Laparoscopic Left Colectomy (Left Hemicolectomy)

No Results

No Results

processing….

Most gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons now accept that laparoscopic surgery for both benign and malignant diseases of the colon is within the mainstream of patient care and that it results in superior clinical outcomes (eg, shorter hospital stay, less surgical-site discomfort, and quicker return to normal activity) as compared with open surgery. ^{[1, 2, 3]} Laparoscopy has been associated with a lower incidence of both surgical-site infections (SSIs) ^{[4, 5]} and hernias ^[6] and with greater patient satisfaction as compared with laparotomy. ^{[7, 8]}

Although concerns regarding recurrence and survival rates associated with laparoscopic colon cancer resections initially dampened enthusiasm for minimally invasive techniques, subsequent clinical studies established that properly performed laparoscopies produce comparable colon cancer outcomes and improved clinical results. ^{[9, 10]}

Over the past 10 years, a “division of labor” has occurred within the field of minimally invasive surgical techniques, which has shaped a number of innovations that include robotic assistance, ^{[11, 12]} more reliable energy devices, endostaplers, and a motivation to reduce the number of access sites (even to the point of limiting surgical access to a single port).

Despite the advantages afforded to patients by laparoscopy, the adoption of these techniques in the general population has been consistently limited to a minority, estimated to include a mere 20% of all colectomies performed in the United States. Much of the reluctance to implement laparoscopic techniques is related to the technical challenge posed by complex laparoscopic procedures such as colon resections. The following article describes the fundamental aspects involved in approaching a laparoscopic left hemicolectomy (left colectomy).

The indications for a laparoscopic left hemicolectomy are identical to those for an open left hemicolectomy and include but are not limited to the following:

The list of contraindications to laparoscopy is more difficult to define than the list of indications because it often depends on the surgeon’s levle of expertise with less straightforward patients and diseases. Certainly, hemodynamic instability or cardiopulmonary disease that is severe enough to make peritoneal insufflation and Trendelenburg positioning dangerous represents a physiologic derangement that precludes the safe application of laparoscopy.

The author believes that these two states represent the only firm, absolute contraindications to laparoscopy. Whereas it is true that what constitutes instability or heart and lung disease too severe for laparoscopy may fall along a spectrum, it is also true that these clinical indices are more readily identified and are more consistently acknowledged between surgeons than other factors are.

In terms of relative contraindications, morbid obesity obscures major mesenteric vessels from view, inhibits effective tissue retraction, and can make tissue dissection more difficult because of the thicker visceral fat; all of these effects can conduce to the easier commission of technical errors.

Locally advanced cancers that may be amenable to an R0 resection should be carefully considered for a preemptive conversion when discovered unexpectedly during laparoscopy; however, more experienced oncologic surgeons have demonstrated that en-bloc resections of organs such as kidneys and the small intestine are possible, with cancer-related outcomes similar to those of open surgery.

Phlegmonous tissue, such as would be encountered in severe, complicated Crohn disease or in diverticulitis, may not be resectable via laparoscopy, because of tissue friability, bleeding, and a distortion of the patient’s anatomy that necessitates open exposure; however, laparoscopic treatment has also been reported to be successful in this scenario when carried out by an experienced surgeon.

Large intestinal obstructions can be quite challenging to address laparoscopically, depending on the degree of proximal intestinal dilatation present; the more limited volume of unencumbered working space, coupled with the higher risk of iatrogenic intestinal perforation from retracting instruments, may warrant an open approach.

Carcinomatosis may or may not represent an indication for open surgery; whereas biopsies of peritoneal implants are easily accomplished laparoscopically, extensive resections, especially of the parietal peritoneum, should be approached via laparotomy.

Adhesions pose a technical challenge to the minimally invasive surgeon, especially when their location is between two segments of small intestine. In this situation, both small-intestine segments may be mobile enough to prevent adequate tissue distraction and delineation of each segment, with the two limbs of bowel moving as a single entity during retraction.

Furthermore, adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall may promote bowel injuries upon trocar placement or during adhesiolysis. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis requires advanced technical skill both with the use of laparoscopic scissors and with intracorporeal suturing to address the lacerations that will inevitably be encountered at some point.

No single best approach or series of individual steps is recommended for safely performing a laparoscopic left colectomy; however, for pedagogic purposes, the following may be considered to be the key milestones of the surgical procedure:

The order in which these steps are taken should not be viewed as set in stone. The order listed above is the one preferred by the author because it identifies the left ureter earlier in the course of the operation.

Mechanical bowel preparation

The issues of whether mechanical bowel preparation should be offered to the patient undergoing a left colectomy and under what circumstances this should occur if it is offered will not be addressed in this article. The author uses an osmotic laxative in addition to poorly absorbed oral antibiotics on the day before the procedure. Rectal irrigation performed in the operating room for the purposes of cleansing the rectum or removing exfoliated tumor cells is not routinely used by the author.

