This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Colorectal Surgery  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Andrew A. Shelton, MD; Robert D. Madoff, MD
St Paul, Minn

Arch Surg. 1999;134:13.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

New surgical techniques invariably arrive amid a flurry of claimed advantages, often unsubstantiated. Laparoscopic colectomy is no exception, and surgical journals are replete with claims of an early return of gastrointestinal function, reduced pain, shorter lengths of stay, and decreased morbidity. Advocates of laparoscopic surgery have long argued that decreased postoperative pain leads to better pulmonary function, a finding borne out in comparative trials of open vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.^1-3 In the preceding article, Schwenk et al address the issue of pulmonary function following large-bowel resection: Is the well-documented impairment of pulmonary function following conventional colectomy ameliorated by a laparoscopic approach?

Alterations in pulmonary function are common following abdominal surgery because of pain, central nervous system–depressant medications, muscle weakness, and elevation of the diaphragm. Reduced functional residual capacity, vital capacity, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second conspire to cause atelectasis, which is . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?