Advertisement

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopicvs. conventional surgery for refractory ileocolic crohn's disease

  • Jeffrey W. Milson
  • Katherine A. Hammerhofer
  • Bartholomaus Böhm
  • Peter Marcello
  • Paul Elson
  • Victor W. Fazio
Original Contributions

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons have been reluctant to apply laparoscopic techniques to Crohn's disease surgery because of concerns with evaluating and excising inflamed tissue using laparoscopic methods Additionally in Crohn's disease surgery, laparoscopic techniques have not been demonstrated to have clear advantages over conventional ones. METHOD: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial in one surgical department comparing laparoscopic vs. conventional techniques in 60 patients (25 males), median age 34.4 (range 10–60.1) years, undergoing elective ileocolic resection for refractory Crohn's disease. Postoperatively, all patients underwent measurement of pulomnary function tests every 12 hours, and were treated identically on a highly controlled protocol with regard to analgesic administration, feeding, and postoperative care. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients assigned to laparoscopic and 29 to the conventional group, all had isolated Crohn's disease of the terminal ileum plus or minus the cecum. Median length of the incision was 5 cm in the laparoscopic group and 12 cm in the conventional group. Overall recovery of 80 percent of forced expiratory volume (one second) and forcec vital capacity was a median of 2.5 days for laparoscopic and 3.5 days for conventional (P=0.03). There was no difference in the amount of morphine equivalents used between groups postoperatively. Flatus and first bowel movement returned a median of 3 and 4 days, respectively, after conventional roscopicvs. 3.3 and 4 days, respectively, after conventional surgery (P=0.21). Median length of stay was five (range, 4–30) days for laparoscopic, and six (range, 4–18) days for conventional surgery. Major complications occurred in one patient in each group. Minor complications occurred in four laparoscopic and eight conventional patients (P<0.05). There were no deaths. Two laparoscopic patients were converted to conventional as a result of adhesions or inflammation. All patients recovered well and there were no clinical resurrences in the follow-up period (median, 20; range, 12–45 months). CONCLUSIONS: Within a single insititution, single surgical team, prospective, randomized trial, laparoscopic techniques offered a faster recovery of pulomary function, fewer complications, and shorter length of stay compared with conventional surgery for selected patients undergoing ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease.

Key words

Crohn's disease Laparoscopic surgery Randomized trial Ileitis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer JJ, Harris MT, Grumbach NM, Gorfine SR. Laparoscopic-assisted intestinal resection for Crohn's disease. Which patients are good candidates? J Clin Gastroenterol 1996;23:44–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ludwig KA, Milsom JW, Church JM, Fazio VW. Preliminary experience with laparoscopic intestinal surgery for Crohn's disease. Am J Surg 1996;171:52–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu JS, Birnbaum EH, Kodner IJ, Fry RD, Read TE, Fleshman JW. Laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resections in patients with Crohn's disease: are abscesses, phlegmons, or recurrent disease contraindications? Surgery 1997;122:682–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lui CD, Rolandelli R, Ashley SW, Evans B, Shin M, McFadden DW. Laparoscopic surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. Am Surg 1995;61:1054–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reissman P, Salky BA, Pfeifer J, Edye M, Jagelman DG, Wexner SD. Laparoscopic surgery in the management of inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Surg 1996;171:47–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ogunbiyi OA, Fleshman JW. Place of laparoscopic surgery in Crohn's disease. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1998;12:157–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Böhm B, Milsom JW, Kitago K,et al. Use of laparoscopic techniques in oncologic right colectomy in a canine model. Ann Surg Oncol 1995;2:6–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decanini C, Milsom JW, Böhm B, Fazio VW. Laparoscopic oncologic abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:552–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milsom JW, Böhm B, Decanini C,et al. Laparoscopic oncologic proctosigmoidectomy with low colorectal anastomosis in a cadaver model. Surg Endosc 1994;8:1117–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hildebrandt U, Schiedeck T, Kreissler Haag D,et al. Laparoscopically assisted surgery in Crohn's disease. Zentralbl Chir 1998;123:357–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpern NB, Cox CB. Abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma: perioperative risk factors. South Med J 1989;82:1492–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bohm B, Nouchirvani K, Hucke HP,et al. Morbiditat und Letalitat nach eletiven Resektionen kolorektaler Karzinome. Langenbecks Arch Chir 1991;376:93–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams CD, Brenowitz JB. Ventilatory patterns after vertical and transverse upper abdominal incisions. Am J Surg 1975;130:725–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey W. Milson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Katherine A. Hammerhofer
    • 1
  • Bartholomaus Böhm
    • 1
    • 3
  • Peter Marcello
    • 1
    • 3
  • Paul Elson
    • 2
  • Victor W. Fazio
    • 1
  1. 1.From the Department of Colorectal SurgeryThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationCleveland
  2. 2.From the Department of BiostatisticsThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationCleveland
  3. 3.From the Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery CenterThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationCleveland

Personalised recommendations