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 / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_832_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
280
https://t.me/med1917
L. Raff and T. Reid
7 Laparoscopic Small Bowel Resection andAnastomosis
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 signicantly 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 15mm 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 andAnastomosis
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 2in 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 150–200cc per 8h 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 [18–21].
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 difcile 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 difculty, 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, etal. 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 identied 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 andAnastomosis
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, etal. 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
MichelleM.HollandWahlgren andMohammadZainG.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 >3cm, or a prolonged duration of symptoms to reduce morbidity associated with the inammation 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. HollandWahlgren · 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
inammatory 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
24h 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 inamed 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. HollandWahlgren 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 conrming 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 efcacy. 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 (specicity 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 conrm diagnosis and avoid radiation to the fetus and patient.
287
5 Choice ofSurgical 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 specic 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 difcult in the pregnant population, and an open approach
may be indicated in these specic situations.

288
https://t.me/med1917
M. M. HollandWahlgren 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 >3cm, 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 36h after symptom presentation [13].
10 Positioning andAnesthesia
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 30min 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 12mm Hasson trocar is then secured
in place.

290
https://t.me/med1917
Fig. 2 Trocar placement for laparoscopic appendectomy. One 12mm trocar is placed below the
umbilicus; one 5mm trocar is placed in the left lower quadrant lateral to the rectus muscle; one
5mm trocar is placed in the suprapubic position. One 5mm 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. HollandWahlgren 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 (3cm below the left subcostal margin in
the midclavicular line) or in the supraumbilical region. Intra-abdominal positioning
of the needle can be conrmed by aspiration and a negative saline drop test.
Pneumoperitoneum is then established by insufating the abdomen to a pressure of
15mmHg with carbon dioxide. A 5mm port may then be placed into the left upper
quadrant or near the umbilicus with laparoscopic vision into the insufated 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 12mm trocar. Two 5mm 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 Identication ofAppendix
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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
