Background: The literature on laparoscopic restorative proctectomy (RP) and proctocolectomy (RPC) is limited. This study compared clinical outcomes of laparoscopic RP and RPC with those of conventional open surgery at one centre.
Methods: Data were analysed from consecutive patients undergoing RPC and RP between November 2006 and November 2011. A standard laparoscopic technique was developed during the first 2 years, performed by two laparoscopic surgeons, with selection of patients who had not previously undergone open colectomy. Study endpoints included postoperative length of stay, 30-day morbidity, readmission, reoperation, pouch function and failure.
Results: A total of 207 patients were included; open surgery was performed in 131 (63·3 per cent) and a laparoscopic procedure in 76 (36·7 per cent). There were no significant differences in patient demographics. The conversion rate was 9 per cent (7 of 76). The median (i.q.r.) duration of operation was shorter for open than for laparoscopic procedures: 208 (178-255) versus 285 (255-325) min respectively (P < 0·001). Laparoscopic RPC had a shorter length of stay: median (i.q.r.) 6 (4-8) versus 8 (7-12) days (P < 0·001). The rate of minor complications was lower in the laparoscopic group (33 versus 50·4 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0·48, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·27 to 0·87).There were no significant differences in total complications (51 per cent after laparoscopy versus 61·5 per cent after open surgery; OR 0·66, 0·37 to 1·17), anastomotic leakage, major morbidity, 30-day readmission, reoperation and stoma closure rates. Pouch failure (including permanent stoma) occurred in 14 (7·7 per cent) of 181 patients. Three patients died, all in the open surgery group.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic RPC is feasible with some short-term advantages.
© 2014 BJS Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.