Reintervención tras complicaciones en cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. ¿Aporta ventajas el abordaje laparoscópico? / Reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Does the laparoscopic approach have any advantages?

Introducción: El abordaje laparoscópico en la cirugía por complicaciones colorrectales es controvertido. Sin embargo, puede proporcionar ventajas sobre la cirugía abierta. El objetivo del estudio es comparar el abordaje laparoscópico vs. el abordaje abierto en la reintervención por complicaciones tras cirugía colorrectal. Métodos: Se han analizado de forma retrospectiva, sobre una base de datos prospectiva, los pacientes intervenidos mediante cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal desde enero de 2006 a diciembre de 2015. Los pacientes que requirieron reintervenciones urgentes por complicaciones en el postoperatorio se dividieron según el abordaje (cirugía laparoscópica [CL] y cirugía abierta [CA]) y según su gravedad clínica (en función del índice de peritonitis de Mannheim [IPM]). Resultados: De 763 pacientes, 40 requirieron cirugía urgente (24 CA/16 CL). Se realizaron más ileostomías en el grupo CL (68,7% vs. 29,2%) y más colostomías en el grupo CA (37,5% vs. 6,2%), p<0,05. El IPM fue mayor en el grupo CA (27,31±6,47 [19-35] vs. 18,4±7,2 [11-24], p<0,001). La estancia hospitalaria tras la reintervención, tolerancia oral e infección de herida quirúrgica fueron favorables en CL (p<0,05). En pacientes con un IPM≤26, el abordaje laparoscópico mostró menor estancia hospitalaria, menor permanencia en unidad de críticos, tolerancia oral más temprana y menor infección de herida quirúrgica (p<0,05). Conclusiones: El abordaje laparoscópico en la reintervención por complicaciones tras cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica asocia una recuperación más rápida objetivada en un inicio precoz de tolerancia oral, menor estancia hospitalaria y menor tasa de hernia incisional en pacientes con bajo índice de gravedad (AU)

Introduction: The laparoscopic approach in colorectal complications is controversial because of its difficulty. However, it has been proven that it can provide advantages over open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic approach in reoperations for complications after colorectal surgery with the open approach taking into account the severity of the patient prior to reoperation. Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2006 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients requiring urgent surgical procedures for complications in the postoperative period were divided in two groups: laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). To control clinical severity prior to reoperation, The Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) was calculated. Results: A total of 763 patients were studied, 40 required urgent surgery (24 OS/16 LS). More ileostomies were performed in the LS group (68.7% vs. 29.2%) and more colostomies in the OS group (37.5% vs. 6.2%), p<0.05. MPI was higher in OS group (27.31±6.47 [19-35] vs. 18.36±7.16 [11-24], p<0.001). Hospital stay after re-intervention, oral tolerance and surgical wound infection, were favorable in LS (p<0.05 in all cases). In patients with MPI score ≤26, laparoscopic approach showed shorter hospital stay after re-intervention, less stay in the critical care unit after re-intervention, earlier start of oral tolerance and less surgical wound infection (p<0.05). Conclusions: A laparoscopic approach in re-intervention for complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery associates a faster recovery reflected in a shorter hospital stay, earlier start of oral tolerance and a lower abdominal wall complication rate in patients with low severity index (AU)

Reoperation after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Does the laparoscopic approach have any advantages? / Reintervención tras complicaciones en cirugía laparoscópica colorrectal. ¿Aporta ventajas el abordaje laparoscópico?

INTRODUCTION: The laparoscopic approach in colorectal complications is controversial because of its difficulty. However, it has been proven that it can provide advantages over open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic approach in reoperations for complications after colorectal surgery with the open approach taking into account the severity of the patient prior to reoperation. METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery from January 2006 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients requiring urgent surgical procedures for complications in the postoperative period were divided in two groups: laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). To control clinical severity prior to reoperation, The Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 763 patients were studied, 40 required urgent surgery (24 OS/16 LS). More ileostomies were performed in the LS group (68.7% vs. 29.2%) and more colostomies in the OS group (37.5% vs. 6.2%), p<0.05. MPI was higher in OS group (27.31±6.47 [19-35] vs. 18.36±7.16 [11-24], p<0.001). Hospital stay after re-intervention, oral tolerance and surgical wound infection, were favorable in LS (p<0.05 in all cases). In patients with MPI score ≤26, laparoscopic approach showed shorter hospital stay after re-intervention, less stay in the critical care unit after re-intervention, earlier start of oral tolerance and less surgical wound infection (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A laparoscopic approach in re-intervention for complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery associates a faster recovery reflected in a shorter hospital stay, earlier start of oral tolerance and a lower abdominal wall complication rate in patients with low severity index.

