Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer treatment remains unclear. This study compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS using a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

Literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, drawing from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan and Stata.

RESULT

The review and meta-analysis included seven studies with 1740 colorectal cancer patients. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 showed significant improvements in operation time (WMD =  - 18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD =  - 21.31, P < 0.00001), incision length (WMD =  - 2.07, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD =  - 14.91, P = 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD =  - 11.46, P = 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD =  - 11.52, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 demonstrates superiority in shortening the surgical incision and promoting postoperative recovery. SILS + 1 can provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLS.

A 3 mm Port Reduces Postoperative Pain After Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Surgery: A Case-control Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, smaller-size trocars and instruments have been developed for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery; however, their effectiveness and safety have not been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate whether 3 mm trocars and instruments have benefits compared with conventional trocars and instruments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection or right hemicolectomy were included. Patients who underwent combined resections of other organs and those with conversion to open surgery were excluded. In the 3 mm group, three 5 mm trocars were replaced by 3 mm trocars. The numeric rating scale (NRS) immediately postoperatively at 24, 48, and 72 hours, respectively, after surgery and the use of additional analgesics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Case-control matched analysis was used to reduce bias according to the type of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients (conventional: n = 158, 3 mm: n = 49) were included. Before matching, NRS 48 hours postoperatively ( P = 0.049), proportion of patients using additional intravenous (IV) analgesics ( P = 0.007), postoperative hospital stay ( P < 0.001), and blood loss ( P < 0.001) were lower in the 3 mm group. In multivariable analysis, trocar type significantly impacted the proportion of patients using additional IV analgesics (odds ratio: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.153-0.712; P = 0.005). After case-control matching, NRS immediately postoperatively ( P = 0.015) and 24 hours postsurgery ( P = 0.043), patients using additional IV analgesics ( P = 0.019), postoperative hospital stay ( P = 0.010), intraoperative blood loss ( P < 0.001), and postoperative complication rate ( P = 0.028) were significantly lower in the 3 mm group compared with the 5 mm group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 3 mm trocars and instruments in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery can effectively reduce postoperative pain while maintaining perioperative safety.

Stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles's procedure for low rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer after stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic Miles procedure or conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles procedure, as well as to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between September 2020 and September 2021, 51 low rectal cancer patients scheduled for Miles procedure at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College were randomly assigned to the single-port laparoscopic surgery group (SPLS) and the multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) group. The perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 25 patients underwent SPLS and 26 underwent MPLS. All patients completed the study, and there were no perioperative deaths in either group. Observation indicators such as intraoperative bleeding (39 mL vs. 41 mL), number of lymph nodes (20.12 ± 3.29 vs. 21.84 ± 3.74), average hospital stay (7.15 ± 1.52 vs. 7.64 ± 1.66), and time to flatulence (2.5d vs. 2.5d) showed no significant differences between the SPLS and MPLS groups (p > 0.05). However, the operation duration (180 min vs. 118 min) and perioperative complications showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in the SPLS group had significantly higher satisfaction scores than those in the MPLS group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with low rectal cancer requiring Miles surgery, stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery has comparable safety and efficacy to multi-port laparoscopic surgery.

Single-incision robotic colorectal surgery with the da Vinci SP® surgical system: initial results of 50 cases

PURPOSE

The da Vinci SP® (dVSP) surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), a robotic platform designed for single-incision surgery, overcame the need for multiple ports in traditional robotic surgery and issues including triangulation and retraction in single-incision laparoscopic surgery. However, previous studies only included case reports or series with small sample sizes. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and performance of the dVSP surgical system and its instruments and accessories for colorectal procedures.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who had surgery with the dVSP from March 2019 to September 2021 at Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital were investigated. The pathologic and follow-up data of patients who had malignant tumors were analyzed separately to evaluate oncological safety.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (26 male and 24 female) with a median age of 59 years (interquartile range 52.5-63.0 years) were enrolled. The procedures included low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (n = 16), sigmoid colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vessel ligation (CME + CVL) (n = 14), right colectomy with CME + CVL (n = 9), left colectomy with CME + CVL (n = 4), right colectomy (n = 6), and sigmoid colectomy (n = 1). Operative time significantly decreased after 25 cases (early phase vs. late phase; operative time 295.0 min vs. 250.0 min, p = 0.015; docking time 16.0 min vs. 12.0 min, p = 0.001; console time 212.0 min vs. 190.0 min, p = 0.019). Planned procedures were successfully completed in all patients. Postoperative outcomes were acceptable with only six cases of mild adverse events through a 3-month follow-up. No local recurrence and only one case of systemic recurrence occurred within 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the surgical and oncological safety and feasibility of dVSP, which may be a novel surgical platform for colorectal surgery.

D3 lymph node dissection with versus without left colic artery preservation in single-incision laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectosigmoid cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

In surgery for colorectal cancer, dissection of the lymph nodes and fatty tissue around the root of the inferior mesenteric artery is important from an oncologic point of view. However, it is debatable whether it is better to preserve or remove the left colic artery (LCA). This study aimed to compare D3 lymphadenectomy with versus without LCA preservation in single-incision laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectosigmoid cancer.

METHODS

A total of 1138 patients underwent surgery for colorectal cancer between April 2011 and December 2018 at Fukui Prefectural Hospital. This propensity score-matched retrospective study analyzed the data of 163 patients: 42 patients with LCA preservation (group A) and 129 without LCA preservation (group B). Clinical and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups A and B in patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, including the 5-year overall survival rate (75% vs. 64.2%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-4.30), 5-year disease-free survival rate (85.7% vs. 85.7%, HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.24-4.22), and 5-year cancer-specific survival rate (92.8% vs. 89.3%, HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.25-11.4).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery with D3 lymphadenectomy with versus without LCA preservation. This suggests that LCA preservation is safe and feasible in single-incision laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid and rectosigmoid colon cancer.

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (CSILS): study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial

Background

In most previous studies, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was feasible and safe in the short term. However, long-term oncologic outcomes remain uncertain, as only a few studies contained long-term survival data. SILS for CRC is still in the early stages of research. Further studies, particularly large-scale, prospective randomized controlled trials, are necessary to assess the value of SILS for CRC.

Methods

This study is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that investigates the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for CRC. A total of 710 eligible patients will be randomly assigned to the SILS group or the CLS group at a 1:1 ratio using a central, dynamic, and stratified block randomization method. Patients with ages ranging from 18 to 85 years old, of both sexes, with CRC above the peritoneal reflection diagnosed as cT1-4aN0-2M0 and a tumour size no larger than 5 cm will be considered for the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints include: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain assessment, pathological outcomes, early morbidity and mortality rate, cosmetic effects, quality of life, 3-year overall survival (OS), incidence of incisional hernia, 5-year DFS and 5-year OS. The first two follow-up visits will be scheduled at one month and three months postoperatively, then every three months for the first two years and every six months for the next three years.

Discussion

Currently, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes of SILS for CRC. This study is expected to provide clinical evidence of the oncologic outcomes of SILS compared to CLS for CRC to promote its widespread use.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 04527861 (registered on August 27, 2020).

Da Vinci SP robotic approach to colorectal surgery: two specific indications and short-term results

BACKGROUND

Da Vinci® Single Port (dvSP) was recently developed. Its application in colorectal surgery is under investigation. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and feasibility of dvSP for intersphincteric (dvSP-ISR), right colectomy (dvSP-RC), and transverse colectomy (dvSP-TC). Surgical indication and short-term results were analyzed.

