Nishimura M, et al. Complications Related to the Initial Trocar Insertion of 3 Different Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019 Jan;26(1):63-70.
Emory users, request article via ILLiad.
This systematic review aimed to investigate complications related to initial trocar insertion among 3 different laparoscopic techniques: Veress needle (VN) entry, direct trocar entry (DTE), and open entry (OE). A literature search was completed, and complications were assessed. Major vessel injury, gastrointestinal injury, and solid organ injury were defined as major complications. Minor complications were defined as subcutaneous emphysema, extraperitoneal insufflation, omental emphysema, trocar site bleeding, and trocar site infection. Arm-based network meta-analyses were performed to identify the differences in complications among the 3 techniques. Seventeen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. DTE resulted in fewer major complications when compared with VN entry although the difference was not significant (p = .23) as well as significantly fewer minor complications (p < .001). There were no significant differences in minor complications when comparing OE and DTE (p = .74). Fewer major complications were observed with OE compared with VN entry although the difference was not significant (p = .31). There were significantly fewer minor complications for patients who underwent OE (p = .01). DTE patients experienced the least number of minor complications followed by VN entry and OE. In conclusion, major complications are extremely rare, and all 3 insertion methods can be performed without mortality.
Oberkofler CE, et al. A multicenter randomized clinical trial of primary anastomosis or Hartmann’s procedure for perforated left colonic diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis. Ann Surg. 2012 Nov; 256(5):819-26; discussion 826-7.
Full-text for Emory users.
Results: Patient demographics were equally distributed in both groups (Hinchey III: 76% vs 75% and Hinchey IV: 24% vs 25%, for HP vs PA, respectively). The overall complication rate for both resection and stoma reversal operations was comparable (80% vs 84%, P = 0.813). Although the outcome after the initial colon resection did not show any significant differences (mortality 13% vs 9% and morbidity 67% vs 75% in HP vs PA), the stoma reversal rate after PA with diverting ileostomy was higher (90% vs 57%, P = 0.005) and serious complications (Grades IIIb-IV: 0% vs 20%, P = 0.046), operating time (73 minutes vs 183 minutes, P < 0.001), hospital stay (6 days vs 9 days, P = 0.016), and lower in-hospital costs (US $16,717 vs US $24,014) were significantly reduced in the PA group.
Conclusions: This is the first randomized clinical trial favoring PA with diverting ileostomy over HP in patients with perforated diverticulitis.
Thornell A, et al. Laparoscopic Lavage for Perforated Diverticulitis With Purulent Peritonitis: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 2;164(3):137-45.
Full-text for Emory users.
Bullen NL, Massey LH, Antoniou SA, Smart NJ, Fortelny RH. Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia. 2019; 23(3):461–472.
Full-text for Emory users.
RESULTS: This study included 12 randomised controlled trials with 3966 patients randomised to Lichtenstein repair (n = 1926) or laparoscopic repair (n = 2040). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between the laparoscopic and open groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.51-2.55, p = 0.76). Laparoscopic repair was associated with reduced rate of acute pain compared to open repair (mean difference 1.19, CI - 1.86, - 0.51, p ≤ 0.0006) and reduced odds of chronic pain compared to open (OR 0.41, CI 0.30-0.56, p ≤ 0.00001). The included trials were, however, of variable methodological quality. Trial sequential analysis reported that further studies are unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two techniques.
One discussion this week included the impact of abdominal binder on seroma formation.
Reference: Christoffersen MW, Olsen BH, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T. Randomized clinical trial on the postoperative use of an abdominal binder after laparoscopic umbilical and epigastric hernia repair. Hernia. 2015 Feb;19(1):147-153. doi:10.1007/s10029-014-1289-6
Summary: Application of an abdominal binder is often part of a standard postoperative regimen after ventral hernia repair to reduce pain and seroma formation. However, there is lack of evidence of the clinical effects.
One discussion involved the comparison of outcomes for TEP and TAPP for hernia repair.
Reference: Kockerling F, et al. TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair-registered-based comparison of the outcome. Surgical Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;31(10):3872-3882. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5416-1
Summary: To date, no randomized trials have been conducted to compare the TEP vs TAPP outcome for recurrent inguinal hernia repair. Between September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2013 data were entered into the Herniamed Registry on a total of 2246 patients with recurrent inguinal hernia repair following previous open primary operation in either TAPP (n = 1,464) or TEP technique (n = 782).
- TAPP group: recurrent repair was performed for n=974/1,464 (66.5%) patients after suture and n=490/1,464 (33.5%) after mesh repair.
- TEP group: recurrent repair was performed for n=554/782 (70.8%) patients following previous suture repair and for n=228/782 (29.2%) after mesh repair.
No significant differences were found between the recurrent operations in TEP vs TAPP technique with regard to the intraoperative complications, complication-related reoperations, re-recurrence rates, rates of pain at rest, pain on exertion, or chronic pain requiring treatment. Unfavorable results were identified only with regard to the higher seroma rates associated with TAPP; these responded to conservative treatment.
In summary, both TEP and TAPP can be recommended as effective techniques for treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia following previous open primary operation. The decision to use one or the other technique should be based solely on the surgeon’s expertise. The registry study presented here thus confirms the recommendations in the guidelines on laparo-endoscopic treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia following previous open primary operation.
One discussion this week involved the Sugarbaker repair vs Keyhole repair.
Reference: DeAsis FJ et al. Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2015 Jul 28;21(28):8670-8677. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i28.8670
Summary: The primary differences between keyhole repair and Sugarbaker repair are the orientation of the bowel and the presence of a slit in the mesh. In the modified Sugarbaker approach, the bowel is exteriorized through the side of the mesh, whereas in the Keyhole approach the bowel is inserted through a 2 to 3 cm slit in the center of mesh. Both methods apply the mesh intraperitoneally (DeAsis et al, 2015, p.8673).
DeAsis et al (2015) performed a systematic review of PubMed and Medline. The primary outcome analyzed was recurrence of parastomal hernia. Secondary outcomes were mesh infection, surgical site infection, obstruction requiring reoperation, death, and other complications.
In an analysis of 15 articles involving 469 patients, the recurrence rate was 10.2% (95%CI: 3.9-19.0) for the modified laparoscopic Sugarbaker approach, and 27.9% (95%CI: 12.3-46.9) for the keyhole approach. There were no intraoperative mortalities reported and six mortalities during the postoperative course.
The review concluded that the non-slit mesh modified Sugarbaker approach and the slit mesh Keyhole approach are currently the most reported options for laparoscopic repair. When choosing between the two, a modified Sugarbaker technique appears to be a superior method given the low recurrence rates compared to the keyhole technique if an ePTFE mesh is used (p.8676).
A discussion in December included hiatal mesh for paraesophageal hernia repair.
Summary: In their 2006 study involving 4 institutions, Oelschlager et al hypothesized that using a small intestinal submucosa (SIS) to reinforce the closure of the hiatus in patients with paraesophageal hernia (PEH) would result in lower recurrence rate and improved outcomes. Indeed, they found that “adding a biologic prosthesis during LPEHR reduces the likelihood of recurrence at 6 months, without mesh-related complications or side effects” (p.481). In the 2006 publication, the authors admit the limitations of their 6 month follow-up, citing one co-investigator’s work that “created PEHs in dogs and repaired them with SIS. None of the dogs developed a stricture, erosion, dysphagia, or recurrence at 1 year” (p.487).