The usefulness of restorative laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy for ulcerative colitis. Laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: case-matched comparative study with open restorative proctocolectomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Laparoscopic-assisted vs. open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: functional outcome in a case-matched series. Laparascope-assisted versus conventional restorative proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy. Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ileal-pouch-anal anastomosis: a single institutional case-matched experience. Functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis in patients after laparoscopic-assisted and conventional restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Does laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch anal anastomosis reduce the length of hospitalization? [Two stage videoassisted restorative proctocolectomy. Early experience of 12 cases].
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis in comparison with that of conventional open total colectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. From 1990 until 1999, 11 patients underwent open total colectomy, while 21 patients had laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy. Patients characteristics, perioperative course, and recovery were compared. Differences between the groups were tested using Student's t-test for independent groups and chi-square tests when appropriate. Nasogastric tube could be removed after POD 1.1 vs. 4.8 (p < 0.05), the mean time to passage of stool was 1.7 (range, 1 to 3) vs. 5.4 (range, 3 to 7) days (p < 0.05), and in the laparoscopic group watery stool was soon made solid after POD 24.3 vs. 87.3 (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the mean operating time and mean estimated operating blood loss between two groups. Postoperative morbidity did not differ significantly between the patients treated conventionally (45.5%) and laparoscopically (33.3%). The findings of this study indicate that laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy improved cosmetic results and to be a safe and effective treatment for the elective surgery of ulcerative colitis. A laparoscopic approach to restorative proctocolectomy is new and has not been compared recently with the traditional open procedure. By using prospectively gathered data, laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy procedures in mucosal ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis patients were compared by using a case-matched design.
                Forty patients, composing 20 consecutive laparoscopic cases (13 mucosal ulcerative colitis, 7 familial adenomatous polyposis), were matched for age, gender, and body mass index with 20 open cases (13 mucosal ulcerative colitis, 7 familial adenomatous polyposis) performed during the same time period. Mucosal ulcerative colitis patients were also matched for severity of disease by using hemoglobin and albumin levels, whole blood count, and steroid dependency. A loop ileostomy was made in 12 of 13 laparoscopic mucosal ulcerative colitis patients, all open mucosal ulcerative colitis patients, and no familial adenomatous polyposis patients.
                The median age was 25 (range, 9-61) years. There were no intraoperative complications in either group and no conversions in the laparoscopic group. The operative times (median, range) were significantly longer in laparoscopic cases (330, 180-480 minutes) vs. open cases (230, 180-300 minutes), P < 0.001. Bowel function returned more quickly in laparoscopic cases (2, 1-8 days) vs. open cases (4, 1-13 days), P = 0.03; and the length of stay was shorter in laparoscopic cases (7, 4-14 days) vs. open cases (8, 6-17 days), P = 0.02. For diverted patients, the median length of stay was reduced by two days in laparoscopic cases (6, 4-14 days) vs. open cases (8, 6-17 days), P = 0.01. Complications occurred in 4 of 20 laparoscopic patients (3 obstruction/ileus and 1 pelvic abscess) and 5 of 20 open patients (2 obstruction and ileus, 1 each anastomotic leak and abscess, peptic ulceration, and episode of dehydration).
                Return of intestinal function and length of stay are reduced in the laparoscopic group compared with open group. A laparoscopic approach to restorative proctocolectomy has the potential of becoming an appealing alternative to conventional restorative proctocolectomy surgery. The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial.
                Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.
                There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and total GIQLI score (P < 0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were 16.728 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095).
                Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure. Functional outcomes in laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis have been incompletely studied. More than one-year follow-up has rarely been reported in these patients. This study was designed to assess operative, functional, and quality of life outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis a minimum of one year after.
                Thirty-three laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and 33 open ileal pouch-anal anastomosis patients, with a median of 13 months and minimum of 12 months follow-up, were identified from a prospective, laparoscopic database. Functional outcome was prospectively assessed by using a standardized survey. These cohorts were matched by individual patient for year of surgery, age, gender, body mass index, and indication.
                Median age was 27 years (open) and 28 years (laparoscopic). There were 27 females and 6 males in each group. All operations occurred between 1999 and 2001. Median body mass index was 22.3 (open) and 21.7 (laparoscopic) groups. There were no significant differences in diagnosis, use of diversion, and anastomotic technique. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 6 percent of the laparoscopic cases and 12 percent of the open cases. Functional outcome after a minimum of one year revealed equivalent median day and median nocturnal number of stools of six to seven and one to two respectively. Consistency of stool, medication usage, and continence were no different between groups. Daytime and nocturnal incontinence was similar. Quality of life in regard to social, home life, family, travel, sports, recreation, and sex life were equivalent.
                The function and quality of life outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis seem to be equivalent to our open experience. Laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis offers selected patients a safe, feasible, and durable alternative. To assess the advantages of a laparoscope-assisted proctocolectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis compared with conventional procedures, we retrospectively analyzed the results of the two procedures as follows: Eleven patients including five patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and six with ulcerative colitis (UC) underwent a laparoscope-assisted proctocolectomy and hand-sewn ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis at our department from June 1997 to November 1999. This laparoscope-assisted colectomy (LAC) group was then compared with a group of 13 patients who had undergone conventional ileal pouch anal anastomosis using a standard laparotomy from 1986 to 1997. The median operative time of the LAC group was 8h 23min, which was 81 min longer than that of the standard colectomy (SC) group. The number of days during which eating was prohibited were similar in the two groups but the median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LAC group (24.1 days). In the LAC group, the small incisions showed better cosmetic results and there was also a remarkable reduction in the degree of postoperative pain. In conclusion, a laparoscope-assisted proctocolectomy with ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis can be employed widely in patients with FAP and also in selected patients with UC. To compare safety and short-term outcomes of 100 laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) versus 200 conventional open IPAA patients.
                Outcomes of laparoscopic IPAA (LAP-IPAA) have been incompletely characterized. Previous reports are characterized by small numbers of patients and rarely include case-matched or randomized trial methodology. This report describes 100 LAP-IPAA patients case matched to 200 open IPAA patients.
                Between 1998 and 2004, 100 consecutive LAP-IPAA patients (75 laparoscopic assisted, 25 hand assisted) were identified and case matched to 200 open IPAA control patients by age, operation, gender, date of operation, and body mass index. Operative and postoperative outcomes at 90 days were compared.
                A total of 300 patients (180 female) with a median age of 32 years (range, 17-66 years), and a median body mass index of 23 kg/m (range, 16-34 kg/m) underwent IPAA (100 LAP-IPAA, 200 open IPAA). Diagnosis (chronic ulcerative colitis 97%, familial adenomatous polyposis 3%) and previous operative history were equivalent between groups. One intraoperative complication occurred in each group. Overall, the laparoscopic conversion rate was 6%. Median operative time was longer for the LAP-IPAA group (333 minutes versus 230 minutes, P < 0.0001). LAP-IPAA patients had shorter median time to regular diet (3 versus 5 days), time to ileostomy output (2 versus 3 days), length of stay (4 versus 7 days), and decreased IV narcotic use (all P < 0.05. Postoperative morbidity was equivalent (LAP-IPAA = 33%, open IPAA = 37%), mortality was nil, and readmission rates were equal (LAP-IPAA = 21%, open IPAA = 22%). Reoperation was required in 3% of LAP-IPAA and 6.5% of open IPAA patients (P < 0.2) during the first 3 months.
                LAP-IPAA is equivalent to open IPAA in terms of safety and feasibility. In addition, LAP-IPAA provides significant improvements in short-term recovery outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the functional outcome and the quality of life of laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis compared with conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Further, body image and cosmesis were evaluated in both groups.
                Sixteen patients who underwent a laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis between March 1996 and September 1999 were matched with 19 patients who had a conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Patients were matched for the time period after surgery, distribution of familial adenomatous polyposis/ulcerative colitis, and one/two-stage procedure. Thirty-two patients agreed to fill out a set of questionnaires that assessed functional outcome, quality of life, body image, and cosmesis. Quality of life was measured with the Short Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire and the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index. The Body Image Questionnaire was used to measure patients' perceptions of and satisfaction with their own body and their attitude toward their bodily appearance (body image) and the degree of satisfaction of patients with respect to the physical appearance of the scar (cosmesis).
                Patients in the conventional group were older than patients in the laparoscopic-assisted group (mean 39.2 +/- 8.4 vs. 30.6 +/- 7.1 years; P < 0.01). No differences were found in functional outcome and quality of life. Satisfaction with the cosmetic result of the scar was significantly higher in the laparoscopic-assisted group compared with the conventional group. Body image score was higher in the laparoscopic-assisted group when compared with the conventional group, although not significant.
                The functional outcome and quality of life of laparoscopic-assisted ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is not different from conventional ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. In the long-term, better cosmesis is the most important advantage after laparoscopic surgery. Previous data have suggested that laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery may shorten the length of hospitalization. These claims have been attributed to a reduction of the length of ileus. The definition of "ileus" is variable and in all cases is subjective. In this study it was defined as the length of time until the patient passed flatus or stool without nausea, vomiting or abdominal distention. This prospective study was undertaken to compare the duration of ileus and of hospitalization after laparoscopic-assisted (LAC) and standard laparotomy (SC). After restorative proctocolectomy with an ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) in both sets of patients. Twenty-two patients underwent LAC and 20 age, sex, and diagnosis-matched controls underwent SC. Mucosal ulcerative colitis (MUC) was the diagnosis in 16 LAC and in 15 SC patients while polyposis was the diagnosis in 6 LAC and in 5 SC patients. The mean time to resolution of postoperative ileus was 4.2 (4-11) days in the LAC group and 3.3 (2-5) days in the SC group. Hospital discharge was similar in each group occurring at a mean of 8.7 (7-13) days after LAC and 8.9 (6-18) days after SC. Neither the length of time for ileus resolution nor the length of hospitalization were reduced in the LAC group. Laparoscopic-assisted IPAA conferred none of the theoretical advantages associated with other laparoscopic procedures. This study reports our early experience in two-stage video assisted restorative proctocolectomy (RPC).
                From May 1999 to May 2003, 12 video assisted RPCs were performed (mucosal ulcerative colitis: n = 11; familial adenomatous polyposis: n = 1). These patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index and indication for surgery, with 12 patients who underwent RPC by laparotomy (open group).
                Median operative time was significantly longer in the video assisted RPC group (400 min; range: 360-490) vs open group (300 min; range: 210-390) (P = 0.003). A conversion in midline laparotomy (under the umbilicus) was necessary in 3/12 patients (25%) in the video assisted RPC group. Return to bowel function and oral intake occurred two days earlier after video assisted RPC (respectively, P = 0.009 and P = 0.0001) but length of stay was not significantly shorter in this group. A complication occurred in 3/12 patients (25%) in both groups, which lead to a reoperation in one patient in the open group (ns).
                Two-stage videoassisted RPC is feasible at the cost of a lengthening of operative time, Nevertheless postoperative results after video assisted RPC are comparable to those obtained after RPC by laparotomy.
The laparoscopic IPAA is a feasible and safe procedure. Short-term advantages of the laparoscopic approach seem to be limited and their clinical significance is arguable. Large high-quality trials focusing on differences regarding specific postoperative complications, cosmesis, quality of life and costs are needed.