Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colon Resection for Diverticular Disease

8,098 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
8,098
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
88
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colon Resection for Diverticular Disease

  1. 1. Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colon Resection for Diverticular Disease George Ferzli, MD, FACS Professor of Surgery, SUNY Downstate Health Science Center, Brooklyn, NY
  2. 2. How is it done? 1. Lateral Approach 2. Anterior Approach
  3. 3. Patient With Large Ventral Hernia
  4. 4. Lateral patient position <ul><li>Patient positioned on right side </li></ul><ul><li>Hand rotated in semicircle over sigmoid for trocar placement (more like triangle) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Trocar placement : Lateral Position
  6. 6. Lateral position Splenic Flexture Mobilization
  7. 7. Lateral Approach I nferior Mesenteric Artery
  8. 8. Lateral Position Lateral trocar cuts sigmoid
  9. 9. Repair - Lateral Position If proximal colon can be brought through lateral incision tension-free, the repair will be tension free
  10. 10. End to End Anastomosis
  11. 11. Lap. Sigmoidectomy - Lateral Position
  12. 12. Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy – Lateral Position
  13. 13. Lateral Approach
  14. 14. Lateral Approach Advantages and Disadvantages <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Easy mobilization of splenic flexture </li></ul><ul><li>Easier identification of ureter </li></ul><ul><li>Small bowel out of the way in case of ventral hernia </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><li>Inability to evaluate liver </li></ul><ul><li>Poor access to adhesions or lesions on the right side of the recto-sigmoid </li></ul><ul><li>In females, ovary may interfere </li></ul>
  15. 15. Anterior Approach <ul><li>Patient supine </li></ul><ul><li>Position hand over sigmoid and rotate in semi-circle to place trocars (3) </li></ul>
  16. 16. Trocar Placement : Anterior Position
  17. 17. Anterior position 1 2 Trocar in inguinal crease cuts sigmoid
  18. 18. Repair - Anterior Position If proximal colon can be brought through inguinal crease trocar incision, tension free repair will be successful
  19. 19. Anterior Approach
  20. 20. Anterior Approach
  21. 21. Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colectomy Ferzli G et al. (2000 – 2001) Unpublished Data 147 (110 – 279) 142 (98 – 216) OR Time 2.4 (2 - 9) 2.2 (2 - 10) Hospital Stay 1 leak (re-op hartman) 1 hematoma flank, 1 re-op for SBO, 1 leak (cut.drainage) Complications 12 5 <ul><li>Carcinoma </li></ul>6 3 <ul><li>Polyp </li></ul>20 (4 abscess) 16 (2 abscess) <ul><li>Diverticulitis </li></ul>Indications: 35:3 23:1 Sex, M:F 46 (27 - 86) 48 (32 - 70) Age Anterior (38) Lateral (24) Total (n) = 62 pts
  22. 22. Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colectomy Ferzli G et al. (2000 – 2001) Unpublished Data 147 (110 – 279) 142 (98 – 216) OR Time 2.4 (2 - 9) 2.2 (2 - 10) Hospital Stay 1 leak (re-op hartman) 1 hematoma flank, 1 re-op for SBO, 1 leak (cut.drainage) Complications 12 5 <ul><li>Carcinoma </li></ul>6 3 <ul><li>Polyp </li></ul>20 (4 abscess) 16 (2 abscess) <ul><li>Diverticulitis </li></ul>Indications: 35:3 23:1 Sex, M:F 46 (27 - 86) 48 (32 - 70) Age Anterior (38) Lateral (24) Total (n) = 62 pts
  23. 23. Laparoscopic Versus Open Colectomy for Cancer
  24. 24. Colorectal Resection Laparoscopic vs. open resection for carcinoma RHC = Right hemicolectomy; Trans = Transverse; AR = Anterior resection; Sig = Sigmoid; LAR = Low anterior resection; APR = Abdominoperineal resection Franklin ME et al, Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:s35-s46
