Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 14, Issue 10, pp 896–901 | Cite as

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery vs standard laparoscipic surgery for colorectal disease

A prospective randomized trial
  • HALS Study Group
Original Articles

Abstract

Blackground

We compare the use of the HandPortTM device in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) to standard laparoscopic surgery (SLS) in the treatment of colorectal disease.

Methods

A prospective, randomized, multicenter study was conducted with the participation of 10 advanced laparoscopic surgeons. Forty patients with indications for elective resection of benign colorectal disease or incurable malignant disease were randomized to one of the two treatment arms (22 HALS, 18 SLS). Main outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, HandPortTM performance, postoperative pain, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of stay, morbidity, and functional recovery.

Results

The patients in each group were similar with regard to age, sex, weight, diagnosis, coexisting medical disease, and preoperative functional status. Operative time was comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopy (152±66 min) and standard laparoscopy (141±54 min) (p=0.58). Incision length for specimen extraction/bowel anastomosis was similar (HALS 7.4 cm vs SLS 7.0 cm). Three of 22 HALS cases (14%) were converted, as compared with four of 18 (22%) in the laparoscopy group (p=0.68). Return of bowel function occurred by the 3rd postoperative day for the majority of patients in both groups (HALS 77%, SLS 78%). There was no difference in length of stay (HALS 7.0 days [range, 2–12] vs SLS 6.0 days [range, 2–10], p=0.25). Severity of postoperative pain and rate of functional recovery were equivalent. One major complication occurred in each group. There were three wound infections in the laparoscopy group. No patient required reoperation, and there were no deaths.

Conclusions

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is safe and effective for benign and noncurative colorectal resection. As compared to standard laparoscopic surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopy retains the benefits of minimally invasive surgery and may allow the surgeon to perform complex operations more easily.

Key words

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) Colorectal disease Laparoscopic colectomy HandPort 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ballaux KEW, Himpens JM, Leman G, Van den Bossche MRP (1997) Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy for hydatid cyst. Surg Endosc 11: 942–943 DOI: 10.1007/s004649900493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gossot D, Meijer D, Bannenberg J, de Wit L, Jakimowicz J (1995) Laparoscopic splenectomy revisited. Ann Chir 49: 487–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khalili TM, Fleshner PR, Hiatt JR, Sokol TP, Manookian C, Tsushima G, Phillips EH (1998) Colorectal cancer: comparison of laparoscopic with open approaches. Dis Colon Rectum 41: 832–838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwok SP, Lau WY, Carey PD, Kelly SB, Leung KL, Li AK (1996) Prospective evaluation of laparoscopic-assisted bowel excision for cancer. Ann Surg 223: 170–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lacy AM, Delgado S, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Castells A, Pique JM, Grande L, Fuster J, Targarona EM, Pera M, Visa J (1998) Port site metastases and recurrence after laparoscopic colectomy: a randomized trial. Surg Endosc 12: 1039–1042 DOI: 10.1007/s004649900776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meyers WC (1999) Handoscopic surgery: a prospective multicenter trial of a minimally invasive technique for complex abdominal surgery. Arch Surg 134: 477–486 30 authors to list-Southern Surgeons ClubCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muckleroy SK, Ratzer ER, Fenoglio ME (1999) Laparoscopic colon surgery for benign disease: a comparison to open surgery. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 3: 33–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naitoh T, Gagner M (1996) Laparoscopically assisted gastric surgery using Dexterity pneumo sleeve. Surg Endosc 11: 830–833 DOI: 10.1007/s004649900464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakada SY, Moon TD, Gist M, Mahvi D (1997) Use of the pneumo sleeve as an adjunct in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Urology 49: 612–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pandya S, Murray JJ, Coller JA, Rusin LC (1999) Laparoscopic colectomy: indications for conversion to laparotomy. Arch Surg 134: 471–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramos JM, Bear Jr RW, Goes R, Ortega AE, Schlinkert RT (1995) Role of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery: a prospective evaluation of 200 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 38: 494–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schirmer BD (1996) Laparoscopic colon resection. Surg Clin North Am 76: 571–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwenk W, Bohm B, Muller JM (1998) Postoperative pain and fatigue after laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resections: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 12: 1131–1136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • HALS Study Group
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations