Advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma

The greatest advantages of laparoscopy when compared to open surgery include the faster recovery times, shorter hospital stays, decreased postoperative pain, earlier return to work and resumption of normal daily activity as well as cosmetic benefits. Laparoscopy today is considered the gold standard of care in the treatment of cholecystitis and appendicitis worldwide. Laparoscopy has even been adopted in colorectal surgery with good results. The technological improvements in this surgical field along with the development of modern techniques and the acquisition of specific laparoscopic skills have allowed for its utilization in operations with fully intracorporeal anastomoses. Further progress in laparoscopy has included single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice trans-luminal endoscopic surgery. Nevertheless, laparoscopy for emergency surgery is still considered challenging and is usually not recommended due to the lack of adequate experience in this area. The technical difficulties of operating in the presence of diffuse peritonitis or large purulent collections and diffuse adhesions are also given as reasons. However, the potential advantages of laparoscopy, both in terms of diagnosis and therapy, are clear. Major advantages may be observed in cases with diffuse peritonitis secondary to perforated peptic ulcers,for example, where laparoscopy allows the confirmation of the diagnosis, the identification of the position of the ulcer and a laparoscopic repair with effective peritoneal washout. Laparoscopy has also revolutionized the approach to complicated diverticulitis even when intestinal perforation is present. Many other emergency conditions can be effectively managed laparoscopically, including trauma in select hemodynamically-stable patients. We have therefore reviewed the most recent scientific literature on advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma in order to demonstrate the current indications and outcomes associated with a laparoscopic approach to the treatment of the most common emergency surgical conditions.

Preoperative colonic stents vs emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: meta-analysis with systematic review of the literature

AIM To investigate by meta-analytic study and systematic review, advantages of colonic stent placement in comparison with emergency surgery.METHODS We conducted an extensive literature search by PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase and the Cochrane Libraries. We searched for all the papers in English published till February 2016, by applying combinations of the following terms: Obstructive colon cancer, colon cancer in emergency, colorectal stenting, emergency surgery for colorectal cancer, guidelines for obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting vs emergency surgery in the treatment of obstructive colorectal cancer, selfexpanding metallic stents, stenting as bridge to surgery. The study was designed following the PrismaStatement. By our search, we identified 452 studies, and 57 potentially relevant studies in full-text were reviewed by 2 investigators; ultimately, 9 randomized controlled trials were considered for meta-analysis and all the others were considered for systematic review.RESULTS In the meta-analysis, by comparing colonic stenting(CS) as bridge to surgery and emergency surgery, the pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of mortality [odds ratio(oR) = 0.91], morbidity(oR = 2.38) or permanent stoma rate(oR = 1.67); primary anastomosis was more frequent in the stent group(oR = 0.45; P = 0.004) and stoma creation was more frequent in the emergency surgery group(oR = 2.36; P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in disease-free survival and overall survival. The pooled analysis showed a significant difference between the colonic stent and emergency surgery groups(oR = 0.37), with a significantly higher 1-year recurrence rate in the stent group(P = 0.007).CONCLUSION CS improves primary anastomosis rate with significantly high 1-year follow-up recurrence and no statistical difference in terms of disease-free survival and overall survival.

2D vs 3D laparoscopic right colectomy:A propensity score-matching comparison of personal experience with systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The benefits of laparoscopic approach for right colectomy have been well established.However,the technical difficulty to construct the intra-corporeal anastomosis is still cumbersome.AIM To analyze the results of 3D and 2D laparoscopic right colectomy and to compare it to the published series through a systematic review and meta-analysis.METHODS A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy at Umbria2 Hospitals from January 2014 to March 2020 was performed.A systematic review was accomplished comparing 2D and 3D right colectomy.RESULTS In the personal series 47 patients of the 2D group were matched to 47 patients of the 3D group.The 3D group showed a favorable trend in terms of mean operative time(170.7±32.9 min vs 183.8±35.4 min;P=0.053)and a significant lower anastomotic time(16.9±2.3 min vs 19.6±2.9 min,P<0.001).The complete mesocolic excision(CME)subgroups analysis showed a shorter anastomotic time(16.5±1.8 min vs 19.9±3.0 min;P<0.001)and operative time(175.0±38.5 min vs 193.7±37.1 min;P=0.063)in the 3D group.Six studies and our series were included in the meta-analysis with 551 patients(2D group:291;3D group:260).The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favour of the 3D group regarding the operative time(P<0.001)and the anastomotic time(P<0.001)while no differences were identified between groups in terms of blood loss(P=0.827),LNH yield(P=0.243),time to first flatus(P=0.333),postoperative complications(P=0.718)and length of stay(P=0.835).CONCLUSION The meta-analysis results showed that 3D laparoscopic right colectomy shortens operative and anastomotic time without affecting the standard lymphadenectomy.In our series,the advantage of the 3D system becomes evident when CME and/or more complex associated procedure are requested significantly reducing both the total operative and the anastomotic time.

