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 / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_832_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
39 Мб
Скачать
280
https://t.me/med1917
L. Raff and T. Reid
7 Laparoscopic Small Bowel Resection andAnastomosis
A small bowel resection and anastomosis can be safely and effectively performed laparoscopically with improved post-operative recovery of activity and diet, shorter length of stay, and better pain control [12, 13]. Compared with laparotomy, the lapa- roscopic approach is also associated with formation of signicantly fewer perito­neal adhesions, as well as decreased morbidity and mortality [14, 15]. Laparoscopic small bowel resection with anastomosis can be performed totally intracorporeally or with a lap-assisted technique by making a mini-laparotomy incision and eviscerat­ing the small bowel to perform an extracorporeal resection and/or anastomosis. First, the abdominal cavity is entered with either a Veress needle or the Hasson technique according to surgeon preference. A minimum of four ports are typically required and one must be a 12 or 15mm port to accommodate the laparoscopic stapling device if an intracorporeal stapling technique is used. Optimal port place­ment varies depending on the expected location (either proximal or distal) of the diseased segment. Ports should be triangulated towards the right lower quadrant for distal small bowel resections and towards the left upper quadrant for proximal small bowel resections [16].
After all ports have been placed and a 30° camera introduced into the abdomen, atraumatic graspers can be used to examine the bowel along its entire length from the ligament of Treitz to the ileocecal valve. Adhesiolysis can be completed using a laparoscopic scissors, hook cautery, or an energy device such as the LigaSure™ or Harmonic Ultrasonic© scalpel. If a lap-assisted approach is used, the selected seg­ment of small bowel is exteriorized through a mini-laparotomy incision. An Alexis wound protector can be inserted to aide in exposure/retraction. Once the bowel has been delivered extracorporeally, resection and anastomosis can be completed using any of the open techniques described above. If an intracorporeal technique is used, the bowel proximal and distal to the planned resection are grasped with atraumatic graspers and elevated within the abdominal cavity. A window is created at the junc­tion of the small bowel wall and the distal mesentery using blunt dissection with a Maryland dissector proximal and distal to the planned resection site. A laparoscopic linear stapling device (e.g. endo-GIA) is then introduced via the large port and is placed through each mesenteric window and red. The mesentery can then be divided using a laparoscopic energy device. The laparoscopic metal clip applier, monopolar or bipolar cautery, and laparoscopic suture devices (e.g. endoloop) can be used to assist in safely dividing the mesenteric vasculature or obtaining addi­tional hemostasis as needed. The resected portion of small bowel is then placed into a laparoscopic specimen bag (e.g. endocatch bag), which can be removed through the large port site incision.
Again, depending on the surgeon’s comfort and skill, after laparoscopic small bowel resection, the anastomosis can be performed either extracorporeally (with a mini-laparotomy) or intracorporeally. For an intracorporeal anastomosis, the anti­mesenteric sides of the proximal and distal stapled sends are aligned and simple interrupted stay sutures are placed proximally and distally. This can be done using either a laparoscopic needle driver and a short braided suture or an endoscopic
Small Bowel Resection andAnastomosis
https://t.me/med1917
suturing device. Small enterotomies are made in each limb adjacent to the stapled ends and the two arms of a linear stapler are gently introduced through the enteroto­mies. The laparoscopic stapler is then closed and red creating the common chan­nel. The common enterotomy is then closed with an additional re of the laparoscopic stapler. The mesenteric defect can be closed with a running suture using a laparo­scopic needle driver or an endoscopic suturing device. Larger port sites should be closed at the fascia with absorbable suture and then at the skin. Smaller port sites can be closed with skin stitches only. Although port placement will be slightly dif­ferent, robotic small bowel resection can be accomplished in a similar manner as described above.
281
8 Post-operative Care
Post-operative ileus is one of the most frequent problems after abdominal surgery [17]. The length of time to return of bowel function is highly variable and depends on multiple patient factors. Close attention should be paid to electrolyte and uid imbalances both intra- and post-operatively; all attempts should be made to prevent hypervolemia and volume overload. A foley catheter can be safely left in place until post-operative day 1 or 2in order to accurately monitor urine output and ensure adequate resuscitation. Nasogastric tubes are often placed intra-operatively but should not be routinely continued after every small bowel resection. Post-operative continuation of nasogastric decompression may be considered in certain clinical situations including but not limited to: the patient is unstable, septic, or at high risk for aspiration; the patient was obstructed preoperatively; the surgery was compli­cated by gross contamination; or the patient is high risk for post-operative ileus. If a nasogastric tube is left in place, it should be connected to low-intermittent wall suction and the quality and quantity of output should be monitored every shift. When the volume of output has decreased to less than 150–200cc per 8h shift and is not bilious, the tube can be removed. Tube clamping trials can also be considered prior to tube removal based on the clinical situation and surgeon preference. Oral intake can be started at the surgeon’s discretion. Traditionally, oral intake was with­held until the patient started passing atus. However, many studies have shown that early initiation of enteral feeding can promote earlier return of bowel function, reduce the overall risk of infection, and decrease hospital length of stay [1821]. Multimodal post-operative analgesia should be administered and narcotics mini­mized as much as possible to reduce opioid-associated delayed gastrointestinal recovery [20]. Early mobility is also strongly encouraged to aide in faster recovery; adequate pain control is important to ensure that patients can be as active as possible [21]. Post-operative antibiotics are not routinely indicated, as prolonged use increases the risk of Clostridium difcile infection and the development of resistant bacteria [4]. The patient can be discharged home when they are tolerating a diet, have had reliable return of bowel function, are ambulating safely and without dif­culty, and have good pain control on oral medications.
282
https://t.me/med1917
L. Raff and T. Reid
References
1. Chen C.The art of bowel anastomosis. Scand J Surg. 2012;101:238–40.
2. Bartlett M, Mauck K, Stephenson C, etal. Perioperative venous thromboembolism prophy­laxis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(12):2775–98.
3. Tanner J, Norrie P, Melen K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;11:1–49.
4. Nelson RL, Gladman E, Barbateskovic M.Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;5:1–262.
5. Yildiz BD.Where are we at with short bowel syndrome and small bowel transplant? World J Transpl. 2012;2(6):95–103.
6. Wilhelm A, Muller SA, Steffen T, Schmied BM, Beutner U, Warschkow R.Patients with ade­nocarcinoma of the small intestine with 9 or more regional lymph nodes retrieved have a higher rate of positive lymph nodes and improved survival. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(2):401–10.
7. Burlew CC, Moore EE, Cuschieri J, Jurkovich GJ, Codner P, Crowell K, Nirula R, Haan J, Rowell SE, Kato CM, MacNew H, Ochsner MG, Harrison PB, Fusco C, Sauaia A, Kaups KL, The WTA Study Group. Sew it up! A western trauma association multi-institutional study of enteric injury management in the postinjury open abdomen. J Trauma. 2011;70:273–7.
8. Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Moore EE, Bif WL, Offner PJ. Single-layer continuous ver­sus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2000;231(6):832–7.
9. Shikata S, Yamagishi H, Taji Y, Shimada T, Noguchi Y. Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2006;6:2.
10. Witzke JD, Kraatz JJ, Morken JM, Ney AL, West MA, Van Camp JM, Zera RT, Rodriguez JL.Stapled versus hand sewn anastomoses in patients with small bowel injury: a changing perspective. J Trauma. 2000;49:660–6.
11. Docherty JG, McGregor JR, Akyol AM, Murray GD, Galloway DJ.Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. West of Scotland and Highland anastomosis study group. Ann Surg. 1995;221:176–84.
12. Milsom JW, Hammerhofer KA, Bohm B, Marcello P, Elson P, Fazio VW.Prospective, random­ized trial comparing laparoscopic vs. conventional surgery for refractory ileocolic Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44(1):1–8.
13. Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Brady KM, Fazio VW.Advantages of laparoscopic resection for ileocolic Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(5):605–10.
14. Arung W, Meurisse M, Detry O.Pathophysiology and prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(41):4545–53.
15. Daly SC, Popoff AM, Fogg L, Francescatti AB, Myers JA, Millikan KW, Deziel DJ, Luu MB.Minimally invasive technique leads to decreased morbidity and mortality in small bowel resections compared to an open technique: an ACS-NSQIP identied target for improvement. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18:1171–5.
