigned to LAP and 54 to the CON group, there were 42 and 38 with cancer, respectively (the other patients had large adenomas). Overall recovery of 80% of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity was a median of 3 days for LAP and 6.0 days for CON (p = 0.01). LAP patients used significantly less morphine than CON patients up to the second day after surgery (0.78 +/- 0.32 versus 0.92 +/- 0.34 mg/kg per day, p = 0.02). Flatus returned a median of 3.0 days after LAP versus 4.0 days after CON surgery (p = 0.006). Tumor margins were clear in all patients. After a median followup of 1.5 years (LAP) and 1.7 years (CON), there were no port site recurrences in the LAP group. Seven cancer-related deaths have occurred (three in the LAP group, four in the CON group). CONCLUSIONS: Within this prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques were as safe as conventional surgical techniques and offered a faster recovery of pulmonary and gastrointestinal function compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing large bowel resection for cancer or polyps. There were no apparent shortterm oncologic disadvantages. Longer followup is needed to fully assess oncologic outcomes.

Role of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic intestinal resection is a relatively new application of endoscopic technology that has evolved as a direct result of the successes and benefits seen with laparoscopic gallbladder surgery. Currently acceptable and feasible laparoscopic intestinal resections include those for diagnostic procedures, fecal diversion, Crohn's disease, diverticulitis, familial polyposis, rectal prolapse, and palliative colorectal cancer surgery. However, the efficacy of laparoscopic resection for curative cancer surgery remains a topic of much debate. Issues surrounding curative laparoscopic oncologic resection include the ability to perform an acceptable oncologic resection, the question of morbidity and mortality compared to conventional surgery, and the problem of port site recurrences. Thus, at present, curative laparoscopic oncologic surgery must be conducted within the framework of a prospective, randomized clinical trial, which includes full informed patient consent.