Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

First human surgery using a surgical assistance robotics device for laparoscopic cholecystectomies

BACKGROUND

Over the past 20 years, surgeons involved in soft tissue minimally invasive surgery have experienced the pros and cons of both conventional and tele-robotic laparoscopic approaches. The Maestro System, developed by Moon Surgical (Paris, France) aims to overcome the challenges inherent to both approaches thanks to a new concept that augments the surgeon's performance at the bedside during a laparoscopic procedure.

METHODS

The current study aims to present the first human experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the Maestro system on 10 patients.

RESULTS

All ten procedures were completed successfully. No significant complications related to the use of the Maestro system werenoted.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary observations appear to support the benefits of the Maestro system in non-emergent laparoscopic cholecystectomies. It goes without saying that further research is necessary to demonstrate the safety of this approach in other procedures.

Comparing outcomes of ovarian cystectomy by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the outcomes of ovarian cystectomy (OC) performed by vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) vs transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients in our hospital who underwent OC either by vNOTES or LESS between January 2015 and September 2021. Demographic data were collected. The primary outcome was the conversion rate. The secondary outcomes were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, maximum body temperature within 48 hours after operation, and duration of maximum body temperature (hours), among others. Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS software.

RESULTS

Exactly 284 patients were screened. The vNOTES and LESS groups consisted of 21 and 47 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in the conversion rates between the two groups (0 vs 8.5% in vNOTES and LESS, respectively; p = 0.303). Compared with the vNOTES group, the LESS group had a larger cyst diameter (6.00 ± 2.32 vs 4.69 ± 1.29 cm; p = 0.004), more endometriotic cysts (42.6% vs 9.5%; p < 0.001), and more pelvic adhesions requiring adhesiolysis (57.4% vs 19.0%; p = 0.003). At baseline, there were no other differences between the groups. The secondary outcomes included a shorter duration of surgery (70.14 ± 27.30 vs 99.57 ± 36.26 minutes; p = 0.001) and lower estimated blood loss (64.29 ± 39.19 vs 163.43 ± 251.20 mL; p = 0.011) in the vNOTES group. Regression analysis showed the diameter of the ovarian cyst correlated with surgical time. The complication was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Above all, the advantages of vNOTES include an absence of visible scars, shorter surgical duration, and less blood loss when compared with LESS. Further large-scale prospective trials should confirm the results of our study.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Conventional Four-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

The present systematic review compares single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with the aim of assessing early postoperative pain and morbidity. The secondary outcomes assessed were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery. A systematic search for medical records was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. A total of 14 randomized control trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1762 patients. Early postoperative pain (four to six hours) (mean difference (MD): -0.86; 95%; confidence interval (CI): -1.16 to -0.55) showed significantly better results in the SILC group but showed no difference on the first or second postoperative day. There were significantly fewer complications (relative risk (RR): 1.7; 95%; CI: 1.16-2.50) recorded in the CLC group as compared to the SILC group. Operative time (MD: 19.66; 95% CI: 13.21-26.11) was significantly longer in the SILC group, while the duration of hospital stay (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.28-0.26) and conversion to open surgery (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.20-4.82) showed no significant difference. SILC had a significantly longer operative time and more complications as compared to CLC. However, it was associated with significantly lower early post-operative pain.

Single-Port Cholecystectomy for Cholecystitis Versus Non-Cholecystitis

Background and Objectives:

To assess the safety and efficacy of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) for the treatment of symptomatic cholelithiasis in different gallbladder pathologic conditions.

Methods:

All patients who underwent SPLC in our department between October 1, 2017 and March 31, 2020 were registered consecutively in a prospective database. Patients’ charts were retrospectively divided according to histological diagnosis: normal gallbladder (NG) (n = 13), chronic cholecystitis (CC) (n =47), and acute cholecystitis (AC) (n = 10). The parameters for assessing the procedure outcome included operative time, blood loss, use of additional trocars, conversion to laparotomy, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. Patient groups were statistically compared.

Results:

Seventy patients underwent SPLC. Duration of surgery increased from NG (55 ± 22.7 min) to CC (70 ± 33.5 min), and to AC patients (110.5 ± 50.5 min), which is statistically significant (P = .001). Postoperative complication rates were 7.6% in NG patients, 17% in CC, and 30% in AC (P = .442). Length of hospitalization was shorter for NG patients (1.0 ± 0.6 days) versus CC (2.0 ± 1.1 days) and AC patients (2.0 ± 4.7 days), with statistical significance (P = .020). Multivariate analysis found that pathology type and the occurrence of postoperative complications were independent predictors for prolonged operative times and prolonged hospital stay, respectively.

Conclusion:

SPLC is feasible for acute and chronic cholecystitis with good procedural outcomes. Since SPLC technique itself can be sometimes challenging with the existing technology, its application, especially in cases of acute cholecystitis, should be done with caution. Only prospective randomized studies on this approach for acute and chronic gallbladder diseases will assess the complete reliability of this technique.

Emergency single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: A multi-center study

Single-incision laparoscopy is accepted as a safe alternative to multiple port laparoscopy for elective cholecystectomy; however, there are limited data on its use in patients with acute cholecystitis. The present multi-center study evaluated the outcomes of emergency single-incision surgeries for acute cholecystitis in hospitals in Belgium, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago over a 5-year period. Standardized definitions of uncomplicated and complicated acute cholecystitis were used and the data were compared using SPSS software. The results revealed that over the 5-year period, 108 patients with a mean age of 48±15 years and a mean body mass index of 27±4.2 kg/m² underwent emergency single-incision cholecystectomies. The surgeries were successful in 92.1% of cases without supplemental trocars being used. The overall morbidity rates (9.3%) were also comparable to the historic controls with multiple port cholecystectomy. As was expected, the complicated cholecystitis group required a significantly longer operating time (86.11±30.16 vs. 66.79±16.8; P<0.00194), as well as supplemental trocars (7.9%) vs. 0; P=0.0413). On the whole, the present study demonstrates that emergency single-incision cholecystectomy is a technically feasible and safe procedure for patients with acute cholecystitis. These findings advocate a low threshold to place additional ports to assist with dissection and exposure.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Minimal-invasive surgery has gained wide acceptance in colorectal surgery. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was designed to minimize surgical trauma and improve postoperative outcome. However, the role of SILS in ileostomy formation is unclear.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study 26 patients were included. Six patients were operated with SILS and 20 with conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy. We retrospectively evaluated patient charts for baseline characteristics including prior abdominal surgeries and combination of surgeries. Our primary efficacy objectives were operation time and postoperative hospitalization days. Our safety objectives included the prevalence of postoperative pain, parastomal hernia, incisional hernia, perforation, wound infection, ileus, and infections in general.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics including previous abdominal surgery and concomitant surgeries were comparable in both groups. Total operation time using SILS (37.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopic surgery (82.2 ± 54.8 min [mean ± SD]) was significantly shorter (p = 0.0002). In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with combined surgery, ileostomy formation by SILS was shorter (36.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopy (59.7 ± 28.7 min [mean ± SD]; p = 0.024). Length of postoperative stay was not statistically different between the groups (SILS: 5.5 ± 2.4 days [mean ± SD]; laparoscopic: 13.8 ± 17.3 days [mean ± SD], p = 0.193). Postoperative complication rates were low and comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Placement of a loop ileostomy using SILS technique not only reduces surgical trauma but also operation time without affecting postoperative hospital stay or postoperative complication rates. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for ileostomy is an appealing approach for ileostomy in selected patients.

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Hysterectomy by Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) versus Single-Port Access (SPA) Surgery

Single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic surgery and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) have many advantages. The objective of the present study is to compare patient characteristics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes between the two surgical methods. Patients who were planned to undergo vNOTES or SPA laparoscopic surgery between April 2020 and June 2021 were prospectively enrolled. The surgical method was determined by a single surgeon after imaging results evaluation and a physical exam. Those who had favorable pelvic conditions without any evidence of adhesion were scheduled for vNOTES. A total of 33 patients underwent a vNOTES hysterectomy while 40 patients received a SPA laparoscopic hysterectomy. All surgeries were performed by one surgeon. The proportion of the patients who had a history of vaginal delivery was significantly higher in the vNOTES group. The operative time for port installation was significantly longer in the vNOTES group, but the total operative time was shorter compared to the SPA group. The postoperative pain scores 12 h after the operations were also significantly lower in the vNOTES group. Other surgical outcomes were comparable between the two groups. The present study demonstrated that the early operative outcomes of vNOTES hysterectomy were comparable to those of SPA hysterectomy. It also highlights the importance of adequate patient selection when determining surgical methods based on imaging results and physical examinations.

Single Incision Cholecystectomies for Acute Cholecystitis: A Single Surgeon Series from the Caribbean

Introduction. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is accepted as a safe alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease. Since many surgeons carefully select patients without inflammation, there are limited data on SILS for acute cholecystitis. We report a single surgeon experience with SILS cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis. Materials and Methods. After securing ethical approval, we performed an audit of all SILS cholecystectomies for acute cholecystitis by a single surgeon from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, intraoperative details, surgical techniques, specialized equipment utilized, conversions (additional port placement), morbidity, and mortality. Data were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. Results. SILS cholecystectomy was performed in 25 females at a mean age of 35 ± 4.1 (SD) years and a mean BMI of 31.9 ± 3.8 (SD) using a direct fascial puncture technique without access platforms. The operations were completed in 83 ± 29.4 minutes (mean ± SD) with an estimated blood loss of 76.9 ± 105 (mean + SD). Three (12%) patients required additional 5 mm port placement (conversions), but no open operations were performed. The patients were hospitalized for 1.96 ± 0.9 days (mean ± SD). There were 2 complications: postoperative superficial SSI (grade I) and a diaphragmatic laceration (grade III). No bile duct injuries were reported. There were 9 patients with complicated acute cholecystitis, and this sub-group had longer mean operating times (109.2 ± 27.3 minutes) and mean postoperative hospital stay (1.3 ± 0.87 days). Conclusion. The SILS technique is a feasible and safe approach to perform cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. We advocate a low threshold to place additional ports to assist with difficult dissections for patient safety.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Healthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

A PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.

Results

A total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.

Conclusions

This study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Concerning the Efficacy of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Pain Control After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background and Purpose: Transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block has been suggested to reduce post-operative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, the literature is divided on whether ultrasound (USG)-guided TAP block is effective for pain control after LC. The present meta-analysis therefore evaluated the efficacy of USG-guided TAP block vs. controls and port site infiltration for pain control after LC.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search of online academic databases was performed for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for studies published to January 31, 2021. The primary outcome analyzed was post-operative pain score at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h post-surgery, both during rest and while coughing. Secondary outcomes included morphine consumption and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) incidence.

Results: A total of 23 studies with data on 1,450 LC patients were included in our meta-analysis. A reduction in pain intensity at certain post-operative timepoints was observed for USG-guided TAP block patients compared to control group patients. No reduction in pain intensity was observed for patients receiving USG-guided TAP block patients vs. conventional Port site infiltration.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis concludes that TAP block is more effective than a conventional pain control, but not significatively different from another local incisional pain control that is port site infiltration. Additional prospective randomized controlled trials are required to further validate our findings.

Identification and categorisation of relevant outcomes for symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease: in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Many completed trials of interventions for uncomplicated gallstone disease are not as helpful as they could be due to lack of standardisation across studies, outcome definition, collection and reporting. This heterogeneity of outcomes across studies hampers useful synthesis of primary studies and ultimately negatively impacts on decision making by all stakeholders. Core outcome sets offer a potential solution to this problem of heterogeneity and concerns over whether the 'right' outcomes are being measured. One of the first steps in core outcome set generation is to identify the range of outcomes reported (in the literature or by patients directly) that are considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a systematic map that examines the variation in outcome reporting of interventions for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and to identify other outcomes of importance to patients with gallstones not previously measured or reported in interventional studies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 794 potentially relevant titles and abstracts of which 137 were deemed eligible for inclusion. A total of 129 randomised controlled trials, 4 gallstone disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 8 qualitative studies were included. This was supplemented with data from 6 individual interviews, 1 focus group (n=5 participants) and analysis of 20 consultations. A total of 386 individual recorded outcomes were identified across the combined evidence: 330 outcomes (which were reported 1147 times) from trials evaluating interventions, 22 outcomes from PROMs, 17 outcomes from existing qualitative studies and 17 outcomes from primary qualitative research. Areas of overlap between the evidence sources existed but also the primary research contributed new, unreported in this context, outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study took a rigorous approach to catalogue and map the outcomes of importance in gallstone disease to enhance the development of the COS 'long' list. A COS for uncomplicated gallstone disease that considers the views of all relevant stakeholders is needed.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another.

METHODS

To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Initial Report From the Turks and Caicos Islands

There has been no prior report of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) from the Caribbean island of Turks and Caicos. We report our initial experience with SILS cholecystectomy to show that SILS in this environment is feasible with minimal change to the existing hardware. It is a safe alternative to conventional multi-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy in this setting.

Single-Port vs. Conventional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Lymph Node Biopsy

Background and Objectives

The purpose of the investigation was to compare clinical results and diagnostic accuracy for conventional multiport laparoscopic lymph node biopsy (MPLB) and single-port laparoscopic lymph node biopsy (SPLB) operations at a single institution.

Methods

A set of 20 SPLB patients operated on from October 2016 to May 2019 were compared to an historical series of 35 MPLB patients. Primary endpoints were the time of surgery, estimated blood loss, surgical conversion, length of stay and morbidity. The secondary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of the technique.

Results

SPLB was completed laparoscopically in all cases. Two MPLB patients (5.7%) experienced a surgical conversion due to intraoperative difficulties. Duration of surgery was similar in SPLB and MPLB groups respectively (84 ± 31.7 min vs. 81.1 ± 22.2; P = .455). A shorter duration of hospital stay was shown for patients operated on by SPLB compared to the MPLB group (1.7 ± 0.9 days vs. 2.1 ± 1.2 days; P = .133). The postoperative course was uneventful in both groups. In 95% of the SPLB and 97.1% of the MPLB cases respectively, LLB achieved the necessary information for the diagnosis.

Conclusion

SPLB has shown good procedural and postoperative outcomes as well as a high diagnostic yield, comparable to traditional MPLB. Therefore, our results show that this approach is safe and effective and can be an equally valid option to MPLB to obtain a diagnosis or to follow the progression of a lymphoproliferative disease. Further studies are necessary to support these results before its widespread adoption.

Does near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography with indocyanine green reduce bile duct injuries and conversions to open surgery during laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy? - A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bile duct injury and conversion-to-open-surgery rates remain unacceptably high during laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy. In a recently published randomized clinical trial, using near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography with indocyanine green intraoperatively markedly enhanced biliary-structure visualization. Our systematic literature review compares bile duct injury and conversion-to-open-surgery rates in patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy with versus without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography.

METHODS

A thorough PubMed search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized clinical trials with ≥100 patients. Because all near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography studies were published since 2013, only studies without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography published since 2013 were included for comparison. Incidence estimates, weighted and unweighted for study size, were adjusted for acute versus chronic cholecystitis, and for robotic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and are reported as events/10,000 patients. All studies were assessed for bias risk and high-risk studies excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 4,990 abstracts were reviewed, identifying 5 near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography studies (3 laparoscopic cholecystectomy/2 robotic cholecystectomy; n = 1,603) and 11 not near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography studies (5 laparoscopic cholecystectomy/4 robotic cholecystectomy/2 both; n = 5,070) for analysis. Overall weighted rates for bile duct injury and conversion were 6 and 16/10,000 in near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography patients versus 25 and 271/10,000 in patients without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, bile duct injuries, and conversion rates among near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography versus patients without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography were 0 and 23/10,000 versus 32 and 255/10,000, respectively. Bile duct injury rates were low with robotic cholecystectomy with and without near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (12 and 8/10,000), but there was a marked reduction in conversions with near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography (12 vs 322/10,000).

CONCLUSION

Although large comparative trials remain necessary, preliminary analysis suggests that using near-infrared fluorescent cholangiography with indocyanine green intraoperatively sizably decreases bile duct injury and conversion-to-open-surgery rates relative to cholecystectomy under white light alone.

