8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      El papel de la laparoscopia en la cirugía abdominal urgente Translated title: The role of laparoscopy in emergency abdominal surgery

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          La urgencia abdominal también puede ser intervenida mediante abordaje laparoscópico: el planteamiento puede ser de laparoscopia diagnóstica, cirugía asistida por laparoscopia o laparotomía dirigida según los hallazgos de la laparoscopia. Las contraindicaciones generales se refieren sobre todo al estado de inestabilidad hemodinámica del paciente y a pacientes graves (ASA IV). En ausencia de contraindicación específica para el procedimiento laparoscópico concreto a realizar, muchas enfermedades abdominales que requieren cirugía urgente pueden realizarse con abordaje laparoscópico. Las indicaciones más frecuentes son la apendicitis, la colecistitis aguda, la perforación gastroduodenal, la oclusión de intestino delgado, y algunos traumas abdominales. Con una correcta selección de pacientes y la oportuna experiencia del cirujano, los resultados son excelentes, y mejoran la cirugía abierta (menos infección de herida, complicaciones, estancia hospitalaria y dolor postoperatorio). Se explican con detalle los aspectos básicos de la técnica quirúrgica en los procedimientos más frecuentes de laparoscopia de urgencia.

          Translated abstract

          Abdominal emergencies can also be operated on through the laparoscopic approach: the approach can be diagnostic laparoscopy, surgery assisted by laparoscopy or laparotomy directed according to the findings of the laparoscopy. The general contraindications refer above all to the state of haemodynamic instability of the patient and to seriously ill patients (ASA IV). In the absence of any specific counter-indications for the specific laparoscopic procedure to be carried out, many abdominal diseases requiring emergency surgery can be performed with the laparoscopic approach. The most frequent indications are appendicitis, acute colecistitis, gastroduodenal perforation, occlusion of the small intestine, and some abdominal traumas. With a correct selection of patients and the appropriate experience of the surgeon, the results are excellent and better than open surgery (less infection of the wound, complications, hospital stay and postoperative pain). A detailed explanation is given of the basic aspects of the surgical technique in the most frequent procedures of emergency laparoscopy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a metaanalysis.

          There have been numerous retrospective and uncontrolled series of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), as well as 16 prospective randomized studies published to date. Although most of these have concluded that the laparoscopic technique is as least as good as open appendectomy (OA), there has been considerable controversy as to whether LA is superior. To help clarify this issue, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized prospective studies. A metaanalysis of all formally randomized prospective trials of LA versus OA in adults. A total of 1,682 patients were analyzed. When compared with OA, LA results in significantly less postoperative pain, earlier resumption of solid foods, a shorter hospital stay, and a faster return to normal activities. The wound infection rate in the LA patients is less than one half the rate in patients undergoing OA. LA, however, requires longer operating times and the incidence of intraabdominal abscess is higher, but this failed to reach statistical significance. There were no differences in complications or hospital charges. LA offers considerable advantages over OA, primarily because of its ability to reduce the incidence of wound infections and shorten recovery times. Its widespread acceptance should be considered. The trend toward increased intraabdominal abscess formation is worrisome, however, and demands further investigation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial.

            To compare the results of open versus laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers. Omental patch repair with peritoneal lavage is the mainstay of treatment for perforated peptic ulcers in many institutions. Laparoscopic repair has been used to treat perforated peptic ulcers since 1990, but few randomized studies have been carried out to compare open versus laparoscopic procedures. From January 1994 to June 1997, 130 patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to undergo either open or laparoscopic omental patch repair. Patients were excluded for a history of upper abdominal surgery, concomitant evidence of bleeding from the ulcer, or gastric outlet obstruction. Patients with clinically sealed-off perforations without signs of peritonitis or sepsis were treated without surgery. Laparoscopic repair would be converted to an open procedure for technical difficulties, nonjuxtapyloric gastric ulcers, or perforations larger than 10 mm. A Gastrografin meal was performed 48 to 72 hours after surgery to document sealing of the perforation. The primary end-point was perioperative parenteral analgesic requirement. Secondary endpoints were operative time, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications and deaths, and the date of return to normal daily activities. Nine patients with a surgical diagnosis other than perforated peptic ulcer were excluded; 121 patients entered the final analysis. There were 98 male and 23 female patients recruited, ages 16 to 89 years. The two groups were comparable in age, sex, site and size of perforations, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. There were nine conversions in the laparoscopic group. After surgery, patients in the laparoscopic group required significantly less parenteral analgesics than those who underwent open repair, and the visual analog pain scores in days 1 and 3 after surgery were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group as well. Laparoscopic repair required significantly less time to complete than open repair. The median postoperative stay was 6 days in the laparoscopic group versus 7 days in the open group. There were fewer chest infections in the laparoscopic group. There were two intraabdominal collections in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the laparoscopic group and three patients in the open group died after surgery. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe and reliable procedure. It was associated with a shorter operating time, less postoperative pain, reduced chest complications, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and earlier return to normal daily activities than the conventional open repair.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy.

              Despite many randomized controlled trials, the merits of laparoscopic appendectomy remain unclear. A meta-analysis may provide insights not evident from any individual studies. Systematic literature search yielded 17 trials (1,962 subjects) of true randomized design with usable statistical data comparing laparoscopic and conventional appendectomy in adults. The effect sizes for operating time, hospitalization, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, wound infection, and intra-abdominal abscess were calculated, using the random effects model to allow for heterogeneity. An estimate of the robustness of all positive findings was also calculated. Modest but statistically significant effect sizes were found for four of the six outcome measures. Laparoscopic appendectomy takes 31% longer to perform, but results in less postoperative pain, faster recovery (by 35%), and lower wound infection rates (by 60%). Laparoscopic appendectomy offers significant improvement in postoperative outcomes at the cost of a longer operation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                asisna
                Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra
                Anales Sis San Navarra
                Gobierno de Navarra. Departamento de Salud (Pamplona, Navarra, Spain )
                1137-6627
                2005
                : 28
                : suppl 3
                : 81-92
                Affiliations
                [01] Pamplona Navarra orgnameHospital de Navarra orgdiv1Servicio de Cirugía General
                Article
                S1137-66272005000600010
                10.4321/s1137-66272005000600010
                bb5a6b7f-a22a-4042-a0b9-40fe85bebef6

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 35, Pages: 12
                Product

                SciELO Spain


                Laparoscopia asistida,Perforación,Apendicitis,Obstrucción intestinal,Trauma abdominal,Assisted laparoscopy,Perforation,Appendicitis,Intestinal obstruction,Abdominal trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article