The rate for the use of hand-assisted laparoscopic methods is directly proportional to body mass index

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

Evaluation of Operative Notes for Splenic Flexure Mobilization: Are the Key Aspects Being Reported?

Background: Given the importance of operative documentation, we reviewed operative notes for surgeries that required splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) to determine their accuracy. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 51 operative notes for complete SFMs performed at a single institution from January 2015 to June 2020. Results: None of the operative notes reported a rationale for performing SFM, use of preoperative imaging to guide technical approach, reasoning for the operative method and mobilization approach used, or specific steps taken to ensure that SFM was done safely. Most reports did not include technical details, with one-third of the notes merely reporting that "the splenic flexure was mobilized." Conclusions: Increased awareness about the lack of operative documentation of the critical aspects of the SFM could stimulate initiatives to standardize the SFM method and improve the quality of operative notes for SFM.

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy and Laparoscopy-assisted Distal Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is considered to provide the benefits of laparoscopic surgery in various diseases. However, limited information is available regarding the feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (HALDG)-a subset of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery-as a gastric cancer treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of HALDG compared with laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG). Consecutive patients who underwent HALDG (n=58) or LADG (n=90) for stage I gastric cancer between 2005 and 2016 were eligible. Operative time was significantly shorter and blood loss was significantly higher in HALDG than in LADG (P<0.001, both). Postoperative aminotransferase levels were significantly lower in HALDG than in LADG (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in perioperative complications, a number of analgesics, postoperative C-reactive protein levels, and 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates between the groups. This study suggests that HALDG is a safe and feasible approach and could become an effective option for stage I gastric cancer treatment.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis

Objective

The objective of this study is to systematically assess the clinical efficacy of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).

Methods

The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were collected by searching electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). The outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using of RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

A total of five studies involving 438 patients were finally included, with 202 cases in HALS group and 236 cases in LRC group. Results of meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between HALS and LRC in terms of conversion rate, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. The operative time was 6.5 min shorter in HALS group; however, it was not a clinically significant difference. Although the incision length was longer in HALS, it did not influence the postoperative recovery.

Conclusions

HALS can be considered an alternative to LRC which combines the advantages of open as well as laparoscopic surgery.

Advances in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has now become widely adopted for the treatment of colorectal neoplasia, with steady increases in utilization over the past 15 years. Common minimally invasive techniques include multiport laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopy, and hand-assisted laparoscopy, with the choice of technique depending on several patient and surgeon factors. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery involves a robust learning curve, and fellowship training often lays the foundation for a high-volume laparoscopic practice. This article provides a summary of the various techniques for laparoscopic colorectal surgery, including operative steps, the approach to difficult patients, and the learning curve for proficiency.

Laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients: a comparison of laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic techniques

BACKGROUND

Recent American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP)-based evidence indicates that laparoscopic (LAP) colectomy results in improved outcomes compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) colectomy in the general population. Previous comparative studies demonstrated that the HAL technique offers distinct advantages for obese patients. The aim of this study was to perform comparative analyses of HAL and LAP colectomy and low anterior resection (LAR) in obese patients.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP public use file and targeted colectomy dataset, 2012-2014, were utilized for patients undergoing colectomy and LAR. Only obese patients (BMI > 30) and laparoscopic or hand-assisted operations were included. Patient, operation, and outcome variables were compared in two separate cohorts: colectomy and LAR. Bivariate analysis compared the approaches, followed by multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 9610 obese patients included, HAL and LAP colectomy were performed in 3126 and 3793 patients and LAR in 1431 and 1260 patients, respectively. In comparison to LAP colectomy, HAL colectomy patients had increased comorbidities including class 2 and 3 obesity. HAL colectomy was associated with higher overall morbidity (20 vs. 16%, p < 0.001), infectious complications (10.2 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (3.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.03), and ileus (11 vs. 8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that overall morbidity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.44), infectious complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.59), and ileus (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57) were each increased in the HAL colectomy cohort but not different for HAL and LAP LAR.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to LAP colectomy, the HAL technique is used more often in obese patients with an increased operative risk profile. While inherent bias and unmeasured variables limit the analysis, the available data indicate that the HAL technique is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Alternatively, HAL and LAP LAR are performed in obese patients with a similar risk profile and result in similar postoperative outcomes.

Comparison of straight vs hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: an assessment from the NSQIP procedure-targeted cohort

BACKGROUND

The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent straight laparoscopic (LAP) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) surgery were compared using a recently released procedure-targeted database.

METHODS

The 2012 colectomy-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used and patients were classified into 2 groups according to the final surgical approach: LAP vs HALS. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 7,843 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 4,656 (59%) patients in LAP colectomy and 3,187 (41%) in HALS colectomy groups. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative characteristics and demographics. Mean operative time was slightly longer in LAP group (178 ± 86 vs 171 ± 84 minutes, P < .001). After covariate-adjustment analysis, the overall morbidity, superficial surgical site infection, and ileus rates remained slightly higher in HALS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both straight laparoscopic and hand-assisted approaches are used in colorectal surgery and may complement each other in challenging cases. Implementing the best approach to decrease postoperative complication rates and increase use of minimally invasive techniques may play a role in improving patient care and overall quality.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: long-term results

The long-term role of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, the feasibility, the perioperative outcome, and the long-term results of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for extraperitoneal rectal cancer considering a single center series.

METHODS

Data about 186 unselected consecutive patients that underwent laparoscopic TME for middle and low rectal cancer between January 2001 and December 2011 were prospectively recorded and were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Distribution of TNM stage was 5 % T1, 37 % T2, 52.5 % T3, and 6 % T4. Fifty-one percent of patients have lymph node metastases. The average duration of surgery was 234 min. Fourteen patients required conversion (7.5 %). A complete microscopic excision was achieved in 169 patients (91 %). The mean hospital stay was 9 days. The overall postoperative morbidity rate was 24 %. Surgical-related complications were reported in 19 %. Overall mortality was 0.5 %. Sex, tumor level, and the presence of a stoma were the only statistically significant independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Median follow-up was 71 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 77 %, with 89 % for stage 1, 81 % for stage 2, 43 % for stage 3, and 10 % for stage 4. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 66 %. The 10-year survival rate was 54 %. Nine patients (4.8 %) experienced a pelvic recurrence. Late metastases developed in 31 patients (17.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirms the oncological safety of laparoscopic TME in a long follow-up period.