Trocar placement

For multiple-site laparoscopy, the surgeon can limit the number of ports to three. The 12-mm trocar can be used to exteriorize the specimen and to place the anvil for the end-to-end anastomosis (EEA) stapler; however, it is usually easier to create a small, suprapubic incision for these purposes because partially closing an enlarged trocar site never regains the airtight seal initially present upon port placement.

For single-site laparoscopy, which is the author’s preferred approach to laparoscopic colorectal surgery, the trocar is placed through the umbilicus, unless doing so represents a higher chance of requiring a stoma, in which case the trocar is positioned at that location.

The keys to prevention of complications include the following:

Studies have generally found that the outcomes of laparoscopic colon resection are at least comparable to those of open resection. ^{[13, 14, 15]} Although single-port laparoscopic approaches have garnered considerable interest, concern has been expressed about whether they yield outcomes comparable to those of multiport approaches. A case-match study by Marks et al concluded that single-port colorectal surgery is a safe alternative to multiport surgery across the full array of procedures (including left colectomy) in equivalent patients. ^[16]

Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Müller JM. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20. CD003145. [Medline].

Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taurá P, Piqué JM. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002 Jun 29. 359(9325):2224-9. [Medline].

Vasilakis V, Clark CE, Liasis L, Papaconstantinou HT. Noncosmetic benefits of single-incision laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease: a case-matched comparison with multiport laparoscopic technique. J Surg Res. 2013 Apr. 180 (2):201-7. [Medline].

Aimaq R, Akopian G, Kaufman HS. Surgical site infection rates in laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery. Am Surg. 2011 Oct. 77(10):1290-4. [Medline].

Kiran RP, El-Gazzaz GH, Vogel JD, Remzi FH. Laparoscopic approach significantly reduces surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: data from national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Aug. 211(2):232-8. [Medline].

Eshuis EJ, Slors JF, Stokkers PC, Sprangers MA, Ubbink DT, Cuesta MA. Long-term outcomes following laparoscopically assisted versus open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Br J Surg. 2010 Apr. 97(4):563-8. [Medline].

Braga M, Frasson M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Civelli V, Di Carlo V. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in cancer patients: long-term complications, quality of life, and survival. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Dec. 48(12):2217-23. [Medline].

Yang L, Yu YY, Zhou ZG, Li Y, Xu B, Song JM. Quality of life outcomes following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancers: a clinical control study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007 Jun. 33(5):575-9. [Medline].

Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 20. 25(21):3061-8. [Medline].

Liang X, Hou S, Liu H, et al. Effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic resection versus open surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a randomized, controlled trial from China. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011 Jun. 21(5):381-5. [Medline].

Vasudevan V, Reusche R, Wallace H, Kaza S. Clinical outcomes and cost-benefit analysis comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2016 Dec. 30 (12):5490-5493. [Medline].

Bae SU, Jeong WK, Baek SK. Robot-Assisted Colectomy for Left-Sided Colon Cancer: Comparison of Reduced-Port and Conventional Multi-Port Robotic Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Nov 21. [Medline].

Kuhry E, Schwenk W, Gaupset R, Romild U, Bonjer J. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008 Oct. 34(6):498-504. [Medline].

Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jan. 10(1):44-52. [Medline].

Borie F, Bigourdan JM, Pissas MH, Ripoche J, Millat B. The best surgical approach for left colectomy: a comparative study between transverse laparotomy, midline laparotomy and laparoscopy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 May. 18(5):1010-6. [Medline].

Marks JH, Montenegro GA, Shields MV, Frenkel JL, Marks GJ. Single-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery shows equivalent or better outcomes to standard laparoscopic surgery: results of a 190-patient, 7-criterion case-match study. Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun. 29 (6):1492-9. [Medline].

Besson R, Christidis C, Denet C, Bruyns L, Levard H, Gayet B, et al. Management of postoperative bleeding after laparoscopic left colectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Aug. 31 (8):1431-6. [Medline].

Pardo Aranda F, Maristany C, Pando JA, Muñoz-Duyos A, Navarro A, Puértolas N, et al. Application of Fast-Track Recovery Protocols in Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Resection. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Jun. 26 (6):424-7. [Medline].

David B Stewart, Sr, MD, FACS, FASCRS Assistant Professor of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine

David B Stewart, Sr, MD, FACS, FASCRS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Association for Academic Surgery, Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Vikram Kate, MBBS, MS, PhD, FACS, FACG, FRCS, FRCS(Edin), FRCS(Glasg), FIMSA, MAMS, MASCRS Professor of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery and Senior Consultant Surgeon, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), India

Vikram Kate, MBBS, MS, PhD, FACS, FACG, FRCS, FRCS(Edin), FRCS(Glasg), FIMSA, MAMS, MASCRS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Gastroenterology, American College of Surgeons, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Royal College of Surgeons of England

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Laparoscopic Left Colectomy (Left Hemicolectomy)

Research & References of Laparoscopic Left Colectomy (Left Hemicolectomy)|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us