Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 674 - файл

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
18 Мб
Скачать
336
https://t.me/medicina_free
surrounding the use of peritoneal lavage or leaving intra-abdominal drains. St. Peter etal. reported that there was no advantage to irrigating the peritoneal cavity over just suction alone [60]; they performed a randomized study for irrigation versus suc­tion only for perforated appendicitis. They did not display any advantage to irriga­tion of the peritoneal cavity over suction alone [60]. Hajibandeh etal. performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that irrigation with normal saline during laparoscopic appendectomy does not provide additional benets com­pared with suction alone [61]. The placement of abdominal drainage after appen­dectomy is a controversial matter of debate. Allemann etal. reported that the routine use of drainage was associated with longer hospital stay and higher complication rate, with a similar abdominal abscess rate [62]. There are also studies showing that leaving a drain can both decrease abscesses and lead to longer length of stay and higher wound infections [53, 63].
K. Okumura et al.
7 Colon andRectum
The minimally invasive approach for colorectal surgery has been well established; however, the evidence of MIS for emergency colorectal surgery is limited [64]. In the emergent setting, laparoscopy is mainly used for a diagnostic approach, depend­ing on the skills of the surgeon. Exploratory laparoscopy has a signicantly lower morbidity and mortality compared with exploratory laparotomy in the emergency setting [65]. Depending on the ndings and surgeons’ skills, selected patients will be able to receive laparoscopic procedures such as repairs, resections, diversions, or ostomy creations.
With an increased number of colonoscopies, the incidence of iatrogenic colon perforation is rare, but surgeons still face the risk of iatrogenic perforation [66, 67]. Once the diagnosis of perforation is conrmed, the decision between surgical and nonoperative treatments will depend on the type of injury, the quality of the bowel perforation, the underlying colonic pathology, and the clinical condition of the patient [66, 67]. The emergent surgery approach is reasonable and safe [67]; how­ever, select patients that experience localized pain, free air without diffuse free u­ids in radiographs, hemodynamic stability, an absence of fever, and no signs of inammation might be appropriate for nonoperative management initially; never­theless, elderly patient require extra cautions [6668]. In the case of failure of endo­scopic treatment or signs of peritonitis, laparoscopic exploration should be considered. Early diagnosis is the key to success for treatment and lowering the risk of complication.
Sigmoid volvulus is also considered a surgical emergency, and endoscopic ther­apy is the rst line of the treatment in the cases without signs of bowel necrosis and perforation. In selective patients, the laparoscopic approach might be considered. Halabi etal. reported that laparoscopic techniques were applied for 3.7% of patients with volvulus and most of them for relatively younger patients with lower comor­bidity scores [69].
Minimally Invasive Surgery forEmergency General Surgery inElderly
https://t.me/medicina_free
Diverticular disease of the colon is a major cause of hospital admission, and acute diverticulitis is one of the common diseases requiring emergent treatment. Most patients with diverticulitis are treated conservatively; however, patients with complicated diverticulitis require surgical treatment, particularly Hinchey grade III and IV classication. While most patients with freely perforated diverticulitis require surgery, the choice of techniques largely depends on the extent of contami­nation. The laparoscopic approach for acute complicated diverticulitis is controver­sial. O’Sullivan etal. proposed laparoscopic lavage for the management of perforated diverticulitis in 1996 [70]. Several studies were performed in Europe and these results showed ambivalent results [7173]. Select patients with Hinchey III diver­ticulitis might benet from laparoscopy as a bridge to elective colectomy [74].
337
8 MIS forTraumatic Intra-abdominal
Surgical Emergencies
Laparoscopic surgery for abdominal trauma, both penetrating and blunt, has been shown to be safe and effective. Similar to for EGS, it is important for patients to be hemodynamically stable prior to undergoing MIS approaches; otherwise, a lapa­rotomy is mandatory. MIS for trauma has been associated with shorter operating time, lower blood loss, faster return to diet, and shorter length of stay with no sig­nicant differences in mortality [6, 75]. In the geriatric population, evidence regard­ing MIS for trauma remains lacking. MIS for a penetrating injury is a good indication to explore the injury [76, 77]. Due to this, the mechanism of the injuries occurring in the geriatric population is mainly blunt trauma [78]. Laparoscopic surgery for both blunt and penetrating trauma in the elderly is also an effective tool for hemo­dynamically stable patients with low conversion rates, reduced morbidity, and decreased lengths of stay [7981].
9 Laparoscopic vs. Robotically Assisted
Emergency Surgery
Minimally invasive surgery has rapidly evolved from the one novel laparoscopic approach to robotic surgery. In the past few decades, robotic systems have gone from systems which were signicantly limited to full-edged platforms featuring 3D vision, articulated instruments, and even the latest wireless connectivity as stan­dard [82]. The use of robotic procedures has recently started to increase in general surgery [83]. General surgeons are getting familiar to using the recent robotic tech­nology. Currently, most robotic procedures are used for the elective setting. Most surgeons in general surgery are using robotic technology for acute appendectomy, hernia repair, and cholecystectomy.
Presently, the utility for robotic technique is limited, especially in the elderly population and in emergent situations. Recent technological progress with robotic devices and platforms for general surgery will lead to use for elderly patients. Since
338
https://t.me/medicina_free
K. Okumura et al.
robotic surgery has shown positive outcomes, further studies are needed to evaluate the benets and disadvantages for the elderly population. Nonetheless, robotic sur­gery supports the ergonomics of a surgeon and reduces work-related musculoskel­etal disorders [8486]. Based on these facts, we expect that robotic platforms will be utilized for any setting including emergent situations.
References
1. Knowlton LM, Minei J, Tennakoon L, Davis KA, Doucet J, Bernard A, etal. The economic footprint of acute care surgery in the United States: implications for systems development. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86:609–16.
2. Scott JW, Olufajo OA, Brat GA, Rose JA, Zogg CK, Haider AH, etal. Use of National Burden to dene operative emergency general surgery. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:e160480.
3. Subject: Prole of Older Americans: 2016 | ACL Administration for Community Living.
https://acl.gov/news- and- events/announcements/subject- profile- older- americans- 2016.
Accessed 13 Jul 2021.
4. Etzioni DA, Liu JH, Maggard MA, Ko CY.The aging population and its impact on the surgery workforce. Ann Surg. 2003;238:170–7.
5. Arnold M, Elhage S, Schiffern L, Lauren Paton B, Ross SW, Matthews BD, et al. Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:2258–65.
6. Trejo-Ávila ME, Valenzuela-Salazar C, Betancourt-Ferreyra J, Fernández-Enríquez E, Romero-Loera S, Moreno-Portillo M. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for abdominal trauma: a case-matched study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:383–7.
7. Pickering O, Pucher PH, De’Ath H, Abuawwad M, Kelly J, Underwood TJ, etal. Minimally invasive approach in Boerhaave’s syndrome: case series and systematic review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2020;31:1254.
8. Aiol A, Micheletto G, Guerrazzi G, Bonitta G, Campanelli G, Bona D.Minimally invasive surgical management of Boerhaave’s syndrome: a narrative literature review. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:4411–7.
9. Elliott JA, Buckley L, Albagir M, Athanasiou A, Murphy TJ.Minimally invasive surgical management of spontaneous esophageal perforation (Boerhaave’s syndrome). Surg Endosc. 2019;33:3494–502.
10. Cameron JL, Kieffer RF, Hendrix TR, Mehigan DG, Baker RR.Selective nonoperative man­agement of contained intrathoracic esophageal disruptions. Ann Thorac Surg. 1979;27:404–8.
11. Gurwara S, Clayton S.Esophageal perforations: an endoscopic approach to management. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2019;21:57.
12. Watkins JR, Farivar AS.Endoluminal therapies for esophageal perforations and leaks. Thorac Surg Clin. 2018;28:541–54.
13. Abbas G, Schuchert MJ, Pettiford BL, Pennathur A, Landreneau J, Landreneau J, et al. Contemporaneous management of esophageal perforation. Surgery. 2009;146:749–56.
14. Lanas A, Chan FKL.Peptic ulcer disease. Lancet. 2017;390:613–24.
15. Wang YR, Richter JE, Dempsey DT.Trends and outcomes of hospitalizations for peptic ulcer disease in the United States, 1993 to 2006. Ann Surg. 2010;251:51–8.
16. Svanes C, Lie RT, Svanes K, Lie SA, Søreide O.Adverse effects of delayed treatment for perforated peptic ulcer. Ann Surg. 1994;220:168–75.
17. Graham R.The treatment of perforated duodenal ulcers. Surg Gyneco Obste. 1937;64:235–8.
18. Quah GS, Eslick GD, Cox MR.Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease has better outcomes than open repair. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:618–25.
19. Lagoo S, McMahon RL, Kakihara M, Pappas TN, Eubanks S.The sixth decision regarding perforated duodenal ulcer. JSLS. 2002;6:359–68.
Minimally Invasive Surgery forEmergency General Surgery inElderly
https://t.me/medicina_free
20. Miserez M, Eypasch E, Spangenberger W, Lefering R, Troidl H.Laparoscopic and conven­tional closure of perforated peptic ulcer. A comparison Surg Endosc. 1996;10:831–6.
21. Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJ, etal. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg. 1996;224:131–8.
22. Søreide K, Thorsen K, Søreide JA.Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2014;101:e51–64.
23. Bertleff MJOE, Lange JF.Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: rst choice? A review of literature. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1231–9.
24. Druart ML, Van Hee R, Etienne J, etal. Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer. A prospective multicenter clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 1997;11:1017–20.
25. Katkhouda N, Mavor E, Mason RJ, Campos GM, Soroushyari A, Berne TV. Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: outcome and efcacy in 30 consecutive patients. Arch Surg. 1999;134:845–8; discussion 849–850.
26. Ng S-S-M. Role and outcome of conventional surgery in the treatment of pyogenic liver abscess in the modern era of minimally invasive therapy. WJG. 2008;14:747.
27. Mezhir JJ, Fong Y, Jacks LM, Getrajdman GI, Brody LA, Covey AM, et al. Current Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscess: surgery is now second-line treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:975–83.
28. Tan L, Zhou HJ, Hartman M, Ganpathi IS, Madhavan K, Chang S.Laparoscopic drainage of cryptogenic liver abscess. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3308–14.
29. Gutt CN, Encke J, Köninger J, etal. Acute cholecystitis: early versus delayed cholecystectomy, a multicenter randomized trial (ACDC study, NCT00447304). Ann Surg. 2013;258:385–93.
30. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA.Meta-analysis of laparo­scopic vs open cholecystectomy in elderly patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:17626–34.
31. Loozen CS, van Ramshorst B, van Santvoort HC, Boerma D.Early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in the elderly population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg. 2017;34:371–9.
32. Joliat G-R, Longchamp G, Du Pasquier C, Denys A, Demartines N, Melloul E.Delayed cho­lecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in elderly patients treated primarily with antibiotics or percutaneous drainage of the gallbladder. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2018;28:1094–9.
33. Krishna SG, Kamboj AK, Hart PA, Hinton A, Conwell DL.The changing epidemiology of acute pancreatitis hospitalizations: a decade of trends and the impact of chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2017;46:482–8.
34. Gapp J, Hall AG, Walters RW, Jahann D, Kassim T, Reddymasu S.Trends and outcomes of hospitalizations related to acute pancreatitis: epidemiology from 2001 to 2014in the United States. Pancreas. 2019;48:548–54.
35. Members of the Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group, Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, etal. Minimally invasive “step-up approach” versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN13975868]. BMC Surg. 2006;6:6.
36. Banks PA, Freeman ML.The practice parameters Committee of the American College of gastro­enterology. Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2379–400.
37. Nieuwenhuijs VB, Besselink MGH, van Minnen LP, Gooszen HG. Surgical management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a 13-year experience and a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2003;38:111–6.
38. van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, etal. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1491–502.
39. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2013;13:e1–e15.
40. Magidson PD, Martinez JP. Abdominal pain in the geriatric patient. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2016;34:559–74.
339
340
https://t.me/medicina_free
41. Behman R, Nathens AB, Mason S, Byrne JP, Hong NL, Pechlivanoglou P, etal. Association of Surgical Intervention for adhesive small-bowel obstruction with the risk of recurrence. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:413.
42. Sakari T, Christersson M, Karlbom U.Mechanisms of adhesive small bowel obstruction and outcome of surgery; a population-based study. BMC Surg. 2020;20:62.
43. Ha GW, Lee MR, Kim JH.Adhesive small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2016;212:527–36.
44. Compagna R, Rossi R, Fappiano F, Bianco T, Accurso A, Danzi M, etal. Emergency groin hernia repair: implications in elderly. BMC Surg. 2013;13:S29.
45. List of Elderly Risk Assessment and Surgical Outcome (ERASO) Collaborative Study Group endorsed by SICUT, ACOI, SICG, SICE, and Italian Chapter of WSES, Ceresoli M, Carissimi F, Nigro A, Fransvea P, etal. Emergency hernia repair in the elderly: multivariate analysis of morbidity and mortality from an Italian registry. Hernia. 2020;26(1):165–75. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10029- 020- 02269- 5.
46. Pei KY, Asuzu D, Davis KA.Will laparoscopic lysis of adhesions become the standard of care? Evaluating trends and outcomes in laparoscopic management of small-bowel obstruction using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:2180–6.
47. Argudo N, Pereira JA, Sancho JJ, Membrilla E, Pons MJ, Grande L.Prophylactic synthetic mesh can be safely used to close emergency laparotomies, even in peritonitis. Surgery. 2014;156:1238–44.
48. Sakamoto T, Fujiogi M, Ishimaru M, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H.Comparison of post­operative infection after emergency inguinal hernia surgery with enterectomy between mesh repair and non-mesh repair: a national database analysis. Hernia. 2021;26:217. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10029- 021- 02439- z.
49. Nissen NN, Menon V, Bresee C, Tran TT, Annamalai A, Poordad F, etal. Recurrent hepa­tocellular carcinoma after liver transplant: identifying the high-risk patient. HPB (Oxford). 2011;13:626–32.
50. Slater NJ, van der Kolk M, Hendriks T, van Goor H, Bleichrodt RP.Biologic grafts for ventral hernia repair: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2013;205:220–30.
51. Lati R, Samson D, Haider A, Azim A, Iftikhar H, Joseph B, etal. Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: a case series of 140 patients. Int J Surg. 2017;43:26–32.
52. Gogna S, Lati R, Policastro A, Prabhakaran K, Anderson P, Con J, etal. Complex abdomi­nal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh in elderly: a propensity matched analysis. Hernia. 2020;24:495–502.
53. Fugazzola P, Ceresoli M, Agnoletti V, etal. The SIFIPAC/WSES/SICG/SIMEU guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in the elderly (2019 edition). World J Emerg Surg 2020;15:19.
54. Jaschinski T, Mosch CG, Eikermann M, Neugebauer EA, Sauerland S.Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;11:CD001546.
55. Jaschinski T, Mosch C, Eikermann M, Neugebauer EA.Laparoscopic versus open appendec­tomy in patients with suspected appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of ran­domised controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015;15:48.
56. Sporn E, Petroski GF, Mancini GJ, Astudillo JA, Miedema BW, Thaler K. Laparoscopic appendectomy—is it worth the cost? Trend analysis in the US from 2000 to 2005. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:179–185.e2.
57. Brügger L, Rosella L, Candinas D, Güller U.Improving outcomes after laparoscopic appendec­tomy: a population-based, 12-year trend analysis of 7446 patients. Ann Surg. 2011;253:309–13.
