Search

The objective of this prospective study was to compare the results of total (TG) versus subtotal (SG) gastrectomy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower two-thirds of the stomach.Two hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent curative operation. Preoperative nutritional assessment, postoperative tumor stage, postoperative morbidity/mortality, five-year survival, postgastrectomy dietary intake and nutritional sequelae were recorded in all patients.Postoperative mortality rate was 2.8% in the TG group and 1.1% in the SG group. The number of reoperations, anastomotic dehiscence rate and the length of postoperative stay were higher in the TG group. Five-year survival was closely related to lymph node involvement and gastric wall invasion. The extent of gastric resection did not influence survival when patients were matched for cancer stage. In the SG group, no recurrence in the gastric stump was observed. SG group showed a higher dietary energy intake than the TG group (p0.01). This might explain the ability of the SG group to increase body weight more than the TG group (p0.01). Only the TG group needed a monthly parenteral vitamin B12 supplements starting 36 months after surgery.The results suggest that SG should be considered the treatment of choice of the gastric adenocarcinoma when a cancer-free proximal resection margin can be guaranteed.

Background: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has been recently proposed as the procedure of choice for lesions of the pancreatic body and tail in experienced centres. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential advantages of LDP in a consecutive series of 100 patients. Methods: Propensity score matching was used to identify patients for comparison between LDP and control open group. Match criteria were: age, gender, ASA score, BMI, lesion site and size, and malignancy. All patients were treated according to an early feeding recovery policy. Primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity rate. Secondary endpoints were operative time, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), hospital costs, and quality of life. Results: Thirty patients of the LDP group had pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 23 patients. Mean operative time was 29min shorter in the open group (p=0.002). No significant difference between groups was found in blood transfusion rate and postoperative morbidity rate. LDP was associated with an early postoperative rehabilitation and a shorter LOS in uneventful patients. Economic analysis showed € 775 extra cost per patient of the LDP group. General health perception and vitality were better in the LDP group onemonth after surgery. Conclusion: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy improved short-term postoperative recovery and quality of life in a consecutive series of both cancer and non-cancer patients. Despite the extra cost, thelaparoscopic approach should be considered the first option in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

Background: High hospital volume improves outcomes after pancreatic resection. The aim of this study was to assess if practice and outcomes differed between high- and low-volume centers across which chief surgeons shared a similar training and mentoring. Methods: Data on patients undergoing standard pancreatic resections (2010-2013) at 7 Italian hospitals were collected. Chiefs of pancreatic surgery at each hospital had received the same training, with the same mentor. Two centers were high-volume referral hospitals for pancreatic disease, while 5 were low-volume hospitals. Results: A total of 856 patients were included, with median annual volume of resections 82 at high-volume referral hospitals and 11 at low-volume hospitals. Patients at low-volume hospitals were older, had more comorbidities, and were more often referred from the emergency room. Intraoperative techniques and reconstruction methods were similar. Comparable rates of major postoperative complications (18 vs. 22%; p = 0.236) and pancreatic fistula (29 vs. 32%; p = 0.287) were achieved in both groups, with no significant increases in failure to rescue from grade B-C fistula (6.2 vs. 15.0%; p = 0.108) and mortality (2.4 vs. 4.1%; p = 0.233) in low-volume hospitals. Postoperative length of stay was shorter in high-volume referral hospitals (10 vs. 15 days; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Similar postoperative outcomes can be achieved across high- and low-volume centers where chief surgeons shared a similar training and mentoring. However, multidisciplinary postoperative provision more often associated with high-volume centers may also affect outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to clarify whether a laparoscopic (LPS) approach could be considered the dominant strategy in patients undergoing right colectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Because few nonrandomized or small sized studies have been carried out so far, definitive conclusions about the role of LPS right colectomy cannot be drawn. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-six patients, candidates for right colectomy, were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 113) or open (n = 113) resection. The postoperative care protocol was the same for both groups. Trained members of the surgical staff who were not involved in the study registered postoperative morbidity. Follow-up was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and hospitalization. RESULTS: Conversion rate in the LPS group was 2.6% (3 of 113). Operative time (in minutes) was longer in the LPS group (131 vs. 112, P = 0.01). Postoperative morbidity rate was 18.6% in the open group and 13.3% in the LPS group (P = 0.31). Postoperative stay was one day longer in the open group (P = 0.002). No difference was found in postoperative quality of life. The additional operative charge in the LPS group was €980 per patient randomized (€821 for surgical instruments and €159 for longer operative time). The savings in the LPS group was €390 per patient randomized (€144 for shorter length of hospital stay and €246 for the lower cost of postoperative morbidity). The net balance resulted in a €590 extra charge per patient randomly allocated to the LPS group. CONCLUSION: LPS slightly improved postoperative recovery. This translated into a savings that covered only 40% of the extra operative charge. Therefore, open right colectomy could be still considered an effective procedure.

This study aimed to compare the safety, efficacy, and clinical benefits of laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) to open splenectomy (OS) in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).The results from 14 consecutive patients who underwent LS for ITP were reviewed and compared with the results from patients who underwent OS for the same disease. Demographics, concomitant disease on admission, and platelet counts were evaluated, as were details of the surgical procedure, postoperative physiologic status, and hospital stay.Mean operative time was 88.3 min for OS and 146.4 min in LS group (p0.05). The conversion rate to open splenectomy was 7.1. Therapeutic response to splenectomy was 92.8% in the LS group and 86.6% in the OS group. Bowel canalization, return to liquid diet, and length of hospital stay were all significantly delayed in the OS group as compared with those who underwent LS (p = 0.01, p = 0.02, p = 0.005, respectively). In the OS group the morbidity rate was 13.3%, whereas in the LS group it was 7.1%.Laparoscopic splenectomy represents a valid alternative to conventional splenectomy in the treatment of ITP.

56 patients with large CBD or intrahepatic stones underwent endoscopic and/or percutaneous treatment followed by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Percutaneous access to the biliary tract was chosen when an endoscopic approach was not possible (hepaticojejunostomy in 5 patients, 1 juxtapapillary diverticulum and I inflammatory bile duct stricture). Visualization of stones was achieved radiologically in 32 patients and by ultrasound in 24. The procedure was successful in 47 of 56 treated patients (83.9%). Clearance of the biliary tract was obtained in 25 cases (53%), whereas in 22 cases (47%) complete clearing of biliary tract was obtained only after endoscopic extraction of fragments (17 cases) or percutaneous (5 cases). The median number of shock waves in each session was 1725 (range 300–3166), which were applied during one (n=30), two (n=22) or three sessions (n=4). The only complications were 1 case of symptomatic hyperamylasemia and 3 cases of macrohematuria. In conclusion, extracorporeal lithotripsy combined with endoscopic and/or percutaneous treatment is a real alternative to surgery for difficult stones.

Background The main aim of this study was to compare short-term results and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open left colonic resection. Methods Between February 2000 and December 2004, all adult patients undergoing elective left colonic resection were assessed for eligibility to the study. The protocol for postoperative care was the same in both groups. Cost–benefit analysis was based on hospital costs. Quality of life, long-term morbidity and 5-year survival were also evaluated. Results Some 268 patients undergoing left colonic resection were assigned randomly to the laparoscopic (n = 134) or open (n = 134) approach. The short-term morbidity rate was 20·1 per cent in the open group and 11·9 per cent in the laparoscopic group (P = 0·094). Hospital stay was longer in the open group (8·7 versus 7·0 days for the laparoscopic approach; P = 0·002). Cost–benefit analysis showed an additional cost of €66 per patient randomly allocated to the laparoscopic group. Quality of life was significantly improved in the laparoscopic group 6 months after surgery, but no difference was found subsequently. The long-term morbidity rate was 11·9 per cent in the open group and 7·5 per cent in the laparoscopic group (P = 0·413). The 5-year survival rate of patients with cancer was 66 and 72 per cent for open and laparoscopic groups respectively (P = 0·321). Conclusion Laparoscopic left colonic resection resulted in an earlier recovery after surgery. As cost–benefit analysis and long-term follow-up showed similar results, the laparoscopic approach should be preferred to open surgery. Registration number: NCT00894725 (http://clinicaltrials.gov).

