A randomized controlled trial comparing post-operative pain in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

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.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is frequently performed for acute cholecystitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis. Considerable variation in the execution of key steps of the operation remains. We conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding best practices for critical intraoperative steps for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

We identified 5 main intraoperative decision points in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: (1) number and position of laparoscopic ports; (2) identification of cystic artery and duct; (3) division of cystic artery and duct; (4) indications for subtotal cholecystectomy; and (5) retrieval of the gallbladder. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were queried for relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were included for analysis, and evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Results

Fifty-two articles were included. Although all port configurations were comparable from a safety standpoint, fewer ports sometimes resulted in improved cosmesis or decreased pain but longer operative times. The critical view of safety should be obtained for identification of the cystic duct and artery but may be obtained through fundus-first dissection and augmented with cholangiography or ultrasound. Insufficient evidence exists to compare harmonic-shear, clipless ligation against clip ligation of the cystic duct and artery. Stump closure during subtotal cholecystectomy may reduce rates of bile leak and reoperation. Use of retrieval bag for gallbladder extraction results in minimal benefit. Most studies were underpowered to detect differences in incidence of rare complications.

Conclusion

Key operative steps of laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be informed by both compiled data and surgeon preference/patient considerations.

Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Distal Gastrectomy Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is gaining more attention due to advancements in surgical devices and techniques. Ten years have passed since the first report of single-incision distal gastrectomy. This study aims to analyze the long-term oncological safety of single-incision distal gastrectomy by comparing it with multiport distal gastrectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic distal gastrectomy from January 2010 to December 2017 were enrolled. Palliative surgery, history of other malignancy, preoperative chemotherapy, and distant metastasis were excluded. The 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival were set as coprimary endpoints. Operative time, blood loss, postoperative outcome, and risk factors for survival were secondary endpoints. Propensity score matching of 1:1 ratio was performed to adjust for age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, tumor size, operation history, and clinical stage.

RESULTS

A total of 3,097 patients were enrolled. After propensity score matching, 378 patients were allocated to each group. There was no difference in patient demographics after matching. Operation time was faster (170.8 ± 65.3 minutes vs 147.2 ± 44.1 minutes, p < 0.001), with less blood loss in the single-port group (84.1 ± 87.6 mL vs 34.9 ± 49.9 mL, p < 0.001). Administration of additional intravenous analgesics was less frequent in the single-port group (p = 0.043). There was no difference in long-term survival (5-year overall survival: multiport 94.2%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.43; 5-year disease-free survival: multiport 94.1%, single-port 95.8%, p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision distal gastrectomy is safe and feasible with good long-term outcomes and less use of additional analgesics for patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer.

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.

Low long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various surgical approaches are available for cholecystectomy, but their long-term outcomes, such as incidence of incisional hernia, are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy for different surgical approaches.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020178906). Three databases were searched for original studies on long-term complications of cholecystectomy with n > 40 and follow-up ≥6 months for incisional hernia. Risk of bias within the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane "risk of bias" tool. Meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia after 6 and 12 months was conducted when possible.

RESULTS

We included 89 studies. Of these, 77 reported on multiport or single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Twelve studies reported on open cholecystectomy and 4 studies on robotic cholecystectomy. Weighted mean incidence proportion of incisional hernia after multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 0.3% (95% confidence interval 0-0.6) after 6 months and 0.2% after 12 months (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.3). Weighted mean incidence of incisional hernia 12 months postoperatively was 1.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-2.6) after open cholecystectomy and 4.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-8.6) after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. No meta-analysis could be conducted for robotic cholecystectomy, but incidences ranged from 0% to 16.7%.

CONCLUSION

We found low 1-year incidences of incisional hernia after multiport laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy, whereas risks of incisional hernia were considerably higher after single-incision laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy.

Single-incision versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory surgery setting: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial

Background:

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) can be done as a day-case procedure and may have advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). We present the results of our study looking at post-operative pain and post-operative recovery time.

Methods:

This was a single-institution randomised double-blind controlled trial. Seventy-three patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were randomized to SILC (n = 37) or LC (n = 36). The primary endpoint was to compare post-operative pain. We also compared surgical time, procedural difficulty, adverse events, additional ports used and conversion rate, success of day surgery process, return to work, aesthetic satisfaction, quality of life and 4-year incisional hernia rate.

Results:

In the SILC group, post-operative analgesic requirements were lower on day 7, there was an earlier return to work and cosmetic satisfaction was significantly higher. The SILC procedure presented a higher technical difficulty. Operative time, surgical complications, post-operative pain, success of the day-case process, return to normal activity, quality of life scores and incisional hernia rates were similar for both the procedures.

Conclusions:

SILC has advantages over LC in terms of late post-operative analgesic requirements and aesthetic results; however, it is technically harder to perform. There was no benefit in terms of day surgery outcomes.

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.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Assisted with Neodymium Magnets: Initial Prospective Experience with 60 Cases

Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard performed by the majority of surgeons worldwide, and the use of single-port cholecystectomy remains a matter of debate. Single-port magnetic-assisted cholecystectomy (SPMAC) was described as an alternative because of its ability for proper triangulation and the advantage of reducing port surgery. The objective of this study is to describe the initial experience of SPMAC and evaluate the surgical learning curve. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort was conducted between February 2017 and August 2018; 60 patients completed the inclusion criteria. Variables analyzed were gender, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative bleeding, and conversion rate. Postoperative pain was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS). Aesthetic perception was measured by the cosmetic visual analogue scale (CVAS). The postoperative complications were graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) model was used for evaluating the learning curve. Results: The mean operatory time was 56.1 minutes. With regard to the postoperative pain variable, the VAS value was 2 out of 10 in 78.33% of patients. With regard to aesthetic satisfaction, CVAS was reported to be 10 out of 10 in 96.67% of patients. Conversion rate was 0%. The learning curve of operative time was reached at the 22nd patient, according to the CUSUM chart. Conclusions: SPMAC is feasible and effective; in our consideration, an acceptable learning curve considering benign gallbladder pathology is one of the most prevalent in general surgery. Further comparative studies with conventional LC and SPMAC need to be performed to conduct a proper comparison.

True single-port cholecystectomy with ICG cholangiography through a single 15-mm trocar using the new surgical platform "symphonX": first human case study with a commercially available device

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive single-port surgery is often associated with large incisions up to 2-3 cm, complicated handling due to the lack of triangulation, and instrument crossing. Aim of this prospective study was to perform true single-port surgery (cholecystectomy) without the use of assisting trocars using a new surgical platform that allows for triangulation incorporating robotic features, and to measure the perioperative outcome and cosmetic results.

METHODS

As the first European site after FDA and CE-mark approval, the new device has been introduced to our academic center. In patients with cholecystitis and cholecystolithiasis, the operation was performed through only one 15-mm trocar. For patients safety, intraoperative cholangiography using intravenous ICG and a standard Stryker 1588 system was routinely performed.

RESULTS

Symphonx was used in n = 12 patients for abdominal surgery (6 females, mean age 42.5 [30-77], mean BMI 26.2 [19.3-38.9]. A total of 8 patients underwent surgery using no additional ports besides the 15-mm trocar; in the remaining patients, one assisting instrument (3-5 mm) was used. Mean OR time was 107 [72-221] minutes. The postoperative course was uneventful in 11 patients; in one patient, a seroma at the surgical site required interventional drainage 1 month postoperatively. No intraoperative complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

This is the first human case series using the commercially available symphonX platform for abdominal laparoscopic surgery and the first series using the system without assisting instruments. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystitis and cholecystolithiasis using the symphonX platform through only one 15-mm trocar is feasible, safe, and more cost-efficient compared to robotic platforms.

Solo single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a safe substitute for conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite the incremental application of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), this procedure has technical difficulties, including physical disturbance and an unstable surgical view through the small incision; therefore, we introduce the solo SILC (S-SILC) technique using a laparoscopic scope holder, as a simple, fixed and easy-to-perform procedure for an unassisted surgeon.

METHODS

We performed a comparative analysis of S-SILC (n = 566) and conventional three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 874) performed from January 2013 to December 2016 at multiple centres.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference of operative time between the two groups (P = 0.176); however, S-SILC showed a higher incidence of intraoperative gallbladder perforation, especially in the initial period (17.0% versus 2.3%, P < 0.001); and shorter post-operative hospital stay (3.3 ± 1.7 versus 1.9 ± 2.7 days, P < 0.001) than conventional three-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were no significant differences in major post-operative complications between the two groups (P = 0.909) and operation type (P = 0.971) was not a significant risk factor for major post-operative complications in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

S-SILC is a feasible and safe procedure; however, careful selection of surgical candidates is necessary in the early period of the experience with this method.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.

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.

Clinical Usefulness of a Self-Retaining Internal Organ Retractor for Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Adrenalectomy

INTRODUCTION

Although laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy (LESS-A) is feasible, it is still considered as a challenging procedure because of technical limitations. Making an optimal retraction is one of major obstacles in LESS-A, and it sometimes requires additional ports or needlescopic devices. Internal organ retractor (IOR) is a novel retraction device that is applied intracorporeally without additional port. In this study, we investigated the clinical usefulness of IOR in LESS-A.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of 73 consecutive patients who underwent LESS-A from March 2009 to December 2014 were reviewed. Twenty-two patients underwent LESS-A with IOR and 51 patients without IOR.

RESULTS

Mean age, body mass index, tumor size, operation time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were not significantly different between two groups. In IOR group, median number of applied IOR was 2.0 (1.0-3.0) per single operation. Mean time for application and removal was 80.0 and 46.5 seconds for a single IOR, respectively. There were no complications related to the IOR. In without IOR group, there were nine cases that needed needlescopic trocars, six cases that needed 5 mm or larger trocars, and one case that was converted to hand-assisted laparoscopy. However, we did not use any needlescopic instrument or additional trocar in IOR group. There was no case of open conversion in both groups.

CONCLUSION

LESS-A could be done effectively and safely using IOR. IOR system maintained optimal retraction throughout the operation. Its application and removal are intuitive and take only a few minutes. We think IOR system is an attractive retraction method in LESS-A.

SINGLE PORT LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY: TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND RESULTS

Background:

The search for less traumatic surgical procedures without compromising efficacy and safety, together with the technological advances and greater experience of the teams, led to the development of operative techniques with increasingly smaller incisions, the so-called “minimally invasive surgeries”.

Aim:

To evaluate the technical aspects and results of single port cholecystectomy.

Method:

Were analyzed 170 patients between 18-74 years submitted to videolaparoscopic cholecystectomies by single port, regardless of elective or urgent indication, without restriction of patient selection.

Results:

Among the 170 operations, 158 were exclusively performed by single port, and the conversion rate was 7% (inclusion of other accessory trocars or conversion to multiportal). Conversion to open surgery occurred in three cases (1.76%). The mean surgical time was 67.97 min, showing a marked decrease when was reached close to 50 cases and a stabilization after 100 surgeries. The overall complication rate was 10%, with minor complications such as: incisional pain, hematomas, granulomas, port access hernias (9.41%).

Conclusion:

Single port cholecystectomy can, after standardization and surgical team training, be a safe surgical procedure associated with a recognized aesthetic advantage.

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.

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.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: our experience and review of literature

AIM

After the revolution in the surgery of gallbladder stones represented by the laparoscopic cholecystectomy, we tried a new technique that further maximize the aesthetic results and that at the same time is of easy learning for young surgeons.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2012 we performed at our department 320 cholecystectomy: 27 in laparotomy and 293 in laparoscopy. Of these, 88 underwent to Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS), namely the Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SILC), in recruited patients aged between 19-65 years; 56 patients were females and 32 were males.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the SILS methodology is a safe technique. Respect to multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC), we have cosmetic advances. The pain is less in extraumbilical sites, and the major umbilical pain can be prevented by local anaesthesia. The times are slightly longer, especially at the beginning of training, but after a few of operations it is reduced to about one hour. We didn't found any other difference in vantage and advantage between the two technics, only a case of postoperative umbilical hernia in SILS.

CONCLUSION

We found the SILS a safe and effective technique for the cholecystectomy.

Single-incision laparoscopic-assisted ileal resection for adult intussusception

Adult intussusception is rare and laparotomy is required in most of the cases due to the potential pathologic underlying reasons. Although it is technically challenging, single-incision laparoscopic surgery can work as an alternative to laparotomy. Here we report the case of a 45-year-old man with intermittent right lower quadrant abdominal pain for 1 month. Abdominal enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan was performed and ileo-ileal intussusception was found, with lipoma as a likely leading point. Ileal resection was performed using the single-incision laparoscopic-assisted technique. Multiple trocars in the umbilical incision technique and conventional instruments were used. After identification of the ileo-ileal intussusception, the involved small bowel was extracted from the umbilical incision, and resection and anastomosis were performed extracoporeally. The operation time was 65 min and the post-operative hospital stay was 2 days. The patient recovered uneventfully, with better cosmetic results.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease

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

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Phase II clinical experience and long-term follow-up using the next-generation single-incision platform FMX314

BACKGROUND

Single-incision minimally invasive surgery has previously been associated with incisions 2.0-3.0 cm in length. We present a novel single-incision surgical platform compatible for insertion through a standard 15-mm trocar we previously described in six patients with short-term follow-up data. The objective of this phase II study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the platform in a larger collective and to evaluate 1-year follow-up data of the phase I trial.

METHODS

The technology features a multiple-use introducer, accommodating the articulating instruments, and is inserted through a 15-mm laparoscopic trocar. Cholecystectomy is performed through an umbilical incision. A prospective feasibility study was performed at a single center. Inclusion criteria were age of 18-75 years and biliary colic, exclusion criteria were acute cholecystitis, dilation of the biliary tree, severe coagulopathy, BMI > 40 kg/m(2), or choledocholithiasis. Endpoints included complications, length of stay, pain medication, cosmetic results, and the presence of hernia.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (23 females; phase I: 6 patients, phase II: 21 patients) with an average age of 41.7 years and BMI 26.6 kg/m(2) were recruited for the study. Umbilical incision length did not exceed 15 mm. There were no intraoperative complications. Average OR time decreased from 91 min for the first six cases to 56 min for the last six cases. Average length of stay was 7.8 h. Pain control was achieved with diclofenac for no more than 7 days. All patients had no adverse events at 5-month follow-up, and all phase I patients had no adverse events nor evidence of umbilical hernia at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that single-incision cholecystectomy with the platform is feasible, safe, and reproducible in a larger patient population. Long-term follow-up showed no hernias or other adverse events. Further studies will be needed to evaluate longer-term hernia rates.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved versus linear instruments assessed by systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery poses significant ergonomic limitations. Curved instruments have been developed in order to address the issue of lack of triangulation. Direct comparison between single-incision laparoscopic surgeries with conventional linear and curved instruments has not been performed to date.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CENTRAL and OpenGrey were searched to identify relevant randomized trials. A network meta-analysis was applied to compare operative risks, conversion, duration of surgery and the need for placement of an adjunct trocar in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with linear and curved instruments. The random-effects model was applied for two sets of comparisons, with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the reference treatment. Odds ratios, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials encompassing 1737 patients were included. The use of curved instruments was associated with increased operative time (mean difference 32.53 min, 95% CI 24.23-40.83) and higher odds for the use of an adjunct trocar (odds ratio 22.81, 95% CI 16.69-28.94) compared to the use of linear instruments. Perioperative risks could not be comparatively assessed due to the low number of events.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved instruments may be associated with an increased level of operative difficulty, as reflected by the need for auxiliary measures for exposure and increased operative time as compared to the use of linear instruments. Current instrumentation requires further improvement, tailored to the features of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (CRD42015015721).