Systematic review of the feasibility of laparoscopic reoperation for early postoperative complications following colorectal surgery. BJS 2017; 104: 337-346.
Published: 15th February 2017
Authors: D. B. Wright, C. E. Koh, M. J. Solomon
Returning to the operating theatre for management of early postoperative complications after colorectal surgery is an important key performance indicator. Laparoscopic surgery has benefits that may be useful in surgical emergencies. This study explored the evidence for the advantages of laparoscopic reoperation.
A systematic review was performed to identify publications reporting the outcomes of laparoscopy as a mode of reoperation for the management of early postoperative complications of colorectal surgery. The main outcomes examined were 30‐day mortality, 30‐day morbidity, length of hospital stay, second reoperation rate,
After screening 3657 citations, ten non‐randomized cohort studies were identified (1137 reoperations). Laparoscopic reoperation was equivalent to or better than open reoperation, with lower rates of 30‐day mortality (0–4·4
Laparoscopic reoperation is feasible in selected patients, with the advantages of improved short‐term outcomes.Read more
You may also be interested in
Authors: M.E. Kelly, R. Glynn, A.G.J. Aalbers, M. Abraham‐Nordling, W. Alberda, A. Antoniou et al.
Notes: Complete resection is key
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of intracutaneously versus transcutaneously sutured ileostomy to prevent stoma‐related complications (ISI trial).
Authors: M. F. Sier, D. D. Wisselink, D. T. Ubbink, R. J. Oostenbroek, G. J. Veldink, B. Lamme et al.
Notes: More leaks with intracutaneous
Authors: S. J. Chapman, A. Pericleous, C. Downey, D. G. Jayne
Notes: No easy answers.
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: E. M. de Leede, N. J. van Leersum, H. M. Kroon, V. van Weel, J. R. M. van der Sijp, B. A. Bonsing et al.
Notes: Chewing gum no effect on recovery
Authors: E. J. Ryan, E. M. Creagh
Effect of Akt activation and experimental pharmacological inhibition on responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e192-e203.
Authors: F. C. Koyama, C. M. Lopes Ramos, F. Ledesma, V. A. F. Alves, J. M. Fernandes, B. B. Vailati et al.
Notes: Molecular enhancement of treatment
Clinicopathological, genomic and immunological factors in colorectal cancer prognosis. BJS 2018; 105: e99-e109.
Authors: K. M. Marks, N. P. West, E. Morris, P. Quirke
Notes: Defines modern practice
Gut microbiome influences on anastomotic leak and recurrence rates following colorectal cancer surgery. BJS 2018; 105: e131-e141.
Authors: S. Gaines, C. Shao, N. Hyman, J. C. Alverdy
Notes: A neglected frontier
Circulating tumour cells and DNA as liquid biopsies in gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e110-e120.
Authors: O. Nordgård, K. Tjensvoll, B. Gilje, K. Søreide
Notes: The inner space frontier
Histopathological and molecular classification of colorectal cancer and corresponding peritoneal metastases. BJS 2018; 105: e204-e211.
Authors: I. Ubink, W. J. van Eden, P. Snaebjornsson, N. F. M. Kok, J. van Kuik, W. M. U. van Grevenstein et al.
Notes: Mesenchymal subtype predominates
Growth rates of pulmonary metastases after liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2018; 105: 295-301.
Authors: H. Grut, S. Solberg, T. Seierstad, M. E. Revheim, T. S. Egge, S. G. Larsen et al.
Notes: Immunosuppression may not accelerate growth
Preliminary results of a cohort study of induction chemotherapy‐based treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 447-452.
Authors: D. M. G. I. van Zoggel, S. J. Bosman, M. Kusters, G. A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen, J. S. Cnossen, G. J. Creemers et al.
Notes: Promising responses