Compare the clinical and postoperative outcomes: laparoscopic versus open surgery

Background: To assess the several postoperative complications and clinical outcomes, a retrospective comparison between laparoscopic or open surgery was performed.Methods: We evaluated patients baseline characteristics clinical characteristics, perioperative, intraoperative, inflammatory stress markers and postoperative outcomes between the two groups by univariate analysis.Results: Total 73 patients’ data were included and divided into two groups. 38 patients in first group (laparoscopic surgery) and 35 patients in second group (open surgery). There were no statistically significance differences between gender, age, weight, body mass index and type of surgery of the patients (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between groups in history of infliximab, history of steroid usage, history of appendectomy and perianal disease (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between groups in total protein, albumin, hemoglobin, skeletal muscle mass and soft lean mass. Operative time, length of incision and blood loss was significantly (p<0.001) different in both groups, respectively. Total number of complications was less in the laparoscopic surgery; however, there was no statistically significant difference. Laparoscopic surgery can shorten the hospital stay by around one day. Patients had better postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic surgery than after open surgery. No significant difference was present in edema grades between groups preoperatively. More patients developed slight edema and edema in open surgery than in laparoscopic surgery on postoperative day (POD-3), but not on POD-5.Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery has more benefits, safe and high-quality care and better postoperative clinical outcomes for all patients compared to open surgery.

Download Full-text

Assessment of Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) clearance in Conventional open Versus Laparoscopic Cancer Rectum Resection

QJM ◽

10.1093/qjmed/hcab097.024 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Ibrahim H Bayan ◽

Ahmed Abdelaziz ◽

Tarek Youssef Ahmed ◽

Mohamed Magdy

Keyword(s):

Rectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Abdominal Surgery ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Laparoscopic Group ◽

Resection Margins ◽

Laparoscopy Group ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Colon And Rectal Cancer ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background Colon and rectal cancer represent the fourth commonest malignancy worldwide. Globally, colon and rectal cancer make up 9.4% and 10.1% in men and women of all cancers, respectively. Colon and rectal tumors are the third most common malignancy after breast and lung cancer, respectively. The main management of rectal cancer involves a multi-disciplinary team approach and an individually tailored treatment routine. Operative surgery remains the primary and definitive treatment for locally confined rectal adenocarcinoma and is the only historical and current treatment which allows for cure. Resection of the colon and rectal cancer can be done either by open surgical excision or laparoscopically. Aim of the work The objective is to compare the radicality of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in both open and laparoscopic surgery through the pathology report. Methods In this multicentric, prospective, comparative study, we included the pathologically established rectal cancer patients from 2 hospitals in Cairo, Egypt, Ain Shams University Hospitals and Maadi Military Hospital, Egypt between 2013 and 2016. The sample size was 40 patients divided into two groups; 20 patients for laparoscopic arm and 20 patients for the open trans-abdominal surgery. Inclusion criteria: histopathology confirmed rectal cancer, patients fit for operative resection, and with T1- T3 grades according to the preoperative evaluation. The exclusion criteria: Patients with T4 stage tumor, patients present as emergency cases and patients present with recurrence of the tumor and synchronous colonic tumors. Results The circumferential resection margins (CRM) of the mesorectum when examined pathologically after resection showed no difference between the two arms of the study with laparoscopic group specimens 3.18±1.16 mm mean, (SD) compared to 3.50±0.45 mm mean, (SD) in the open surgery group with no statistically significant difference. The longitudinal resection margins (LRM) was (5.50±1.98 mean, SD) in the laparoscopic group compared to (5.20±2.28 mean, SD) in the open conventional surgery group with no significant difference found between the two groups. Total operative time was significantly shorter in the trans-abdominal surgery group, while the hospital stay period was significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group. Laparoscopy group also showed significantly time before flatus passage, and the patients in the laparoscopy group started oral intake faster than open surgery group. Conclusion In our study, the radicality of the rectal cancer excision in both laparoscopic and traditional open surgery, showed non inferiority of the laparoscopic technique over open surgery Long-term clinical outcomes of overall survival and recurrence is the foremost parameters which should be taken in consideration for decision for laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Additional follow-up results from the current trial are presently being developed, beside with records on other secondary end points, like cost effectiveness and quality of life.

