Surgical Endoscopy

, 23:477 | Cite as

“Peek port”: a novel approach for avoiding conversion in laparoscopic colectomy

  • Thomas E. Read
  • Javier Salgado
  • David Ferraro
  • Richard Fortunato
  • Philip F. Caushaj
Article

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a method for avoiding conversion to laparotomy in patients considered for laparoscopic colectomy. Patients deemed to be at high risk for conversion to laparotomy were initially approached via an 8-cm midline incision (“peek port”) with the laparoscopic equipment unopened. If intraperitoneal conditions were favorable, the procedure was performed using hand-assisted laparoscopy. If intraperitoneal conditions were unfavorable, the incision was extended to a formal laparotomy. Patients deemed to be at low risk for conversion to laparotomy were approached laparoscopically from the outset.

Methods

Data from 241 consecutive patients brought to the operating room for intended laparoscopic colectomy were retrieved from a prospective database.

Results

The study population consisted of 132 men and 109 women with a mean age of 62 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 28. Prior abdominal surgery had been performed in 49% of these patients. Inflammatory conditions accounted for 38% of the diagnoses, and enteric fistulas were present in 7% of the cases. Of the 25 patients who underwent the initial “peek port,” 8 (32%) underwent immediate incision extension to formal laparotomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy was performed in 17 (68%) of these 25 patients, with one subsequent conversion to formal laparotomy. Of the 216 patients initially approached laparoscopically, 5 (2%) required conversion to laparotomy. The laparotomy rate for the “peek port” group (9/25, 36%) was higher than for the initial laparoscopy group (5/216, 2%) (p < 0.0001). Of the 233 patients from both groups who underwent laparoscopy, the overall rate for conversion to laparotomy was 3% (6/233).

Conclusions

The “peek port” approach to the patient with a potentially hostile abdomen allows for rapid assessment of intraperitoneal conditions and is associated with an overall low rate of conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy. This technique should reduce overall cost by avoiding the use of laparoscopic equipment as well as potential complications related to trocar placement and laparoscopic dissection in patients who will ultimately require formal laparotomy.

Keywords

Laparoscopy Colectomy Colorectal Hand-assisted laparoscopy Laparoscopic colectomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Milsom JW, Hammerhofer KA, Bohm B, Marcello P, Elson P, Fazio VW (2001) Prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic vs conventional surgery for refractory ileocolic Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young-Fadok TM, Radice E, Nelson H, Harmsen WS (2000) Benefits of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy for colon polyps: a case-matched series. Mayo Clin Proc 75:344–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Frasson M, Di Serio C, Di Carlo V (2005) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial. Ann Surg 242:890–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S, Sargent D, Schroeder G (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287:321–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Targarona EM, Gracia E, Garriga J, Martinez-Bru C, Cortes M, Boluda R, Lerma L, Trias M (2002) Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional laparoscopic colectomy with hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy: applicability, immediate clinical outcome, inflammatory response, and cost. Surg Endosc 16:234–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    HALS Study Group (2000) Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery vs standard laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 14:896–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang YJ, Marcello PW, Rusin LC, Roberts PL, Schoetz DJ (2005) Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: helping hand or hindrance? Surg Endosc 19:656–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaiser AM, Kang JC, Chan LS, Vukasin P, Beart RW Jr (2004) Laparoscopic-assisted vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a prospective randomized trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14:329–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Litwin DE, Darzi A, Jakimowicz J, Kelly JJ, Arvidsson D, Hansen P, Callery MP, Denis R, Fowler DL, Medich DS, O’Reilly MJ, Atlas H, Himpens JM, Swanstrom LL, Arous EJ, Pattyn P, Yood SM, Ricciardi R, Sandor A, Meyers WC (2000) Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with the HandPort system: initial experience with 68 patients. Ann Surg 231:715–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pietrabissa A, Moretto C, Carobbi A, Boggi U, Ghilli M, Mosca F (2002) Hand-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection: initial experience with a new procedure. Surg Endosc 16:431–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rivadeneira DE, Marcello PW, Roberts PL, Rusin LC, Murray JJ, Coller JA, Schoetz DJ Jr (2004) Benefits of hand-assisted laparoscopic restorative proctocolectomy: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1371–1376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee SW, Yoo J, Dujovny N, Sonoda T, Milsom JW (2006) Laparoscopic vs hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum 49:464–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belizon A, Sardinha CT, Sher ME (2006) Converted laparoscopic colectomy: what are the consequences? Surg Endosc 20:947–951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franko J, O’Connell BG, Mehall JR, Harper SG, Nejman JH, Zebley DM, Fassler SA (2006) The influence of prior abdominal operations on conversion and complication rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. JSLS 10:169–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzalez R, Smith CD, Mason E, Duncan T, Wilson R, Miller J, Ramshaw BJ (2006) Consequences of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 49:197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moloo H, Mamazza J, Poulin EC, Burpee SE, Bendavid Y, Klein L, Gregoire R, Schlachta CM (2004) Laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer: does conversion survival? Surg Endosc 18:732–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Voort M, Heijnsdijk EA, Gouma DJ (2004) Bowel injury as a complication of laparoscopy. Br J Surg 91:1253–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2005) Conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a predictive model with 1,253 patients. Surg Endosc 19:47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergamaschi R, Tuech JJ, Cervi C, Arnaud JP (2000) Re-establish pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic-assisted sigmoid resection? Randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 43:771–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marcello PW, Fleshman JW, Milsom JW, Read TE, Arnell TD, Birnbaum EH, Feingold DL, Lee SW, Mutch MG, Sonoda T, Yan Y, Whelan RL (2008) Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 51:818–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cima RR, Pattana-arun J, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Wolff BG, Pemberton JH (2008) Experience with 969 minimal access colectomies: the role of hand-assisted laparoscopy in expanding minimally invasive surgery for complex colectomies. J Am Coll Surg 206:946–950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas E. Read
    • 1
  • Javier Salgado
    • 1
  • David Ferraro
    • 1
  • Richard Fortunato
    • 1
  • Philip F. Caushaj
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Colon and Rectal SurgeryWestern Pennsylvania Hospital, Clinical Campus of Temple University School of MedicinePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations