Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis - a randomized trial

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs. Results: There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P <0.001) and total GIQLI score (P <0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P <0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20'% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were 16.728EURO for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095). Conclusions: Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure