Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 6/2012

01-06-2012

Prospective evaluation of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections

Authors: Federico A. Costantino, Michele Diana, James Wall, Joel Leroy, Didier Mutter, Jacques Marescaux

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Franklin ME Jr, Ramos R, Rosenthal D, Schuessler W (1993) Laparoscopic colonic procedures. World J Surg 17:51–56PubMedCrossRef Franklin ME Jr, Ramos R, Rosenthal D, Schuessler W (1993) Laparoscopic colonic procedures. World J Surg 17:51–56PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Redwine DB, Koning M, Sharpe DR (1996) Laparoscopically assisted transvaginal segmental resection of the rectosigmoid colon for endometriosis. Fertil Steril 65:193–197PubMed Redwine DB, Koning M, Sharpe DR (1996) Laparoscopically assisted transvaginal segmental resection of the rectosigmoid colon for endometriosis. Fertil Steril 65:193–197PubMed
3.
go back to reference 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–e111PubMedCrossRef 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–e111PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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):710–715PubMedCrossRef 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):710–715PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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 25:198–201PubMedCrossRef 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 25:198–201PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference 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):1327–1334PubMedCrossRef 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):1327–1334PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference 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):1488–1492PubMedCrossRef 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):1488–1492PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Grams J, Tong W, Greenstein AJ, Salky B (2010) Comparison of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic-assisted hemicolectomy. Surg Endosc 24:1886–1891PubMedCrossRef Grams J, Tong W, Greenstein AJ, Salky B (2010) Comparison of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic-assisted hemicolectomy. Surg Endosc 24:1886–1891PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference 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 47:697–703PubMedCrossRef 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 47:697–703PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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 42:89–95PubMedCrossRef 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 42:89–95PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2005) Conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a predictive model with 1253 patients. Surgical Endosc 19:47–54CrossRef Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2005) Conversion rates in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a predictive model with 1253 patients. Surgical Endosc 19:47–54CrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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 240:205–213PubMedCrossRef 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 240:205–213PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prospective evaluation of peritoneal fluid contamination following transabdominal vs. transanal specimen extraction in laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections
Authors
Federico A. Costantino
Michele Diana
James Wall
Joel Leroy
Didier Mutter
Jacques Marescaux
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2066-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

Surgical Endoscopy 6/2012 Go to the issue