TABLE 4.
Review of prior studies examining laparoscopic ICR for recurrent resection in ileal Crohn's disease.
| Study | Study years | Study type | Type of surgery | Recurrent laparoscopic cases (N) | Comparator group | Conversion rate | Complication rate | Other findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wu et al. (1997) | 1992–1996 | Prospective | ICR | 10 | N=22 primary laparoscopic, N=70 open | 20% (2/10) | 10% (1/10) | Longer LOS and higher morbidity in open group, similar amongst laparoscopic groups |
| Hasegawa et al. (2003) | 1994–2002 | Retrospective | ICR | 16 | N=45 primary laparoscopic | 13% (2/16) | 19% (3/16) | Similar conversion rate, morbidity and LOS compared to primary group |
| Uchikoshi et al. (2004) | 1997 – 2003 | Retrospective | ICR | 23* | N=20 recurrent open | 43% (10/23) | 13% (3/23) | Lower morbidity, shorter LOS compared to open group |
| Moorthy et al. (2004) | 1991–2001 | Retrospective | ICR/other | 26 | N=31 primary laparoscopic | 42% (11/26) | 15% (4/26) | Higher conversion rate and longer time to diet compared to primary group |
| Edden et al. (2008) | 1992–1998 | Prospective | ICR | 34* | N=124 primary laparoscopic | 62% (21/34) | NR | Similar conversion rate overall, converted patients had similar morbidity |
| Chaudhary et al. (2010) | 2002–2010 | Prospective | ICR | 30 | N=29 primary laparoscopic | 7% (2/30) | 30% (9/30) | Longer operative time, similar conversion rates and morbidity compared to primary group |
| Holubar et al. (2010) | 1998–2008 | Retrospective | ICR | 40 | None | 25% (10/40) | 10% (3/30)** | Longer LOS but similar morbidity in patients who were converted to open |
| Pinto et al. (2011) | 2001–2008 | Retrospective | ICR/other | 50 | N=80 primary laparoscopic | 32% (16/50) | 12% (6/50) | LOS and complications similar to primary group |
| Bandyopadhyay et al. (2011) | 2005–2009 | Prospective | ICR | 27 | None | 7% (2/27) | 7% (2/27) | No comparator group |
| Huang et al. (2012) | 2005–2010 | Retrospective | ICR/other | 48*** | N=82 primary laparoscopic | 21% (10/48) | 27% (13/48) | Similar operative time, conversion rate, and morbidity to primary group |
| Aytac et al (2012) | 1997 – 2011 | Retrospective case-match | ICR/other | 26 | N=26 open recurrent | 12% (3/26) | 39% (9/26) | Lower wound infection rate compared to open group, similar operative time, LOS, and overall morbidity |
| Panteleimonitis (2017) | 2006 – 2016 | Retrospective | ICR/other | 19 | N=87 primary laparoscopic | 5% (1/19) | NR | Shorter LOS in primary group, similar conversions, 30-day readmissions and reoperations |
| Current study | 2013 – 2019 | Retrospective | ICR | 83 | N=346 primary laparoscopic | 10% (8/83) | 17% (14/83) | Similar conversion and morbidity to primary group, longer operative time |
ICR (ileocolic resection), NR (not reported), LOS (length of hospital stay)
*
Including patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS)
**
For patients who were not converted only
***
Any prior surgery type