Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review

Early experiences in robotic single-site plus one port platform for complex hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive surgery in hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) surgery has been accepted worldwide in recent years. However, applications of single-site laparoscopic surgery in complex HBP surgery have been limited due to difficulty in manoeuvring instruments and the limited range of motion resulting from clashing instruments.

METHODS

To overcome the limitations, we have used the Da Vinci single-site surgical platform with one additional port in a Da Vinci Xi system to perform donor right hepatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, and combined resection of the common bile duct and spleen vessels preserving distal pancreatectomy.

RESULTS

In selected patients, using a robotic single-site plus one port system allowed the successful completion of complex HBP surgery.

DISCUSSION

Complex HBP surgery can be performed safely in a stable environment using the robotic single-site plus one port system. Further exploration of a robotic single-site plus one port in complex HBP surgery is necessary.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The possibilities of minimally invasive cholecystectomy have emerged since the beginning of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC). This study aimed to compare the feasibility, safety, and pain scores between SSRC and SILC.

Methods

The authors searched randomized or non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies in PubMed, EuroPMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov from April 2012 until April 2022. The authors analyzed the operation time, hospital stay, blood loss volume, conversion rate, intraoperative complication rates, postoperative complications, visual analog scale (VAS) immediately after surgery, and VAS at hospital discharge. This study aligned with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

Results

Thirteen studies were selected with 817 and 757 patients who underwent SSRC and SILC. Thus, this study demonstrated a lower incidence of intraoperative complication rates [relative risk (RR) 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.96), p = 0.03] and lesser VAS score at hospital discharge [Std. Mean Difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.46, -0.01), p = 0.04] in the SSRC group. Regarding operation time and cost, SSRC revealed a longer time [SMD 1.02 (95% CI 0.45, 1.59), p = 0.0004] and higher cost [SMD 4.18 (95% CI 1.77, 6.58), p < 0.00001], respectively. Meanwhile, SSRC did not differ from SILC during a hospital stay, blood loss volume, conversion rate, postoperative complication rates, and VAS immediately after surgery.

Conclusions

Concerning intraoperative complication rates and VAS score at hospital discharge, SSRC was superior to SILC. Thus, SSRC is considered a feasible and safe procedure.

Learning Curve of Single-site Robotic Cholecystectomy: A Cumulative Sum Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has significantly improved cosmesis and clinical outcomes after either laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy. In an effort to minimize the number of incisions in multiport procedures, single-site approaches have been developed. However, single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) can be technically challenging for novice surgeons. The goal of this study is to establish the learning curve (LC) of SSRC through an assessment of operative times and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing SSRC over a period of 5 years was performed. Consecutive cholecystectomy cases were assessed based on the procedure setting (elective vs. emergent). Cumulative sum analysis were used to establish the LC through an evaluation of the skin-to-skin (STS) time and postoperative complications rate. Afterward, a direct comparison was performed between the established phases.

RESULTS

This study included a total of 259 SSRCs with an overall mean STS time of 41.1 minutes. Elective cases took on average of 38.8 minutes, whereas emergent cases spanned over 60.5 minutes ( P= 0.005). The cumulative sum-LC was obtained by summing the differences between each procedure's STS time, revealing a quadratic best-fit line maximum and an inflection point between the early and late phases at case 91. A significant difference between STS time was seen between the early and late phases (53.8 vs. 30.0 min, P< 0.0001). There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative complications between the 2 phases. Incisional hernia rates were comparable between the 2 phases (early: 4.4% vs. late: 2.5%, P< 0.461).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to assess the LC of SSRC through operative time and clinical outcomes. A steady decrease in STS time was observed during the completion of the first 91 consecutive cases.

Bikini Line Approach for Cosmetic Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a standard procedure. Several alternative approaches have been described to make trocar scars invisible. This study describes and was successfully administered as a pilot for feasibility and safety of a bikini line port for better aesthetic results. In patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis undergoing LC between June 2021 and December 2021, bikini line ports were used in 67 patients. With the patient in the supine position, the first trocar (11 mm) was inserted into the abdomen through the umbilicus. The other three trocars were placed in the lower abdomen at the bikini line with the help of the camera. Standard instruments were used to perform the surgery. The mean operative time was 54.66 SD 14.1 min. No intraoperative or postoperative adverse events took place. The median follow-up for this cohort was 24 weeks. Cosmetic results were satisfactory for all patients. The use of one umbilical camera port and the other three ports in the bikini line in the lower abdomen completely hides the scars from the ports’ incision. The technique was quickly adopted by regular laparoscopic surgeons with usual instruments, much to the satisfaction of patients.

Comparison of outcomes of single incision robotic cholecystectomy and single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic gallbladder diseases. However, as a result of the ongoing trend toward minimally invasive laparoscopy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has evolved. Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) can overcome several limitations of manual SILC. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and feasibility of SIRC and SILC.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed data for all patients who underwent SIRC or SILC from March 2018 to July 2019 in a single institution. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, pain scale, length of stay, and complications. The data were analyzed using the Independent two sample t-test or the Fisher’s exact test.

Results

A total of 343 patients underwent SIRC or SILC during the study period. After excluding patients with acute cholecystitis, 197 SIRC and 103 SILC patients were analyzed in this study. The surgery time and postoperative hospital stay did not differ between SIRC and SILC. However, the SIRC patients experienced less bile spillage during the surgery than did the SILC patients (SIRC vs. SILC: 24 (23.3%) vs. 11 (5.6%) cases, respectively; p<0.001). Although there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between procedures, additional pain control was administered more frequently in SILC patients (SILC 1.08±0.893, SIRC 0.58±0.795; p<0.001).

Conclusions

While both SILC and SIRC are effective for single-incision cholecystectomy, SIRC was superior to SILC in terms of technical stability. Moreover, it has the advantage of postoperative pain control.

Propensity score-matching analysis for single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although the single-site robotic cholecystectomy(SSRC) has been performed with expectation of overcoming the limitation of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC), there exists a lack of comparison studies involving SILC and SSRC. This study aimed to analyze surgical outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy by propensity score-matching analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2009 to August 2015, 290 consecutive patients underwent SSRC or SILC at Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Potential confounding factors for operative outcomes were adjusted by propensity score-matching analysis. One hundred four patients from each group were evaluated for perioperative outcomes and compared for a retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

There was no difference in potential cofounders such as gender, age, body mass index (BMI), and perioperative cholecystitis-related symptoms between two groups after propensity score-matching. However, mean operation time was shorter (56.69 ± 13.65 vs. 101.57 ± 27.05 min; p < 0.001) and median bleeding amount during surgery was less (0 (0-50) vs. 0 (0-100) mL; p < 0.001) in the SILC group. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. Bile leakage due to perforation of the gallbladder during surgery was more common in the SILC group (6.7% vs. 17.3%; p = 0.019). Moreover, bile spillage rate was significantly increased in conjunction with a higher BMI in the SILC group, whereas BMI did not affect the bile leakage rate in the SSRC group.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is not superior to SILC except regarding bile spillage incidence. However, the technical stability and clinically undetected advantages of SSRC are expected to prompt surgeons to perform this more reliable procedure.

Solo single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the parallel method; Surgical technique reducing a steep learning curve

Backgrounds/Aims

To describe the techniques, short-term outcomes, and learning curve of solo single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Solo-SILC) using a laparoscopic scope holder.

Methods

A total of 591 patients who underwent Solo-SILC from July 2014 to December 2016 performed by four experienced hepatobiliary surgeons were retrospectively assessed. Solo-SILC was performed using the parallel method using a scope holder. The moving average method was used to investigate the learning curve in terms of operative time.

Results

In total, 590 Solo-SILC procedures were performed. Very few procedures were converted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was one case of bile duct injury. The mean operative time (59.93±25.77 min) was shorter than that in other studies of SILC. Three postoperative complications, delaying bile leakage, occurred in the patients treated by one surgeon. These cases were resolved by ultrasound-guided puncture and drainage. The learning curve for surgeons A, B, and C was overcome after 14, 12, and 12 cases. Surgeon D, who had the most experience with SILC, had no obvious learning curve.

Conclusions

Hepatobiliary surgeons experienced in LC can perform Solo-SILC almost immediately. Solo-SILC using the parallel technique represents a more stable option and is a promising treatment for gallbladder disease.

Analysis of post-operative complication in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A retrospective analysis in 817 cases from a surgeon

BACKGROUND

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) is a new advanced technique in laparoscopic surgery which has many benefits according to previous reports. The purpose of this study was to present personal experiences with SPLC in >800 cases performed by a surgeon to evaluate the safety and feasibility of this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 817 cases of SPLC was conducted. All patients had received elective SPLC by a surgeon in our centre during March 2009-August 2015. Our review suggests patients' character, peri-operative data and post-operative outcome.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-eight men (48.7%) and 419 women (51.3%) with an average age of 48.3 years had received SPLC. Their mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.75 kg/m2. The mean operating time took 46.9 min (19-130). Seventy-nine cases (9.7%) needed additional port during operation. BMI, age and previous abdominal surgical history did not affect conversion to multiport surgery. Bile spillage during operation occurred in 73 cases (8.9%). There were 4 cases of open conversion because of bleeding (2 cases, 0.2%) and common bile duct (CBD) injury (2 cases, 0.2%). Mean duration of hospital stay was 2.36 days. We have experienced 38 cases (4.7%) of post-operative complication: 8 cases (1.0%) of major one and 30 cases (3.7%) of minor one. Major complication occurred in 3 cases (0.4%) of retained CBD stone, 3 cases (0.4%) of cystic duct leakage needed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and 2 cases (0.2%) of CBD injury needed reoperation. Most minor complications were wound infections that have healed after conservative treatment. There were no post-operative mortalities.

CONCLUSION

SPLC is a safe and practicable technique. With surgical experience, criteria and area of SPLC can be broadened. SPLC is occupying a greater domain of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using instrumental alignment in robotic single-site cholecystectomy

Purpose

There is no standardized single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) technique in contrast to robot single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC). We tried to implement the array of instruments used in RSSC to SILC.

Methods

A series of 108 consecutive patients underwent SILC between September 2014 and July 2017 by 2 surgeons. The indication was benign disease of the gallbladder. The perioperative outcomes were reviewed. We used the 4-channel Glove port and conventional laparoscopic instruments.

Results

The study subjects consisted of 29 males and 79 females, and the mean age was 44.4 years (range, 16–70 years). Mean body mass index was 24.1 kg/m². The mean working time was 25.0 ± 10.7 minutes and total operation time was 44.4 ± 12.4 minutes. There were 7 cases of conversion (additional 1 port in 4 patients, additional 2 ports in 2, and conventional 4 port technique in 1). Bile spillage from the gallbladder during the procedure occurred in 17 (15.7%). There were no postoperative complications. Postoperative hospital stay was 2.0 ± 0.6 days.

Conclusion

The alignment of the instruments in a RSSC was successfully implemented into a SILC, so that an equally effective operation was possible.

Randomized Trial of Immediate Postoperative Pain Following Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

We undertook a randomized controlled trial to ascertain if single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was more beneficial for reducing postoperative pain than traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC). Moreover, the influencing factors of SILC were analyzed.

METHODS

A total of 552 patients with symptomatic gallstones or polyps were allocated randomly to undergo SILC (n = 138) or TLC (n = 414). Data on postoperative pain score, operative time, complications, procedure conversion, and hospital costs were collected. After a 6-month follow-up, all data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Among SILC group, 4 (2.9%) cases required conversion to TLC. Mean operative time of SILC was significantly longer than that of TLC (58.97 ± 21.56 vs. 43.38 ± 19.02 min, P < 0.001). The two groups showed no significant differences in analgesic dose, duration of hospital stay, or cost. Median pain scores were similar between the two groups 7 days after surgery, but SILC-treated patients had a significantly lower median pain score 6 h after surgery (10-point scale: 3 [2, 4] vs. 4 [3, 5], P = 0.009). Importantly, subgroup analyses of operative time for SILC showed that a longer operative time was associated with greater prevalence of pain score >5 (≥100 min: 5/7 patients vs. <40 min, 3/16 patients, P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary benefit of SILC appears to be slightly less pain immediately after surgery. Surgeon training seems to be important because the shorter operative time for SILC may elicit less pain immediately after surgery.

Preoperative factors predicting the need for additional ports during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is gaining popularity as a minimally invasive technique that provides some benefits in terms of improved cosmesis. However, the insertion of an additional port is required in a subset of cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 308 SILC procedures in patients with benign gallbladder diseases, except acute cholecystitis, to identify preoperative factors predicting the need for an additional port.

RESULTS

SILC was completed with a single incision in 272 patients (88%); the insertion of at least one additional port was required in 36 patients (12%). The additional port requirement was associated with a longer operative time (P < 0.0001), greater intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.0001), and longer postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.0002). Multivariate analysis revealed male gender (odds ratio: 2.57, P = 0.0170), prior history of upper abdominal surgery (odds ratio: 5.53, P = 0.0132), and a higher preoperative white blood cell count (odds ratio: 3.62, P = 0.0244) to be independent factors associated with the requirement for an additional port.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that gender, prior history of upper abdominal surgery, and white blood cell count can predict the likelihood of requiring an additional port in SILC.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Gall Bladder Polyps

Background and Objectives:

Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) was introduced to improve patients' postoperative quality of life and cosmesis over the conventional approach (CLC). The purpose of this case–control study was to compare the outcome of SPLC with that of CLC in a specific disease: gall bladder (GB) polyps.

Methods:

Eligible for the study were all patients with GB polyps who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between June 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011. The 112 patients studied (56 each for SPLC and CLC) were matched by using a propensity score that included gender, age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, history of previous abdominal operation, and pathology outcome. To avoid selection bias caused by the surgeon's choice (often dependent on the degree of inflammation) and to investigate the efficacy of SPLC for a single disease, GB polyps, we excluded patients with acute or chronic cholecystitis.

Results:

Characteristics of the patients matched by a propensity score between SPLC and CLC showed no significant difference. Incidentally detected malignancy was in postoperative pathology in cases in both groups. Although operative time was shorter for SPLC, there was no significant difference in time between the 2 groups. There were 3 open conversions in the CLC group, and an additional port was used in the SPLC group. There was no difference between the groups in hospital stay and postoperative complications.

Conclusion:

In the management of GB polyps, the operative results of SPLC are comparable to those of CLC. We conclude that SPLC is as safe as CLC and has the potential for greater cosmetic satisfaction for patients than CLC. Further trials for objective appraisal of cosmetic outcomes are needed.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been the most frequently studied SILS to date. Hundreds of studies on SILC have failed to present conclusive results. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been small in scale and have been conducted under ideal operative conditions. The role of SILC in complicated scenarios remains uncertain. As common bile duct exploration (CBDE) methods have been used for more than one hundred years, laparoscopic CBDE (LCBDE) has emerged as an effective, demanding, and infrequent technique employed during the laparoscopic era. Likewise, laparoscopic biliary-enteric anastomosis is difficult to carry out, with only a few studies have been published on the approach. The application of SILS to CBDE and biliary-enteric anastomosis is extremely rare, and such innovative procedures are only carried out by a number of specialized groups across the globe. Herein we present a thorough and detailed analysis of SILC in terms of operative techniques, training and learning curves, safety and efficacy levels, recovery trends, and costs by reviewing RCTs conducted over the past three years and two recently updated meta-analyses. All existing literature on single-incision LCBDE and single-incision laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy has been reviewed to describe these two demanding techniques.

Transumbilical SILC Using Conventional Laparoscopic Instruments-Initial Experience in a Resource-Limited Setting

In the era of minimal access, single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining popularity. Expensive ports, disposable hand instruments and flexible endoscopes have been utilised, but they increase the cost of operation. We report our initial experience of two-trocar single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in 70 patients using conventional instruments that can be adapted as a novel technique in achieving minimal trauma and aesthetic results in resource-limited hospitals. Between September 2011 and September 2012, 70 consecutive patients underwent an attempted SILC in a single centre. The mean age of the patients was 42 years (range 18-65 years). There were 12 males and 58 females with a male-to-female ratio of 1:4.8. Transumbilical incision was used to access the abdomen, and two 10-mm ports/trocars were placed through the single incision side by side, maintaining a facial bridge of 5-8 mm in between. Gall bladder was manipulated through two strategically placed traction sutures to expose the Callot's triangle. Mean operation time in our series was 42.12 min (range 22-90 min). There was no need of additional sutures. Bleeding was minimal in nearly all cases. The mean hospital stay was 1.06 days (range 1-4 days). The post-operative analgesic requirement was one dose in 60.4 % patients. Additional port was required in two of our patients. Two patients needed conversion to open surgery. There was no major complication or mortality in our series. This technique of two-trocar SILC using conventional instruments can be adapted as a less invasive surgical procedure in resource-limited hospitals in selected group of patients. Cosmetic result, reduced pain, short hospital stay and the degree of satisfaction appear to be significant with this technique.

Risk factors for prolonged operative time in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Purpose

We performed 3-channel single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in earlier period of this study and modified our method to 4-channel SILC using a snake retractor for better operative field in later period. This study has been designed to evaluate the risk factors for prolonged operative time in SILC.

Methods

From April 2010 to August 2014, 323 cases of 3-channel SILC (Konyang standard method [KSM] group) and 399 cases of 4-channel SILC (modified KSM [mKSM] group) using a snake retractor were performed.

Results

The clinical characteristics were not significantly different between KSM and mKSM group except preoperative percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) treatment (9.6% vs. 16.5%, P < 0.007). The mean operation time was longer in mKSM group than KSM group (55.8 ± 19.7 minutes vs. 51.7 ± 20.1 minutes, P = 0.006). The estimated blood loss of KSM group was more than mKSM group (24.6 ± 54.1 mL vs. 16.9 ± 27.0 mL, P = 0.013). According to the histopathologic findings, acute cholecystitis or empyema were confirmed more in mKSM group as compared with KSM group (28% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.025). In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for prolonged operation time were drainage insertion, histopathologic findings (acute cholecystitis or empyema), surgeons' technical expertise, body mass index > 30 kg/m² as well as the 4-channel SILC.

Conclusion

Among patients with these risk factors, conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be considered as well although SILC might be safe and feasible modality for benign gallbladder disease.

The early outcome of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background:

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newly developed method of performing cholecystectomy and has been increasingly used. The aim of this study is to see if SILC has any advantages over conventional (three-port) laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Materials and Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, 52 patients who underwent SILC (group A) during the period from May 2011 to March 2013 were compared with 62 patients who underwent CLC (group B) at two centers affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Shiraz, Iran. Data were gathered on operation time, pre- and postoperative complications, patients’ postoperative pain, pain reliever use, duration of hospital stay, and return to work, and these data were compared using SPSS software version 16.

Results:

The mean age of patients was 38.01 ± 13.24 in group A and 44.82 ± 15.11 in group B. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.97 ± 4.78 and 26.22 ± 4.67 in groups A and B, respectively. The mean operation time was 76.4 ± 29.0 min in group A and 72.9 ± 24.1 min in group B (P = 0.496). Preoperative complications were 3.8% in group A and 0 in group B (P = 0.206). Postoperative complications were 17.3% in group A and 11.3% in group B (P = 0.423). The mean for early postoperative pain revealed no significant difference (P = 0.814), but the mean pain on discharge was significantly higher in group A patients (P = 0.034). Regarding the mean admission time and return to normal activity, we found no significant differences.

Conclusion:

SILC does not have any special advantages over CLC with regard to surgical outcomes, but it can be a safe alternative to CLC, especially in patients concerned about cosmoses.

Is routine single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy feasible? A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been shown to be safe for uncomplicated gallbladder diseases. Routinely applying SILC is debatable.

METHODS

Two hundred SILCs were performed with single-incision multiple-port longitudinal-array and self-camera techniques.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight (44%) procedures were scheduled for complicated diseases. The routine group had a higher comorbidity rate, a lower preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rate, a higher intraoperative cholangiography rate, a higher proportion of complicated gallbladder diseases, shorter operative time, more intraoperative blood loss, and lower postoperative pethidine dose than the selective group (the first 73 patients). The conversion and complication rates showed no statistical difference. It took fewer cases but longer time to pass the learning phase of SILC for complicated gallbladder diseases. The multivariate analysis showed that male sex and complicated gallbladder diseases were associated with a higher procedure conversion rate, and increased patient age was related to a higher complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine SILC for benign gallbladder diseases is feasible in the experienced phase. Practicing SILC for uncomplicated gallbladder diseases helps to achieve competence in this technique for complicated diseases.

Do height and weight affect the feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for gallbladder removal and the most common laparoscopic procedure worldwide. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has recently emerged as a less invasive potential alternative to conventional three- or four-port laparoscopy. However, the feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) remains unclear, and there are no rigorous criteria in the literature. Identifying patients at risk of failure of this new technique is essential. The aim of our study was to determine risk factors that may predict failure of the procedure.

METHODS

From May 2010 to March 2012, 110 consecutive patients underwent SILC and were reviewed retrospectively. The main feasibility criterion was the procedure failure rate, defined as addition of supplementary port(s) and prolonged (>60 min) operative time. The factors evaluated were age, gender, height, weight, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, indication for surgery and gallbladder suspension.

RESULTS

There was conversion in 16 patients (14.5%), and the operative time exceeded 60 min for 20 patients (30.9%). Univariate analysis showed a significant independent association between additional port requirement and each of weight as a continuous value, weight ≥80 kg, BMI >26.5 kg/m(2) and height >172 cm. Univariate analysis also showed a significant independent association between prolonged operative duration (>60 min) and each of height and weight as continuous values, height >172 cm and previous abdominal surgery. In the multivariate analysis, only weight remained independently associated with additional port requirement, and height remained independently associated with prolonged operative duration.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative identification of the factors increasing the risk of conversion may assist surgeons in making decisions concerning the management of patients, including appropriate use of SILC.

Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes of Single-incision Laparoscopy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopy for Colon Cancer: An Observational Propensity Score-matched Study

Single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) surgery is a recent advance in minimally invasive surgical techniques. From May 2011 to August 2012, 77 patients underwent primary SIL surgery for colon cancer by one colorectal surgeon. Among them, 61 patients were one-to-one-matched to control patients who had undergone conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery with a propensity-matched score, and the outcomes were compared. Two hundred forty-seven patients with colon cancer underwent radical colectomy. Of these, 77 patients underwent SIL colectomy. After matching, there were no significant differences in the general characteristics between the patients undergoing the two types of surgery. Operation time was significantly longer in SIL surgery (139 vs 121 minutes, P = 0.001), but procedure time (107 vs 99 minutes, P = 0.069) was not significantly longer than CL surgery after eliminating closure time (31 vs 22 minutes, P < 0.001) from the operation time. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (3.3 vs 1.6%, P = 1.000). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 23 and 22 for SIL and CL surgery, respectively ( P = 0.332). The mean follow-up period was 15.7 for the SIL group and 21.4 months for the CL group ( P < 0.001) with two recurrences in the SIL group (3.3%) and three recurrences in the CL group (4.9%, P = 1.000). Disease-free survival at 20 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (93.3 vs 94.7%, P = 0.939). SIL for colonic malignancy can be safely applied for various types of operations and can provide equivalent oncologic resection and perioperative outcomes compared with CL surgery.

