Comparison of Laparoscopically Assisted and Conventional Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's Disease

Abstract

Laparoscopically assisted ileocolic resection for Crohn' s disease is safe and has less morbidity than conventional laparotomy.

Short-Term Outcomes after Laparoscopic Ileocolic Resection for Crohn’s Disease

“…The type of synchronous procedures varied widely of which the most frequently reported were stricturoplasty, closure of ileosigmoidal, enterocutaneous or ileovesical fistulae, SSB resection, sigmoid wedge resection, resection of Meckel’s diverticulum, and salpingo-oophorectomy. In 1 of the included studies[ 8], patients with synchronous procedures were excluded, whereas in 6 other included studies[ 12, 13, 17, 28, 31, 32], there was no report of synchronous procedures. In 8 of the included studies for this systematic review, patients undergoing re-resection for recurrent preanastomotic Crohn’s disease (after prior ileocolic resection) were excluded[2,3,4, 9, 15, 17, 22, 28], while in 2 studies patients with recurrent disease, besides a majority of patients undergoing primary ileocolic resection, were also included [8, 13].…”

“…In 8 of the included studies for this systematic review, patients undergoing re-resection for recurrent preanastomotic Crohn’s disease (after prior ileocolic resection) were excluded[2,3,4, 9, 15, 17, 22, 28], while in 2 studies patients with recurrent disease, besides a majority of patients undergoing primary ileocolic resection, were also included [8, 13]. In 4 of the included studies, it was unclear if patients with recurrent disease, besides patients undergoing primary ileocolic resection, were also included[ 12, 23, 31, 32]. In 2 of the included studies the patient population consisted primarily of adolescent and pediatric patients[ 17, 31].…”

“…Fourteen studies published between 1995 and 2006 met the inclusion criteria [2,3,4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32]. There were 2 RCTs[ 8, 9] and 12 non-RCTs (including 2 case-matched studies) [2,3,4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32]. Quality assessment of all included studies is shown in table 1.…”

“…Of 27 publications that were considered potentially relevant[2,3,4, 8, 9,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33], 13 were subsequently excluded due to the reasons given in figure 1[14,18,19,20,21,24,25,26,27, 29, 30, 33]. Fourteen studies published between 1995 and 2006 met the inclusion criteria [2,3,4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32]. There were 2 RCTs[ 8, 9] and 12 non-RCTs (including 2 case-matched studies) [2,3,4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32].…”

“…In 3 of the non-RCTs the control group was historical [3, 22, 23]. Three of the non-RCTs did not apply analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle [12, 13, 23]. Although most of the non-RCTs reported inclusion of a consecutive series of patients, which reduces the possibility of selection bias, patients in both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics in only 2 of these studies [3, 15].…”