Skip to main content
Log in

Die spezifischen Komplikationsrisiken der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie

Specific complications of minimally invasive surgery

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Bei Lagerung, Zugang und Instrumentation unterscheidet sich die minimal-invasive Chirurgie (MIC) fundamental von der konventionell-offenen Chirurgie. Jeder dieser Aspekte ist mit einer eigenen, spezifischen Morbidität assoziiert, wie z. B. Lagerungsschäden, Trokarverletzungen, Hyperkapnie und thermische Läsionen. Technologische Entwicklungen und zunehmende Erfahrung erklären die Reduktion von MIC-assoziierten Komplikationen und das Meistern von besonderen Herausforderungen. Diese Fortschritte sind Voraussetzung für die beeindruckende Ausbreitung dieser neuen Operationsform in der Chirurgie des Häufigen wie Cholezystektomie oder Hernienreparatur und in der Chirurgie des Speziellen wie bariatrische, onkologische oder Thoraxchirurgie. Die vorliegende Übersichtsarbeit befasst sich mit den MIC-spezifischen und MIC-typischen Komplikationen.

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is fundamentally different from open surgery regarding positioning of the patient, access routes and instrumentation. Each of these aspects is associated with its own specific morbidity, such as positioning-related complications, trocar-induced lesions, hypercapnia-associated phenomena and thermal damage. The growing experience of surgeons and technological progress have increased patient safety to a maximum and have resulted in an impressive spread of MIS in the various fields of surgery including the most common, such as cholecystectomy and hernia repair and special fields, such as bariatric, thoracic and oncological surgery. This narrative review summarizes the current knowledge on the inherent complications of MIS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Alaraimi B, EI Bakbak W, Sarker S, Makkiyah S, Al-Marzouq A, Goriparthi R, Bouhelal A, Quan V, Patel B (2014) A randomized prospective study comparing acquisition of laparoscopic skills in three-dimensional (3D) vs. two-dimensional (2D)laparoscopy. World J Surg 38(11):2746–2752. doi:10.1007/s00268-014-2674-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2013) Blunt versus bladed trocars in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Surg Endosc 27(7):2312–2320. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-2793-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Armañanzas L, Ruiz-Tovar J, Arroyo A, García-Peche P, Armañanzas E, Diez M, Galindo I, Calpena R (2014) Prophylactic mesh vs suture in the closure of the umbilical trocar site after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in high-risk patients for incisional hernia. A randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg 218(5):960–968. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.01.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Azevedo JL, Azevedo OC, Miyahira SA et al (2009) Injuries caused by Veress needle insertion for creation of pneumoperitoneum: a systematic literature review. Surg Endosc 23:1428–1432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bove P, Iacovelli V, Celestino F, De Carlo F, Vespasiani G, Finazzi Agrò E (2015) 3D vs 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in organ-confined prostate cancer:comparison of operative data and pentafecta rates: a single cohort study. BMC Urol 15:12. doi:10.1186/s12894-015-0006-9

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cassaro S (2015) Delayed manifestations of laparoscopic bowel injury. Am Surg 81(5):478–482

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Davidson BR (2013) Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD006574. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006574.pub4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Köckerling F, Grund S, Jacob DA (2012) Typische intraoperative Komplikationen in der laparoskopischen Chirurgie. Chirurg 83(7):633–641. doi:10.1007/s00104-011-2211-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Li MZ, Lian L, Xiao LB, Wu WH, He YL, Song XM (2012) Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 204(5):779–786. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.03.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Llarena NC, Shah AB, Milad MP (2015) Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 125(6):1407–1417. doi:0.1097/AOG.0000000000000855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Markar SR, Wiggins T, Antonowicz S, Zacharakis E, Hanna GB (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: Lateral decubitus vs. prone positioning; systematic review and pooled analysis. Surg Oncol. pii:S0960-7404(15)30001-3. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2015.06.001

  12. Mustain WC, Davenport DL, Hourigan JS, Vargas HD (2012) Obesity and laparoscopic colectomy: outcomes from the ACS-NSQIP database. Dis Colon Rectum 55(4):429–435. doi:10.1097/DCR.0b013e31823dfb17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, Campanelli G, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, de Beaux AC, Deerenberg EB, East B, Fortelny RH, Gillion JF, Henriksen NA, Israelsson L, Jairam A, Jänes A, Jeekel J, López-Cano M, Miserez M, Morales-Conde S, Sanders DL, Simons MP, Śmietański M, Venclauskas L, Berrevoet F; European Hernia Society (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19(1):1–24. doi:10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ortiz VE, Vidal-Melo MF, Walsh JL (2015) Strategies for managing oxygenation in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 11(3):721–728. doi:10.1016/j.soard.2014.11.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ren H, Tong Y, Ding XB, Wang X, Jin SQ, Niu XY, Zhao X, Li Q (2014) Abdominal wall-lifting versus CO2 pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopy: a review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 7(6):1558–1568

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Srinivasa S, Bissett IP, Hill AG (2011) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a higher intraoperative complication rate than open surgery. Ann Surg 253(1):35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Seetahal S, Obirieze A, Cornwell EE 3rd, Fullum T, Tran D (2015) Open abdominal surgery: a risk factor for future laparoscopic surgery? Am J Surg 209(4):623–626. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.12.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sørensen SM, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2015) Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25840896

  19. Sutton PA, Awad S, Perkins AC, Lobo DN (2010) Comparison of lateral thermal spread using monopolar and bipolar diathermy, the Harmonic Scalpel and the Ligasure. Br J Surg 97(3):428–433. doi:10.1002/bjs.6901

  20. Swank HA, Mulder IM, la Chapelle CF, Reitsma JB, Lange JF, Bemelman WA (2012) Systematic review of trocar-site hernia. Br J Surg 99(3):315–323. doi:10.1002/bjs.7836

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tou S, Malik AI, Wexner SD, Nelson RL (2011) Energy source instruments for laparoscopic colectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11(5):CD007886. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007886.pub2

    Google Scholar 

  22. Velayutham V, Fuks D, Nomi T, Kawaguchi Y, Gayet B (2015) 3D visualization reduces operating time when compared to high-definition 2D in laparoscopic liver resection: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25805241

  23. Wen T, Deibert CM, Siringo FS, Spencer BA (2014) Positioning-related complications of minimally invasive radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 28(6):660–667. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Runkel.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

N. Runkel, O. Jurcovan geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Runkel, N., Jurcovan, O. Die spezifischen Komplikationsrisiken der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie. Chirurg 86, 1097–1104 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-015-0105-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-015-0105-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation