Abstract
Background
Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) in colorectal surgery prevents the need for an enlarged port site or minilaparotomy to extract the surgical specimen. The downside of this technique may be an increased risk of bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity from the external milieu. The aim of this study was to prospectively analyze the peritoneal bacterial contamination in NOSE and non-NOSE laparoscopic colorectal procedures.
Methods
Consecutive patients operated for sigmoid diverticulitis with laparoscopic approach and transanal extraction of the specimen from January to December 2010 at our university hospital were enrolled. Patients who underwent a laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in the same study period with conventional specimen extraction were used as reference. Peritoneal fluid samples were collected under sterile conditions at the end of the procedure and sent for gram stain as well as anaerobic, aerobic, and fungal cultures.
Results
Twenty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis with transanal NOSE, while 9 patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with conventional specimen extraction during the same period. The two groups were successfully matched 1:2 (17 NOSE and 9 non-NOSE) according age, sex, ASA, and Charlson comorbidity score. The contamination rate of peritoneal fluid was 100% vs. 88.9% in NOSE and non-NOSE procedures, respectively (P = 0.23). Overall and major complications rates were 27.6% vs. 11.10% (P = 0.41) and 5.08% vs. 11.1% (P = 1) in NOSE vs. non-NOSE procedures, respectively. In the NOSE group there was a statistically significant lower consumption of oral paracetamol (P = 0.007) and of oral tramadol (P = 0.02).
Conclusions
Although a higher peritoneal contamination was found in the NOSE procedures, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes relative to standard approach. Avoiding a minilaparotomy to extract the specimen resulted in a significantly lower postoperative analgesic requirement in the NOSE group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Franklin ME Jr, Ramos R, Rosenthal D, Schuessler W (1993) Laparoscopic colonic procedures. World J Surg 17:51–56
Redwine DB, Koning M, Sharpe DR (1996) Laparoscopically assisted transvaginal segmental resection of the rectosigmoid colon for endometriosis. Fertil Steril 65:193–197
Diana M, Perretta S, Wall J, Costantino FA, Leroy J, Demartines N, Marescaux J (2011) Transvaginal specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: current state of the art. Colorectal Dis 13:e104–e111
Diana M, Wall J, Costantino F, D’Agostino J, Leroy J, Marescaux J (2011) Transanal extraction of the specimen during laparoscopic colectomy. Colorect Dis. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02774.x
Park JS, Choi GS, Kim HJ, Park SY, Jun SH (2011) Natural orifice specimen extraction versus conventional laparoscopically assisted right hemicolectomy. Br J Surg 98(5):710–715
Saida Y, Nagao J, Nakamura Y, Nakamura Y, Enomoto T, Katagiri M, Kusachi S, Watanabe M, Sumiyama Y (2008) A comparison of abdominal cavity bacterial contamination of laparoscopy and laparotomy for colorectal cancers. Dig Surg 25:198–201
Leroy J, Costantino F, Cahill RA, D’Agostino J, Morales A, Mutter D, Marescaux J (2011) Laparoscopic resection with transanal specimen extraction for sigmoid diverticulitis. Br J Surg 98(9):1327–1334
Leroy J, Diana M, Wall J, Costantino F, D’Agostino J, Marescaux J (2011) Laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) with transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) sigmoidectomy: a new step before pure colorectal natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES®). J Gastrointest Surg 15(8):1488–1492
Grams J, Tong W, Greenstein AJ, Salky B (2010) Comparison of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic-assisted hemicolectomy. Surg Endosc 24:1886–1891
Winter DC, Murphy A, Kell MR, Shields CJ, Redmond HP, Kirwan WO (2004) Perioperative topical nitrate and sphincter function in patients undergoing transanal stapled anastomosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial. Dis Colon Rectum 47:697–703
Ho YH, Tan M, Leong A, Eu KW, Nyam D, Seow-Choen F (1999) Anal pressures impaired by stapler insertion during colorectal anastomosis: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 42:89–95
Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2005) Conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a predictive model with 1253 patients. Surgical Endosc 19:47–54
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Guy Temporal for his assistance with the linguistic proofreading and to the Dr. Laure Meynaud-Kraemer, from the Biostatistics Institute for her assistance in the statistical analysis.
Disclosures
Federico Costantino, Michele Diana, James Wall, Joël Leroy, Didier Mutter and Jacques Marescaux have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
F. A. Constantino and M. Diana contributed equally to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Costantino, F.A., Diana, M., Wall, J. et al. Prospective evaluation of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections. Surg Endosc 26, 1495–1500 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2066-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2066-6