Comparison of Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Using Tissue Fusion Devices and Open Resection for Treatment of Rectosigmoid Carcinoma

Abstract

Modern tissue fusion devices used in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), a method of combining endoscopic surgery with tactile sensation, can minimize surgical trauma and hospitalization times beyond both conventional laparoscopy and open surgery. The outcomes of HALS using tissue fusion devices and conventional open surgery for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma were compared. A total of 78 (45 males, 33 females; mean age, 57.2±11.7 y) rectosigmoid carcinoma patients underwent HALS surgery (HALS group) and 78 age-matched, sex-matched, and tumor status-matched rectosigmoid carcinoma patients (control group) underwent open resection between June 2008 and June 2010. In the HALS and control groups, abdominal incision length, intraoperative blood loss, procedure time, postoperative abdominal drainage, time to first flatus (bowel function return), length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and pathology were assessed. Procedure times were similar in both groups (142.37±42.09 vs. 137.56±36.24 min). However, length of abdominal incision (5.14±0.47 vs. 13.17±2.41 cm), intraoperative blood loss (125.96±75.58 vs. 142.56±65.37 mL), need for postoperative analgesia, bowel function return (68.01±22.64 vs. 79.77±19.94 h), and postoperative hospital stay (6.47±1.73 vs. 7.73±1.71 d) were all significantly improved in the HALS group. At a median follow-up of 26 months, no significant differences in anastomotic recurrence were observed between groups (1 case/each group). Thus, the HALS approach for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma was found to be similarly safe and effective compared with open resection. Furthermore, HALS may improve postoperative recovery and reduce hospitalization times.

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

“…The scores of methodological quality assessment of the enrolled retrospective studies were shown in Table 2 and the scores of randomized controlled trial were shown in Table 3 . Of those 15 articles, 11 retrospective studies [ 23 – 28 , 31 – 34 , 37 ] had fair quality (8–14 scores). Three randomized controlled trial [ 30 , 35 , 36 ] had low quality (all were 2 scores).…”