Two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed via the “marionette” technique versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatrics

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has considered the gold standard for the treatment of symptomatic gallstones. The “marionette” technique is a surgical technique for performing a safe, two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy without the use of an additional port or any new access devices. This study aimed to compare between the cost and outcome of two incisions LC performed via the marionette technique and the standard LC in pediatrics.

Results

All 32 children with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis were discharged from the hospital in the first postoperative day with no statistically significant difference within days to return to normal work (p = 0.607). The operative time in the group (A) which included 16 children who underwent 2 incisions marionette style LC technique was non-significantly longer time (p = 0.184) than the group (B) which included 16 children who underwent conventional 4 incisions LC technique. Visual analog scores for pain showed a significant difference between both groups at 6 h and 12 h postoperative (p = 0.000 and 0.003, respectively). Overall patient in marionette group was very satisfied by fewer incision and better cosmesis.

Conclusion

Marionette technique performed by an experienced surgeon among pediatric shows a statistically significant cost benefit while maintaining good operative time, less postoperative pain, and more patient’s satisfaction and provides excellent aesthetic results.

Feasibility of Single-Port Laparoscopic Lymph Node Biopsy for Intra-Abdominal Lymphoma: A Case Series

Background: Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy through a multi-port access (MPLB) is a well-established technique for intra-abdominal lymphoma diagnosis. The aim of the current study is to assess the feasibility and the diagnostic accuracy of the single-port laparoscopic lymph node biopsy (SPLB) in intra-abdominal lymphoma. Materials and Methods: Between October 2016 and February 2019, 15 patients underwent SPLB to rule out or to follow the progression of a lymphoma. The clinical outcome and the pathology reports were analyzed retrospectively. Results: SPLB was completed laparoscopically in all cases. The total number of biopsies performed for each procedure was sometimes multiple (median: 2; range: 1-3). Duration of surgery was 85 ± 32 minutes (range: 75-105 minutes). Length of hospitalization was 1.8 ± 0.7 days (range: 1-3 days). No major postoperative complications occurred. A cutaneous infection managed conservatively was observed in a patient. In 10 patients, SPLB was used to establish a diagnosis whereas in 5 patients it was performed to follow a progression of a lymphoproliferative disease. In 93.3% of the cases, SPLB achieved the correct diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic decisions. Conclusion: SPLB has shown good procedure and postoperative outcomes as well as a high diagnostic yield, comparable to literature data on traditional MPLB. Therefore, our results show that this approach is safe and effective and can be an equally valid option to MPLB to obtain a diagnosis or to follow the progression of a lymphoproliferative disease. Further studies are necessary to support these results before its widespread adoption.

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

BACKGROUND

We performed this study to compare the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials comparing SILC versus MPLC. We evaluated the pooled outcomes for complications, pain scores, and surgery-related events. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 2838 patients in the SILC group and 2956 patients in the MPLC group were included in this study. Our results showed that SILC was associated with a higher incidence of incisional hernia (relative risk = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.23-5.12; p = 0.01) and longer operation time (mean difference = 15.27 min; 95% confidence interval = 9.67-20.87; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between SILC and MPLC regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, wound infection, conversion to open surgery, retained common bile duct stones, total complication rate, and estimated blood loss. No difference was observed in postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale between the two groups at four time points (6 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h postprocedure).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, SILC did not result in better outcomes compared with MPLC and both were equivalent regarding complications. Considering the additional surgical technology and longer operation time, SILC should be chosen with careful consideration.

Evaluation of umbilical anatomy via computed tomography prior to single-incision laparoscopy

Laparoscopic surgery performed through a single incision is relatively new. Here, we investigated the importance of radiological anatomical evaluation of the umbilicus prior to such surgery.Umbilical images of 500 patients who underwent computed tomography (CT) in 2019 were evaluated retrospectively, using both transverse and sagittal sections.Spearman rank correlation analysis indicated a significant positive relationship between age and the sagittal and transverse umbilical measurements (all patients: P < .01; men: P = .001; women: P < .01). Mean transverse and sagittal measurements were 5.63 ± 1.9 and 6.2 ± 2.0 mm in women and 5.49 ± 1.9 and 6.2 ± 1.8 mm in men.Umbilical anatomy can be evaluated radiologically as a component of preoperative evaluation.

Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up

Background

Within the last years, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) emerged as an alternative to multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). SLC has advantages in cosmetic results, and postoperative pain seems lower. Overall complications are comparable between SLC and MLC. However, long-term results of randomized trials are lacking, notably to answer questions about incisional hernia rates, long-term cosmetic impact and chronic pain.

Methods

A randomized trial of SLC versus MLC with a total of 193 patients between December 2009 and June 2011 was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, technical feasibility and hospital stay. A long-term follow-up after surgery was added.

Results

Ninety-eight patients (50.8%) underwent SLC, and 95 patients (49.2%) had MLC. Pain on the first postoperative day showed no difference between the operative procedures (SLC vs. MLC, 3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively; p = 0.317). No significant differences were observed in operating time or the overall rate of postoperative complications (4.1% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.731). SLC exhibited better cosmetic results in the short term. In the long term, after a mean of 70.4 months, there were no differences in incisional hernia rate, cosmetic results or pain at the incision between the two groups.

Conclusions

Taking into account a follow-up rate of 68%, the early postoperative advantages of SLC in relation to cosmetic appearance and pain did not persist in the long term. In the present trial, there was no difference in incisional hernia rates between SLC and MLC, but the sample size is too small for a final conclusion regarding hernia rates.

Trial registration

German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00012447

Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery comparing long-term patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome

Introduction

Several studies and meta-analysis showed Single-port or Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SPL) to be superior over Multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPL) mainly in terms of postoperative pain and cosmetic result. But very little is known whether these results are only a short-term effect or are persistent on the long run after SPL. We therefore evaluated and compared long-term outcomes regarding cosmesis and chronic pain after SPL and MPL.

Methods

We conducted a comparative study with propensity score matching of all patients undergoing SPL or MPL between October 2008 and December 2013 in terms of postoperative cosmetic results and chronic pain. Follow-up data were obtained from mailed patient questionnaires and telephone interviews. Postoperative cosmesis was assessed using the patients overall scar opinion on a 10-point scale and the Patients scale of the standardized Patient and Observer Scar assessment scale (POSAS). Chronic pain was assessed by 10-point scales for abdominal and umbilical scar pain.

Results

A total of 280 patients were included in the study with 188 patients (67.1%) after SPL and 92 patients (32.9%) following MPL. 141 patients (50.4%) underwent a cholecystectomy and 139 patients (49.6%) underwent an appendectomy. The mean follow-up time was 61.1 ± 19.1 months. The mean wound satisfaction assed by the overall scar and the PSOAS Patients scale score of the patients showed no significant difference between MPL and SPL. Patients after SPL reported more overall complains than after MPL (8.7% vs. 2.5%, respectively), but without statistical significance (p = 0.321). Umbilical pain scores were comparable between the two groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.831).

Conclusion

We found no difference in long-term cosmetic outcomes after SPL and MPL. Chronic pain at the umbilical incision site was comparable on the long run.

Laparoscopic Single-Port Versus Traditional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background and Objectives

Safety, efficacy, and costs are still debated issues in single-port laparoscopy. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital costs for conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4PLC) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) performed at a single institution.

Methods

A series of 40 SPLC patients operated on from October 2016 to May 2017 were compared to a hystorical series of 40 4PLC patients. Primary endpoints were the operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, length of stay, and morbidity. Secondary endpoints were the operative costs and total hospital costs.

Results

No patient required surgical conversion in both groups. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in the SPLC group. Length of hospitalization was shorter for patients operated on by SPLC (1.9 ± 0.9 vs 2.3 ± 1.2 days; P = .104). According to visual analogue scale evaluation, the pain profile was similar. Minor postoperative complications were present in 12.5% of the SPLC group and 2.5% in 4PLC group (P = .200). The total hospitalization costs associated with SPLC procedure were lower compared to standard 4PLC procedure. As regards the disposable operating room equipment costs, a statistically significant difference in favor of SPLC technique was found.

Conclusion

SPLC has shown relevant procedure and postoperative outcomes when compared to traditional 4PLC. The technique has proved to be promising even in cases of acute cholecystitis considered to date a relative contraindication. Further studies are needed to confirm its safety and feasibility in this setting. In contrast with the current evidence of increased costs for the single-port technique, a reduction of material and hospitalization costs was experienced in our study.

Cosmesis and Patient Satisfaction Following Laparoscopic Adnexal Surgery

Background and Objectives

Laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS), a minimally invasive procedure, is performed in many hospitals. Although its cosmetic superiority is widely touted, some authors have disputed this view. Here, we compare the surgical and long-term cosmetic outcomes of and patient satisfaction with postoperative wounds for LESS and over 2-port laparoscopy (OTPL), including 2-port laparoscopy (TPL) and standard laparoscopy (SL), after a 6-mo follow-up period.

Methods

A total of 125 patients who underwent adnexal surgery performed by the same surgeon at the same institution between March 2005 and May 2017 were included. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the LESS group and the OTPL group. The patients completed an evaluation using the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS, used to evaluate linear scars) and the Ultimate Question (UQ, used to determine overall patient satisfaction). We evaluated surgical scars using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale, which includes the Umbilical Scar Overall Shape Assessment Scale (USOSAS) and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS).

Results

There were no significant differences in the PSAS, UQ, USOSAS, and VSS results between the study groups. The USOSAS score was consistently correlated with VSS scores of 2, 3, and 4 and the total VSS score, indicating that the USOSAS score may be as effective as the VSS score.

Conclusions

Because the long-term patient satisfaction with and cosmetic wound outcomes of LESS were not significantly different from those achieved by OTPL, surgeons should consider performing LESS after weighing the pros and cons with regard to the patient's condition.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Is Feasible and Safe for Hepatic Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Benign Liver Lesions

Background and Objectives

The feasibility and safety of single-port laparoscopic surgery for left lateral liver lobectomy are largely unknown. This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness and safety between single-port laparoscopic (SPL) and conventional multiport laparoscopic (CL) surgeries for hepatic left lateral sectionectomy.

Methods

A total of 65 patients receiving laparoscopic hepatic left lateral sectionectomy between January 2008 and July 2015 were included and divided into the SPL group (n = 40) and the CL group (n = 25).

Results

There was no significant difference in the operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and incidences of postoperative complications (biliary leakage, hemorrhage, and contusion at incision) between groups (all P > 0.05). However, the SPL group had a significantly lower VAS pain score (at 24 h but not 7 days postoperation) and higher cosmetic satisfaction scores (at both 2 months and 6 months postoperation) than the CL group (all P < 0.01). Moreover, multivariate linear regression analysis further confirmed the superior pain score and cosmetic outcome in the SPL group.

Conclusions

Single-port laparoscopic hepatic left lateral sectionectomy is a safe and feasible treatment for patients with lesions in the left hepatic lobe. Patients with benign lesions in the left hepatic lobe are more suitable to receive single-port laparoscopic hepatic left lateral sectionectomy than those with malignancies.

Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Better Cosmesis at the Price of an Increased Incisional Hernia Rate?

Background: The incidence of trocar site hernia (TSH) in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPC) is still a debated issue. Aim of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence of postoperative hernia and cosmetic results among patients undergoing SPC and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPC) performed at a single institution. Methods: A series of 60 SPC and 60 MPC patients operated on between July 2016 and May 2018 were compared. Primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of TSH at long term. All the patients were admitted as outpatients for physical examination and scar measurement. Secondary endpoints were the cosmetic results assessed by a cosmesis score (CS) and the body image questionnaire (BIQ). Results: After a median 18-month follow-up (range: 6-29 months), a hernia in umbilical trocar site was detected in 4 (7.1%) SPC patients and 1 (2%) MPC patient, the difference not being statistically significant (P = .216). BIQ was almost equivalent in SPC and MPC groups (5.15 versus 5.27; P = .518), respectively. Statistically significant differences in favor of SPC were found in CS (22.3 versus 19.72; P = .001) and in total length of scars (1.2 cm versus 4 cm; P < .001). Conclusions: SPC technique has proved to be safe and effective in experienced hands. Superior cosmesis of SPC over MPC is confirmed, but close attention to fascial closure is a vital component of SPC, and surgeons performing single-site surgery need to be aware of this increased potential for hernia formation.

A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life reporting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective, facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers, and assisting patients and clinicians in shared decision making. The primary aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise all historic studies evaluating patient reported quality of life, in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. The secondary aim was to perform a quality assessment of cholecystectomy-specific PROM-validation studies. A literature review was performed in PubMed, Google ScholarTM, the Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases up to September 2017. Study characteristics, PROM-specific details and a bias assessment were summarised for non-validation studies. A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) analysis was performed to assess the methodological quality of identified PROM-validation studies. Fifty one studies were found to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although 94.1% of these studies included PROMs as a primary outcome measure, <20% provided level 1 evidence through randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was significant variation in the selection and reporting of PROMs, with no studies declaring patient involvement in PROM selection, and 88.2% of studies failing to document the management of missing data points, or non-returned surveys (33.3%). In the 6 PROM-validation studies identified, only 5 psychometric properties were evaluated, the findings of which were limited due to the small number of studies. This systematic review identifies a lack in consistency of study design and PRO reporting in clinical trials. Whilst an increasing number of studies are being performed to evaluate PROs, a lack of adherence to existing PRO administration and reporting guidelines is continuing to negatively affect study quality. We recommend that future clinical trials utilizing PROs should adhere to established comprehensive guidelines as described.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery from a caribbean perspective

Conventional laparoscopy with multiple ports has recently gained a strong foothold in the Caribbean, but single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has lagged behind. In this paper, we compare the data on SILS and conventional multi-port laparoscopy in the English-speaking Caribbean.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

A large-cohort comparison between single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a single center; 2080 cases

Backgrounds/Aims

This study was conducted to verify and compare the safety and feasibility of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Methods

A total of 2,080 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a single center, Konyang University Hospital, between 2010 and 2016. We retrospectively compared the demographics, perioperative outcome, and postoperative complication results between the CLC and SILC groups.

Results

Among the 2,080 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 1,080 had CLC and 1,000 had SILC. When retrospectively reviewed, the SILC group had significantly higher percentages of patients who were aged under 80 years, who were women, and had the American Society of Anesthesiologist score of lower than 3 points compared to those of the CLC group. Furthermore, the CLC group had a higher percentage of patients with acute cholecystitis or empyema, whereas the SILC group had a higher percentage of patients with chronic cholecystitis. Preoperative percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage insertion or H-vac insertion was more frequently conducted, bleeding loss was more common, and hospital stay was longer in the CLC group. Postoperative complications such as wound infection, biloma, bile duct injury, and duodenal perforation were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

In conclusion, if performed after preoperative patient selection such as in younger and female patients with no abdominal operation history at the time of benign gallbladder surgery, SILC can be considered feasible and safe without additional complications when compared with CLC.

Quality of life after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Controversy continues as to whether single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with the somewhat larger incision at the umbilicus, may lead to a worse postoperative quality of life and more pain compared with the more classic 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to compare single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy from the perspective of quality of life.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial. A total of 120 patients who were scheduled to undergo elective cholecystectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 into the single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy or the 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and then assessed continuously for 2 weeks during the postoperative period. The primary outcome was quality of life, defined as the time to resume normal daily activities. Postoperative pain was also assessed. To explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects, we assessed the interactions of sex, age, and working status on recovery time.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients in the single-incision group and 53 in the 4-port group (n = 111, 47 male, mean age 57 years) were analyzed. The mean time to resume daily activities was 10.2 days and 8.8 days, respectively, for single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 3.2, P = .12). Similarly, the time to relief from postoperative pain did not differ significantly between the groups. Statistically insignificant but qualitative interactions were noted; in the subgroups of women, full-time workers, and patients younger than 60 years, recovery tended to be slower after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative quality of life did not differ substantially between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients younger than 60 years, women, and full-time workers tended to have a somewhat slower recovery after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

A Concealed “Natural Orifice”: Umbilicus Anatomy for Minimally Invasive Surgery

Introduction. A recent development in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is single-port surgery, where a single large multiport trocar is placed in the umbilicus. All medical schools require that students complete an anatomy course as part of the medical curriculum. However, there is limited instruction regarding the detailed parts of the “umbilicus.” In several famous anatomy atlases, the umbilicus is not dissected at all and is merely represented as a button. Until now, the true nature of the umbilicus has not been anatomically demonstrated. Methods. Five cadavers were obtained from the Osaka Medical College medical student anatomy class. The umbilicus was dissected in the anatomy laboratory, to demonstrate all the layers. A detailed dissection was performed, focusing on the exact center of the umbilicus, in order to ascertain whether there exists a “natural orifice” or a fascial defect. Results. In all cadavers, a small defect of fascia was identified just below the center of the umbilicus. Yellow fatty tissue was present just below the skin in the exact center of the umbilicus. A probe placed exactly in the middle of this defect passes easily through into the abdominal cavity. Conclusions. With the widespread use of MIS, umbilical incision is commonly used to reduce pain and improve cosmetic results. This study consistently revealed a natural defect of fascia in the center of the umbilicus. Therefore, the umbilicus can be called a concealed “natural orifice.” It is important to recognize and utilize this defect effectively to minimize unnecessary tissue trauma during MIS.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only.

METHODS

A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvements in cosmetic results and postoperative morbidity for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC).

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken for RCTs comparing SILC with MLC in adult patients with benign gallbladder disease. Primary outcomes were body image and cosmesis scores at different time points. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain and frequency of port-site hernia.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven RCTs were included, with a total of 3051 patients. The body image score favoured SILC at all time points (short term: mean difference (MD) -2·09, P < 0·001; mid term: MD -1·33, P < 0·001), as did the cosmesis score (short term: MD 3·20, P < 0·001; mid term: MD 4·03, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 4·87, P = 0·05) and the wound satisfaction score (short term: MD 1·19, P = 0·03; mid term: MD 1·38, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 1·19, P = 0·02). Duration of operation was longer for SILC (MD 13·56 min; P < 0·001) and SILC required more additional ports (odds ratio (OR) 6·78; P < 0·001). Postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower for SILC at 12 h after operation (MD in VAS score -0·80; P = 0·007). The incisional hernia rate was higher after SILC (OR 2·50, P = 0·03). All other outcomes were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with better outcomes in terms of cosmesis, body image and postoperative pain. The risk of incisional hernia is four times higher after SILC than after MLC.

Incisional hernia after robotic single-site cholecystectomy: a pilot study

PURPOSE

Robotic LaparoEndoscopic Single-Site Surgery Cholecystectomy has been performed for 5 years using a dedicated platform (da Vinci^® Single-Site^®) with the da Vinci^® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). While short-term feasibility has been described, long-term assessment of this method is currently outstanding. The aim of this study was to assess long-term parietal complications of this technique.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients operated between 2011 and 2013 were evaluated. Parietal incision was assessed with ultrasonography and patients screened for residual pain from scar tissue. Demographic and perioperative data were also collected.

RESULTS

We evaluated 48 patients [38 female, 79.2%; median age 49 years (range: 24-81 years)]; mean BMI 25.9 kg/m² [±SD 4.1 kg/m²]. After a median follow-up of 39 months (range: 25-46 months), six incisional hernias (two patients had a positive echography but a negative clinical examination) were found (12.5%, 95% CI 7.5-30.2), and two patients had a surgical repair. The overall rate of incisional hernia was 16.7% (95% CI 7.5-30.2). Residual pain was observed in 5 of 48 patients.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary study suggests that a clinically significant rate of incisional hernias can occur after R-LESS-C. Larger studies comparing R-LESS-C to alternative methods with long-term follow-up are necessary.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

Is There a Cosmetic Advantage to Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques Over Standard Laparoscopic Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery represents an evolution of minimally invasive techniques, but has been a controversial development. A cosmetic advantage is stated by many authors, but has not been found to be universally present or even of considerable importance by patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that there is a cosmetic advantage of the technique regardless of the operation type. The treatment effect in terms of cosmetic improvement is of the order of 0.63.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016

Cholelithiasis is one of the commonest diseases in gastroenterology. Remarkable improvements in therapeutic modalities for cholelithiasis and its complications are evident. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology has revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis. Forty-three clinical questions, for four categories-epidemiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, and prognosis and complications-were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This article preferentially describes the clinical management of cholelithiasis and its complications. Following description of the diagnosis performed stepwise through imaging modalities, treatments of cholecystolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, and hepatolithiasis are introduced along with a flowchart. Since there have been remarkable improvements in endoscopic treatments and surgical techniques, the guidelines ensure flexibility in choices according to the actual clinical environment. The revised clinical practice guidelines are appropriate for use by clinicians in their daily practice.

Patient Body Image and Satisfaction with Surgical Wound Appearance After Reduced Port Surgery for Colorectal Diseases

BACKGROUND

The use of reduced port surgery (RPS) is increasing in the field of colorectal surgery. It is considered to offer advantages over conventional multiport surgery (MPS) in terms of decreased invasiveness and superior cosmesis. However, to date there has been no study that evaluates patient satisfaction after undergoing RPS for colorectal diseases. Herein, we present a questionnaire-based study to address this issue.

METHODS

Questionnaires were sent by mail to 216 patients who underwent RPS and 145 who underwent MPS. Patient's satisfaction with cosmesis and body image after colorectal surgery was assessed using a validated Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Photo Series Questionnaire (PSQ).