16. Varban O.Laparoscopic small bowel resection. In: Mulholland MW, Albo D, editors. Operative techniques in colon and rectal surgery. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015. p.27–40.
17. Venara A, Neunlist M, Slim K, et al. Postoperative ileus: pathophysiology, incidence, and prevention. J Visc Surg. 2016;153:439–46.
18. Lewis SJ, Egger M, Sylvester PA, Thomas S. Early enteral feeding versus “nil by mouth” after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. BMJ. 2001;323:1–5.
Small Bowel Resection andAnastomosis
https://t.me/med1917
19. Andersen HK, Lewis SJ, Thomas S.Early enteral nutrition within 24 h of colorectal surgery versus later commencement of feeding for postoperative complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:1–31.
20. Beard TL, Leslie JB, Nemeth J.The opioid component of delayed gastrointestinal recovery after bowel resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:1259–68.
21. Scott M, Baldini G, Fearon K, etal. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for gastro­intestinal surgery, part 1: pathophysiological considerations. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59:1209–405.
283
Appendectomy
https://t.me/med1917
MichelleM.HollandWahlgren andMohammadZainG.Hashmi
1 Indications
Acute appendicitis remains the primary indication for performing an appendectomy [1]. Additional indications include an interval appendectomy and appendiceal mass resection. Although debate continues, current data suggests that an interval appen­dectomy, rather than immediate surgery, should be considered in patients with phlegmon, abscesses >3cm, or a prolonged duration of symptoms to reduce mor­bidity associated with the inammation that accompanies the aforementioned situ­ations [1].
2 Evaluation
A thorough history and physical is the initial step in diagnosing acute appendicitis. The classic presentation of acute appendicitis includes complaints of vague abdomi­nal pain in the periumbilical region that gradually migrates to the right lower quad­rant (right iliac fossa) and is associated with nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and fever. Additional symptoms may include diarrhea, generalized abdominal cramping, and malaise. Additional gynecologic history is indicated to rule out other differential
Based on the previous edition chapter “Appendectomy” by Jason T Wiseman MD MSPH and Luke M Funk MD MPH.
M. M. HollandWahlgren · M. Z. G. Hashmi (*) Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA e-mail: mmwahlgren@uabmc.edu; mhashmi@uabmc.edu
Switzerland AG 2024 H. Chen, B. Lindeman (eds.), Illustrative Handbook of General Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63878-7_23
285© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
286
https://t.me/med1917
diagnoses of abdominal pain in females such as ovarian pathologies or pelvic inammatory disease.
McBurney’s Point, or the point approximately two-thirds the distance between the umbilicus and the right anterior superior iliac spine, is the classic location for pain related to an acute appendicitis, and pain typically localizes to this region within 24h of initial onset. The patient may also have rebound tenderness and involuntary guarding, which could indicate perforation or abscess formation. Additional clinical signs described include Rovsings sign, obturator sign, and psoas sign, with the latter able to assist clinicians in understanding the location of the inamed appendix and can assist in operative planning. Rovsings sign, described as right lower abdominal pain upon palpation of the left lower abdomen, indicates peritoneal irritation and can further support a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Obturator sign, described as abdominal pain produced through hip exion with internal rotation, can serve as an adjunct to clinical diagnosis and indicates the appendix is likely located adjacent to the obturator internus muscle. Psoas sign, described as pain produced by passive extension of the right thigh while patient is lying on their left side, or pain produced by active exion of the right thigh while the patient is supine, can indicate a retroce­cal appendix. Though possible to diagnose appendicitis on history and clinical exam alone, additional adjuncts in the form of routine laboratory tests and imaging can help solidify the diagnosis and decrease rates of negative appendectomies.
M. M. HollandWahlgren and M. Z. G. Hashmi
3 Laboratories
Routine laboratory tests, including a complete blood count (CBC) and basic meta­bolic panel (BMP) should be obtained. Leukocytosis is the most common labora­tory abnormality and has a sensitivity of >80% in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis; leukocystosis is typically mild and has a classic left shift of neutrophils to greater than 70% [2]. BMP are obtained to assess electrolytes and renal status, which should guide resuscitation in the pre-operative and perioperative period. A pregnancy test should be performed for women of childbearing age to rule out a uterine or ectopic pregnancy, and prior to any administration of general anesthesia.
4 Imaging
If uncertainty remains after careful consideration of history and physical exam nd­ings, imaging is indicated to assist in conrming the diagnosis of acute appendicitis or elucidating an alternative cause for the patients abdominal pain. Various imaging modalities have been implemented as part of the work-up for acute abdominal pain. These modalities, including plain lms, ultrasonography, CT scan, and MRI, have been utilized in the assessment of the acute abdomen with varying degrees of utility and efcacy. With respect to appendicitis, imaging is used with the goal of minimiz­ing the negative appendectomy rate (NAR) and has been repeatedly shown as an
Appendectomy
https://t.me/med1917
effective method of decreasing the NAR [3, 4]. However, careful consideration of the optimization of healthcare resources should be considered when ordering imag­ing studies. Though the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI are comparable (speci­city of 90% and 97%, sensitivity of 94% and 97% respectively), and both modalities are better diagnostically than ultrasound (sensitivity of 90%), they are both more expensive imaging studies as compared to ultrasound, and CT scans subject patients to ionizing radiation [5, 6]. Proposed solutions to the imaging question include a combined US-Alvarado score that utilizes ultrasonography rather than CT scan to reduce radiation exposure, yet the problems associated with sonographer variation and operator dependence of this modality remain [7]. In children, ultrasound is preferable to avoid radiation. In the pregnant population, MRI may be used to con­rm diagnosis and avoid radiation to the fetus and patient.
287
5 Choice ofSurgical Approach
Laparoscopic appendectomy, a minimally invasive approach associated with improved patient outcomes including decreased pain and shortened hospital stay, has replaced the open appendectomy as the standard of care for patients presenting with acute appendicitis [8]. However, open appendectomy is still indicated in spe­cic situations.
6 Laparoscopic Appendectomy
The laparoscopic approach provides optimal visualization of the peritoneal cavity and surrounding structures. It can safely be performed even in cases of ruptured appendicitis and allows for improved visualization of the abdomen in the obese patient population. This approach is associated with decreased morbidity and mor­tality when compared to the open approach [9, 10]. Though the laparoscopic approach is associated with slightly longer operative time and therefore increased OR utilization/expenses, patients tend to have shorter hospital stays, fewer complica­tions, and earlier return to baseline, thus representing better resource optimization.
7 Open Appendectomy
Absolute contraindications are rare, however relative contraindications to laparo­scopic intervention include refractory coagulopathy, inability to tolerate pneumo­peritoneum, or generalized peritonitis with hemodynamic compromise, and can represent situations in which an open approach is indicated [11]. Additionally, lapa­roscopic access may be difcult in the pregnant population, and an open approach may be indicated in these specic situations.
288
https://t.me/med1917
M. M. HollandWahlgren and M. Z. G. Hashmi
8 Non-Operative Management
Initial non-operative management with antibiotics followed by interval appendec­tomy, rather than immediate surgery, can be considered in patients presenting with complicated appendicitis, or patients with phlegmon on CT, intra-abdominal abscesses >3cm, or signs consistent with perforation. In cases of intra-abdominal abscess, percutaneous drainage, initial IV antibiotic administration followed by transition to PO administration, and interval appendectomy is the preferred approach [12]. This is associated with decreased intraoperative complications, but remain a technically challenging operation due to adhesions associated with interval appen­dectomies. With regards to the non-operative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis, several recent trials have purported that antibiotic therapy alone is superior to surgical management. Although debate continues, data from a recent multicentre retrospective cohort (MUSTANG Study) suggest that 91% of patients presenting with appendicitis received an appendectomy (98% laparoscopic approach). Non-operative management with antibiotics alone can also be consid­ered in patients in whom severe medical comorbidities.
9 Preoperative Preparation
Once the diagnosis of appendicitis has been made, patients should be started on IV-antibiotics with gram-negative and anaerobic coverage (Vancomycin and Piperacillin/Tazobactam or Vancomycin/Cefepime/Flagyl are common regimens) and prepared for the operating room by being made NPO, initiating uid resuscita­tion, and continuing IV antibiotic therapy. In order to decrease the risk of rupture, patients should be taken expeditiously to the operating room as the incidence of rupture increases by approximately 5% for each ensuing 12-h period beyond the initial 36h after symptom presentation [13].
