Consecutive series of laparoscopic-assisted vs. minilaparotomy restorative proctocolectomies.

PURPOSE

Compared with open restorative proctocolectomy, laparoscopic procedures may reduce postoperative recovery times and give a more cosmetically acceptable scar, but operative time may be prolonged. We describe a minilaparotomy technique for restorative proctocolectomy and compare recovery parameters with a laparoscopic procedure.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted restorative proctocolectomy were compared with a subsequent consecutive series of patients undergoing a minilaparotomy procedure. This method incorporates a suprapubic incision. Mobilization of the colon is performed in the usual manner with visualization of less accessible areas made possible by using an illuminated St. Mark's retractor. Operative and recovery parameters were analyzed for each group retrospectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were compared (12 in the laparoscopic group). Wound length was significantly longer in the open group (median, 14 vs. 8.5 cm; P < 0.01), but operative times were shorter (median, 120 vs. 150 minutes; P < 0.01). There were no differences in any of the recovery parameters analyzed, including analgesic requirements, time to ileostomy function, first fluid intake, time to solid diet, length of hospital stay, and complications.

CONCLUSION

The only advantage of a laparoscopic-assisted procedure over a minilaparotomy technique was the size of the wound. The minilaparotomy restorative proctocolectomy achieves the same postoperative recovery parameters and has a shorter operative time. This technique is recommended for surgeons less experienced in laparoscopy.