• Br J Surg · Aug 2014

    Comparative Study

    Outcomes of laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy.

    • I White, J T Jenkins, R Coomber, S K Clark, R K S Phillips, and R H Kennedy.
    • St Mark's Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, UK.
    • Br J Surg. 2014 Aug 1;101(9):1160-5.

    BackgroundThe literature on laparoscopic restorative proctectomy (RP) and proctocolectomy (RPC) is limited. This study compared clinical outcomes of laparoscopic RP and RPC with those of conventional open surgery at one centre.MethodsData were analysed from consecutive patients undergoing RPC and RP between November 2006 and November 2011. A standard laparoscopic technique was developed during the first 2 years, performed by two laparoscopic surgeons, with selection of patients who had not previously undergone open colectomy. Study endpoints included postoperative length of stay, 30-day morbidity, readmission, reoperation, pouch function and failure.ResultsA total of 207 patients were included; open surgery was performed in 131 (63·3 per cent) and a laparoscopic procedure in 76 (36·7 per cent). There were no significant differences in patient demographics. The conversion rate was 9 per cent (7 of 76). The median (i.q.r.) duration of operation was shorter for open than for laparoscopic procedures: 208 (178-255) versus 285 (255-325) min respectively (P < 0·001). Laparoscopic RPC had a shorter length of stay: median (i.q.r.) 6 (4-8) versus 8 (7-12) days (P < 0·001). The rate of minor complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (33 versus 50·4 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0·48, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·27 to 0·87).There were no significant differences in total complications (51 per cent after laparoscopy versus 61·5 per cent after open surgery; OR 0·66, 0·37 to 1·17), anastomotic leakage, major morbidity, 30-day readmission, reoperation and stoma closure rates. Pouch failure (including permanent stoma) occurred in 14 (7·7 per cent) of 181 patients. Three patients died, all in the open surgery group.ConclusionLaparoscopic RPC is feasible with some short-term advantages.© 2014 BJS Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.