No abstract

TSH is an uncommon complication of laparoscopic surgery. The most important technical risk factors are the design and size of the trocars. The scientific evidence for recommendations to avoid TSH is sparse.

No abstract

BackgroundRecently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy.The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis).Methods/DesignIn this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and power = 90%) in favour of the patients with resection with primary anastomosis. Secondary endpoints for both arms are the number of days alive and outside the hospital, health related quality of life, health care utilisation and associated costs.DiscussionThe Ladies trial is a nationwide multicentre randomised trial on perforated diverticulitis that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic lavage and drainage for purulent generalised peritonitis and on the optimal resectional strategy for both purulent and faecal generalised peritonitis.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR2037

There have been no publications of high methodological quality on laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for patients with perforated colonic diverticulitis. The published papers do, however, show promising results, with high efficacy, low mortality, low morbidity and a minimal need for a colostomy.

Background Although self‐expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short‐term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long‐term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS. Methods Through a national collaborative research project, long‐term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching. Results Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS‐related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three‐year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease‐free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3‐year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease‐free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively. Conclusion Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS‐related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision‐making for individual patients.

BackgroundClinical advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy have been shown in numerous trials and reviews. Most of these advantages are small and of limited clinical relevance, while laparoscopic operation costs are reported to be higher. The present study compares short- and long-term results of conventional appendectomy with or without diagnostic laparoscopy (OA), and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).MethodsAll adult patients who underwent appendectomy in our institution from 1995 to 2005 were included retrospectively. Patient data were retrieved from medical records, questionnaires sent by mail, and records of general practitioners. Primary outcome parameters were long-term complications, readmissions, and reinterventions (>30 days postoperatively). Secondary outcome parameters were short-term complications, readmissions, and reinterventions (≤30 days postoperatively).ResultsA total of 755 patients were included, 545 of whom underwent OA, with the remaining 210 undergoing LA. In the long term there were few complications noted, and there were no significant differences in complications between the two groups. Within 30 days postoperatively, LA was associated with a significantly higher incidence of abdominal abscesses with consequent diagnostic investigations, interventions, and readmissions.ConclusionsAlthough laparoscopic appendectomy is known to deliver clinical advantages, it is associated with a higher incidence of abdominal abscesses. Because the procedure is about to become the standard of care, future research must be directed at solving this issue. The expected lower incidence of incisional hernia and small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic appendectomy was not shown in the present study.

Routine use of the endostapler showed no clinical advantages over the use of endoloops with selective endostapler closure. The latter strategy is preferable because it is more cost effective.