Is laparoscopic surgery for recurrent Crohn’s disease beneficial in patients with previous primary resection through midline laparotomy? A case-matched study

Abstract

Patients undergoing abdominal surgery for Crohn's disease are predisposed to recurrence requiring reoperation. The effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open resection in patients with previous intestinal resection for Crohn's through midline laparotomy is controversial. Patients with previous open resection for intestinal Crohn's disease undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for recurrent bowel disease from 1997 to 2011 were case-matched with open counterparts based on age (±5 years), gender, body mass index (±2 kg/m(2)), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, surgical procedure, and year of surgery (±3 years). Groups were compared using Chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for quantitative data. 26 patients undergoing laparoscopic ileocolectomy (n = 14), proctocolectomy (n = 5), small bowel resection (n = 4), abdominoperineal resection (n = 1), extended right colectomy (n = 1), and strictureplasty (n = 1) were well matched to 26 patients undergoing open surgery. The number of previous operations, disease phenotypes, steroid use, and comorbidities were comparable in the two groups. There were no deaths, and three patients (12%) required conversion because of adhesions. Laparoscopic and open groups had statistically similar operating times (169 versus 158 min, p = 0.94), estimated blood loss (222 versus 427 ml, p = 0.32), overall morbidity (39 versus 69%, p = 0.051), reoperation rates (8 versus 0%, p = 0.5), postoperative return of bowel function (3.5 ± 1.4 versus 3.9 ± 1.7 days, p = 0.3), mean length of hospital stay (6.4 ± 6.2 versus 6.9 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.12), and readmission rates (8 versus 12%, p = 0.64). Wound infection rate was decreased after laparoscopic surgery (0 versus 27%, p = 0.01). Surgery for recurrent Crohn's disease in patients with previous primary resection through laparotomy can be frequently and safely completed laparoscopically. Wound infection rates are reduced, but the recovery advantages of a minimally invasive approach are not maintained when compared with open surgery. The decision to operate laparoscopically should therefore be carefully calibrated.