Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021
The role of laparoscopic surgery in repeat ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carmichael Heather, Peyser Daniel, Baratta Vanessa M, Bhasin Deepika, Dean Adrienne, Khaitov Sergey, Greenstein Alexander J, Sylla Patricia
Аннотация
AIM: Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for primary uncomplicated ileocolic resection (ICR); however, its role for repeat resections is unclear. This study assessed the outcomes of primary and repeated ICRs for Crohn's disease to examine rates of laparoscopy and patient morbidity.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted at a tertiary centre between 2013 and 2019. All patients undergoing ICRs for Crohn's disease were included. The cohort was divided into three groups based on number of resections-primary (1R), secondary (2R) and tertiary or more (>2R) groups. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity.
RESULTS: Over a 6-year period, 474 patients underwent ICR for Crohn's disease, including 369 primary (1R, 77.8%) and 105 repeat (≥2R, 22.2%) resections. A laparoscopic approach was less common in the ≥2R versus 1R groups (79.0% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.001), but rates of conversion to an open procedure were comparable. Morbidity was higher amongst repeat resections although this was not significant (20.0% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.18). Amongst cases approached laparoscopically (n = 429), rates of conversion and postoperative morbidity did not differ by stage of resection, although operative time was longer for repeat operations. Even in the group undergoing laparoscopy for tertiary or greater resections (>2R, n = 29), the rates of conversion (10%) and morbidity (14%) were relatively low.
CONCLUSION: In this contemporary series of primary and reoperative ICR for ileal CD, a laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for the majority of repeat ICRs when performed at a high volume centre.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted at a tertiary centre between 2013 and 2019. All patients undergoing ICRs for Crohn's disease were included. The cohort was divided into three groups based on number of resections-primary (1R), secondary (2R) and tertiary or more (>2R) groups. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity.
RESULTS: Over a 6-year period, 474 patients underwent ICR for Crohn's disease, including 369 primary (1R, 77.8%) and 105 repeat (≥2R, 22.2%) resections. A laparoscopic approach was less common in the ≥2R versus 1R groups (79.0% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.001), but rates of conversion to an open procedure were comparable. Morbidity was higher amongst repeat resections although this was not significant (20.0% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.18). Amongst cases approached laparoscopically (n = 429), rates of conversion and postoperative morbidity did not differ by stage of resection, although operative time was longer for repeat operations. Even in the group undergoing laparoscopy for tertiary or greater resections (>2R, n = 29), the rates of conversion (10%) and morbidity (14%) were relatively low.
CONCLUSION: In this contemporary series of primary and reoperative ICR for ileal CD, a laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for the majority of repeat ICRs when performed at a high volume centre.