Article

Systematic review of emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection

John Goligher Department of Colorectal Surgery, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK.
British Journal of Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.84). 01/2014; 101(1). DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9348
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has become standard practice for a range of elective general surgical operations. Its role in emergency general surgery is gaining momentum. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of LS compared with open surgery (OS) for colorectal resections in the emergency setting.
A systematic review was performed of studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resections in the acute or emergency setting in patients aged over 18 years, between January 1966 and January 2013.
Twenty-two studies were included, providing outcomes for 5557 patients: 932 laparoscopic and 4625 open emergency resections. Median (range) operating time was 184 (63-444) min for LS versus 148 (61-231) min for OS. Median (range) length of stay was 10 (3-23) and 15 (6-33) days in the LS and OS groups respectively. The overall median (range) complication rate was 27·8 (0-33·3) and 48·3 (9-72) per cent respectively. There were insufficient data to detect differences in reoperation and readmission rates.
Emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection, where technically feasible, has better short-term outcomes than open resection.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
51 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this prospective randomized study was to define the optimum management between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis. Patients were randomized to receive either early laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 24 h of randomization or initial conservative treatment followed by delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy 6-8 weeks later. There were 53 patients in the early group and 51 in the delayed group. There was no significant difference in conversion rate (early 21 per cent versus delayed 24 per cent), postoperative analgesic requirement (1 versus 2 doses) and postoperative complications. However, the early group had significantly longer operating time (122.8 versus 106.6 min, P = 0.04) and shorter total hospital stay (7.6 versus 11.6 days, P < 0.001). Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible for acute cholecystitis with the additional benefit of shorter total hospital stay. Apart from a shorter operating time, treating patients with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not offer additional benefit.
    British Journal of Surgery 06/1998; 85(6):764-7. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00708.x · 5.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A prospective randomized study was undertaken to compare early with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is associated with high complication and conversion rates. It is not known whether there is a role for initial conservative treatment followed by interval elective operation. During a 26-month period, 99 patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute cholecystitis were randomly assigned to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours of admission (early group, n = 49) or delayed interval surgery after initial medical treatment (delayed group, n = 50). Thirteen patients (four in the early group and nine in the delayed group) were excluded because of refusal of operation (n = 6), misdiagnosis (n = 5), contraindication for surgery (n = 1), or loss to follow-up (n = 1). Eight of 41 patients in the delayed group underwent urgent operation at a median of 63 hours (range, 32 to 140 hours) after admission because of spreading peritonitis (n = 3) and persistent fever (n = 5). Although the delayed group required less frequent modifications in operative technique and a shorter operative time, there was a tendency toward a higher conversion rate (23% vs. 11%; p = 0.174) and complication rate (29% vs. 13%; p = 0.07). For 38 patients with symptoms exceeding 72 hours before admission, the conversion rate remained high after delayed surgery (30% vs. 17%; p = 0.454). In addition, delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy prolonged the total hospital stay (11 days vs. 6 days; p < 0.001) and recuperation period (19 days vs. 12 days; p < 0.001). Initial conservative treatment followed by delayed interval surgery cannot reduce the morbidity and conversion rate of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Early operation within 72 hours of admission has both medical and socioeconomic benefits and is the preferred approach for patients managed by surgeons with adequate experience in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
    Annals of Surgery 04/1998; 227(4):461-7. DOI:10.1097/00000658-199804000-00001 · 7.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features: appropriate for assessing both randomised and non-randomised studies; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power, but also for external validity. A pilot version was first developed, based on epidemiological principles, reviews, and existing checklists for randomised studies. Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced reviewers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 randomised and 10 non-randomised studies. Using different raters, the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20), test-retest and inter-rater reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test; kappa statistics), criterion validity, and respondent burden. The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version. The Quality Index had high internal consistency (KR-20: 0.89) as did the subscales apart from external validity (KR-20: 0.54). Test-retest (r 0.88) and inter-rater (r 0.75) reliability of the Quality Index were good. Reliability of the subscales varied from good (bias) to poor (external validity). The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing, established instrument for assessing randomised studies (r 0.90). There was little difference between its performance with non-randomised and with randomised studies. Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper (range 10 to 45 minutes). This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the methodological quality not only of randomised controlled trials but also non-randomised studies. It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper, alerting reviewers to its particular methodological strengths and weaknesses. Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity.
    Journal of Epidemiology &amp Community Health 07/1998; 52(6):377-84. DOI:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · 3.29 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
8 Downloads