• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2011

    Review Meta Analysis

    Laparoscopic versus Open surgery for small bowel Crohn's disease.

    • Bobby Vm Dasari, Damian McKay, and Keith Gardiner.
    • The Royal Hospitals, Belfast Health Care and Social Trust / NIMDTA, 15, Boulevard, Wellington Square, Belfast, UK, BT7 3LW.
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19 (1): CD006956.

    BackgroundCrohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease that most commonly involves the terminal ileum and colon (55 percent). Surgical treatment is required in approximately 70 percent of patients. Multiple procedures and repeat operations are required in 30 - 70 percent of all patients (Duepree 2002) but the disease remains incurable.Laparoscopy has gained wide acceptance in gastrointestinal surgery with potential advantages of faster return to normal activity and diet, reduced hospital stay, reduced postoperative pain, better cosmesis (Duepree 2002, Dunker 1998, Milsom 2001, Reissman 1996), improved social and sexual interaction (Albaz 2000) and its use is accepted in benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Laparoscopic surgery offers additional advantage of smaller abdominal fascial wounds, low incidence of hernias, and decreased rate of adhesive small-bowel obstruction (Albaz 2000) compared with conventional surgery reducing the need for non-disease-related surgical procedures in CD population.There are concerns about missing occult segments of disease and critical proximal strictures due to limited tactile ability, earlier recurrence due to possible reduced immune response induced by laparoscopy, technical difficulty due to fragile inflamed bowel and mesentery and the existence of adhesions, fistulas, and abscesses (Uchikoshi 2004). It is therefore important to evaluate the potential benefits and risks of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery in patients with small bowel CD (Lowney 2005).ObjectivesTo determine if there is a difference in the perioperative outcomes and re-operation rates for disease recurrence following laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery in small bowel CD.Search StrategyPublished and unpublished randomised controlled trials were searched for in the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010 issue 2 The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) 2010 issue 2 The Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Controlled Trials Register Ovid MEDLINE (1990 to 2010) EMBASE (1990 to 2010) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (1990 to 2010)Selection CriteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for small bowel CD were included.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo reviewers independently assessed the studies and extracted data. RevMan 5.0 was used for statistical analysis.Main ResultsTwo RCTs comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for small bowel CD were identified. Long term outcomes of the patients in both the trials were published separately and these were included in the review.Laparoscopic surgery appeared to be associated with reduced number of wound infections (1/61 vs 9/59), reoperation rates for non disease related complications (3/57 vs 7/54 ) but the difference was not statistically significant [p values were 0.23 and 0.19 respectively]. There was no statistically significant difference between any of the compared outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery in the management of small bowel CD.Authors' ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery for small bowel CD may be as safe as the open operation. There was no significant difference in the perioperative outcomes and the long term reoperation rates for disease-related or non-disease related complications of CD.

      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.
1,706,662 articles already indexed!

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