i read some previous posts about laparoscopic surgery. are the long-term results and pouch performance better or same? sorry if my question is ignorant. thanx!

As long as the laparoscopic version is done by someone experienced, the long-term results are the same. But some studies have shown that rates of infection, ileus, and obstruction are lower than with the open version, and that time in the hospital is shorter.

Here's one that addresses some of those short-term outcomes:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633002?ordinalpos=...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


As of April, no one had yet studied whether the laparoscopic version compromises fertility more or less than the open version.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Charlotte Gilman,

I had my original surgery done lapro at the CC. It was a total colectomy, done on Tuesday and home on Saturday. The second surgery, J pouch formation and takedown...was done thru the bikini incision from the first surgery. Zero infections, complications.. Lapro gets my vote!!!

nys

I had mine open... in the hospital six days, no infections, no complications. It's been a year and a half and my scar is nearly invisible already. TD was via the same place the ileo was so there was no additional scarring. I also was driving short distances after one week home (no pain meds stronger than tylenol since they made me puke). Recovery felt like my c-section surgery recovery. So I had a good experience with open and there are no regrets.

From the literature I have read, there are no long term differences. Lapro mostly reduces post op pain and can make recovery easier. But, it is all relative. I recently had lapro for a simple procedure, but had much more pain than I or the doctor anticipated. I really wish I had a PCA for 24 hours, but didn't.

Jan