Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional laparoscopic colectomy with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost. Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. A prospective randomized comparison of two instruments for dissection and vessel sealing in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis. The usefulness of restorative laparoscopic-assisted total colectomy for ulcerative colitis. Prospective evaluation of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus laparotomy with resection for management of complex polyps of the sigmoid colon. Randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer. Laparascope-assisted versus conventional restorative proctocolectomy with rectal mucosectomy. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.
Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) represents a useful alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). Its potential advantages--(a quicker, safer procedure and less need to convert to open surgery) are due to the recovery of tactile feedback. However, HALS requires the performance of a mini-laparotomy when surgery commences, and the wound is stretched and compressed throughout the procedure. In addition, it is associated with a more intense manipulation of the intraabdominal viscera. All of these factors increase the surgical trauma, it is not known whether HALS maintains the minimally invasive characteristics of conventional LS. Therefore, we set out to study the applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost of HALS compared with conventional LS using colectomy as a model.
                We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic-assisted colectomy with HAL colectomy. The aims of the study were to assess (a) perioperative features, including time, advantages, and conversion; (b) the patient's immediate clinical response, including recovery of bowel sounds, refeeding time, postoperative pain, local and general morbidity, and hospital stay; (c) the effect on the inflammatory response, using interleukin-6 (ILG) and C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements; (d) oncological issues, including intraoperative cytology and features of the specimen; and (d) the relative costs of the two procedures.
                A total of 54 patients were enrolled in the study, 27 laparoscopic and 27 HALS. The operative times were similar, but HALS was associated with a far lower conversion rate--7% vs 23%. Immediate clinical outcomes, oncological features, and costs were similar for the two procedures, but HALS was associated with a significantly greater increase in IL6 and CRP than the conventional laparoscopic procedure.
                This comparative study shows that HALS simplifies difficult intraoperative situations, reducing the need for conversion. Although it is a more aggressive procedure, HALS preserves the features of a minimally invasive approach, maintains all of the oncological features of conventional laparoscopic surgery, and does not increase the cost. HALS should therefore be considered as a useful adjunct when difficult situations arise during conventional laparoscopic colectomy. This study was designed to compare short-term outcomes after hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. straight laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
                Eleven surgeons at five centers participated in a prospective, randomized trial of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoid/left colectomy and total colectomy. The study was powered to detect a 30-minute reduction in operative time between hand-assisted laparoscopic and straight laparoscopic groups.
                There were 47 hand-assisted patients (33 sigmoid/left colectomy, 14 total colectomy) and 48 straight laparoscopic patients (33 sigmoid/left colectomy, 15 total colectomy). There were no differences in the patient age, sex, body mass index, previous surgery, diagnosis, and procedures performed between the hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic groups. Resident participation in the procedures was similar for all groups. The mean operative time (in minutes) was significantly less in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group for both the sigmoid colectomy (175 +/- 58 vs. 208 +/- 55; P = 0.021) and total colectomy groups (time to colectomy completion, 127 +/- 31 vs. 184 +/- 72; P = 0.015). There were no apparent differences in the time to return of bowel function, tolerance of diet, length of stay, postoperative pain scores, or narcotic usage between the hand-assisted laparoscopic and straight laparoscopic groups. There was one (2 percent) conversion in the hand-assisted laparoscopic group and six (12.5 percent) in the straight laparoscopic group (P = 0.11). Complications were similar in both groups (hand-assisted, 21 percent vs. straight laparoscopic, 19 percent; P = 0.68).
                In this prospective, randomized study, hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery resulted in significantly shorter operative times while maintaining similar clinical outcomes as straight laparoscopic techniques for patients undergoing left-sided colectomy and total abdominal colectomy. A newly available, laparoscopic 5-mm bipolar vessel sealing device promises substantial advantages over the 10-mm instrument. This study compared the safety as well as the technical and surgical aspects of these different tools.