Download Full-text

Acute kidney injury and major outcomes in cancer patients with no history of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e18816 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e18816-e18816

Author(s):

Cesar Simbaqueba ◽

Omar Mamlouk ◽

Kodwo Dickson ◽

Josiah Halm ◽

Sreedhar Mandayam ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Acute Kidney Injury ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Kidney Injury ◽

Hazard Model ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Icu Admission ◽

Significant Difference ◽

History Of

e18816 Background: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 infection is associated with poor clinical outcomes. We examined outcomes (hemodialysis, mechanical ventilation, ICU admission and death) in cancer patients with normal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) treated in a tertiary referral center with COVID-19 infection, who developed AKI within 30 days of diagnosis. Methods: All patient data — demographics, labs, comorbidities and outcomes — were aggregated and analyzed in the Syntropy platform, Palantir Foundry (“Foundry”), as part of the Data-Driven Determinants of COVID-19 Oncology Discovery Effort (D3CODE) protocol at MD Anderson. The cohort was defined by the following: (1) positive COVID-19 test; (2) baseline eGFR >60 ml/min/1.73m2most temporally proximal lab results within 30 days prior to the patient’s infection. AKI was defined by an absolute change of creatinine ≥0.3 within 30 days after the positive COVID-19 test. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for survival estimates at specific time periods and multivariate Cox Proportional cause-specific Hazard model regression to determine hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for major outcomes. Results: 635 patients with Covid-19 infection had a baseline eGFR >60 ml/min/1.73m2. Of these patients, 124 (19.5%) developed AKI. Patients with AKI were older, mean age of 61+/-13.2 vs 56.9+/- 14.3 years (p=0.002) and more Hypertensive (69.4% vs 56.4%, p=0.011). AKI patients were more likely to have pneumonia (63.7% vs 37%, p<0.001), cardiac arrhythmias (39.5% vs 20.7%, p<0.001) and myocardial infarction (15.3% vs 8.8%, p=0.046). These patients had more hematologic malignancies (35.1% vs 19%, p=0.005), with no difference between non metastatic vs metastatic disease (p=0.284). There was no significant difference in other comorbidities including smoking, diabetes, hypothyroidism and liver disease. AKI patients were more likely to require dialysis (2.4% vs 0.2%, p=0.025), mechanical ventilation (16.1% vs 1.8%, p<0.001), ICU admission (43.5% vs 11.5%, p<0.001) within 30 days, and had a higher mortality at 90 days of admission (20.2% vs 3.7%, p<0.001). Multivariate Cox Proportional cause-specific Hazard model regression analysis identified history of Diabetes Mellitus (HR 10.8, CI 2.42 - 48.4, p=0.001) as an independent risk factor associated with worse outcomes. Mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 infection that developed AKI compared with those who did not developed AKI (survival estimate 150 days vs 240 days, p=0.0076). Conclusions: In cancer patients treated at a tertiary cancer center with COVID-19 infection and no history of CKD, the presence of AKI is associated with worse outcomes including higher 90 day mortality, ICU stay and mechanical ventilation. Older age and hypertension are major risk factors, where being diabetic was associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for the Treatment of Complicated Acute Appendicitis

Advances in Bioscience and Clinical Medicine ◽

10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.8n.1p.15 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 15

Author(s):

Alireza Barband ◽

Amir Mangouri ◽

Changiz Gholipouri ◽

Abasad Gharedaghi

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Surgical Treatment ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Acute Appendicitis ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Duration Of Surgery ◽