One-year experience with single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a single center: without the use of inverse triangulation

Purpose

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is generally performed with the use of inverse triangulation. In this study, we performed 3-channel or 4-channel SILC without the use of inverse triangulation. We evaluated the adequacy and feasibility of SILC using our surgical method.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed our series of 309 SILCs performed between March 2014 and February 2015.

Results

Among 309 SILCs, male were 148 and female were 161 patients, mean age was 48.7 ± 15.3 years old and mean body mass index was 24.8 ± 3.8 kg/m². Forty patients had previously undergone abdominal surgery including 6 cases of upper abdominal surgery. SILC after percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder (GB) drainage was completed in 8.7% of cases. There were 10 cases of emergency SILC. SILC was performed for noncomplicated GB including symptomatic GB stone and polyp in 66.7% of cases, acute cholecystitis in 33.3%. Overall, 96.8% of procedures were successfully completed without additional port. The reason for addition of an extra port or open conversion included technical difficulties due to severe adhesion and bleeding. The mean operating time was 60.7 ± 22.3 minutes. The overall complication rate was 4.8%: 9 patients of wound seroma, 1 case of bile leakage from GB bed, 4 cases of intra-abdominal abscess or fluid collection, and 1 case of incisional hernia were developed. There was no case of common bile duct injury.

Conclusion

Our surgical method of SILC without the use of inverse triangulation is safe, feasible and effective technique.

Impact of fellowship during single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Adoption of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy during fellowship training is safe and feasible; however, longer operative times are expected during the teaching process.

Background and Objectives:

Minimally invasive surgery fellowship programs have been created in response to advancements in technology and patient's demands. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a technique that has been shown to be safe and feasible, but this appears to be the case only for experienced surgeons. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of minimally invasive surgery fellow participation during SILC.

Methods:

We reviewed data from our experience with SILC during 3 years. The cases were divided in two groups: group 1 comprised procedures performed by the main attending without the presence of the fellow, and group 2 comprised procedures performed with the fellow present during the operation. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, indication for surgery, total surgical time, hospital length of stay, and complications were evaluated.

Results:

The cohort included 229 patients: 142 (62%) were included in group 1 and 87 (38%) in group 2. No differences were found in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and indication for surgery between groups. The total surgical time was 34.4 ± 11.4 minutes for group 1 and 46.8 ± 16.0 minutes for group 2 (P < .001). The hospital length of stay was 0.89 ± 0.32 days for group 1 and 1.01 ± 0.40 days for group 2 (P = .027). No intraoperative complications were seen in either group. There were 3 postoperative complications (2.1%) in group 1 and none in group 2 (P = .172).

Conclusion:

Adoption of SILC during an established fellowship program is safe and feasible. A longer surgical time is expected during the teaching process.

Comparison of a Flexible-tip Laparoscope with a Rigid Straight Laparoscope for Single-incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

This study assessed whether a flexible-tip laparoscope improves operative outcomes including operative length while performing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) compared with the use of a conventional straight laparoscope. The flexible-tip laparoscope decreased the operative time compared with the straight laparoscope. Although SILC has potential benefits, surgeons experience problems for in-line viewing through a laparoscope and from contact of instruments with the laparoscope, resulting in longer operative times and the need for additional ports. The aim of this study was to determine whether a flexible-tip laparoscope improves operative outcomes, including operative length and the rate of insertion of additional ports, while performing SILC compared with the use of a conventional rigid straight laparoscope. We reviewed data on patients for whom we performed SILC at the Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, for the period from November 1, 2009, to February 28, 2013. The information was assessed with respect to patient characteristics, types of laparoscope used, operative data as well as postoperative outcomes. Operating time for SILC using the flexible-tip laparoscope was significantly shorter than with the straight laparoscope (81.5 ± 23.2 vs 94.4 ± 21.1 minutes) as a result of a better view of the operating field without contact with working instruments. Although a trend was shown toward a reduced rate of the need for extra ports in the flexible-tip laparoscope group, the difference did not reach statistical significance. Using the flexible-tip laparoscope solved the problem of in-line viewing and decreased the operative time for SILC.

Therapeutic advances: Single incision laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery

Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is proposed to be a step towards minimizing the invasiveness of surgery, and has since gained popularity in several surgical sub-specialties including hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. SPLS has since been applied to cholecystectomy, liver resection as well as pancreatectomy for a multitude of pathologies. Benefits of SPLS over conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery include improved cosmesis and potentially post-operative pain at specific time periods and extra-umbilical sites. However, it is also associated with longer operating time, increased rate of complications, and increased rate of port-site hernia. There is no significant difference between length of hospital stay. SPLS has a significant learning curve that affects operating time, rate of conversion and rate of complications. In this article, we review the literature on SPLS in hepatobiliary surgery - cholecystectomy, hepatectomy and pancreatectomy, and offer tips on overcoming potential technical obstacles and minimizing the complications when performing SPLS - surgeon position, position of port and instruments, instrument crossing position, standard hand grip vs reverse hand grip, snooker cue guide position, prevention of incisional hernia. SPLS is a promising direction in laparoscopic surgery, and we recommend step-wise progression of applications of SPLS to various hepatopancreatobiliary surgeries to ensure safe adoption of the surgical technique.

Four-channel single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a snake retractor: comparison between 3- and 4-channel SILC 4-channel single incision cholecystectomy

Purpose

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a widely used method of performing cholecystectomy. A common technique used in SILC is a 3-channel method. However, exposure of Calot's triangle is limited in conventional 3-channel SILC. Therefore, we herein report the adequacy and feasibility of 4-channel SILC using a snake retractor.

Methods

Four hundred and fifteen SILC cases were performed between April 2010 and February 2013. We performed 326 SILC cases between April 2010 and September 2012 using the 3-channel method. We introduced a snake retractor for liver traction in October 2012, and 89 cases of 4-channel SILC using snake retractor have been performed since.

Results

Thirty patients (9.2%) in the 3-channel SILC group, and 23 patients (25.8%) in the 4-channel SILC group, were treated with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage insertion because of acute inflammation of the gallbladder (GB) before operation (P < 0.001). The mean operating time was 53.0 ± 25.8 minutes in the 3-channel SILC group and 51.9 ± 18.6 minutes in the 4-channel SILC group (P = 0.709). In the 3-channel SILC group, mean hospital stay was 3.0 ± 3.3 days whereas it was 2.6 ± 0.9 days in the 4-channel SILC group (P = 0.043). There were a total 9 cases (2.1%) of additional port usages, 6 cases (1.8%) in the 3-channel SILC group and 3 cases (3.4%) in the 4-channel SILC group (P = 0.411), due to cystic artery bleeding and bile leakage from gallbladder bed, but there were no open conversions.

Conclusion

Benign diseases of the GB can be operated on using SILC with the 4-channel method using a snake retractor.

Postoperative complications following single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a retrospective analysis in 360 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is being increasingly performed based on recent evidence showing its cosmetic advantages. However, there is limited information on outcome data for SILC with respect to postoperative complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 360 patients undergoing SILC to evaluate the rate, features, and risk factors of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 671 days, 17 patients (4.7 %) developed postoperative complications, including bile duct injuries, intraabdominal abscess, wound infection, incisional hernia, paralytic ileus, and pneumonia. Reoperation was required in five patients (1.4 %). Overall inpatient mortality occurred in one patient (0.3 %) who developed aspiration pneumonia. In multivariate stepwise regression analyses, poor physical status (American Society of Anesthesiologists score of ≥3) and preoperative diagnosis of acute cholecystitis were identified as significant risk factors for the development of postoperative complications (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that SILC is a relatively safe procedure with an acceptable postoperative complication rate but requires careful attention especially in patients with poor physical status and/or acute cholecystitis.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of methodology and outcomes

PURPOSE

(1) To survey the dissemination of SILC; (2) to determine which SILC method has become mainstream; (3) to determine whether the characteristic complications vary according to the type of procedure.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Databases@Ovid, and SciVerse Scopus between 2003/01/01 and 2012/12/31 was performed.

RESULTS

The peak number of annually published articles was 70 in 2011. The most common procedures were single skin incision, the use of a SILS Port(®), suture suspension and a 5-mm oblique scope. The intraoperative complications rate was 1.69 %. Postoperative complications occurred in 213/5283 cases. According to the surgical procedure, five factors (approach; P = 0.0017, gallbladder anchorage; P < 0.001, size; P = 0.049 and type; P < 0.001 of the scope, and size of the clip applier; P = 0.074) significantly affected the incidence of wound infection. The incidence of wound seroma/bleeding was significantly influenced by gallbladder anchorage (P = 0.009), the use of curved/articulated instruments (P = 0.048), and the diameter of the clip applier (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

To determine the best operative procedure for SILC, an analysis of uniform operative procedures is needed.

Single-incision versus standard multiple-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The advantages of single-incision surgery for the treatment of gallstone disease is debated. Previous meta-analyses comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and standard laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy (SLMC) included few and underpowered trials. To overcome this limitation, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.

METHODS

A MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library literature search of studies published in and comparing SILC with SLMC was performed. The primary outcome was safety of SILC as measured by the overall rate of postoperative complications and biliary spillage. Feasibility was another primary outcome as measured by the conversion and operative time. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, time to return to normal activity, and cosmetic satisfaction were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 43 studies of which 30 were observational reports and 13 experimental trials, for a total of 7489 patients (2090 SILC and 5389 SLMC). The overall rate of complications was comparable between groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.87-1.35; P = .46), as were the rates of biliary spillage (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.73-1.84; P = .53) and conversion rate (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.53-1.46; P = .62). Operative time was in favor of SLMC (weighted mean difference = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.67-0.79; P < .0001). Secondary outcomes favored SILC, but with marginal advantages.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC is a feasible technique but without any significant advantage over SLMC for relevant end points. Although secondary outcomes favored SILC, the small magnitude of the advantage and the low quality of assessment methods question the clinical significance of these benefits.

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (such as improvement in cosmesis and earlier return to activity) and harms (such as increased complications) of using fewer-than-four ports (fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy) versus four ports in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for any reason (symptomatic gallstones, acalculous cholecystitis, gallbladder polyp, or any other condition).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing fewer-than-four ports versus four ports, that is, with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is performed with two ports of at least 10-mm incision and two ports of at least 5-mm incision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine trials with 855 participants that randomised participants to fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 427) versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 428). Most trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seven of the nine trials used a single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the remaining two trials used three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the experimental intervention. Only one trial including 70 participants had low risk of bias. Fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 90% of participants in most trials. The remaining participants were mostly converted to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some participants had to undergo open cholecystectomy.There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (318 participants in fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 316 participants in four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group). The proportion of participants with serious adverse events was low in both treatment groups and the estimated RR was compatible with a reduction and substantial increased risk with the fewer-than-four-ports group (6/318 (1.9%)) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (0/316 (0%)) (RR 3.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 18.04; 7 trials; 634 participants; very low quality evidence). The estimated difference in the quality of life (measured between 10 and 30 days) was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.42; 4 trials; 510 participants; very low quality evidence), as was the proportion of participants in whom the laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy between the groups (fewer-than-four ports 3/289 (adjusted proportion 1.2%) versus four port: 5/292 (1.7%); RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.35; 5 trials; 581 participants; very low quality evidence). The fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy took 14 minutes longer to complete (MD 14.44 minutes; 95% CI 5.95 to 22.93; 9 trials; 855 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.01 days; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 6 trials; 731 participants) or in the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 1 trial; 50 participants; very low quality evidence) between the two groups. The times taken to return to normal activity and work were shorter by two days in the fewer-than-four-ports group compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (return to normal activity: MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.81; 2 trials; 325 participants; very low quality evidence; return to work: MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -3.31 to -0.69; 1 trial; 150 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in cosmesis scores at 6 to 12 months between the two groups (SMD 0.37; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.84; 2 trials; 317 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that is insufficient to determine whether there is any significant clinical benefit in using fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety profile of using fewer-than-four ports is yet to be established and fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be reserved for well-designed randomised clinical trials.

Risk factors for a prolonged operative time in a single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

A prolonged operative time is associated with adverse post-operative outcomes in laparoscopic surgery. Although a single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) requires a longer operative time as compared with a conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, risk factors for a prolonged operative time in SILC remain unknown.

METHODS

A total of 20 clinical variables were retrospectively reviewed to identify factors for a prolonged operative time (longer than 3 h) in a total of 220 consecutive patients undergoing SILC.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 145 min (range, 55-435) and a prolonged operative time was required in 62 patients (28%). Independent factors that predict a prolonged operative time as identified through multivariate analysis were body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.009), acute cholecystitis (P < 0.001) and operator (resident or staff surgeon) (P < 0.001). Furthermore, a prolonged operative time was significantly associated with an increased amount of intra-operative blood loss (P < 0.001) and a prolonged stay after surgery (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that a higher BMI, acute cholecystitis and a resident as an operator significantly increase the duration of SILC procedures.

Single-incision vs three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for complicated and uncomplicated acute cholecystitis

AIM: To compare the clinical outcome of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (3ILC) for acute cholecystitis.

METHODS: From July 2009 to September 2012, 136 patients underwent SILC or 3ILC for acute cholecystitis at a tertiary referral hospital. One experienced surgeon performed every procedure using 5 or 10 mm 30-degree laparoscopes, straight instruments, and conventional ports. Five patients with perforated gallbladder and diffuse peritonitis and 23 patients with mild acute cholecystitis were excluded. The remaining 108 patients were divided into complicated and uncomplicated groups according to pathologic findings. Patient demography, clinical data, operative results and complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS: Fifty patients with gangrenous cholecystitis, gallbladder empyema, or hydrops were classified as the complicated group, and 58 patients with acute cholecystitis were classified as the uncomplicated group. Twenty-three (46.0%) of the patients in the complicated group (n = 50) and 39 (67.2%) of the patients in the uncomplicated group (n = 58) underwent SILC; all others underwent 3ILC. The postoperative length of hospital stay (PLOS) was significantly shorter in the SILC subgroups than the 3ILC subgroups (3.5 ± 1.1 d vs 4.6 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.01 in the complicated group; 2.9 ± 1.1 d vs 3.7 ± 1.4 d, P < 0.05 in the uncomplicated group). The maximum body temperature recorded at day 1 and at day 2 following the procedure was lower in the SILC subgroups, but the difference reached statistical significance only in the uncomplicated group (37.41 ± 0.56 °C vs 37.80 ± 0.72 °C, P < 0.05 on postoperative day 1; 37.10 ± 0.43 °C vs 37.57 ± 0.54 °C, P < 0.01 on postoperative day 2). The operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative narcotic use, total length of hospital stay, conversion rates, and complication rates were similar in both SILC and 3ILC subgroups. The complicated group had longer operative time (122.2 ± 35.0 min vs 106.6 ± 43.6 min, P < 0.05), longer PLOS (4.1 ± 1.3 d vs 3.2 ± 1.2 d, P < 0.001), and higher conversion rates (36.0% vs 19.0%, P < 0.05) compared with the uncomplicated group.

CONCLUSION: SILC is safe and efficacious for patients with acute cholecystitis. The main benefit is a faster recovery than that achieved with 3ILC.

The evolution of laparoscopy in abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of the effect on infectious outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been recommended as an effective strategy because of its advantages in decreasing abdominal surgical site infections (SSIs). The aim of this study was to assess the effect of laparoscopy on superficial and organ/space SSIs compared with open surgery in hollow-viscus procedures over time.

STUDY DESIGN

Data on SSIs from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating open versus laparoscopic abdominal surgeries were extracted from the Cochrane Database Reviews. Re-analysis of these data was performed to assess infections. Heterogeneity was also explored. A subgroup analysis was performed according to elective/emergency surgery status.

RESULTS

Data from 72 RCTs including 8218 patients were collected (4116 patients in the laparoscopic group and 4102 patients in the open group). For superficial SSI, the pooled RD was -4.4% (95% CI: -5.4% to -3.3%), which indicated a lower risk in the laparoscopic group. For organ/space SSI, the pooled RD was 0.5% (95% CI: -0.1% to 1%), which indicated similar rates between the groups. Changes in SSI frequency had occurred over time.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery significantly decreases the risk of superficial SSI but does not affect the risk of organ/space SSI. Experience with technique improves outcomes.

A randomized clinical trial comparing 4-port, 3-port, and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUNDS

Despite increasing trend in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), there is still controversy regarding its global acceptance as a routine practice. Our study aimed to compare surgical events, early in-hospital and later outcomes of SILC with conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) between June and December 2011, 90 consecutive patients with documented biliary diseases waiting for LC were equally allocated to 3-port, 4-port, and single incision LC group. Operative time, surgical adverse events, postoperative pain according to visual analogue scale (VAS), total morphine administration, length of hospital stay, and cosmetic outcomes were compared between these three groups.

RESULTS

A total of 27 males (30%) and 63 females (70%) were enrolled in this study. The average patients' age and BMI were 42.6 ± 12.1 years and 26.2 ± 2.7 kg/m(2), respectively. Operative time in SILC group was significantly longer than other groups. Total intraoperative adverse events and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the three groups. Mean ± SD VAS score at rest was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in SILC group. The average VAS at coughing was significantly lower in SILC group in all time intervals except the first 6 hr (p < 0.05). In addition, total morphine dose showed significantly lower amount in SILC group (p = 0.02). 12-month follow-up did not reveal significant difference between the study groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with less postoperative pain in later hours, reduces in-hospital analgesic dosages, has longer procedure time, but does not increase intraoperative and postoperative adverse events It seems that SILC has no obvious advantages in terms of later outcomes.