RESULTS

A total of 76.9 % (166/216) of the RPS patients and 70.3 % (102/145) of the MPS patients returned the questionnaires. BIQ scores gradually improved after surgery, and were more positive overall in the RPS group compared to the MPS group. RPS patients marked significantly better PSQ scores than MPS patients (P < 0.05). In RPS subset analysis, patients with single port surgery (SPS) rated better PSQ scores than patients with SPS with additional port insertion (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We find that RPS, especially SPS, enhances patient satisfaction by reducing abdominal wall trauma. This new advantage of RPS may prove valuable in its consideration as an option in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Safety and Efficacy of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair: Comparative Study with Conventional Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

Inguinal hernia is a common disease treated with diverse methods. Nowadays, laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach is gaining its validity and shows favorable outcomes. However, single-incision laparoscopic surgery is also widening its applicable fields as a new technique. This study aimed to find whether single-incision laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (SILTEP) is applicable compared to conventional laparoscopic total extraperitoneal hernia repair (CLTEP).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 120 cases of SILTEP and 60 cases of CLTEP in Yonsei University Severance Hospital from January 2012 to December 2013. Each group was compared with patients' characteristics, operative details, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

There were no statistical difference in patient age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, hernia type, or location between SILTEP and CLTEP. In operative details, operation time (61.77 ± 16.48 minutes versus 77.83 ± 35.15 minutes, P = .001) was shorter in SILTEP. Postoperative complication rate has shown no statistical difference in SILTEP compared to CLTEP (n = 20, 16.7% versus n = 16, 26.7%, P = .114).

CONCLUSIONS

SILTEP is feasible and provides comparable postoperative outcomes compared to CLTEP. Although SILTEP has its own challenges for mastering the procedure, with some experiences, it is possible to operate as well as CLTEP.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) might maximize the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) by reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmesis. However, the safety and feasibility of SILC has not yet been established. This study assesses safety, patient reported outcome measures and feasibility of SILC versus conventional LC.

Methods

Literature search for RCT’s comparing SILC with conventional LC in gallstone-related disease was performed in PubMed and Embase. The conventional LC was defined as two 10-mm and two 5-mm ports. Study selection was done according to predefined criteria. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. Pooled outcomes were calculated for adverse events, pain, cosmesis, quality of life and feasibility using fixed-effect and random-effects models.

Results

Nine RCT’s were included with total of 860 patients. No mortality was observed. More mild adverse events (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.99–2.42) and significantly more serious adverse events (RR 3.00; 95% CI 1.05–8.58) occurred in the SILC group. Postoperative pain (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.18) and cosmesis (SMD 2.38; 95% CI 1.50–3.26) showed significantly better results for the SILC group, but no differences were observed in quality of life. Operating time (MD 23.12; 95% CI 11.59–34.65) and the need for additional ports (RR 11.43; 95% CI 3.48–37.50) were significantly higher in the SILC group. No difference was observed in conversion to open cholecystectomy or hospital stay longer than 24 h.

Conclusions

SILC does not provide any clear advantages over conventional LC except for less postoperative pain and improved cosmesis. It is questionable whether these advantages outweigh the higher occurrence of adverse events and shortcomings in feasibility. Considering considerable heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the studies it is advisable to perform well-designed RCT’s in the future to address the safety and clinical benefits of SILC.

[Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: advantages and disadvantages]

AIM

To analyze the outcomes of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Early and long-term postoperative period has been analyzed in 240 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCE) including 120 cases of single-port technique and 120 cases of four-port technique. Both groups were compared in surgical time, pain syndrome severity (visual analog scale), need for analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital-stay, daily activity recovery and return to physical work, patients' satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect.

RESULTS

It was revealed that single-port LCE is associated with lower severity of postoperative pain, quick recovery of daily activity and return to physical work, high satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect compared with four-port LCE. Disadvantages of single-port LCE include longer duration of surgery, high incidence of postoperative umbilical hernia. However hernia was predominantly observed during the period of surgical technique development.

CONCLUSION

Further studies to standardize, evaluate the safety and benefits of single-port LCE are necessary.

Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy evolved from the traditional multiport laparoscopic technique. Prior trials have demonstrated improved cosmesis with the single-incision technique. Robotic single-site surgery minimizes the technical difficulties associated with laparoscopic single-incision approach. This is the first prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing robotic single-site cholecystectomy (RSSC) and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) in terms of cosmesis and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic benign gallbladder disease were randomized to RSSC or MPLC. Data included perioperative variables such as operative time, conversion and complications and cosmesis satisfaction, body image perception, quality of life using validated questionnaires, at postoperative visits of 2, 6 weeks and 3 months.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six patients were randomized to RSSC (N = 83) and MPLC (N = 53) at 8 institutions. Both cohorts were dominated by higher enrollment of females (RSSC = 78%, MPLC = 92%). The RSSC and MPLC cohorts were otherwise statistically matched. Operative time was longer for RSSC (61 min vs. 44 min, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in complication rates. RSSC demonstrated a significant superiority in cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception (P value < 0.05 at every follow-up). There was no statistically significant difference in patient-reported quality of life. Multivariate analysis of female patients demonstrated significantly higher preference for RSSC over MPLC in cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception with no difference seen in overall quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this trial show that RSSC is associated with improved cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception without a difference in observed complication rate. The uncompromised safety and the improved cosmesis satisfaction and body image perception provided by RSSC for female patients support consideration of the robotic single-site approach. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01932216.