Laparoscopic loop ileostomy with a single-port stab incision technique

Satisfactory short-term outcome of total laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal in obese patients: a comparative study with open techniques

Reversal of loop ileostomy after colorectal surgery in obese patients can be challenging and total laparoscopic (TLAP) approach may be beneficial. This study aims to compare short-term outcomes of TLAP and open approaches in obese patients undergoing loop ileostomy reversal after laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery. A retrospective review was performed for consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery previously and underwent loop ileostomy reversal between January 2017 and April 2020. TLAP and open cases performed in obese patients were identified and compared for the following outcomes: baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative recovery, and postoperative complications. TLAP or open-loop ileostomy reversal was performed on 30 and 34 patients, respectively. TLAP approach was associated with a similar operation time and blood loss compared with an open approach (P > 0.05). The median length of incision for stoma removal was significantly shorter in the TLAP group than in the open group (6.5 cm vs. 8.5 cm; P < 0.05), and a lower incidence of incisional infection was also noted in the TLAP group (6.7% vs. 26.5%; P < 0.05). The groups were comparable as regards the time to ground activities and length of hospitalization (P > 0.05), but the time to first flatus was decreased (2.0 vs. 3.0 days; P < 0.05). This retrospective study demonstrated that TLAP loop ileostomy reversal may have a satisfactory short-term outcome for obese patients after laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery, with a shorter incisional length and a lower incidence of incisional infection as well as an earlier time to first flatus.

Laparoscopic versus Open stoma creation: A retrospective analysis

Objectives: This study aimed to compare open stoma (OS) creation with laparoscopic stoma (LS) creation considering the operation time, blood loss, time of oral intake, and complications. We also compared multiport LS and single-incision laparoscopic stoma (SILS) creation. Methods: We reviewed the demographic data, diagnosis, indications, operation time, blood loss, time of oral intake, operative procedure, and complications of 50 patients who underwent stoma creation between April 2014 and April 2016. Results: The mean blood loss was significantly lower in the LS group (7.85±18.4 ml) than in the OS group (38.1±73.2 ml; P=0.02). There were no statistical differences between the groups in terms of the operation time (LS, 72.1±32.7 min; OS, 61.2±31.2 min; P=0.23) or time of oral intake (LS, 1.0±0 days; OS, 1.91±2.71 days; P=0.17). Peristomal skin problems occurred in 11 patients (47.8%) in the OS group and 5 patients (18.5%) in the LS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the SILS and multiport LS groups, considering the operation time, amount of bleeding, and time of oral intake. Conclusions: LS is comparable with OS in terms of operation time and time of oral intake and may cause lesser blood loss. Considering its advantages, LS is a useful approach for patients requiring biopsies or intra-abdominal inspection. SILS is a minimally invasive technique, suitable for patients in whom the stoma site is preoperatively decided.

Standardized technique for single port laparoscopic ileostomy and colostomy

AIM

Single site laparoscopic techniques and technology exploit maximum usefulness from confined incisions. The formation of an ileostomy or colostomy seems very applicable for this modality as the stoma occupies the solitary incision obviating any additional wounds.

METHOD

Here we detail the principles of our approach to defunctioning loop stoma formation using single port laparoscopic access in a stepwise and standardized fashion along with the salient specifics of five illustrative patients. No specialized instrumentation is required and the single access platform is established table-side using the 'glove port' technique.

RESULTS

The approach has the intra-operative advantage of excellent visualization of the correct intestinal segment for exteriorization along with direct visual control of its extraction to avoid twisting. Postoperatively, abdominal wall trauma has been minimal allowing convalescence and stoma care education with only one parietal incision.

CONCLUSION

Single incision stoma siting proves a ready, robust and reliable technique for diversion ileostomy and colostomy with a minimum of operative trauma for the patient.

Endoscopy-assisted minimally invasive loop ileostomy after previous restorative proctocolectomy

BACKGROUND

Complications after proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis may impair pouch function. Loop ileostomy can be performed to allow recovery of function before intestinal continuity is restored. To minimize operative trauma and to form the stoma with as little damage to the abdominal wall as possible, the invasiveness of the procedure should be minimized as far as possible.

OBJECTIVE

To minimize the extent of surgical invasion, we developed a technical modification of loop ileostomy in which lower endoscopy is used to assist the procedure.

PROCEDURE

The procedure requires only a single incision, which is made at the site of the ileostomy. While the surgeon incises the fascia and peritoneum, the endoscopist advances a flexible endoscope through the pouch to the distal part of the ileum up to approximately 40 cm above the anal verge. The operation lamp is switched off, allowing the surgeon to see the lighted end of the endoscope in a loop of the ileum near the incision. This loop is drawn out through the incision and the stoma is created in a standard manner.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical factors such as the presence of adhesions or obesity limit the use of the procedure in certain patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe this technique of endoscopic-assisted loop ileostomy is a safe method for minimizing the invasiveness of surgery in patients who require ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy.

Step-wise integration of single-port laparoscopic surgery into routine colorectal surgical practice by use of a surgical glove port

INTRODUCTION

The cost associated with single-port laparoscopic access devices may limit utilisation of single-port laparoscopic surgery by colorectal surgeons. This paper describes a simple and cheap access modality that has facilitated the widespread adoption of single-port technology in our practice both as a stand-alone procedure and as a useful adjunct to traditional multiport techniques.

METHODS

A surgical glove port is constructed by applying a standard glove onto the rim of the wound protector/retractor used during laparoscopic resectional colorectal surgery. To illustrate its usefulness, we present our total experience to date and highlight a selection of patients presenting for a range of elective colorectal surgery procedures.

RESULTS

The surgical glove port allowed successful completion of 25 single-port laparoscopic procedures (including laparoscopic adhesiolysis, ileo-rectal anastomosis, right hemicolectomy, total colectomy and low anterior resection) and has been used as an adjunct in over 80 additional multiport procedures (including refashioning of a colorectal anastomosis made after specimen extraction during a standard multiport laparoscopic anterior resection).

CONCLUSIONS

This simple, efficient device can allow use of single-port laparoscopy in a broader spectrum of patients either in isolation or in combination with multiport surgery than may be otherwise possible for economic reasons. By separating issues of cost from utility, the usefulness of the technical advance inherent within single-port laparoscopy for colorectal surgery can be better appreciated. We endorse the creative innovation inherent in this approach as surgical practice continues to evolve for ever greater patient benefit.