Comparison of Conventional and Laparoscopic Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's Disease

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare open with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in selected patients with refractory Crohn's disease confined to terminal ileum and cecum in terms of small-bowel obstruction and recurrence rates at a follow-up of five years. Thirty-nine patients who underwent laparoscopic ileocolic resection during a four-year period were compared with 53 patients who had previously undergone open ileocolic resection by the same surgeons at the same institution. Small-bowel obstruction was any clinical evidence of obstruction requiring hospital admission, regardless of recurrent disease or the need for surgery. Recurrence was defined as histologically proven Crohn's disease requiring reoperation and assessed by the actuarial method. Data were presented as medians and ranges and analyzed with Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum test, and log-rank test. Open ileocolic resection and laparoscopic ileocolic resection patients were well matched for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, smoking, length of time from diagnosis to index operation, site of disease, preoperative medical treatment, previous abdominal surgery, indications for surgery, anastomosis configuration, microscopical involvement of resection margins, and postoperative complications (9.4 vs. 10.2 percent). Operating time was longer for laparoscopic ileocolic resection patients (105 (60-120) vs. 185 (130-210) min, P CONCLUSION: When compared with open ileocolic resection, laparoscopic ileocolic resection led to lower five-year small-bowel obstruction rates in selected patients with ileocecal Crohn's disease. Five-year recurrence rates did not differ.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: