Single-port access laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: initial experience with 10 cases

Reduced-port robotic total mesorectal resection for rectal cancer using a single-port access: a technical note

Introduction

Single-port laparoscopic surgery has some advantages, including improved cosmetic outcomes and minimized parietal trauma. However, pure single-port laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is challenging because of the difficulties in creating triangulation and applying the laparoscopic staplers with sufficient distal margins in the narrow pelvic cavity. Recently, a reduced-port robotic operation with a robotic single-port access plus one wristed robotic arm for colon cancer was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Aim

Single-port laparoscopic surgery has some advantages, including improved cosmetic outcomes and minimized parietal trauma. However, the pure single-port laparoscopic rectal cancer operation is challenging. Recently, a reduced-port robotic operation with a robotic single-port access plus one wristed robotic arm for colon cancer was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Material and methods

We performed a single-port plus an additional port robotic operation using a robotic single-port access through the umbilical incision, and the wristed robotic instruments were inserted through an additional robotic port in the right lower quadrant.

Results

The total operative and docking times were 310 min and 25 min, respectively. The total number of lymph nodes harvested was 12, and the proximal and distal resection margins were 11.1 and 2 cm, respectively. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 12 uneventfully.

Conclusions

Based on a representative case, reduced-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer using the single-port access appears to be feasible and safe. This approach could overcome the limitations of single-port laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Comparison of single-port and conventional laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection

Background:

Within the last two decades, surgical treatment of colorectal cancer has changed dramatically from large abdominal incisions to minimal access surgery. In the recent years, single port (SP) surgery has spawned from conventional laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare conventional with SP laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) for rectal cancer.

Patients and Methods:

This was a single-center non-randomised retrospective comparative study of prospectively collected data on 53 patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer; 41 with conventional laparoscopy and 12 with SP surgery.

Results:

Patients’ characteristics were in general comparable, but patients in the conventional laparoscopy-group had a significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists-score. The operative time was slightly shorter in the conventional laparoscopy-group, but no differences were found in oncological margins of the resected specimen, in length of stay or readmission rate.

Conclusions:

SP LAPR appeared to be safe and feasible in selected patients. Adequate oncologic resections can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Larger randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up are needed to determine the beneficial role of this new procedure.

ECSPECT prospective multicentre registry for single-port laparoscopic colorectal procedures

BACKGROUND

The international multicentre registry ECSPECT (European Consensus of Single Port Expertise in Colorectal Treatment) was established to evaluate the general feasibility and safety of single-port colorectal surgery with regard to preoperative risk assessment.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing single-port colorectal surgery were enrolled from 11 European centres between March 2010 and March 2014. Data were analysed to assess patient-, technique- and procedure-dependent parameters. A validated sex-adjusted risk chart was developed for prediction of single-port colorectal surgery-related conversion and complications.

RESULTS

Some 1769 patients were enrolled, 937 with benign and 832 with malignant conditions. Procedures were completed without additional trocars in 1628 patients (92·0 per cent). Conversion to open surgery was required in 75 patients (4·2 per cent) and was related to male sex and ASA fitness grade exceeding I. Conversions were more frequent in pelvic procedures involving the rectum compared with abdominal procedures (8·1 versus 3·2 per cent; odds ratio 2·69, P < 0·001). Postoperative complications were observed in a total of 224 patients (12·7 per cent). Independent predictors of complications included male sex (P < 0·001), higher ASA grade (P = 0·006) and rectal procedures (P = 0·002). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0·5 per cent (8 of 1769 patients); three deaths (0·2 per cent; 1 blood loss, 2 leaks) were attributable to surgical causes.

CONCLUSION

The feasibility and safety, conversion and complication profile demonstrated here provides guidance for patient selection.

Use of a multi-instrument access device in abdominoperineal resections

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in less post-operative pain, faster recovery, shorter length of stay and reduced morbidity compared with open procedures. Less or minimally invasive techniques have been developed to further minimise surgical trauma and to decrease the size and number of incisions. This study describes the safety and feasibility of using an umbilical multi-instrument access (MIA) port (Olympus TriPort+) device with the placement of just one 12-mm suprapubic trocar in laparoscopic (double-port) abdominoperineal resections (APRs) in rectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 20 patients undergoing double-port APRs for rectal cancer between June 2011 and August 2013. Preoperative data were gathered in a prospective database, and post-operative data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

The 20 patients (30% female) had a median age of 67 years (range 46-80 years), and their median body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/m2 (range 20-31 kg/m2). An additional third trocar was placed in 2 patients. No laparoscopic procedures were converted to an open procedure. Median operating time was 195 min (range 115-306 min). A radical resection (R0 resection) was achieved in all patients, with a median of 14 lymph nodes harvested. Median length of stay was 8 days (range 5-43 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic APR using a MIA trocar is a feasible and safe procedure. A MIA port might be of benefit as an extra option in the toolbox of the laparoscopic surgeon to further minimise surgical trauma.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.

Comparison between the perioperative results of single-access and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has low rates of morbidity and mortality and achieves comparable pathologic outcomes. With improved instruments and surgical techniques, many surgeons have recently begun using single-access laparoscopic surgery (SALS) to minimize scars and pain. Since 2011, most reports of SALS for rectal cancer have shown comparable pathologic outcomes to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SALS is said to be superior to CLS in reducing complications, producing less discomfort, and faster recovery rates. This study aimed to compare the technical feasibility and early postoperative outcomes of these approaches.

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2014, 78 cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum and anal canal were enrolled in the study. Anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resections were performed. Data collected included technical feasibility and outcomes of operation, such as morbidity, mortality, severity of pain, analgesic usage, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

SALS was performed on 35 patients, and CLS was performed in 36 cases. Demographic data, including age, sex, BMI, ASA classification and clinical staging, were similar between the groups. Operative time, blood loss, and conversion rate were similar (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, the only significant difference between the groups was pain score, which was significantly lower in the SALS group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SALS and CLS for rectal and anal cancer had the same intraoperative, pathologic, and early postoperative results. However, SALS patients had slightly better pain scores in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively.

Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colon and Rectal Surgery

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative outcomes, and patient quality of life. However, widespread use has been limited by technical demands and lack of an evidence and competency-based curriculum.

Review of single incision laparoscopic surgery in colorectal surgery

As surgical techniques continue to move towards less invasive techniques, single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), a hybrid between traditional multiport laparoscopy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. The safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease has been proven. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative pain, recovery time, and quality of life at the drawback of higher technical skill required. In this article, we review the history, describe the available technology and techniques, and evaluate the benefits and limitations of SILS for colorectal surgery in the published literature.

SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for diverticulitis in overweight patients

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been introduced as a new technique for the treatment of various colorectal diseases. Recurrent or complicated diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon is a frequent indication for minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of obesity on the outcome of SILS sigmoid colectomy.

METHODS

From September 2009 to October 2014, data from 377 patients who had intended SILS sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis at our institution were collected in a prospective database. The patients were categorized in the following subgroups: group 1 (normal weight, body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m(2)), group 2 (overweight, BMI 25-29.9 kg/m(2)), group 3 (obesity, BMI 30-34.9 kg/m(2)), and group 4 (morbid obesity, BMI > 35 kg/m(2)).

RESULTS

The groups were equivalent for sex, age, status of diverticulitis, the presence of acute inflammation in the specimen, and the percentage of teaching operations, but the percentage of patients with accompanying diseases was significantly more frequent in groups 2, 3, and 4 (p = 0.04, 0.008, and 0.018, respectively). As compared to group 1, the conversion rate was significantly increased in groups 2 and 4 (2.3 vs. 9.3% (p = 0.013) and 2.3 vs. 12.5% (p = 0.017), respectively). The duration of surgery, hospitalization, and morbidity did not differ between the four groups.

CONCLUSION

Up to a body mass index of 35 kg/m(2), increased body weight does not significantly reduce the feasibility and outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for diverticulitis.

Initial experience of reduced port surgery using a two-surgeon technique for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

With the decreasing number of surgeons on surgical teams, reduced port surgery (RPS) operations have become popular. We herein present our initial experience with RPS, which was successfully performed using a two-surgeon technique. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare the two-surgeon technique with conventional laparoscopic colectomy and evaluate its efficacy.

METHODS

A total of 535 patients were eligible among 749 registered patients. Conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with three surgeons and RPS using the two-surgeon technique with a surgeon and surgeon's assistant were performed in 429 and 106 cases, respectively. The patient characteristics, short-term outcomes (including intraoperative and postoperative findings) and pathological results were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, BMI, history of abdominal surgery, depth of tumor invasion and TNM classification. Reconstruction via extracorporeal functional end-to-end anastomosis was performed in a significantly higher number of patients in the two-surgeon technique group (74 %) than in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (57 %). Furthermore, the mean operative time in the two-surgeon technique group (117.9 min) was significantly shorter than that observed in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (170 min), and the median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the two-surgeon technique group (6 days) than in the conventional laparoscopic colectomy group (7 days). There were no major postoperative complications. The final TNM stage was similar in both procedures.

CONCLUSION

RPS using the two-surgeon technique compares favorably with conventional laparoscopic colectomy and is considered to be a safe and successful procedure.

Outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic colectomy surgery in obese patients: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS offers several patient-related benefits over multiport laparoscopy. However, its use in obese patients has been limited from concerns of technical difficulty, oncologic compromise, and higher complication and conversion rates. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SILS for colectomy in obese patients.

METHODS

Review of a prospective database identified patients undergoing elective colectomy using SILS from 2009 to 2014. They were stratified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and then matched on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and operative procedure. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of stay (LOS), and conversion, complication, and readmission rates for each cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients were evaluated-80 in each cohort. Patients were well matched in demographics, diagnosis, and procedure variables. The obese cohort had significantly higher BMI (p < 0.001) and ASA scores (p = 0.035). Operative time (176.9 ± 64.0 vs. 144.4 ± 47.2 min, p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (89.0 ± 139.5 vs. 51.6 ± 38.0 ml, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the obese. There were no significant differences in conversion rates (p = 0.682), final incision length (p = 0.088), LOS (p = 0.332), postoperative complications (p = 0.430), or readmissions (p = 1.000) in the obese versus non-obese. Further, in malignant cases, lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.757) and negative distal margins (p = 1.000) were comparable across cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy in obese patients had significantly longer operative times, but comparable conversion rates, oncologic outcomes, lengths of stay, complication, and readmission rates as the non-obese cohorts. In the obese, where higher morbidity rates are typically associated with surgical outcomes, SILS may be the ideal platform to optimize outcomes in colorectal surgery. With additional operative time, the obese can realize the same clinical and quality benefits of minimally invasive surgery as the non-obese.

Reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for a tumor-specific mesorectal excision in patients with colorectal cancer: initial experience with 20 consecutive cases

Purpose

Single-port plus one-port, reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) may decrease collisions between laparoscopic instruments and the camera in a narrow, bony, pelvic cavity while maintaining the cosmetic advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to describe our initial experience with and to assess the feasibility and safety of RPLS for tumor-specific mesorectal excisions (TSMEs) in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

Between May 2010 and August 2012, RPLS for TSME was performed in 20 patients with colorectal cancer. A single port with four channels through an umbilical incision and an additional port in the right lower quadrant were used for RPLS.

Results

The median operation time was 231 minutes (range, 160-347 minutes), and the estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range, 50-500 mL). We transected the rectum with one laparoscopic stapler in 17 cases (85%). The median time to soft diet was 4 days (range, 3-6 days), and the length of hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-45 days). The median total number of lymph nodes harvested was 16 (range, 7-36), and circumferential resection margin involvement was found in 1 case (5%). Seven patients (35%) developed postoperative complications, and no mortalities occurred within 30 days. During the median follow-up period of 20 months (range, 12-40 months), liver metastasis occurred in 1 patient 10 months after surgery, and local recurrence was nonexistent.

Conclusion

RPLS for TSME in patients with colorectal cancer is technically feasible and safe without compromising oncologic safety. However, further studies comparing RPLS with a conventional, laparoscopic low-anterior resection are needed to prove the advantages of the RPLS procedure.

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility of single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and to compare the short-term surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Methods

Forty-four patients who underwent SILS were compared with 263 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 2011 and September 2012.

Results

In the SILS group, eleven cases (25.0%) of right hemicolectomy, 15 (34.1%) anterior resections, and 18 (40.9%) low anterior resections were performed. Additional ports were required in 10 rectal patients during SILS operation. In the 32 patients with rectosigmoid and rectal cancer in the SILS group, patients with mid and lower rectal cancers had a tendency to require a longer operation time (168.2 minutes vs. 223.8 minutes, P = 0.002), additional ports or multiport conversion (P = 0.007), than those with rectosigmoid and upper rectal cancer. Both SILS and conventional groups had similar perioperative outcomes. Operation time was longer in the SILS group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (185.0 minutes vs. 139.2 minutes, P < 0.001). More diverting stoma were performed in the SILS group (64.7% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor location in the rectum (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.858-10.560; P = 0.001), SILS (95% CI, 3.450-20.233; P < 0.001), diverting stoma (95% CI, 1.606-9.288; P = 0.003), and transfusion (95% CI, 1.092-7.854; P = 0.033) were independent risk factors for long operation time (>180 minutes).

Conclusion

SILS is a feasible, not inferior treatment option for colorectal cancer, and appears to have similar results as standard conventional multiport laparoscopic colectomy, despite the longer operative time.

Single-access laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery using the glove technique

INTRODUCTION

Single-access laparoscopic surgery has been widely adopted in many kinds of surgery including laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Performing single-access rectal surgery, however, has technical drawbacks such as instrument collision and endostaple application issues. The glove technique is likely to mitigate these problems.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with anal canal to mid-rectum cancers were recruited and underwent single-access laparoscopic surgery via the glove technique. An incision was made at the paraumbilicus to insert a wound protector with surgical gloves. The operation was medial to lateral and inferior mesenteric artery and inferior mesenteric vein were identified and controlled. Total mesorectal excision was performed while keeping traction and countertraction down to the pelvic floor.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 251.66 min (range, 180-300 min). Hospital stay ranged from 5 to 8 days (median, 7 days). No serious early postoperative surgical problems related to complications were observed. The pathologic results showed good mesorectal capsule grading. The mean lymph node harvest was 14 nodes (range, 7-26 nodes), and the mean wound length was 5 cm (range, 4-6 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

In rectal surgery, the glove technique for single-access laparoscopic surgery is feasible and is comparable to commercial single-port techniques in terms of oncologic results.

Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer: State of art

A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resection provides the same oncologic results as open surgery along with all clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgery. During the last years, a great effort has been made to research for minimizing parietal trauma, yet for cosmetic reasons and in order to further reduce surgery-related pain and morbidity. New techniques, such as natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) have been developed in order to reach the goal of “scarless” surgery. Although NOTES may seem not fully suitable or safe for advanced procedures, such as colectomies, SIL is currently regarded as the next major advance in the progress of minimally invasive surgical approaches to colorectal disease that is more feasible in generalized use. The small incision through the umbilicus allows surgeons to use familiar standard laparoscopic instruments and thus, perform even complex procedures which require extraction of large surgical specimens or intestinal anastomosis. The cosmetic result from SIL is also better because the only incision is made through the umbilicus which can hide the wound effectively after operation. However, SIL raises a number of specific new challenges compared with the laparoscopic conventional approach. A reduced capacity for triangulation, the repeated conflicts between the shafts of the instruments and the difficulties to achieve a correct exposure of the operative field are the most claimed issues. The use therefore of this new approach for complex colorectal procedures might understandingly be viewed as difficult to implement, especially for oncologic cases.

