Search

Background and Aims: The prevailing technique in laparoscopic resection of the right colon has been laparoscopic-assisted procedure with externalization of the bowel for extracorporeal creation of the ileocolic anastomosis. The total laparoscopic technique performing all steps intracorporeally, however, has gained increasing interest. The purpose of this study was to describe our experience with creation of an ileocolic intracorporeal anastomosis (IIA) and to determine anastomotic leakage (AL) rate and short-term outcome of performing IIA., Materials and Methods: In the period 2011-2017, 2 surgeons in two centers performed 96 laparoscopic resections of malignant and premalignant diseases in the right colon. A linear stapler was used to construct an isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis, closing the residual defect with a running suture. Data regarding the surgical procedure and the postoperative course were recorded prospectively. Complications were defined as postoperative until the 30th postoperative day. Readmission was defined as any readmission related to the surgical procedure within 90 days postoperative., Results: AL rate was observed in 4 patients (4.2%, 95% CI = 1.15-10.33). Postoperative complications occurred in a total of 20 patients (20.83%, 95% CI = 13.22-30.33), none of them fatal. Patients with AL had increased risk of other postoperative complications with OR = 14.25 (95% CI = 1.03-757.36, P = .0236) and complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥IIIb (OR = 10.8, P = .012). Smoking was the only factor predisposing to AL. Patients without AL stayed in hospital a median of 3 days, compared with 32 days for patients with AL., Conclusion: IIA was found to be a feasible and safe technique in laparoscopic resections of the right colon with an AL rate of 4.2%.

Purpose: The method of anchoring the mesh in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is claimed to cause postoperative pain, affecting the quality of life of the patients. The aim of this randomized study was to compare the effect of three types of fixation devices on postoperative pain, patient quality of life, and hernia recurrence., Methods: Patients with ventral hernias between 2 and 7 cm were randomized into one of three mesh fixation groups: permanent tacks (Protack™), absorbable tacks (Securestrap™), and absorbable synthetic glue (Glubran™). The primary endpoint was pain on the second postoperative day, measured on a visual analogue scale. Quality of life and recurrence rate were secondary endpoints and investigated through questionnaires and clinical examination at follow-up visits 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery., Results: Seventy-five non-consecutive patients were included in the study, with 25 patients in each group. There was no significant difference between groups for unspecified pain on the second postoperative day (p = 0.250). The DoloTest™ values were 55.3 ± 28.9 mm, 43.5 ± 28.5 mm, and 55.9 ± 26.3 mm for permanent tacks, absorbable tacks, and synthetic glue, respectively. No differences were observed between groups with respect to quality of life of the patients and hernia recurrence rate., Conclusions: In patients with small- and medium-sized ventral hernias, the type of fixation device did not affect the immediate or long-term postoperative pain, quality of life, or recurrence rate when comparing permanent tacks, absorbable tacks, and synthetic glue for mesh fixation., Trial Registration: NCT01534780.

Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse has been widely used over the past decade to reduce postoperative functional bowel disorders. We aimed to compare changes in functional outcome 12 months after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy in patients with rectal prolapse., Methods: In this double-blind, randomised trial, consecutive patients aged 18 years or older at a single centre in Denmark with full-thickness rectal prolapse were randomly assigned (1:1) to either laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy or laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy by drawing numbers from opaque envelopes, in blocks of four for patients with or without preoperative constipation. Functional assessment was done preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was preoperative-to-postoperative change in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) score. Patients and those assessing the outcomes were masked to the procedure. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population. Safety outcomes were assessed in the entire cohort. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00946205., Findings: From Nov 1, 2006, to Jan 31, 2014, 75 consecutive patients were assigned to laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy (n=37) or laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (n=38). Eight patients withdrew consent to follow-up, leaving 34 patients in the posterior sutured rectopexy group and 33 in the ventral mesh rectopexy groups for the primary analysis. The preoperative-to-postoperative reduction in ODS score was 1·97 (95% CI 0·01 to 3·93) in patients who received ventral mesh rectopexy and 2·18 (-0·14 to 4·49) in those who received posterior sutured rectopexy (difference -0·21 [-3·19 to 2·78]; p=0·890). Postoperative surgical complications of Clavien-Dindo grade II or worse were reported in one (3%) of 38 patients in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (ureteral injury resulting in urine leakage, and a psoas abscess) and one (3%) of 37 patients in the posterior sutured rectopexy group (haematoma and pelvic abscess). Two (5%) patients in the posterior sutured rectopexy group developed recurrence within 12 months compared with none in the ventral mesh rectopexy group (p=0·305)., Interpretation: Functional outcome measured by preoperative-to-postoperative change in ODS score was not significantly superior in patients who underwent ventral mesh rectopexy compared with those who had posterior sutured rectopexy. Additional, large, randomised, multicentre studies with long-term outcomes are warranted., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In Denmark approximately 10 000 groin hernias are repaired annually, of which 2% to 4% are femoral hernias. Several methods for repair of femoral hernias are used including sutured repair and different types of mesh repair with either open or laparoscopic techniques. The use of many different approaches reflects a rather low level of evidence for the best method of repair. Randomized clinical trials are lacking. Large, prospective cohort studies are an alternative way of acquiring improved evidence regarding the best type of repair., Objective: To investigate the reoperation rate after laparoscopic vs open femoral hernia repair, analyzing data from a nationwide database., Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Data on femoral hernia repairs registered in the Danish Hernia Database from January 1998 until February 2012 were extracted and analyzed. All repairs were followed in the database and analyzed for reports of reoperation, which were used as a proxy for recurrence. Femoral hernia recurrence and inguinal hernia occurrence after the index repair were analyzed., Exposure: Repair of a femoral hernia., Main Outcomes and Measures: Reoperation for a femoral hernia., Results: A total of 3970 primary femoral hernia repairs were analyzed; 27.3% occurred in men. There were 2413 elective repairs (60.8%) and 1557 emergency procedures (39.2%). In a multivariate analysis, laparoscopic repair was found to result in reduced risk of reoperation (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.09-0.95) compared with open repair. The risk of reoperation was higher in women (hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.10-3.45). Furthermore, the laparoscopic approach seemed to reduce the risk of subsequent occurrence of an inguinal hernia in the same groin., Conclusions and Relevance: Laparoscopic repair of a femoral hernia reduces the risk of reoperation for a recurrence compared with open repair. The results from this study support the guidelines recommending the use of the laparoscopic approach for repair of femoral hernias.

In laparoscopic ventral hernia repair a mesh is inserted and anchored intraperitoneally to the abdominal wall. Currently, a variety of fixation methods are being used. As a primary goal the ideal fixation method should contribute to preventing recurrences. It should also be associated with less pain, and should prevent adhesion formation, mesh migration, and shrinkage but without contributing to infection, fistula, or seroma. In this review we evaluate the evidence for using each type of available fixation device. A systematic search of the literature, including human as well as animal studies, identified 17 different fixation methods. Their role with regard to effect on major end-points in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair including postoperative pain, infection, seroma formation, adhesions, fixation strength, strength of ingrowth, shrinkage, bowel fistulas, and hernia recurrence, is described in detail. No gold standard exists currently. The vast majority of published results are based on uncontrolled series with short or incomplete follow-up. In this review only three randomized controlled trials were identified.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery resection of colon is feasible, but so far evidence of benefit compared to standard laparoscopic technique is lacking. In addition to robot-controlled camera, there is only one robot system on the market capable of performing laparoscopic surgery. The da Vinci robot may contribute to making complex laparoscopic procedures easier to perform, but the system is costly in purchase and maintenance. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery aiming to reduce abdominal wall trauma is developing and bringing new technology. Combinations of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques will expand future indications.

Ventral hernias and their surgical treatment have long been a therapeutical problem. High recurrence and complication rates have caused surgeons to refrain from performing this type of surgery, often by enforcing strict indications for surgical management. With the introduction of laparoscopic mesh repair, we now have an effective and relatively simple and safe treatment modality at our disposal. In other words, it is a completely new ballgame with a different set of rules, and in the coming years a number of pertinent questions need to be asked and answered.