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic rectal resection on short-term postoperative morbidity and costs. METHODS: A total of 168 patients with rectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 83) or open (n = 85) resection. Outcome parameters were: postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, quality of life, long-term survival, and local recurrences. The mean follow-up period was 53.6 months. Cost-benefit analysis was based on hospital costs. RESULTS: Operative time was 53 minutes longer in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity rate was 28.9 percent in the laparoscopic vs. 40 percent in the open group (P = 0.18). The mean length of hospital stay was 10 (4.9) days in the laparoscopic group and 13.6 (10) days in the open group (P = 0.004). Local recurrence rate and five-year survival were similar in both groups; however, the limited number of patients does not allow firm conclusions. Quality of life was better in the laparoscopic group only in the first year after surgery (P < 0.0001). The additional charge in the laparoscopic group was $1,748 per patient randomized ($1,194 the result of surgical instruments and $554 the result of longer operative time). The saving in the laparoscopic group was $1,396 per patient randomized ($647 the result of shorter length of hospital stay and $749 the result of the lower cost of postoperative complications). The net balance resulted in $351 extra cost per patient randomly allocated to the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term postoperative morbidity was similar in the two groups. Laparoscopic resection reduced length of hospital stay, improved first-year quality of life, and slightly increased hospital costs.

The primary objective of the study was to compare the effect of laparoscopic-assisted (LPS) versus open surgery (LPT) for colorectal cancer on postoperative morbidity. The secondary objectives were to evaluate immune response and intestinal wall oxygen perfusion.A total of 610 patients with colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive colon resection by either LPS (n=306) or LPT (n=304). Four surgical staff members not involved in the study recorded postoperative complications up to 30 days after the operation. Immune response was evaluated by measuring lymphocytic proliferation after challenge with Candida albicans and phytohemoagglutinin before, at 3 and 15 days after the operation. Intestinal wall oxygen perfusion was continuously monitored using a probe.The conversion rate was 4.6% in the LPS group. Morbidity was 18.6% in the LPS group and 34.5% in the LPT group (P0.0005). Infections developed in 9.1% of LPS-treated patients and in 20.2% of LPT-treated patients (P0.0005). The mean length of stay was 9.7+/-2.6 days in the LPS group and 12.2+/-4.2 days in the LPT group (P0.0001). In both groups lymphocytic proliferation was low at 3 days postoperative but returned to normal range at 15 days only in the LPS group. Interoperative intestinal oxygen perfusion values were higher in the LPS group.Laparoscopic colorectal surgery reduced both postoperative morbidity and length of stay. Lymphocytic proliferation and intestinal wall oxygen perfusion were higher in patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted surgery.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate long-term complications, quality of life, and survival rate in a series of colorectal cancer patients randomized to laparoscopic or open surgery. METHODS: A total of 391 patients with colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 190) or open (n = 201) resection. Long-term follow-up was performed every six months by office visits. Quality of life was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 months after surgery by a modified version of Short Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Eight (4.2 percent) laparoscopic group patients needed conversion to open surgery. Overall long-term morbidity rate was 6.8 percent (13/190) in the laparoscopic vs. 14.9 percent (30/201) in the open group (P = 0.018). Overall quality of life was significantly better in the laparoscopic group in the first 12 months after surgery, whereas at 24 months, patients of the laparoscopic group reported a significant advantage only in social functioning. No difference was found in both overall and disease-free survival rates by comparing laparoscopic vs. open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal resection was associated with a lower incidence of long-term complications and a better quality of life in the first 12 months after surgery compared with open surgery. No difference between groups was found in overall and disease-free survival rates

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic colorectal surgery can modify the risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative morbidity. METHODS: A total of 384 consecutive patients with colorectal disease were randomized to laparoscopic resection (n = 190) or open resection (n = 194). On admission, demographics, comorbidity, and nutritional status were recorded. Operative variables, patient outcome, and length of stay were also recorded. Postoperative complications were registered by four members of staff not involved in the study. RESULTS: The overall morbidity rate was 27.1 percent, with the rate in the laparoscopic group (18.7 percent) being less than that in the open group (31.5 percent; P = 0.003). Patients who underwent laparoscopic resection had a faster recovery of bowel function (P = 0.0001) and a shorter length of stay (P = 0.0001). In the whole cohort of patients, multi variate analysis identified open surgery (P = 0.003), duration of surgery (P = 0.01), and homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01) as risk factors for postoperative morbidity. In the open group, blood loss (P = 0.01), homologous blood transfusion (P = 0.01), duration of surgery (P = 0.009), weight loss (P = 0.06), and age (P = 0.08) were related to postoperative morbidity. In the laparoscopic group the only risk factor identified was duration of surgery (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In the laparoscopic group, both postoperative morbidity and length of stay were significantly reduced and most risk factors for postoperative morbidity disappeared