Ureteral identification with indocyanine green in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Fluorescence-guided surgery has emerged as a complement of traditional laparoscopic surgery with the advantage that is adaptable to existent platforms. The purpose of this article is to describe our technique for ureteral identification with indocyanine green (ICG) during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: We report a case series of all patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery and ureteral injection of ICG in a private third level hospital. RESULTS: We performed 30 laparoscopic colorectal surgeries in which we used this technique to identify the ureters. Mean age was 52.6 ± 15.28 years; 16 (53.3%) were men. The indication for surgery was diverticulitis in 18 patients. Mean urological operative time was 22.4 minutes. There were no immediate or delayed adverse effects attributable to intra-ureteral ICG administration. DISCUSSION: Although ureteric iatrogenic injury is uncommon, when it does happen, it significantly increases the patient's morbidity. We consider this technique has the potential to make laparoscopic surgeries safer mostly in patients with cancer, diverticular disease or endometriosis who have extensive fibrosis, adhesions, and inflammation.

Use of fluorescence imaging and indocyanine green during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Results of an international Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Published empirical data have increasingly suggested that using near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy markedly increases biliary anatomy visualization. The technology is rapidly evolving, and different equipment and doses may be used. We aimed to identify areas of consensus and nonconsensus in the use of incisionless near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A 2-round Delphi survey was conducted among 28 international experts in minimally invasive surgery and near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography in 2020, during which respondents voted on 62 statements on patient preparation and contraindications (n = 12); on indocyanine green administration (n = 14); on potential advantages and uses of near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (n = 18); comparing near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography with intraoperative x-ray cholangiography (n = 7); and on potential disadvantages of and required training for near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (n = 11). RESULTS: Expert consensus strongly supports near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography superiority over white light for the visualization of biliary structures and reduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy risks. It also offers other advantages like enhancing anatomic visualization in obese patients and those with moderate to severe inflammation. Regarding indocyanine green administration, consensus was reached that dosing should be on a milligrams/kilogram basis, rather than as an absolute dose, and that doses >0.05 mg/kg are necessary. Although there is no consensus on the optimum preoperative timing of indocyanine green injections, the majority of participants consider it important to administer indocyanine green at least 45 minutes before the procedure to decrease the light intensity of the liver. CONCLUSION: Near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography experts strongly agree on its effectiveness and safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and that it should be used routinely, but further research is necessary to establish optimum timing and doses for indocyanine green.

[Transposition of gracilis muscle for treatment of recurrent anal and rectovaginal fistula].

BACKGROUND: Rectovaginal fistula is defined as a result of an abnormal connection between the rectum and vagina. It is often a result of inflammatory bowel disease, iatrogenic illness, malignancy or trauma. Rectovaginal fistula treatment is dependent on the classification of the fistula (simple or complex). There are few reports on transposition of gracilis muscle as a feasible option for treatment of rectal, vaginal and urethral fistula. CLINICAL CASES: We present the first three case experiences from the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Medicas y Nutricion "Salvador Zubiran," a tertiary-care medical center in Mexico City. CONCLUSIONS: Gracilis muscle transposition is a feasible procedure in our population for treatment of recurrent rectovaginal and anorectal fistulas.

Interposición de músculo gracilis para reparar fístulas ano y rectovaginales recurrentes / Transposition of gracilis muscle for treatment of recurrent anal and rectovaginal fistula

Introducción: La fistula rectovaginal por definición es la que comunica la región anorrectal hacia la pared posterior de la vagina, como resultado de enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, lesión iatrogénica, malignidad y trauma. El tratamiento depende de la clasificación de la fístula (simple o compleja). Existen a la fecha pocas publicaciones acerca del uso de la interposición del músculo gracilis como tratamiento factible y seguro para las fístulas rectales, vaginales y uretrales. Casos clínicos: En este artículo presentamos la experiencia inicial en tres pacientes a quienes se les realizó interposición del músculo gracilis, en el Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición “Salvador Zubirán”, centro médico de tercer nivel en la ciudad de México. Conclusiones: El uso de músculo gracilis para reparar fístulas rectovaginales y anorrectales complejas es aplicable en nuestro medio si bien debe limitarse a fístulas recurrentes, después de haber fracasado con otros procedimientos.

BACKGROUND: Rectovaginal fistula is defined as a result of an abnormal connection between the rectum and vagina. It is often a result of inflammatory bowel disease, iatrogenic illness, malignancy or trauma. Rectovaginal fistula treatment is dependent on the classification of the fistula (simple or complex). There are few reports on transposition of gracilis muscle as a feasible option for treatment of rectal, vaginal and urethral fistula. CLINICAL CASES: We present the first three case experiences from the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Medicas y Nutricion "Salvador Zubiran," a tertiary-care medical center in Mexico City. CONCLUSIONS: Gracilis muscle transposition is a feasible procedure in our population for treatment of recurrent rectovaginal and anorectal fistulas.

Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a nonrandomized comparative prospective trial in a tertiary center in Mexico City.

Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer remains controversial. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). However, few prospective randomized studies have been performed. The main purpose of our study was to evaluate whether relevant differences in safety and efficacy exist after elective LTME for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with OTME in a tertiary referral medical center. This comparative nonrandomized prospective study analyzes data in 56 patients with middle and lower rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection from November 2005 to November 2007. Follow-up was determined through office charts or direct patient contact. Statistical analysis was performed using chi2 test and Student's t test. Twenty-eight patients underwent LTME and 28 patients were in the OTME group. No conversion was required in the LTME group. Mean operating time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (LTME) (181.3 vs 206.1 min, P < 0.002). Less intraoperative blood loss and fewer postoperative complications were seen in the LTME group. Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after laparoscopic surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and the overall morbidity was 17 per cent in the LTME group versus 32 per cent in the OTME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in the OTME group (12.1 +/- 2 vs 9.3 +/- 3). Mean follow-up time was 12 months (range 9-24 months). No local recurrence was found. LTME is a feasible procedure with acceptable postoperative morbidity and low mortality, however it is technically demanding. This series confirms its safety, although oncologic results are at present comparable with the OTME published series with the limitation of a short followup period. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.

[Open vs. laparoscopic loop ileostomy clousure after colorectal surgery: retrospective analysis]. / Análisis del cierre de ileostomía en asa subsecuente a cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica vs. abierta.

INTRODUCTION: A protective loop ileostomy for a distal anastomosis of the rectum or anus, decreases the risk of sepsis secondary to anastomotic leak or dehiscence. This study examines whether the surgical technique employed in the construction of the anastomosis (open vs. laparoscopic) alters the subsequent closure of ileostomy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to determine whether at the time of a protective ileostomy closure, the fact of doing an initial laparoscopic surgery has advantages over those who underwent open surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a comparative and retrospective analysis of the results of an ileostomy closure with prior open surgery (ICPOS) vs those performed with a prior laparoscopic surgery (ICPLS). Demographic and surgical results were analyzed. Fisher's test and Chi square tests were used. A statistically significant results was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were included: 42 (59.2%) ICPOS and 29 (40.8%) ICPLS. Surgical time and hospital stay were less in the ICPLS group when compared with the ICPOS group. 79 vs. 133 min (p = 0.0001) and 3 vs. 5 days (p = 0.0001). Four patients (66.7%) from the ICPOS group developed ileum, whereas only 2 (33.3% from the ICPLS presented it (p = 0.04). Six patients had surgical wound infection, 5 (83.3%) of them represented the ICPOS group and only 1 (16.7%) represented the ICPLS group (p = 0.01). Four patients (5.6%) had anastomotic dehiscence, all of them were from the ICPOS group (p = 0.0037). On the ICPOS group 6 patients were reinterveined after the ileostomy closure, whereas none from the ICPLS required it (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: An ICPLS seems to have advantages over a ICPOS when analyzing surgical time, hospital stay and surgical ileum development, a lesser infection rate and a lesser re intervention rate at last.

Laparoscopic vs. open total mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Because definitive long-term results are not yet available, the oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer remains controversial. Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has been proposed to have several short-term advantages in comparison with open total mesorectal excision (OTME). However, few prospective randomized studies have been performed. OBJECTIVES: The main purpose was to evaluate whether there are relevant differences in safety and efficacy after elective LTME for the treatment of rectal cancer compared with OTME in a tertiary academic medical center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This comparative non-randomized prospective study analyzes data of 20 patients with middle and low rectal cancer treated with low anterior resection (LAR) or abdomino perineal resection (APR) from November 2005 to April 2006. Follow-up was determined through office charts or direct patient contact. Statistical analysis was performed using chi2 test and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Ten patients underwent LTME and 10 patients underwent OTME. No conversion was required in the LTME group. Mean operating time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (LTME) (186.7 vs. 204.4 min, p < 0.007). Less intraoperative blood loss and fewer postoperative complications were seen in the LTME group. An earlier return of bowel motility was achieved after laparoscopic surgery. There was no 30-day mortality and the overall morbidity was 20% in the LTME group vs. 40% in the OTME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was greater in the laparoscopic group than in OTME group (10.2 +/- 2.5 vs. 8.3 +/- 3). Mean follow-up time was 12 months (range 9-15 months). No local recurrence was found. CONCLUSION: LTME is a feasible procedure with acceptable postoperative morbidity and low mortality, however it is technically demanding. This series confirms its safety, while oncologic results are at present comparable to the OTME published series, with limitation of a short follow-up period though. Further randomized studies are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.