10 Positioning andAnesthesia
The patient should be placed in the supine position on the operating table. The patient’s right arm is abducted to facilitate IV-access and the left arm tucked along the patient’s side to allow the surgeon and assistant to stand on the patient’s left side in the laparoscopic approach (Fig.1). In contrast, both arms are abducted to allow the surgeon and the assistant room to stand on either side in an open approach.
General endotracheal anesthesia is typically the modality of anesthesia and is at the discretion of the surgeon and anesthesiologist. Sequential compression devices (SCDs), unfractionated heparin, or low molecular weight heparin should be admin­istered immediately prior to induction as deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis [14].
Appendectomy
https://t.me/med1917
Fig. 1 Patient positioning during a laparoscopic appendectomy. The patient is placed on the operating room table in the supine position with the right arm abducted to facilitate intravenous axis and the left arm tucked against the body to allow room for the surgeon and assistant to stand
289
Antibiotics should be given within 30min of skin incision. A Foley catheter may be placed to monitor uid status and to decompress the bladder, while an orogastric tube (OGT) may be placed to decompress the stomach and minimize the risk of a gastric injury if Veress needle entry is going to be utilized, and also allow for intraabdominal organs to shift away from the abdominal wall a decrease risk of iatrogenic bowel injury.
11 Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Procedure Description
11.1 Abdominal Access
There are numerous ways to gain access into the intraperitoneal cavity, including the Hasson technique and Veress needle entry. Access is performed via surgeon preference, however some surgeons prefer utilizing the Hasson technique in non­obese patients, and utilizing Veress needle entry for obese patients.
Regarding the Hasson technique, a transverse curvilinear incision is made below the umbilicus followed by blunt dissection to the midline fascia and umbilical stalk. The umbilical stalk is then grasped at its base and elevated. An approximately 1-cm vertical incision is made with a scalpel entering the peritoneal cavity taking care not to injure underlying bowel or blood vessels. A nger is placed within this opening to ensure entrance into the intraperitoneal cavity and release any adhesions immedi­ately adjacent to the entry site. A suture is then placed into the fascia to secure the Hasson port and also for eventual closure. A 12mm Hasson trocar is then secured in place.
290
https://t.me/med1917
Fig. 2 Trocar placement for laparoscopic appendectomy. One 12mm trocar is placed below the umbilicus; one 5mm trocar is placed in the left lower quadrant lateral to the rectus muscle; one 5mm trocar is placed in the suprapubic position. One 5mm trocar may be placed in the left upper quadrant if a Veress needle is used for access at this same point (optional). Red arrow marks the head of the patient
M. M. HollandWahlgren and M. Z. G. Hashmi
Regarding the Veress needle entry, access is obtained via placing a Veress needle in the left upper quadrant at Palmers Point (3cm below the left subcostal margin in the midclavicular line) or in the supraumbilical region. Intra-abdominal positioning of the needle can be conrmed by aspiration and a negative saline drop test. Pneumoperitoneum is then established by insufating the abdomen to a pressure of 15mmHg with carbon dioxide. A 5mm port may then be placed into the left upper quadrant or near the umbilicus with laparoscopic vision into the insufated abdomen.
A 30° laparoscopic camera is then introduced and all four quadrants of the abdo­men are visually inspected. If the initial trocar used for access is in the left upper quadrant, an additional trocar is inserted near the umbilicus. This is the primary camera port during the case and also allows for passage of the endo-GIA linear sta­pler via 12mm trocar. Two 5mm trocars are subsequently placed under direct visu­alization: one in the left lower quadrant lateral to the left rectus muscle and the other in the suprapubic position (Fig.2). This is performed with attention not to injure the bladder or inferior epigastric vessels. The patient is then placed in the Trendelenburg position with the right side up to facilitate visualization of the appendix.
11.2 Identication ofAppendix
In order to identify the appendiceal base, the cecum and terminal ileum are mobi­lized away from the retroperitoneum with blunt dissection, scissors, or electrocau­tery allowing improved access to the base of the appendix and mesoappendix