  25. 25. Colorectal Resection Laparoscopic vs. open resection for carcinoma Franklin ME et al, Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:s35-s46 19.1% 13% Cumulative death and recurrence rates 5 years into the study (Stages I, II, and III) 22% 12.2% Recurrence rates 6% 0.5% Wound complications 450 150 Blood loss, mL 9 5.6 Hospitalization, days Open (n=224) Laparoscopic (n=192)
  26. 26. Colorectal Resection Laparoscopic vs. open resection for carcinoma Santoro E et al, Hepato-Gastroenterology 1999; 46:900-904 1 1 Liver+Peritoneum+ Trocar-site or scar 4 4 Liver+ Peritoneum 5 5 Multiple site metastases 1 1 Regional 4 2 Liver 5 3 Single site metastases 10 (23%) 8 (20%) Overall metastases 43 40 No. of cases (n) Open Lap. Follow-up
  27. 27. Colorectal Resection Laparoscopic vs. open resection for carcinoma Curet MJ et al, Surg Endosc (2000) 14: 1062-1066 1 6 4 Late death from cancer (mean follow-up 4.9 years) 12 10 11 Number of lymph nodes 32 26 26 Length of specimen (cm) 8, 100% 5, 28% 1, 5% Complications (n, %) 8 7.3 5.2 Length of stay (days) 7 5.8 4.1 Regular diet (days) 5 4.4 2.7 Clear liquids (days) 6 4 3 ICU stay (days) 683 407 284 Blood loss (mL) 242 138 210 Operating room time (min) Converted (n=7) Open (n=18) Lap (n=18) 1 1 0 Recurrence
  28. 28. Long-Term Survival After Laparoscopic Colon Resection For Cancer <ul><li>Aim : To evaluate long-term survival after curative, laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. </li></ul><ul><li>Design : Retrospective review of 102 consecutive patients with laparoscopic colon resection between 1991 and 1996 with 5-year follow-up. Comparison made to open colectomy at the same institution and National Cancer Database during similar time period. </li></ul>Lujan HJ et.al. Dis. of Colon and Rectum;45:491-405,April 2002
  29. 29. Long-Term Survival After Laparoscopic Colon Resection For Cancer Lap Open
  30. 30. Long-Term Survival After Laparoscopic Colon Resection For Cancer Lap Open – Nat. Ca. Database
  31. 31. Long-Term Survival After Laparoscopic Colon Resection For Cancer - Conclusions <ul><li>Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is safe and feasible </li></ul><ul><li>5-year survival after laparoscopic colon resection for cancer is similar to survival after conventional surgery </li></ul><ul><li>Prospective randomized trials currently under way will likely confirm these results </li></ul>Lujan HJ et.al. Dis. of Colon and Rectum;45:491-405,April 2002
  32. 32. Lap (LCR) Versus Open (OCR) Colectomy 1200 Prospective,Randomized *Hazebroek2002 1200 Prospective,Randomized *Nelson, 2001 LCR>OCR 43 219 Prospective,Randomized Lacy, 2002 LCR=OCR 48.9 197 Prospective, NR Feliciotti, 2002 LCR=OCR 40.3 100 Prospective, NR Anderson, 2002 LCR=OCR 42 248 Prospective, NR Lezoche, 2002 LCR=OCR 60 157 Prospective, Non-Randomized (NR) Champault, 2002 LCR=OCR 60 206 Retrospective review Lechaux, 2002 LCR=OCR 31 Stg I-III 15.5 Stg IV 80 Retrospective review of prospective data Poulin, 2002 LCR=OCR 64.4 + 2.8 102 Retrospective review Lujan, 2002 Recurrence / Long-term Survival Mean /Median Follow-up N Study Design Author/Year
  33. 33. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomized trial Antonio M. Lacy et al. The Lancet June 2002, Vol.359, Issue 9325, p.2224-9 NS Overall survival Laparoscopic colectomy 0.02 Cancer-related survival Laparoscopic colectomy 0.001 Overall morbidity Laparoscopic colectomy 0.005 Hospital stay Laparoscopic colectomy 0.001 Oral-intake times Laparoscopic colectomy 0.001 Peristalsis detection And the winner is……. P Value End-point
  34. 34. Questions!

×