Successful total shift from multiport to single-port laparoscopic surgery in low anterior resection of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the possibility of using single-port low anterior resection (LAR) in place of conventional laparoscopic LAR.

BACKGROUND

Though single-port LS is gradually evolving, the application of single-port LS techniques in LAR have been viewed with skepticism due to technical difficulties.

METHODS

Data from patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic LAR (n = 49) or single-port LAR (n = 67) for colorectal cancers between March 2006 and March 2013 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In single-port LAR group, oncologic outcomes were satisfactory with respect to attainment of lymph nodes (23.4 ± 15.3) and surgical margins (proximal cut margin: 7.1 ± 4.6 cm, distal cut margin: 7.7 ± 5.7 cm). Single-port LAR showed acceptable clinical outcomes manifested by comparable outcomes of post-operative analgesics requirement and length of hospital stay, and by low incidence of post-operative complications (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 30.6% vs. single-port LAR group: 14.9%; P < 0.01). Operative time was comparable between groups (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 309 ± 93 min vs. single-port LAR group: 277 ± 106 min; P = 0.097). Throughout a series of 67 consecutive single-port LARs, no conversion to multiport or open surgery was occurred.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that single-port LAR is both safe and feasible for use in resection of colorectal cancer when performed by surgeons who are trained in conventional laparoscopic technique. If further and more extensive studies support our results, then single-port LAR can be an acceptable alternative to conventional laparoscopic LAR for treatment of colorectal cancer.

Initial experience of single-port surgery assisted by percutaneous instruments for gastric bypass: a combination of safety and minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

We present here the first reported cases of patients undergoing gastric bypass with a hybrid technique that involves a new concept of percutaneous instruments and provides the advantages of minimally invasive single-port surgery while maintaining the triangulation, safety, and timing of operative procedures.

METHODS

This was a prospective pilot study of eight patients selected for gastric bypass between December 2011 and January 2012 and treated by a technique that combined single SSL port and percutaneous surgical set PPS. We performed hand-sewn gastrojejunostomy in all cases. We analyzed preliminary results at 1 month and focused on the feasibility of the technique, duration of surgery, perioperative complications, and cosmetic results. The Ethics Committee of our institution approved this study and we obtained the informed consent of each patient.

RESULTS

We completed the procedure successfully in all patients. No conversions to laparotomy or classic laparoscopy were required. The average time of surgery was 112 min (85-155). Length of hospital stay was 4 days (3-5). One patient was re-admitted on the seventh postoperative day for gastrointestinal bleeding from the gastrojejunostomy suture and treated by endoscopic clipping. Residual scars were less than 2 cm for the single midline port and 2 mm for the percutaneous instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

This new technique combines the advantages of single-port surgery with the safety of conventional laparoscopy by using percutaneous instruments and leaves minimal scarring. It is likely that the use of percutaneous instrumentation will become widespread in all areas of laparoscopic surgery.

Single-port laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal resection (transabdominal transanal resection) for low rectal cancer: initial experience with 22 cases

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excisions (TME) with transanal resection and coloanal anastomosis (CAA) represent one of the standard surgical treatments for low rectal cancers. We report our initial experiences with trans-abdominal trans-anal resections (TATAR) with TME, performed using a single-port laparoscopic surgeries (SPLS) approach for low rectal cancers.

METHODS

Between June 2009 and April 2011, 22 low rectal cancer patients underwent SPLS TATAR with TME. SPLS was performed transumbilically or through predetermined stoma sites. Conventional laparoscopic instruments were used, and the intracorporeal procedures and range of operation did not differ. After a full laparoscopic TME to the pelvic floor muscles, the specimen was pulled through the anus. CAA was completed with transanal hand sewn sutures. Patient and tumor characteristics and operative, pathologic, and postoperative outcomes were studied.

RESULTS

SPLS TATAR with TME was successful in all patients. No additional incisions for trocars or conversions to open surgery were performed. The median incision length, operative time, and postoperative length of stay were 2.0 cm (range: 1.5-2.5), 260 min (range: 190-380), and 6 days (range: 4-16), respectively. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22 (range: 9-42). The median distal margin from the tumor was 2.0 cm (range: 0.3-4.0). No intraoperative complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLS TATAR with TME was safe and feasible. In addition to cosmetic advantages, oncologic requirements for specimens, including adequate margins and sufficient lymph node harvesting could be fulfilled entirely. However, the technique and oncologic safety warrant further evaluation and prospective randomized studies.

Adequate margins for anorectal cancer can be achieved by single-site laparoscopy

INTRODUCTION

To assess both the adequacy of surgical resection and the short-term postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing single-site laparoscopy (SSL) surgery involving low anterior resection (LAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) for malignancies.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Consecutive rectal and anal cancer patients who underwent SSL LAR and APR were studied. Use of neoadjuvant therapy, operative details, and 30-day complications were sought. Radial and distal margins of resection and the pathologist's evaluation of the mesorectum were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (median age, 66 years) were identified; 11 (91%) were diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma and 1 (9%) with anal melanoma. Median location of the cancers was 5 cm from the anal verge, with 6 (55%) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Seven (58%) patients underwent an LAR, 2 of whom were also given a diverting ileostomy at surgery. Median body mass index was 28 kg/m(2) (range, 24-36 kg/m(2)). All resection margins were clear of tumor by histology, with the majority of patients having T3 (41%), N0 (58%) cancers. Median node yield was 18 nodes. The median distal margin was 3 cm, with a median radial margin of 6 mm. All specimens had an intact mesorectum.

CONCLUSIONS

SSL resections for rectal and anal cancers can achieve adequate resection margins. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate oncologic outcomes for SSL.

Single-port laparoscopic colectomy

Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) for colorectal surgery was first described for a right hemicolectomy in 2008. Since then, technology and experience have advanced, and SPL is now reported for a variety of colorectal procedures. Multiple case series and reports have demonstrated the adequate safety of SPL, but there are few reports of a measurable benefit of the technique. SPL is a difficult procedure to learn, it may have relatively high costs, and it is more difficult to perform as well as more physically and mentally taxing on the surgeon. Despite the difficulty and potentially increased cost, SPL suits colorectal patients well as they commonly have a stoma or extraction site adequate in size for a single port. There are cosmetic advantages to this technique, but they apply to a small subset of patients requiring colorectal surgery. There are many tips to incorporate SPL into practice successfully, but the procedure requires patience and experience. As surgeons become more facile with this technique, a group that derives a clear benefit beyond cosmesis will arise, likely a subset of reoperative patients requiring fecal diversion. The accompanying video demonstrates, step by step, the authors' technique of total proctocolectomy and ileo-anal pouch using a single-port device.

Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown multiport laparoscopic surgery to be safe compared with open surgery in elective colonic disease. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) represents the latest advance in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the safety and complication profile of colonic SILS.

METHODS

The search was performed in October 2011 using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Search terms were 'colorectal', 'colon', 'colectomy', 'rectal' and single incision/port/trocar/site/scar. Only pure single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery for benign and malignant colonic disease was included. Primary outcomes were the early postoperative complication profiles of colonic SILS. Secondary outcomes were duration of operation, lymph node yields, conversion rate and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Colonic SILS data were compared with data from a Cochrane review on the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colonic surgery and four main RCTs on laparoscopic colonic surgery. Median operating times and time to first bowel motion for colonic SILS were comparable with those for laparoscopic colonic surgery. The median lymph node retrieval for malignant disease achieved with SILS was acceptable. Evidence for a reduction in postoperative pain with SILS was conflicting. There was no significant reduction in length of hospital stay with SILS. Most patients selected for colonic SILS had a low body mass index, non-bulky tumours and were operated on by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. There was significant heterogeneity in study group characteristics, indications for surgery, research methodology, operative techniques and follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

Colonic SILS should be restricted to highly selected patients; operations should be performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with critical appraisal of clinical outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than a thousand procedures

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal surgery is of growing importance. The experience of colorectal resection through single-incision laparoscopic surgery was assessed, including the patient outcomes.

METHOD

A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic with multiport laparoscopy. Endpoints included conversion to laparotomy, operation time, postoperative morbidity, length of skin incision and length of hospital stay. The MEDLINE database was searched and only comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data were retrieved from full-text manuscripts. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects.

RESULTS

From October 2008 to December 2011, 1026 colorectal resections including 921 colonic and 105 rectal procedures using single-incision laparoscopic surgery were reported in 64 studies. Meta-analysis of the 15 comparative studies, including a total of 1075 procedures (494 single-incision and 581 multiport laparoscopies), showed no difference in conversion to open laparotomy [odds ratio (OR) 0.58 (0.24, 1.38); P=0.22], morbidity [OR 0.84 (0.61, 1.15); P=0.27] or operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.27 (-6.50, 5.95); P=0.93], but a significantly shorter total skin incision [WMD -0.52 (-0.79, -0.25); P<0.001] and a significantly shorter postoperative length of stay [WMD -0.75 (-1.30, -0.20); P=0.008] after single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared with a multiport laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSION

Although only 15 nonrandomized comparative studies of varying methodology have been reported, this systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 1000 colorectal procedures suggest that single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe.

Umbilical incision laparoscopic colectomy with one additional port for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, laparoscopic colorectal surgery using a single incision usually made at the umbilical area has emerged as a tool to minimize the numbers of scars and provide better cosmetic results. But experience in laparoscopic skills is needed to maintain the oncologic principles of colorectal cancer surgery with the restricted operating field during the procedure. Adding an additional port to single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILS) may be a bridge between conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery and SILS. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with one additional port (ULAP) could be performed in a similar manner to conventional multiport surgery.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-three patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic colectomy between February 2011 and August 2011. Forty of these patients underwent ULAP and were compared with the other 123 patients who had conventional laparoscopic surgery. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar in age (p = 0.438), gender (p = 0.818), body mass index (p = 0.149), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p = 0.417), history of previous abdominal operation (p = 0.503), and tumor location (p = 0.051). Operation time was longer in the ULAP group (255.5 min) than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (144.6 min) (p < 0.001). No significant differences were evident between groups for estimated blood loss (p = 0.263), transfusion requirements (p = 0.841), conversion to open procedures (p = 0.40), length of umbilical incisions (4.6 vs. 4.4 cm, p = 0.628), postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.862), tumor size (p = 0.455), number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.203), proximal margins (p = 0.189), and distal resection margins (p = 0.151). Postoperative morbidity (p = 0.736) was similar in both groups. There was no mortality postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with an additional port is a feasible and safe approach, although it is more time consuming than conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgeries for colorectal diseases: early experiences of a novel surgical method

Objectives. This paper aims to analyze the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and its potential benefits. Methods. Systematic review was performed for the years 1983-August 2011 to retrieve all relevant literature. A total of 21 studies with 477 patients undergoing SILC were selected. Results. Range of operative times and estimated blood losses were 75-229 min and 0-100 mL, respectively. Overall conversion rate was 5.9% (28/477) and an additional laparoscopic port was used in 4.9% (16/329) cases. Range of lymph node number for malignant cases was 12-24.6 and surgical margins were all negative. Overall mortality and morbidity rate was 0.4% (2/477) and 11.7% (43/368), respectively. The length of hospital stay (LOS) varied across reports (2.7-9.2 days). Among 6 case-matched studies, one showed less blood loss in SILC as compared to LAC and 2 showed shorter LOS after SILC versus HALC or LAC/HALC groups. In addition, one study reported maximum pain score on postoperative days 1 and 2 was lower in SILS compared to LAC and HALC. Conclusions. SILC procedure is feasible and safe when performed by surgeons highly skilled in laparoscopy. In spite of technical difficulties, there may be potential benefits associated with SILC over LAC/HALC.