Duration Of Hospitalization ◽

Complicated Acute Appendicitis

Background and Objective: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common and at the same time lethal if not treated promptly. Failure to treat this medical condition in a timely manner then it can lead to major complications that endanger the patient’s health. In these cases, surgical treatment can be done in an open or laparoscopic method. Despite some limited studies comparing the results of these two therapies, there is still insufficient information in patients with this complicated situation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of these two therapies in patients with complicated acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 52 patients with complicated acute appendicitis in the laparoscopic surgery group and 56 patients in the open surgery group were studied. Primary outcomes in this study were duration of surgery and secondary outcomes including wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative pain, miscarriage, hospitalization, and need for re-surgery that were compared between the two groups. Results: Both groups were matched for age (mean 31.0 years in laparoscopic surgery group, 30.5 years in open surgery group, p = 0.81) and gender (28 men in laparoscopic surgery group, 32 men in surgical group, p = 0.73). The mean duration of surgery in the laparoscopic group was significantly longer (mean 66.8 vs. 55.1 min, p <0.001). In contrast, mean duration of hospitalization (85.2 vs 98.6 hours, p <0.001) and mean postoperative pain severity (6.3 vs 7.2, p <0.001) was more significant high in open surgery group. In other cases there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: Although in surgical treatment of complicated acute appendicitis the duration of laparoscopic surgery is longer than the open method, but the duration of hospitalization and pain intensity in laparoscopic method is significantly reduced.

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Positive Xpert Carba-R Tests for Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales According to Culture Positivity

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab594 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Hyeonji Seo ◽

Jeong-Young Lee ◽

Seung Hee Ryu ◽

Sun Hee Kwak ◽

Eun Ok Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Positive Culture ◽

Antibiotic Use ◽

Rapid Identification ◽

Tertiary Referral Hospital ◽

Klebsiella Pneumoniae Carbapenemase ◽

Culture Positivity ◽

Significant Difference ◽

History Of ◽

Lower Transmission

Abstract Background We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with positive Xpert Carba-R assay results for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) according to CPE culture positivity. Methods We retrospectively collected data for patients with positive CPE (positive Xpert Carba-R or culture) who underwent both tests from August 2018 to March 2021 in a 2700-bed tertiary referral hospital in Seoul, South Korea. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients positive for Xpert Carba-R according to whether they were positive (XPCP) or negative (XPCN) for CPE culture. Results Of 322 patients with CPE who underwent both Xpert Carba-R and culture, 313 (97%) were positive for Xpert Carba-R for CPE. Of these, 87 (28%) were XPCN, and 226 (72%) were XPCP. XPCN patients were less likely to have a history of previous antibiotic use (75.9% vs 90.3%; P = .001) and to have Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (21.8% vs 48.9%; P < .001). None of the XPCN patients developed infection from colonization within 6 months, whereas 13.4% (29/216) of the XPCP patients did (P < .001). XPCN patients had lower transmission rates than XPCP patients (3.0% [9/305] vs 6.3% [37/592]; P = .03). There was no significant difference in CPE clearance from positive culture results between XPCN and XPCP patients (40.0% [8/20] vs 26.7% [55/206]; P = .21). Conclusions Our study suggests that XPCN patients had lower rates of both infection and transmission than XPCP patients. The Xpert Carba-R assay is clinically useful not only for rapid identification of CPE but also for predicting risks of infection and transmission when performed along with culture.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopic vs open surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: what are the risks?

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/rcsann.2020.7067 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

C Hadjittofi ◽

SS Seraj ◽

A Uddin ◽

ZJ Ali ◽

PL Antonas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Survival Data ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Virus Transmission ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Staff Members ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Uk

Introduction The initial intercollegiate surgical guidance from the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant changes to practice. Avoidance of laparoscopy was recommended, to reduce aerosol generation and risk of virus transmission. Evidence on the safety profile of laparoscopy during the pandemic is lacking. This study compares patient outcomes and risk to staff from laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Single-centre retrospective study of gastrointestinal operations performed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, comorbidity, perioperative and survival data were collected from electronic medical records and supplemented with patient symptoms reported at telephone follow up. Outcomes assessed were: patient mortality, illness among staff, patient COVID-19 rates, length of hospital stay and postdischarge symptomatology. Results A total of 73 patients with median age of 56 years were included; 55 (75%) and 18 (25%) underwent laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. All-cause mortality was 5% (4/73), was related to COVID-19 in all cases, with no mortality after laparoscopic surgery. A total of 14 staff members developed COVID-19 symptoms within 2 weeks, with no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery (10 vs 4; p=0.331). Median length of stay was shorter in the laparoscopic versus the open group (4.5 vs 9.9 days; p=0.011), and postdischarge symptomatology across 15 symptoms was similar between groups (p=0.135–0.814). Conclusions With appropriate protective measures, laparoscopic surgery is safe for patients and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The laparoscopic approach maintains an advantage of shorter length of hospital stay compared with open surgery.