Colectomía mediante puerto único vs colectomía mediante laparoscopia multipuerto. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de más de 2.800 procedimientos / Single-port colectomy vs multi-port laparoscopic colectomy. Systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 2800 procedures

OBJETIVOS: La cirugía laparoscópica multipuerto (CLM) ha demostrado su seguridad y efectividad en la cirugía del colon. Con la intención de reducir la agresividad surgen otras técnicas como la cirugía por puerto único (SILS). El objetivo de este metaanálisis es evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad de la técnica SILS en la cirugía del colon. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se realiza un metaanálisis de 27 estudios observacionales y uno prospectivo aleatorizado mediante el modelo de efectos aleatorios. RESULTADOS: Se han analizado 2.870 procedimientos: 1.119 SILS y 1.751 CLM. No se han encontrado diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la edad (DMP 0,28 [−1,13, 1,68]; p = 0,70), IMC (DMP −0,63 [−1,34, 0,08]), ASA (DMP −0,02 [−0,08, 0,04]; p = 0,51), longitud de incisión (DMP −1,90 [−3,95, 0,14]; p = 0,07), tiempo operatorio (DMP −2,69 [−18,33, 12,95]; p = 0,74), complicaciones (OR = 0,89 [0,69, 1,15]]; p = 0,37), conversión a laparotomía (OR = 0,59 [0,33, 1,04]; p = 0,07), mortalidad (OR = 0,91 [0,36, 2,34]; p = 0,85) o número de ganglios obtenidos (DMP 0,13 [−2,52, 2,78]; p = 0,92). La pérdida de sangre (DMP −42,68 [−76,79, −8,57]; p = 0,01) y la estancia hospitalaria (DMP −0,73 [−1,18, −0,28]; p = 0,001) son significativamente menores en el grupo SILS. CONCLUSIONES: La cirugía colorrectal mediante SILS es segura y efectiva, con ligeros beneficios respecto a la CLM. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios aleatorizados antes de que la SILS se pueda considerar una alternativa a la CLM

OBJECTIVE: Multiport laparoscopic surgery in colon pathology has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique. Interest in reducing aggressiveness has led to other procedures being described, such as SILS. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate feasibility and security of SILS technique in colonic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A meta-analysis of twenty 7 observational studies and one prospective randomized trial has been conducted by the use of random-effects models. RESULTS: A total amount of 2870 procedures was analyzed: 1119 SILS and 1751 MLC. We did not find statistically significant differences between SILS and MLC in age (WMD 0.28 [−1.13, 1.68]; P=.70), BMI (WMD −0.63 [−1.34, 0.08]; P=.08), ASA score (WMD −0.02 [−0.08, 0.04]; P=.51), length of incision (WMD −1.90 [−3.95, 0.14]; P=.07), operating time (WMD −2.69 (−18.33, 12.95]; P=.74), complications (OR = 0.89 [0.69, 1.15]; P=.37), conversion to laparotomy (OR = 0.59 [0.33, 1.04]; P=.07), mortality (OR = 0.91 [0.36, 2.34]; P=.85) or number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD 0.13 [−2.52, 2.78]; P=.92). The blood loss was significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD −42.68 [−76.79, −8.57]; P=.01) and the length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD −0.73 [−1.18, −0.28]; P=.001). CONCLUSION: Single-port laparoscopic colectomy is a safe and effective technique with additional subtle benefits compared to multiport laparoscopic colectomy. However, further prospective randomized studies are needed before single-port colectomy can be considered an alternative to multiport laparoscopic surgery of the colon

Single-port Colectomy VS Multi-port Laparoscopic Colectomy. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of More Than 2800 Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Multiport laparoscopic surgery in colon pathology has been demonstrated as a safe and effective technique. Interest in reducing aggressiveness has led to other procedures being described, such as SILS. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate feasibility and security of SILS technique in colonic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A meta-analysis of twenty 7 observational studies and one prospective randomized trial has been conducted by the use of random-effects models. RESULTS: A total amount of 2870 procedures was analyzed: 1119 SILS and 1751 MLC. We did not find statistically significant differences between SILS and MLC in age (WMD 0.28 [-1.13, 1.68]; P=.70), BMI (WMD -0.63 [-1.34, 0.08]; P=.08), ASA score (WMD -0.02 [-0.08, 0.04]; P=.51), length of incision (WMD -1.90 [-3.95, 0.14]; P=.07), operating time (WMD -2.69 (-18.33, 12.95]; P=.74), complications (OR=0.89 [0.69, 1.15]; P=.37), conversion to laparotomy (OR=0.59 [0.33, 1.04]; P=.07), mortality (OR=0.91 [0.36, 2.34]; P=.85) or number of lymph nodes harvested (WMD 0.13 [-2.52, 2.78]; P=.92). The blood loss was significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD -42.68 [-76.79, -8.57]; P=.01) and the length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in the SILS group (WMD -0.73 [-1.18, -0.28]; P=.001). CONCLUSION: Single-port laparoscopic colectomy is a safe and effective technique with additional subtle benefits compared to multiport laparoscopic colectomy. However, further prospective randomized studies are needed before single-port colectomy can be considered an alternative to multiport laparoscopic surgery of the colon.