                For this study, 30 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left-sided colectomy were prospectively randomized for the 5-mm LigaSure or The 10-mm LigaSure. The patients' demographics were analyzed together with their intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and the instruments were assessed by the surgeons with a standardized questionnaire.
                The two groups were comparable and demonstrated similar mean operation times, blood losses, and hospital stays. The 5-mm LigaSure was applied in more operation steps and resulted in fewer bleeding episodes and less lens cleaning. Monopolar scissors were used less frequently in the 5-mm group, thus minimizing cauteric lesions and their complications (0 in the 5-mm group vs 2 in the 10-mm group). Overall satisfaction with the 5-mm LigaSure was significantly higher (8.4 +/- 0.18 vs 6.9 +/- 0.41 out of 10; p = 0.002), with significant advantages in terms of dissection capacity, visibility, and handling.
                The 5-mm LigaSure is as secure and fast as the larger 10-mm device and compares favorably in terms of finer dissection as well as trocar flexibility and handling. Therefore, it can be used safely in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The development of operative laparoscopic surgery is linked to advances in ancillary surgical instrumentation. Ultrasonic energy devices avoid the use of electricity and provide effective control of small- to medium-sized vessels. Bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgical technology eliminates the disadvantages of electrical energy, and a mechanical blade adds a cutting action. This instrument can provide effective hemostasis of large vessels up to 7 mm. Such devices significantly increase the cost of laparoscopic procedures, however, and the amount of evidence-based information on this topic is surprisingly scarce. This study compared the effectiveness of three different energy sources on the laparoscopic performance of a left colectomy. The trial included 38 nonselected patients with a disease of the colon requiring an elective segmental left-sided colon resection. Patients were preoperatively randomized into three groups. Group I had electrosurgery; vascular dissection was performed entirely with an electrosurgery generator, and vessels were controlled with clips. Group II underwent computer-controlled bipolar electrosurgery; vascular and mesocolon section was completed by using the 10-mm Ligasure device alone. In group III, 5-mm ultrasonic shears (Harmonic Scalpel) were used for bowel dissection, vascular pedicle dissection, and mesocolon transection. The mesenteric vessel pedicle was controlled with an endostapler. Demographics (age, sex, body mass index, comorbidity, previous surgery and diagnoses requiring surgery) were recorded, as were surgical details (operative time, conversion, blood loss), additional disposable instruments (number of trocars, EndoGIA charges, and clip appliers), and clinical outcome. Intraoperative economic costs were also evaluated. End points of the trial were operative time and intraoperative blood loss, and an intention-to-treat principle was followed. The three groups were well matched for demographic and pathologic features. Surgical time was significantly longer in patients operated on with conventional electrosurgery vs the Harmonic Scalpel or computed-based bipolar energy devices. This finding correlated with a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss. Conversion to other endoscopic techniques was more frequent in Group I; however, conversion to open surgery was similar in all three groups. No intraoperative accident related to the use of the specific device was observed in any group. Immediate outcome was similar in the three groups, without differences in morbidity, mortality, or hospital stay. Analysis of operative costs showed no significant differences between the three groups. High-energy power sources specifically adapted for endoscopic surgery reduce operative time and blood loss and may be considered cost-effective when left colectomy is used as a model. 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. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy is technically feasible, but objective evidence of its benefits remains scarce. This study was done to evaluate the outcomes and operative stress of laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus the traditional open method in the management of sigmoid complex polyps that cannot be safely or adequately removed by colonofibroscopy. Between January 1997 and December 1999, a total of 42 patients were equally randomized to the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group by the blocked randomization method. Three patients randomized to the laparoscopy group did not complete the trial; therefore 18 patients treated by laparoscopy-assisted sigmoidectomy and the other 21 treated by the open method were prospectively evaluated. These two groups of patients were well matched in age, gender, symptoms, tumor location, localization method, tumor size, morphology, histopathology, and the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis. Two standardized surgical strategies, the lateral-to-medial and medial-to-lateral dissection sequences, were performed in 14 and 4 patients of the laparoscopy group, respectively, according to whether their tumors were located above or below 20 cm above the anal verge. After evaluating the surgical outcomes, we found that the laparoscopy group was significantly better than the laparotomy group in regard to parameters that included severity of postoperative pain, wound size, postoperative complication rate, and the duration of postoperative ileus, hospitalization, and disability. There was no significant difference in the operating times for these two groups. However, the costs of the laparoscopy group were significantly higher. To evaluate the surgical stress, we measured the serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), total lymphocyte count, and CD4+/CD8+ ratio 24 hours before and after surgery. We found that the postoperative serum CRP level and the ESR were significantly less elevated and the total lymphocyte counts and CD4+/CD8+ ratio were significantly less depressed in the laparoscopy group than in the laparotomy group. We thus concluded that laparoscopy-assisted sigmoidectomy can be safely performed with shorter convalescence and less operative stress but at a higher cost. We strongly recommended the use of this technique in the management of sigmoid complex polyps if the patient's economic status permits. After confirming a favorable outcome of laparoscopic surgery for early colorectal cancer, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open colectomy for advanced colorectal cancer.
                Fifty-nine patients with T2 or T3 colorectal cancer were randomized to undergo laparoscopic (n = 29) or open (n = 30) colectomy. Median follow-up was 20 months (range, 6-34 months).
                Operative time was longer (p <0.0001) and blood loss (p = 0.0034) and postoperative analgesic requirement were less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. An earlier return of bowel motility and earlier discharge from the hospital (p = 0.0164) were observed after laparoscopic surgery. Serum C-reactive protein levels on postoperative days 1 (p <0.0001) and 4 (p = 0.0039) were lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. Postoperative complications did not differ between the two groups.
                Laparoscopic surgery for advanced colorectal cancer is feasible, with favorable short-term outcome. 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. Minimally invasive, laparoscopically assisted surgery was first considered in 1990 for patients undergoing colectomy for cancer. Concern that this approach would compromise survival by failing to achieve a proper oncologic resection or adequate staging or by altering patterns of recurrence (based on frequent reports of tumor recurrences within surgical wounds) prompted a controlled trial evaluation.
                We conducted a noninferiority trial at 48 institutions and randomly assigned 872 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon to undergo open or laparoscopically assisted colectomy performed by credentialed surgeons. The median follow-up was 4.4 years. The primary end point was the time to tumor recurrence.
                At three years, the rates of recurrence were similar in the two groups--16 percent among patients in the group that underwent laparoscopically assisted surgery and 18 percent among patients in the open-colectomy group (two-sided P=0.32; hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.17). Recurrence rates in surgical wounds were less than 1 percent in both groups (P=0.50). The overall survival rate at three years was also very similar in the two groups (86 percent in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 85 percent in the open-colectomy group; P=0.51; hazard ratio for death in the laparoscopic-surgery group, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.21), with no significant difference between groups in the time to recurrence or overall survival for patients with any stage of cancer. Perioperative recovery was faster in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-colectomy group, as reflected by a shorter median hospital stay (five days vs. six days, P<0.001) and briefer use of parenteral narcotics (three days vs. four days, P<0.001) and oral analgesics (one day vs. two days, P=0.02). The rates of intraoperative complications, 30-day postoperative mortality, complications at discharge and 60 days, hospital readmission, and reoperation were very similar between groups.
                In this multi-institutional study, the rates of recurrent cancer were similar after laparoscopically assisted colectomy and open colectomy, suggesting that the laparoscopic approach is an acceptable alternative to open surgery for colon cancer.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
The limitations of this review is the small number of trials and heterogeneity of the studies included. With the current evidence it is not possible to demonstrate which is the best instrument in laparoscopic colectomy. Hopefully more data would follow and subsequent updates of this review could become more informative.