Download Full-text

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer

Medicine ◽

10.1097/md.0000000000007794 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 96 (33) ◽

pp. e7794 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Xubing Zhang ◽

Qingbin Wu ◽

Chaoyang Gu ◽

Tao Hu ◽

Liang Bi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Postoperative Outcomes ◽

Conventional Open Surgery

Download Full-text

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Patients With Borderline Ovarian Tumors

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer ◽

10.1097/igc.0000000000001358 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 28 (9) ◽

pp. 1657-1663 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Hee-Jung Jung ◽

Jeong-Yeol Park ◽

Dae-Yeon Kim ◽

Dae-Shik Suh ◽

Jong-Hyeok Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Surgical Outcomes ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Disease Free Survival ◽

Free Survival ◽

Borderline Ovarian Tumors ◽

Surgery Group ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Disease Free

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs).Materials and MethodsThis study included patients with BOTs who underwent open (n = 433) or laparoscopic (n = 210) surgery between 1990 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, perioperative morbidity, and disease-free survival and overall survival were compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference in age, histologic type of tumor, and laterality of tumor. However, body mass index was slightly higher for the open surgery group (P = 0.046). The open surgery group had a higher serum cancer antigen 125 level (P < 0.001), larger tumor size (P < 0.001), more frequent radical surgery (P = 0.001), higher stage (P = 0.034), and higher incidence of invasive implants (P = 0.035). The operative time (P < 0.001), time interval to return of bowel movement (P < 0.001), and length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter and estimated blood loss was significantly less (P < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Perioperative complications were documented in 5 (2.4%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 17 (3.9%) in the open surgery group (P = 0.064). Twenty-three (5.3%) patients in the open surgery group and 9 (4.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group had recurrence (P = 0.902) at a median follow-up of 57 months. The 10-year disease-free survival was 96% and 97% for the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively (P = 0.851), with no significant difference between the groups after adjusting for independent factors (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.4–2.4; P = 0.999). The 10-year overall survival was 99% for both groups, respectively (P = 0.441).ConclusionsLaparoscopic surgery and open surgery showed similar survival outcomes in BOTs. The surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were more favorable.

Download Full-text

Management of necrotising fasciitis within a burns centre: do outcomes differ?

Scars Burns & Healing ◽

10.1177/2059513120924749 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. 205951312092474

Author(s):

Joseph A Ward ◽

John A G Gibson ◽

Dai Q Nguyen

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Plastic Surgery ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Burn Injury ◽

Wound Care ◽

Quality Care ◽

Multidisciplinary Care ◽

Necrotising Fasciitis ◽

Retrospective Case ◽

Significant Difference

Introduction: Many similarities exist between the care of necrotising fasciitis (NF) and burn injury patients. Each group represents a small but complex cohort requiring multiple theatre trips, specialist reconstruction, meticulous wound care and multidisciplinary management. Over a six-year period, we sought to examine the clinical outcomes of NF patients managed within a burns centre against those managed by a plastic surgery service. Methods: A retrospective case-note review was performed for all identifiable patients referred to our institution’s designated burns centre or plastic surgery service between 2008–2014. Patient characteristics, length of stay, wound-related and clinical outcomes were extracted and descriptively presented with statistical analysis performed for survival and length of stay. Results: Twenty-nine patients were included in the study (burns centre [B]: 17 patients; plastic surgery service [P]: 12 patients). Median total length of stay (B: 37 vs. P: 50 days, P=0.38), local length of stay (27 vs. 19 days, P=0.29) and survival till discharge (94.4% vs. 100%, P=0.73) demonstrated no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Caring for NF patients within a burns centre facilitated easier access to specialist reconstructive expertise and multidisciplinary care but did not lead to statistically significant differences in length of stay or survival. The management of NF within a burns centre facilitated provision of high-quality care to a highly challenging patient group.

Download Full-text

Does Having a Rotator Cuff Repair Before Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Influence Outcomes?

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/2325967120942773 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (8) ◽

pp. 232596712094277

Author(s):

Brandon J. Erickson ◽

Daphne Ling ◽

Alexandra Wong ◽

Joshua S. Dines ◽

David M. Dines ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rotator Cuff ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽

Matched Control ◽

Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽

Control Group ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Significant Difference ◽

History Of ◽

Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis

Background: The number of rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) is increasing each year. Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a successful treatment option for patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis with a functioning rotator cuff. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purposes of this study were to report the outcomes of TSA in patients with ipsilateral RCR and determine whether patients with a history of ipsilateral RCR who subsequently underwent TSA had differences in outcomes compared with matched controls who underwent TSA with no history of RCR. We hypothesized that patients with prior RCR will have significant improvements in clinical outcome scores, with no difference in outcomes after TSA compared with those with no prior RCR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients eligible for inclusion were those with a history of prior RCR who underwent TSA at a single institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up between 2000 and 2015. Outcomes for this group, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, were reported and then compared with a matched control group of patients who underwent TSA with no history of prior RCR. Controls were matched based on age, sex, and preoperative ASES score. Results: Overall, 14 patients (64% males; mean ± SD age, 65.1 ± 11.1 years) underwent prior ipsilateral RCR before TSA. ASES scores significantly improved from 42.9 to 78.5 at 2 years and to 86.6 at 5 years. When compared with 42 matched control patients (matched 1:3) who underwent TSA with no history of RCR, there was no significant difference in ASES scores at 2 years (78.5 vs 85.3; P = .19) and 5 years (86.6 vs 90.9; P = .72) between the prior RCR and no RCR groups. Conclusion: TSA in patients with a history of prior ipsilateral RCR led to significant improvements in clinical outcomes. No difference in clinical outcomes at 2 or 5 years after TSA was found between patients with and without a history of prior ipsilateral RCR.

Download Full-text

Introduction of gasless laparoscopic surgery as a minimally invasive procedure for endometrial cancer and its usefulness from the viewpoint of the learning curve

World Journal of Surgical Oncology ◽

10.1186/s12957-021-02453-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Hiroe Ito ◽

Tetsuya Moritake ◽

Fumitoshi Terauchi ◽

Keiichi Isaka

Keyword(s):

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Learning Curve ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Operative Time ◽

Perioperative Complications ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background We investigated the usefulness of gasless laparoscopic surgery (GLS) using a subcutaneous abdominal wall lifting method for endometrial cancer. Methods We studied 105 patients with early endometrial cancer who underwent GLS (55) or open surgery (50). A uterine manipulator was used in all GLS cases. We compared operative time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, hospital stay, perioperative complications, cases converted to laparotomy, and recurrence and survival rates. We also studied the learning curve and proficiency of GLS. Results The GLS group had significantly longer operative time (265 vs. 191 min), reduced blood loss (184 vs. 425 mL), shorter hospital stay (9.9 vs. 17.6 days), and fewer postoperative complications (1.8 vs. 12.0%) than the open group. No case was converted to laparotomy. Disease-free and overall survival rates at 4 years postoperatively (GLS vs. open groups) were 98.0 versus 97.8 and 100 versus 95.7%, respectively, and there was no significant difference between the groups. Regarding the learning curve for GLS, two different phases were observed in approximately 10 cases. Operator 2, who was not accustomed to laparoscopic surgery, showed a significant reduction in operative time in the later phase 2. Conclusions GLS for endometrial cancer results in less bleeding, shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications than open surgery. Recurrence and survival rates were not significantly different from those of open surgery. This technique may be introduced in a short time for operators who are skilled at open surgery but not used to laparoscopic surgery.

Download Full-text