Adhesive small bowel adhesions obstruction: Evolutions in diagnosis, management and prevention

Intra-abdominal adhesions following abdominal surgery represent a major unsolved problem. They are the first cause of small bowel obstruction. Diagnosis is based on clinical evaluation, water-soluble contrast followthrough and computed tomography scan. For patients presenting no signs of strangulation, peritonitis or severe intestinal impairment there is good evidence to support non-operative management. Open surgery is the preferred method for the surgical treatment of adhesive small bowel obstruction, in case of suspected strangulation or after failed conservative management, but laparoscopy is gaining widespread acceptance especially in selected group of patients. "Good" surgical technique and anti-adhesive barriers are the main current concepts of adhesion prevention. We discuss current knowledge in modern diagnosis and evolving strategies for management and prevention that are leading to stratified care for patients.

Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association for management guidelines of vacuum sealing drainage application in abdominal surgeries-Update and systematic review

Vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) is frequently used in abdominal surgeries. However, relevant guidelines are rare. Chin ese Trauma Surge on Associati on orga nized a committee composed of 28 experts across China in July 2017, aiming to provide an evidence-based recommendation for the application of VSD in abdominal surgeries.Eleven questions regarding the use of VSD in abdominal surgeries were addressed:(1) which type of materials should be respectively chosen for the intraperitoneal cavity, retroperitoneal cavity and superficial incisions?(2) Can VSD be preventively used for a high-risk abdominal incision w让h primary suture?(3) Can VSD be used in severely contaminated/infected abdominal surgical sites?(4) Can VSD be used for temporary abdominal cavity closure under some special conditions such as severe abdominal trauma, infection, liver transplantation and intra-abdominal volume increment in abdominal compartment syndrome?(5) Can VSD be used in abdominal organ inflammation, injury, or postoperative drainage?(6) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intestinal fistula and pancreatic fistula?(7) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intra-abdominal and extra-peritoneal abscess?(8) Can VSD be used in the treatment of abdominal wall wounds, wound cavity, and defects?(9) Does VSD in crease the risk of bleeding?(10) Does VSD increase the risk of intestinal wail injury?(11) Does VSD increase the risk of peritoneal adhesion? Focusing on these questions, evidence-based recommendations were given accordingly. VSD was strongly recommended regarding the questions 2-4. Weak recommendations were made regarding questions 1 and 5-11. Proper use of VSD in abdominal surgeries can lower the risk of infection in abdominal incisions with primary suture, treat severely contaminated/infected surgical sites and facilitate temporary abdominal cavity closure.

Ileal pouch anal anastomosis with modified double-stapled mucosectomy-the experience in China

AIM:To investigate the feasibility and long-term functional outcome of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with modified double-stapled mucosectomy.METHODS:From January 2002 to March 2011,fourtyfive patients underwent ileal pouch anal anastomosis with modified double-stapled mucosectomy technique and the clinical data obtained for these patients were reviewed.RESULTS:Patients with ulcerative colitis(n = 29) and familial adenomatous polyposis(n = 16) underwent ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with modified doublestapled mucosectomy.Twenty-eight patients underwent one-stage restorative proctocolectomy,ileal pouch anal anastomosis,protective ileostomy and the ileostomy was closed 4-12 mo postoperatively.Two-stage procedures were performed in seventeen urgent patients,proctectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis were completed after previous colectomy with ileostomy.Morbidity within the first 30 d of surgery occurred in 10(22.2%) patients,all of them could be treated conservatively.During the median follow-up of 65 mo,mild to moderate anastomotic narrowing was occurred in 4 patients,one patient developed persistent anastomotic stricture and need surgical intervention.Thirtyfive percent of patients developed at least 1 episode of pouchitis.There was no incontinence in our patients,the median functional Oresland score was 6,3 and 2 after 1 year,2.5 years and 5 years respectively.Nearly half patients(44.4%) reported "moderate functioning",37.7% reported "good functioning",whereas in 17.7% of patients "poor functioning" was observed after 1 year.Five years later,79.2% of patients with good function,16.7% with moderate function,only 4.2% of patients with poor function.CONCLUSION:The results of ileal pouch anal anastomosis with modified double-stapled mucosectomy technique are promising,with a low complication rate and good long-term functional results.