Senagore Anthony J, Duepree Hans J, Delaney Conor P, Brady Karen M, Fazio Victor W
Department of Colorectal Surgery and the Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Apr;46(4):503-9. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-6590-5.
Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy has been accepted slowly despite potential advantages because of the perceptions of a steep learning curve and increased operative times and costs. The purpose of this article is to review the outcome of a standardization of all the intraoperative and postoperative processes used in our department for the performance of laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy.
A consecutive series of patients requiring laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy from March 1999 through December 2001 at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, was analyzed. Patients requiring sigmoid or rectosigmoid resection for all colonic pathologies were included. Criteria for exclusion from an attempted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy were body mass index >35 and prior major abdominal surgeries (exclusive of hysterectomy, cholecystectomy, or appendectomy). Data collected included age, gender, indication for surgery, American Society of Anesthesiology class, body mass index, operative duration, length of hospital stay, complications, mortality, and 30-day readmission. The operative steps for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy were as follows: 1) open insertion of the umbilical port; 2) placement of three operating ports; 3) dissection/division of the vascular pedicle after identification of the left ureter; 4) mobilization of the sigmoid and descending colon; 5) rectal mobilization/division; 6) exteriorization of the specimen; and 7) circular stapled anastomosis. Instrumentation for the procedure was standardized. Conversion was performed when a sequential step could not be completed in a reasonable time frame. A standard perioperative care plan was used.
From March 1999 through December 2001, the primary surgeon performed 207 sigmoid colectomies, including 181 (87.4 percent) attempted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomies and 22 (12.1 percent) conversions. Indications for the laparoscopic sigmoid colectomies were diverticular disease (115), colonic neoplasia (32), prolapse (14), endometriosis (10), and other (10). The male/female ratio was 85:96, and the mean body mass index was 27.3 +/- 5.6. Mean operative time was 119 +/- 35 minutes. Mean length of stay was 2.9 +/- 1.2 days for completed cases and 6.4 +/- 1.4 days for converted cases. Anastomotic leaks occurred in two patients (1.1 percent), one of whom died of multisystem organ failure, yielding an operative mortality of 0.6 percent. The overall complication rate was 6.6 percent, and the 30-day readmission rate was 8 percent.
The results indicate that a structured approach to laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy provides the surgeon with objective measures of operative progress that limit unduly long operations without increasing conversion rates and that control resource utilization. This approach provides a potential guideline for teaching and mastering laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy, reducing the learning curve, and optimizing results.
尽管腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术具有潜在优势,但由于人们认为其学习曲线陡峭、手术时间延长以及成本增加,该手术的接受度一直较为缓慢。本文旨在回顾我们科室用于实施腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术的所有术中及术后流程标准化的结果。
对1999年3月至2001年12月在俄亥俄州克利夫兰市克利夫兰诊所基金会接受腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术的一系列连续患者进行分析。纳入所有因结肠病变需要进行乙状结肠或直肠乙状结肠切除术的患者。排除尝试进行腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术的标准为体重指数>35以及既往有重大腹部手术史(不包括子宫切除术、胆囊切除术或阑尾切除术)。收集的数据包括年龄、性别、手术指征、美国麻醉医师协会分级、体重指数、手术时长、住院时间、并发症、死亡率以及30天再入院率。腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术的手术步骤如下:1)脐部端口开放插入;2)放置三个操作端口;3)在识别左输尿管后解剖/切断血管蒂;4)游离乙状结肠和降结肠;5)游离直肠/切断;6)标本外置;7)圆形吻合器吻合。该手术的器械使用标准化。当某个连续步骤无法在合理时间内完成时则进行中转。采用标准的围手术期护理计划。
1999年3月至2001年12月,主刀医生共进行了207例乙状结肠切除术,其中181例(87.4%)尝试进行腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术,22例(12.1%)中转。腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术的指征包括憩室病(115例)、结肠肿瘤(32例)、脱垂(14例)、子宫内膜异位症(10例)以及其他(10例)。男女比例为85:96,平均体重指数为27.3±5.6。平均手术时间为119±35分钟。完成手术病例的平均住院时间为2.9±1.2天,中转病例为6.4±1.4天。两名患者(1.1%)发生吻合口漏,其中一人死于多系统器官衰竭,手术死亡率为0.6%。总体并发症发生率为6.6%,30天再入院率为8%。
结果表明,采用结构化方法进行腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术为外科医生提供了手术进展的客观指标,可限制手术时间过长而不增加中转率,并控制资源利用。这种方法为教学和掌握腹腔镜乙状结肠切除术提供了潜在的指导方针,可缩短学习曲线并优化结果。