Patient scar assessment after single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: long-term follow-up from a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The single-incision laparoscopic approach for cholecystectomy has been reported to be cosmetically superior in the traditional four-port technique in several case series; however, prospective comparative data are lacking. We conducted a 60-patient, prospective, randomized trial comparing single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with standard four-port cholecystectomy, including validated scar assessment evaluation around 6 weeks and 18 months after the operation in an effort to determine if a cosmetic advantage existed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients over 12 years of age and parents of patients under 12 years of age enrolled in the trial were asked to complete the validated Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). The PSAQ consists of four subscales: Appearance, Consciousness, Satisfaction with Appearance, and Satisfaction with Symptoms. The Symptoms subscale is omitted from analysis per PSAQ instructions because of insufficient reliability. Each subscale is a set of items with 4-point categorical responses (from 1=most favorable to 4=least favorable). The sum of the questions quantifies each subscale. Data are expressed as mean±standard deviation values.

RESULTS

Eighteen single-site patients and 8 four-port patients completed early questionnaires, in which there was no difference in overall scar assessment (P=.17). Telephone follow-up was accomplished for 17 single-site patients and 24 four-port patients and revealed that the overall scar assessment significantly favored the single-site approach (P=.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients or parents of patients do not identify an overall superior scar assessment at early follow-up after single-site laparoscopic versus four-port cholecystectomy. However, they do perceive a superior scar assessment at long-term follow-up, suggesting that there is a cosmetic benefit favoring the single-site approach.

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

Single incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.

Single-incision cholecystectomy: a comparative study of standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER platforms

BACKGROUND

Many series have shown the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), but this technique still has limitations such as instrument collisions and lack of triangulation. Recently, two single-incision platforms, robotic and SPIDER, have attempted to ameliorate such problems. This study aimed to compare three different techniques of single-incision cholecystectomy: standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER approaches.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively collected data from their first 166 single-incision robotic cholecystectomies (SIRCs) and compared the findings with the data from their first 166 SILCs and the first 166 s-generation SPIDER procedures. All the SILCs were performed with three trocars placed in one umbilical incision and with gallbladder retraction using a Prolene stitch on the right upper quadrant. All the robotic cases were managed using the da Vinci Single-Site Surgical System, and all the SPIDER procedures were performed using the SPIDER Surgical System.

RESULTS

The SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER groups consisted respectively of 129 (76.3%), 131 (78.9%), and 136 (81.9%) women with the respective mean ages of 44.5 ± 14.3, 51.6 ± 15.9, and 46.4 ± 15.2 years. The mean body mass indexes (BMIs) were respectively 29.1 ± 5.6, 29.4 ± 6.2, and 27.5 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), and the mean surgical times were 37.1 ± 13.3, 63.0 ± 25.2, and 52.8 ± 18.7 min. The total hospital stays were respectively 1.3 ± 5.3, 1.2 ± 2.2, and 1.5 ± 2.6 days, and complications were seen respectively in three SILC cases (1.8%), three SIRC cases (1.8%), and two SPIDER cases (1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate similar results among the three platforms for most of the parameters measured. The SILC procedure appears to be superior to SIRC and SPIDER in terms of surgical time, but selection bias could be the cause. The SILS, SIRC, and SPIDER procedures all are similar in terms of complication profile. It can be concluded that SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER all are feasible and safe alternatives when used for single-incision cholecystectomy.

Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy vs three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A large-scale retrospective study

AIM: To perform a large-scale retrospective comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy (LESSC) and three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TPLC) in a single institution.

METHODS: Data were collected from 366 patients undergoing LESSC between January 2005 and July 2008 and were compared with the data from 355 patients undergoing TPLC between August 2008 and November 2011 in our department. Patients with body mass index greater than 35 kg/m², a history of major upper abdominal surgery, signs of acute cholecystitis, such as fever, right upper quadrant tenderness with or without Murphy’s sign, elevated white blood cell count, imaging findings suggestive of pericholecystic fluid, gallbladder wall thickening > 4 mm, and gallstones > 3 cm, were excluded to avoid bias.

RESULTS: Altogether, 298 LESSC and 315 TPLC patients met the inclusion criteria. The groups were well matched with regard to demographic data. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative complications (contusion: 19 vs 25 and hematoma at incision: 11 vs 19), hospital stay (mean ± SD, 1.4 ± 0.2 d vs 1.4 ± 0.7 d) and visual analogue pain score (mean ± SD, 8 h after surgery: 2.3 ± 1.4 vs 2.3 ± 1.3 and at day 1: 1.2 ± 0.4 vs 1.3 ± 1.2) between the LESSC and TPLC patients. Four patients required the addition of extra ports and 2 patients were converted to open surgery in the LESSC group, which was not significantly different when compared with TPLC patients converted to laparotomy (2 vs 2). LESSC resulted in a longer operating time (mean ± SD, 54.8 ± 11.0 min vs 33.5 ± 9.0 min), a higher incidence of intraoperative gallbladder perforation (56 vs 6) and higher operating cost (mean ± SD, 1933.7 ± 64.4 USD vs 1874.7 ± 46.2 USD) than TPLC. No significant differences in operating time (mean ± SD, 34.3 ± 6.0 min vs 32.7 ± 8.7 min) and total cost (mean ± SD, 1881.3 ± 32.8 USD vs 1876.2 ± 33.4 USD) were found when the last 100 cases in the two groups were compared. A correlation was observed between reduced operating time of LESSC and increased experience (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, -0.28). More patients in the LESSC group expressed satisfaction with the cosmetic result (98% vs 85%).

CONCLUSION: LESSC is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients with benign gallbladder diseases, with the significant advantage of cosmesis.