METHODS

All consecutive patients from a prospective database of patients who underwent dvSP-ISR, dvSP-RC, and dvSP-TC at Korea University Anam Hospital from November 2020 to December 2021, were analyzed. Perioperative, pathological, and oncological short-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 7 dvSP-ISR, 5 dvSP-RC, and 1 dvSP-TC were performed. Median age was 56.0 (55.0-61.0) years for the dvSP-ISR and 54.0 (44.7-63.5) years for the dvSP-RC/TC. Median body mass index was 22.8 (17.1-24.8) kg/m² for the dvSP-ISR and 23.6 (20.8-26.9) kg/m² for the dvSP-RC/TC. All dvSP-ISR patients received neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy, including one patient with squamocellular carcinoma who was treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/mitomycin. All other patients, excluding one dvSP-RC patient with Crohn's disease, had an adenocarcinoma. Median operation time was 280 (240-370) minutes for the dvSP-ISR and 220 (201-270) minutes for the dvSP-RC/TC. Estimated blood loss was insignificant. No intraoperative complications or conversions to multiport/open surgery was reported. Median post-operative stay was 7.0 (6.0-10.0) days for the dvSP-ISR and 5.0 (4.0-6.7) days for the dvSP-RC/TC. Quality of mesorectum was complete for six patients, and nearly complete for one. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes were 21 (17-25) for the dvSP-ISR and 28 (24-49) for the dvSP-RC/TC. Proximal and distal resection margins were tumor free. Four patients experienced post-operative complications not related to the platform which were: ileus, voiding dysfunction, infected pelvic hematoma, and wound infection. Median follow-up was 9 (6-11) months and 11 (7-17) months for the dvSP-ISR and dvSP-RC/TC, respectively. Two patients had systemic recurrence; all others were tumor free.

CONCLUSIONS

The dvSP platform is safe and feasible for intersphincteric resection with right lower quadrant access, and right/transverse colectomy with suprapubic access. Further studies are needed to evaluate benefit differences compared to multiport robotic platform.

Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program Combined With Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the perioperative management of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ERAS combined with single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in CRC surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with CRC who underwent surgery between April 2018 and April 2020 in Ruijin Hospital(North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. The patients were divided into three groups: group A (n=138), patients who underwent traditional multiport laparoscopic colectomy with conventional perioperative management; group B (n=63), patients who underwent SILS; and group C (n=51), patients who underwent SILS with ERAS.

RESULTS

Overall, 252 participants were included in the retrospective study. The median operation time (min) in group B and group C was shorter than that in group A (group A 134.0 ± 42.5; group B 117 ± 38.9; group C 111.7 ± 35.4, p=0.004). The estimated surgical blood loss (ml) was lower in groups B and C than in group A (group A 165.1 ± 142.2; group B 122.0 ± 79.4; group C 105.2 ± 55.8, p=0.011). The length of surgical incision (cm) was shorter in groups B and C than in group A (group A 7.34 ± 1.05; group B 5.60 ± 0.80; group C 5.28 ± 0.52, p<0.001). The time before first flatus (hours) in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 61.85 ± 21.14; group B 58.30 ± 20.08; group C 42.06 ± 23.72; p<0.001). The days prior to the administration of free oral fluids in group C was shorter than in groups A and B (group A 4.79 ± 1.28; group B 4.67 ± 1.11; group C 2.62 ± 0.64; p<0.001). The days of prior solid diet was less in group C than in groups A and B (group A 7.22 ± 3.87; group B 7.08 ± 3.18; group C 5.75 ± 1.70; p=0.027). The postoperative length of stay (LOS) was less in group C compared with that in groups A and B (group A 9.46 ± 4.84 days; group B 9.52 ± 7.45 days; group C 7.20 ± 2.37 days; p=0.023). The visual analog scale (VAS) scores on day 0, 1, and 2 in groups B and C were lower than those in group A (day 0, p<0.001; day 1, p<0.001; day 2, p=0.002), while the VAS score on day 3 showed no differences in the three groups (group A 1.29 ± 1.38; group B 0.98 ± 1.24; group C 0.75 ± 0.64, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that SILS combined with ERAS may be a feasible and safe procedure for CRC surgery because it provides favorable cosmetic results, early dietary resumption, shorter hospital stays, and appropriate control of postoperative pain without increases in complications or readmission rates compared to conventional perioperative care with SILS or conventional laparoscopic surgery(CLS) of CRC. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to enhance evidence-based medical evidence.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To date, well-designed randomized controlled trials examining the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare short-term outcomes of SILS for colorectal cancer with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

Between June 28, 2017, and June 29, 2019, a single-center, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital (North), Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine in Shanghai, China. In total, 200 patients diagnosed or suspected of colorectal cancer (cT_1-4aN_0-2M₀) were randomly assigned to either the SILS or CLS group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was early morbidity rate. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative outcomes, pain intensity, postoperative recovery, pathologic outcomes, and long-term outcomes.

Results

In total, 193 participants (SILS, 97; CLS, 96) were analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population. Among them, 48 underwent right hemicolectomy (SILS n = 23, 23.7% and MLS n = 25, 26%), 15 underwent left hemicolectomy (SILS n = 6, 6.2% and MLS n = 9, 9.4%), 1 underwent transverse colectomy (MLS n = 1, 1%), 57 underwent sigmoidectomy (SILS n = 32, 33% and MLS n = 25, 26%), and 72 underwent anterior resection (SILS n = 36, 37.1% and MLS n = 36, 37.5%). No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics. The intraoperative complication was comparable between the two groups [5 (5.2%) vs. 4 (4.2%); difference, 1%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 7.8%; p > 0.999) and so was postoperative complication rates [10 (10.3%) vs. 14 (14.6%); difference, -4.3%; 95% CI, -13.9% to 5.3%; p = 0.392]. The SILS group showed shorter incision length [median (IQR), 4 (3.5-5) vs. 6.6 (6-7.5), p < 0.001] and lower VAS scores on the first [median (IQR), 4 (3-5) vs. 4 (4-5), p = 0.002] and the second day [median (IQR), 2 (1.5-3) vs. 3 (2-4), p < 0.001] after surgery. No statistically significant difference was found in other measured outcomes.

Conclusions

Compared with CLS, SILS performed by experienced surgeons for selected colorectal cancer patients is non-inferior with good short-term safety and has the advantage of reducing postoperative pain.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03151733.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery for Right-Side Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

There are little data concerning the long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colon cancer. Therefore, we investigated not only the short-term outcomes but also the long-term outcomes of SILS for right-side colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared short- and long-term outcomes of SILS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for right-sided colon cancer in our institution. Intergroup differences of short-term outcomes were evaluated using χ2 or Fisher exact tests and 2-sample Student t tests. The disease-free survival rates (long-term outcome) of stage II and III patients were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests.

RESULTS

There were 290 operations conducted for right-side (cecum and ascending) colorectal cancers from April 2011 to July 2018. Open surgery was performed in 12 cases from start to the operation. SILS was performed in 196 cases and CLS in 55 cases. One patient underwent intraoperative conversion from SILS to laparotomy for bleeding control. In addition, 1 port was added to SILS in 3 cases. These 4 cases were included in the analysis as the SILS group according to the principle of intent to treat.

BACKGROUND

Factors including age, gender, body mass index, performance status, and tumor stage were not statistically different between the SILS and CLS groups. In short-term outcomes, the number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically different. SILS required less operating time (p < 0.001) and resulted in a reduced bleeding volume (p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of overall complications (p = 0.06). The disease-free survival of stage II and III patients was not statistically different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With the proper adaptation of SILS by an experienced surgeon, the short- and long-term outcomes of SILS were not inferior to those of CLS. Therefore, SILS could be a treatment option for right-sided colon cancer.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies find similar perioperative outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer. However, few have reported long-term outcomes of SILS versus CLS. We aimed to compare long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes as well as perioperative outcomes between SILS and CLS for colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 641 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 were eligible for the study. Data from 300 of these patients were used for analysis after propensity score-matching (n = 150 per group). Variables associated with short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The SILS group had a shorter mean total incision length, less postoperative pain, and a similar mean rate of incisional hernia (2.7% versus 3.3%) compared with the CLS group. The 7-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 92.7% versus 94% (p = 0.673) and 85.3% versus 84.7% (p = 0.688) in the SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, SILS for colon cancer appeared to be safe in terms of perioperative and long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes. The results suggested that SILS is a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for a selected group of patients.

Oncologic long-term outcome of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been introduced as a less invasive alternative to multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS). MLS is widely accepted for the treatment of colorectal cancer, but there remains minimal evidence for the use of SILS. Thus, we compared both short- and long-term outcomes of SILS and open surgery (OS) in matched cohorts of colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Some 910 patients had colorectal resections for cancer between 2006 and 2013, and 134 of them were operated on using SILS. Eighty of these SILS patients were compared to a cohort of patients who had open surgery that were matching in tumour stage and location, type of resection, sex, age and ASA Score. Disease-free survival at 5 years (5y-DFS) was the primary endpoint; morbidity and hospitalization were secondary parameters. The role of surgical training in SILS was also investigated.

RESULTS

Clavien Dindo ≥ IIIb complications occurred in 13.8% in both groups. 5y-DSF were 82% after SILS and 70% after OS (p = 0.11). Local recurrence after rectal cancer tended to be lower after SILS (0/43 (SILS) vs. 4/35 (OS), p = 0.117). Length of stay was significantly shorter after SILS (10 vs. 14 days, p = 0.0004). The rate of operations performed by surgical residents was equivalent in both groups (44/80 (SILS) vs. 46/80 (OS), p = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The data demonstrates that SILS results in similar long-term oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery as well as morbidity rates. The hospital stay in the SILS group was shorter. SILS can also be incorporated in surgical training programmes.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

PURPOSE

To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = -0.73, 95%CI: -1.37, -0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= -1.10, 95%CI: -1.45, -0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95, -2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele: a series of 116 patients

BACKGROUND

Although the safety and feasibility of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for appendiceal mucocele (AM) has been reported, studies on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for AM have not been reported. Here, we aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes between SILS and CLS for AM and to evaluate the oncological safety of SILS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients, diagnosed based on computed tomography findings, who underwent laparoscopic surgery for AM between 2010 and 2018 at one institution. We excluded patients strongly suspected of having malignant lesions and those with preoperative appendiceal perforation. Patients were divided into two groups-CLS and SILS. Pathological outcomes and long-term results were investigated. The median follow-up period was 43.7 (range: 12.3-118.5) months.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 116 patients (CLS = 68, SILS = 48) were enrolled. Patient demographic characteristics did not differ between the groups. The preoperative mucocele diameter was greater in the CLS than in the SILS group (3.2 ± 2.9 cm vs. 2.3 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.029). More extensive surgery (right hemicolectomies and ileocecectomies) was performed in the CLS than in the SILS group (P = 0.014). Intraoperative perforation developed in only one patient per group. For appendectomies and cecectomies, the CLS group exhibited a longer operation time than the SILS group (63.3 ± 24.5 min vs. 52.4 ± 17.3 min, P = 0.014); the same was noted for length of postoperative hospital stay (2.9 ± 1.8 days vs. 1.7 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001). The most common AM etiology was low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (71/116 [61.2%] patients); none of the patients exhibited mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Among these 71 patients, there were 8 patients with microscopic appendiceal perforation or positive resection margins. No recurrence was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS for AM is feasible and safe perioperatively and in the short-term and yields favorable oncological outcomes. Despite the retrospective nature of the study, SILS may be suitable after careful selection of AM patients.

Systematic review of single-port vs. multi-port surgery for rectal cancer

The aim of the current systematic review was to compare the short-term clinical and oncological outcomes of single-port surgery (SPS) to multi-port surgery (MPS) for rectal cancer in MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to December 2018. A total of 5 clinical controlled studies composed one randomized pilot study and four non-randomized studies with a total of 461 patients were analyzed after a systematic review. A total of 125 patients (27.1%) underwent SPS and 336 patients (72.9%) underwent MPS for rectal cancer. The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower in the SPS group compared with the MPS group (0.8 vs. 5.4%, respectively). A total of 16.8% of patients in the SPS group required an additional port to complete the operation. The morbidity rate was lower in the SPS group compared with the MPS group (28.0 vs. 39.0%, respectively). The other short-term clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The R0 resection rate was 99.0% in the SPS group and 98.7% in the MPS group. The oncological clearance was satisfactory and similar in both groups. The current study concluded that SPS can be performed safely and provide satisfactory oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. However, further studies are required to determine the role of SPS in the long-term clinical and oncological outcomes.

