Mini-laparotomy with Adjunctive Care versus Laparoscopy for Placement of Gastric Electrical Stimulation

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-342
Author(s):  
Alison Smith ◽  
Robert Cacchione ◽  
ED Miller ◽  
Lindsay Mcelmurray ◽  
Robert Allen ◽  
...  

We compared outcomes for two gastric electrical stimulation placement strategies, mini-laparotomy with adjunctive care (MLAC) versus laparoscopy without adjunctive care (LAPA). For electrode placement, the peritoneal cavity was accessed with either a single 2.5 to 3.0 cm midline incision (MLAC) or three trocar incisions (LAPA). For both groups, generator was placed subcutaneously over the anterior rectus sheath. For MLAC, adjunctive pain control measures were used for placement of both electrode and generator (transversus abdominus plane block). For LAPA, those that could not be completed by laparoscopy were converted to traditional open approach and kept in the analysis. MLAC (n = 128) resulted in shorter operative times than LAPA (n = 37) (median operative time: 87.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P ≤ 0.01). Hospital length of stay was also shorter for MLAC than for LAPA (median: 2.0 vs 3.0 days, P ≤ 0.01) without any increase in readmission rates to the hospital within 30 days of discharge (11.0 vs 16.2%, P = 0.39). After equalizing learning curves, these differences were even greater (median operative time: 84.5 vs 137.0 minutes, P < 0.01; median length of stay: 1.0 vs 3.0 days; P < 0.01) without increasing 30-day read-mission rates (9.1 vs 16.2%, P = 0.25). For implantation of gastric electrical stimulators, mini-laparotomy can result in improved outcomes when coupled with adjunctive pain control measures.

2009 ◽  
Vol 75 (8) ◽  
pp. 681-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. Hernandez ◽  
Connor A. Morton ◽  
Sharona Ross ◽  
Michael Albrink ◽  
Alexander S. Rosemurgy

Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) surgery promises improved cosmesis and possibly less pain. However, given the small series reported to date, true estimates of the advantages and possible disadvantages of LESS surgery remain unknown. This study was undertaken to evaluate the first 100 patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy at our institution. Patients referred for cholecystectomy since November 2007 were considered for LESS cholecystectomy. Outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, complications, and length of stay, were recorded. Outcomes are compared with an uncontrolled concurrent group of patients undergoing multi-incision laparoscopic (i.e., conventional) cholecystectomy. One hundred patients with a median age of 44 years underwent LESS cholecystectomy; 30 patients with a median age of 46 years underwent conventional cholecystectomy over the same time period. Median operative time (70 vs 66 minutes, P = 0.67, Mann-Whitney) and hospital length of stay (1 vs 1 day, P = 0.81, Mann-Whitney) were not different for patients undergoing LESS or multi-incision cholecystectomies, respectively. Five patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy had postoperative complications: cystic duct stump leak (one), pain control issues (three), and urinary retention (one). LESS cholecystectomy is a safe and effective alternative to conventional cholecystectomy. It can be undertaken without added operative time and provides patients with minimal, if any, scarring.


BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Macciò ◽  
Elisabetta Sanna ◽  
Fabrizio Lavra ◽  
Giacomo Chiappe ◽  
Marco Petrillo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background This study investigated the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic splenectomy conducted in the contexts of both laparoscopic secondary surgery for isolated recurrence in the spleen and primary laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods We performed a perspective observational study including all consecutive patients with ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic splenectomy as part of primary cytoreductive procedures for advanced stage ovarian cancer or secondary surgery for isolated splenic recurrence between January 2016 and May 2020. Results We enrolled 13 consecutive patients, candidate to laparoscopic splenectomy as part of primary cytoreductive procedures for advanced stage ovarian cancer (6 patients) or secondary surgery for isolated splenic recurrence of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (7 patients). Median operative time (509 min [range, 200–845]) for primary cytoreductive surgery varied according to surgical complexity depending on the extensiveness of the disease. Median operative time for secondary surgery for isolated splenic metastasis was 253 min (90–380). Only 1 patient with isolated splenic recurrence required conversion to an open approach. No intraoperative complication occurred, and no intraoperative blood transfusions were required. Median hospital stay was 3 days (range, 2–5) for isolated recurrence and 9 days (7–18) for primary cytoreductive surgery. Complete tumor resection was achieved in all patients. Median time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was 16 days (7–24). All six patients who underwent laparoscopic splenectomy during primary cytoreductive surgery remain alive, four of whom exhibit no evidence of disease (median follow-up 25 months [4–36]). Among patients who underwent laparoscopic splenectomy during secondary surgery for isolated splenic relapse, all patients are alive and only one had a central diaphragmatic relapse 2 years after surgery (median follow-up 17 months ([5–48 months]). Conclusions The laparoscopic approach to splenectomy is feasible and safe both in patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced stage disease and those with isolated recurrence of ovarian cancer, without compromising survival and allowing early initiation of postoperative systemic chemotherapy.


1981 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don M. Long ◽  
Donald Erickson ◽  
James Campbell ◽  
Richard North

2011 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-503.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Abell ◽  
William D. Johnson ◽  
Archana Kedar ◽  
J. Matthew Runnels ◽  
Janelle Thompson ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 774-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Meleine ◽  
Chloé Melchior ◽  
Philip Prinz ◽  
Alfred Penfornis ◽  
Benoît Coffin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document