58. Ball CG, Kortbeek JB, Kirkpatrick AW, Mitchell P.Laparoscopic appendectomy for compli­cated appendicitis: an evaluation of postoperative factors. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:969–73.
59. Masoomi H, Mills S, Dolich MO, Ketana N, Carmichael JC, Nguyen NT, etal. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2006-2008. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:2226–31.
K. Okumura et al.
Minimally Invasive Surgery forEmergency General Surgery inElderly
https://t.me/medicina_free
60. St Peter SD, Adibe OO, Iqbal CW, et al. Irrigation versus suction alone during laparo­scopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256:581–5.
61. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Kelly A, Shah J, Khan RMA, Panda N, etal. Irrigation versus suction alone in laparoscopic appendectomy: is dilution the solution to pollution? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Innov. 2018;25:174–82.
62. Allemann P, Probst H, Demartines N, Schäfer M.Prevention of infectious complications after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis—the role of routine abdominal drainage. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2011;396:63–8.
63. Lin H-F, Lai H-S, Lai I-R. Laparoscopic treatment of perforated appendicitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:14338–47.
64. Chand M. Systematic review of emergent laparoscopic colorectal surgery for benign and malignant disease. WJG. 2014;20:16956.
65. O’Malley E, Boyle E, O’Callaghan A, Coffey JC, Walsh SR.Role of laparoscopy in penetrat­ing abdominal trauma: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2013;37:113–22.
66. de’Angelis N, Di Saverio S, Chiara O, etal. WSES guidelines for the management of iatro­genic colonoscopy perforation. World J Emerg Surg. 2017;2018(13):5.
67. Panteris V, Haringsma J, Kuipers E.Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2009;41:941–51.
68. Fatima H, Rex DK. Minimizing endoscopic complications: colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2007;17:145–56.
69. Halabi WJ, Jafari MD, Kang CY, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, etal. Colonic volvulus in the United States: trends, outcomes, and predictors of mortality. Ann Surg. 2014;259:293–301.
70. O’Sullivan GC, Murphy D, O’Brien MG, Ireland A.Laparoscopic management of generalized peritonitis due to perforated colonic diverticula. Am J Surg. 1996;171:432–4.
71. Vennix S, Musters GD, Mulder IM, etal. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2015;386:1269–77.
72. Angenete E, Thornell A, Burcharth J, etal. Laparoscopic lavage is feasible and safe for the treatment of perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: the rst results from the ran­domized controlled trial DILALA.Ann Surg. 2016;263:117–22.
73. Schultz JK, Yaqub S, Wallon C, Blecic L, Forsmo HM, Folkesson J, etal. Laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis: the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1364.
74. Bif WL, Moore FA, Moore EE.What is the current role of laparoscopic lavage in perforated diverticulitis? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;82:810–3.
75. Gao Y, Li S, Xi H, etal. Laparoscopy versus conventional laparotomy in the management of abdominal trauma: a multi-institutional matched-pair study. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:2237–42.
76. Koto MZ, Matsevych OY, Mosai F, Patel S, Aldous C, Balabyeki M.Laparoscopy for blunt abdominal trauma: a challenging endeavor. Scand J Surg. 2019;108:273–9.
77. Menegozzo CAM, Damous SHB, Alves PHF, Rocha MC, Collet E, Silva FS, Baraviera T, etal. “Pop in a scope”: attempt to decrease the rate of unnecessary nontherapeutic laparoto­mies in hemodynamically stable patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating injuries. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:261–7.
78. Gioffrè-Florio M.Trauma in elderly patients: a study of prevalence, comorbidities and gender differences. GHIR. 2018;39:35.
79. Huscher CGS, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G, Brachini G, Ponzano C, Di Paola M, etal. Laparoscopic treatment of blunt splenic injuries: initial experience with 11 patients. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1423–6.
80. Bain K, Meytes V, Chang GC, Timoney MF.Laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma is a safe and effective alternative to laparotomy. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:1618–25.
81. Uranues S, Popa DE, Diaconescu B, Schrittwieser R.Laparoscopy in penetrating abdominal trauma. World J Surg. 2015;39:1381–8.
341
342
https://t.me/medicina_free
82. Rojas A, Gachabayov M, Abouezzi Z, Bergamaschi R, Lati R.Current robotic platforms in surgery and the road ahead. Surg Technol Int. 2021;38:39–46.
83. Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg. 2016;40:2550–7.
84. Catanzarite T, Tan-Kim J, Whitcomb EL, Menefee S.Ergonomics in surgery: a review. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24:1–12.
85. Andol C, Umanskiy K.Current trends and perspectives in robotic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2019;29:127–8.
86. Ruhle BC, Ferguson Bryan A, Grogan RH.Robot-assisted endocrine surgery: indications and drawbacks. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2019;29:129–35.
K. Okumura et al.
Role ofEmergency Laparoscopy
https://t.me/medicina_free
inSurgical andEndoscopic Complications
AleixMartínez-Pérez , CarmenPayá-Llorente, ÁlvaroPérez-Rubio, andNicolade’Angelis
1 Introduction
Post-procedural complications are inherently linked with any surgical or endoscopic procedure. The reported incidence rates are highly varying and depend mostly on the type of the index intervention and the denitions adopted for each complication [1]. Postoperative adverse events increase in-hospital costs up to ve times when compared with similar operations without complications [2]. Explorative laparos­copy is an alternative to conventional laparotomy for patients with suspected early abdominal complications. It can be especially useful when the physical examination and the radiologic tests are inconclusive. A primary or a repeated laparoscopic pro­cedure can be both used to obtain a prompt and denitive diagnosis and to treat most of these complications, especially when control of a septic focus is needed [3, 4]. Compared with the performance of a standard laparotomy, the use of laparoscopy in the emergency setting reduces the postoperative pain, time to recovery, wound infections, ileus, and incisional hernia rates while also improving cosmesis [4]. A
A. Martínez-Pérez (*) Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain
Faculty of Health Sciences, Valencian International University (VIU), Valencia, Spain C. Payá-Llorente · Á. Pérez-Rubio
Department of General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain
N. de’Angelis Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital, AP-HP, University of Paris Cité, Clichy, France
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Coccolini et al. (eds.), Mini-invasive Approach in Acute Care Surgery, Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery and Trauma,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39001-2_25
343
344
https://t.me/medicina_free
mini-invasive approach also has less operative trauma and a lower systemic stress response [5]. Even if the prior approach was open, performing a second-look evalu­ation using laparoscopy has demonstrated to be safe and effective [6].
However, up to 25% of the re-laparoscopies are negative [7]; so a signicant number of patients are subjected to an unnecessary surgical risk. Certain situations should preclude surgeons from creating a pneumoperitoneum, such as the presence of hemodynamic instability or severe respiratory failure [8]. Moreover, other condi­tions hinder the application of minimally invasive therapies but are not considered absolute contraindications. They are (1) severe bowel dilatation, (2) multiple and rm adhesions (the “frozen abdomen”), (3) diffuse peritonitis, (4) massive hemor­rhage, and (5) extensive mesenteric ischemia [9]. The risk of iatrogenic injury to abdominal organs is the major drawback of emergency laparoscopy. This is facili­tated by the intense inammation of the tissues and the presence of multiple adhe­sions, which hampers the proper identication of the anatomical structures.
Laparoscopic reinterventions are most frequently undertaken to manage early postoperative complications after colorectal surgical procedures like anastomotic leak, bowel obstruction, or bleeding [4]. Postoperative hemorrhage following abdominal surgery is a potentially life-threatening complication. The use of laparos­copy is a reasonable option in stable patients, but in hemodynamically unstable patients, a laparotomy would be mandatory. When a bleeding source is not found laparoscopically, a prompt conversion to an open approach minimizes the risk for future adverse events. To localize the origin of the hemorrhage can be hazardous if dense clots or severe inammation are present, but success rates are promising if the surgery is carried on by expert teams [10].
A mechanical bowel obstruction is an infrequent condition in the early postop­erative period following laparoscopic surgery. Trocar site hernias are the most com­mon cause [11]. They can be managed through the trocar site, by a re-laparoscopy, or by laparotomy. Diagnostic laparoscopy allows evaluation of the intestine in cases with suspected Richter’s hernia, avoiding the need of a laparotomy [12]. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis after an open procedure could be an option for surgeons, but few series have been reported [4]. This approach is not recommended in cases with massive abdominal distension or in those presenting with signs of peritonitis [13].
A. Martínez-Pérez et al.
2 Complications After Colorectal Surgery
2.1 Incidence andRisk Factors
Colorectal resections are associated with high postoperative complication rates; they can be detected in up to 50% of the patients [14]. The most important within them are anastomotic leak (AL), surgical site infection, bleeding, hollow viscus perforation, intestinal obstruction, ischemia, and urologic injuries [15]. AL is the main cause of reoperation following colorectal surgery; its incidence ranges within 3–30% depending on the series [16]. In 2010, the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer graded AL in a three-tiered system based on the aggressiveness of the
Role ofEmergency Laparoscopy inSurgical andEndoscopic Complications
https://t.me/medicina_free
treatment needed: (a) AL requiring no active therapeutic intervention, (b) AL requir­ing active therapeutic intervention but manageable without a relaparotomy, and (c) AL requiring a re-laparotomy [17]. Years ago, nearly all ALs were treated through a laparotomy. However, surgeons have been continuously improving their laparo­scopic skills, and the indications to operate on colorectal postoperative complica­tions using a laparoscopic approach have increased.
345
2.2 Anastomotic Leaks
Depending on the type of procedure and the anastomosis initially performed, differ­ent mini-invasive surgical operations could be performed when AL is suspected or detected. For ileocolic AL, the laparoscopic approach is rarely used, since these cases are usually accompanied by severe septic conditions. However, in small leaks without extensive contamination, an explorative laparoscopy, anastomosis repair, and proper lavage and drainage of the abdominal cavity could be an affordable option. If a wide anastomotic defect is found, redoing the anastomosis would be mandatory. A diverting ileostomy can be also performed depending on the patient’s characteristics and the clinical status. Colorectal AL presenting with a wide defect causing diffuse peritonitis and/or colonic ischemia usually requires the resection of the anastomosis and the performance of a terminal colostomy (i.e., a Hartmann’s procedure). This should be accompanied by a profuse lavage and drainage of the cavity. However, in smaller defects, surgeons should make the choice between x­ing or redoing the anastomoses. In the latest years, with the rise of trans-anal mini­mally invasive surgery (TAMIS), a new tool has emerged to evaluate and to repair colorectal AL located between 5cm and 15cm from the anal verge. The procedure would consist of the debridement of the leak edges and then re-suturing through the TAMIS access. The technique has shown to be safe and effective, especially if it is undertaken during the rst ve postoperative days [18]. A coloanal anastomosis can be similarly repaired under direct visualization or using a conventional anoscope [6]. If not performed at the rst operation, a diverting ileostomy can be helpful to shorten the time to resume the oral intake.
2.3 Other Complications
Different teams have demonstrated that a laparoscopic approach can be useful to treat other complications like (a) bowel injuries with a primary repair; (b) complete ureteric transections by end-to-end anastomosis; (c) bowel obstructions by either lysis of adhesions or reducing internal hernias; and (d) hemostasis by coagulation, endo-loop application, clipping, suturing, or using hemostatic agents [19].
In these particular situations, the use of laparoscopy provides a faster resumption of oral intake and an earlier stoma function [20]. Its use may also shorten the inten­sive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays [21]. Moreover, the number of stomas that can be denitively reconnected after a laparoscopic emergency management is