Добавил:
Sekretar
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
336
https://t.me/medicina_free
surrounding the use of peritoneal lavage or leaving intra-abdominal drains. St. Peter
etal. 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 etal. performed a
systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that irrigation with normal
saline during laparoscopic appendectomy does not provide additional benets compared with suction alone [61]. The placement of abdominal drainage after appendectomy is a controversial matter of debate. Allemann etal. 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 andRectum
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 signicantly 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 conrmed, 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
inammation might be appropriate for nonoperative management initially; nevertheless, elderly patient require extra cautions [66–68]. 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 etal. 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 forEmergency General Surgery inElderly
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 classication. 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 etal. proposed laparoscopic lavage for the management of perforated
diverticulitis in 1996 [70]. Several studies were performed in Europe and these
results showed ambivalent results [71–73]. Select patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis might benet from laparoscopy as a bridge to elective colectomy [74].
337
8 MIS forTraumatic 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 signicant 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 [79–81].
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 signicantly 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 benets and disadvantages for the elderly population. Nonetheless, robotic surgery supports the ergonomics of a surgeon and reduces work-related musculoskeletal disorders [84–86]. 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, etal. 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, etal. Use of National Burden
to dene operative emergency general surgery. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:e160480.
3. Subject: Prole 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, etal. 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 forEmergency General Surgery inElderly
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, etal. 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, etal. 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 efcacy 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, etal. 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 2014in the United
States. Pancreas. 2019;48:548–54.
35. Members of the Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group, Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC,
etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 forEmergency General Surgery inElderly
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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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,
etal. “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, etal. 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 ofEmergency Laparoscopy
https://t.me/medicina_free
inSurgical andEndoscopic
Complications
AleixMartínez-Pérez , CarmenPayá-Llorente,
ÁlvaroPérez-Rubio, andNicolade’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 denitions 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 denitive 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 signicant
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 inammation of the tissues and the presence of multiple adhesions, which hampers the proper identication 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 inammation 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 andRisk 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 ofEmergency Laparoscopy inSurgical andEndoscopic 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 5cm and 15cm 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 denitively reconnected after a laparoscopic emergency management is
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025
