Usefulness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Nobuhisa Tanioka, Michio Kuwahara, Hiromichi Maeda, Naoki Edo, Yuzuko Nokubo, Shigeto Shimizu, Toyokazu Akimori, Satoru Seo
{"title":"Usefulness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation: a single-center retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Nobuhisa Tanioka, Michio Kuwahara, Hiromichi Maeda, Naoki Edo, Yuzuko Nokubo, Shigeto Shimizu, Toyokazu Akimori, Satoru Seo","doi":"10.1007/s00595-024-02886-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal perforation owing to a significant lack of evidence in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 70 patients who underwent emergency surgery for colorectal perforations between January 2017 and December 2023. The surgical outcomes of the patients who underwent open and laparoscopic surgeries were statistically compared. The primary endpoints were postoperative mortality and complications. The secondary endpoints included blood loss, surgical time, length of hospital stay, and 1-year overall survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 28 patients underwent open surgery and 42 underwent laparoscopic surgery. No significant difference was noted in the postoperative mortality or overall rate of severe complications between the two groups. The incidence of superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection was lower in the laparoscopic surgery group (35.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), while the surgical time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (175.6 ± 92.2 min vs. 290.0 ± 102.3 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in blood loss, length of hospital stay, or 1-year overall survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation markedly reduced superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection, with no substantial difference in mortality or severe complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":22163,"journal":{"name":"Surgery Today","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery Today","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-024-02886-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal perforation owing to a significant lack of evidence in this field.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 70 patients who underwent emergency surgery for colorectal perforations between January 2017 and December 2023. The surgical outcomes of the patients who underwent open and laparoscopic surgeries were statistically compared. The primary endpoints were postoperative mortality and complications. The secondary endpoints included blood loss, surgical time, length of hospital stay, and 1-year overall survival.

Results: Overall, 28 patients underwent open surgery and 42 underwent laparoscopic surgery. No significant difference was noted in the postoperative mortality or overall rate of severe complications between the two groups. The incidence of superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection was lower in the laparoscopic surgery group (35.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), while the surgical time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (175.6 ± 92.2 min vs. 290.0 ± 102.3 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in blood loss, length of hospital stay, or 1-year overall survival.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation markedly reduced superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection, with no substantial difference in mortality or severe complications.

Abstract Image

腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠穿孔的实用性:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。
目的:本研究旨在确定腹腔镜手术在结直肠穿孔患者中的安全性和有效性,因为该领域严重缺乏相关证据:这项回顾性队列研究分析了2017年1月至2023年12月期间因结直肠穿孔接受急诊手术的70名患者的数据。对接受开腹手术和腹腔镜手术患者的手术结果进行了统计比较。主要终点是术后死亡率和并发症。次要终点包括失血量、手术时间、住院时间和1年总生存率:共有28名患者接受了开腹手术,42名患者接受了腹腔镜手术。两组患者的术后死亡率和严重并发症总发生率无明显差异。腹腔镜手术组浅表和深部切口手术部位感染的发生率较低(35.7% 对 0.0%,P 结论:腹腔镜手术是结肠癌治疗的最佳方法:腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠穿孔明显降低了浅表和深部切口手术部位感染,死亡率和严重并发症没有实质性差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Surgery Today
Surgery Today 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
208
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Surgery Today is the official journal of the Japan Surgical Society. The main purpose of the journal is to provide a place for the publication of high-quality papers documenting recent advances and new developments in all fields of surgery, both clinical and experimental. The journal welcomes original papers, review articles, and short communications, as well as short technical reports("How to do it"). The "How to do it" section will includes short articles on methods or techniques recommended for practical surgery. Papers submitted to the journal are reviewed by an international editorial board. Field of interest: All fields of surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信