A Systematic Review of Comparing Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy For Right Colon Diseases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has been promoted in clinic since 2008, but a systematic review of comparing SILS and traditional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (TLS) with long-term follow-up is rare. Here, in this study, comparison of SILS and TLS with long-term follow-up was evaluated by a meta-analysis method.

METHODS

All studies about SILS and TLS for right hemicolectomy from 2010 to 2018 were searched from databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang. Operation index, recovery, and midterm follow-up data were evaluated by fixed-effects models, random-effects models, and Begg test.

RESULTS

We collected 22 studies with 2218 patients. SILS groups contained 1038 (46.7%) patients, and 1180 (53.3%) patients were observed in the TLS group. Patients' baseline data were similar in the 2 groups. Compared with TLS, SILS had shorter operation duration [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.08, P<0.001, χ=49.40], shorter hospitalization time (SMD: -0.27, 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.16, P<0.001, χ=9.17), slightly less blood loss (SMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.10; P<0.001; χ=5.36), and smaller incision length (SMD: -2.19, 95% CI: -3.66 to -0.71, P<0.001; χ=316.1). No statistical differences were observed in other figures.

CONCLUSION

SILS is more convenient and has better efficacy than TLS and could provide a promising surgical approach for right colon diseases.

Short- And medium-term outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with upper rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Background

To investigate the short‐ and medium‐term outcomes of using a reduced‐port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS), compared to multi‐port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS), for the treatment of upper rectal cancer (URC) among elderly patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical and follow‐up data of 181 elderly patients with URC, who underwent radical laparoscopic surgery at our hospital, between January 2015 and January 2019. Among these 181 cases, 62 underwent RPLS and 119 MPLS.

Results

Compared to MPLS, RPLS decreased the length of surgical incision, lower pain on postoperative days 1 and 2, decreased the time to first flatus after surgery, as well as the time to mobilization after surgery. There was no difference between the short‐term outcomes between the two laparoscopic approaches, and no difference in the 3‐year disease‐free and overall survival rate.

Conclusion

Compared to MPLS, RPLS provides several advantages for the treatment of URC among elderly individuals, including a shorter length of surgical incision, reduced postoperative pain, shorter time to first flatus after surgery, earlier mobilization, and better cosmetic outcomes. These advantages are achieved with no difference in the length of surgery, nor in the 3‐year disease‐free and overall survival rate, compared to MPLS.

rSILS: initial clinical experience with single-port robotic (SPr) right colectomy

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-Port (SP) robot is a novel platform designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery (rSILS). The objective of this study was to describe our initial experience using this platform for SP robotic (SPr) right colectomy.

METHODS

Under a Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study and Institutional Review Board approval, a patient with cecal adenocarcinoma underwent an SPr right colectomy. The primary endpoint was the safety and feasibility of the first SPr right colectomy performed in the USA. Secondary endpoints included perioperative metrics, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

An SPr Standard right colectomy was performed through a 4-cm single incision without the need for conversion or additional port placement. Estimated blood loss was 100 mL and there were no intraoperative complications. The robot was docked once with a docking time of 19 min. Total console time was 116 min and operative time was 219 min. The patient tolerated clear liquids on postoperative day (POD) 0 and a low-residue diet on POD 1. The patient had flatus and a bowel movement on POD 1. She was discharged home on POD 3. Final pathology showed pT3N0 cecal adenocarcinoma with negative margins and 0/24 lymph nodes positive for disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience demonstrates that an SPr right colectomy is feasible and can be safely completed. We completed an oncologic resection of a cecal adenocarcinoma without complications. The SP robot facilitates the utilization of robotic technology in a single-incision platform to perform colorectal procedures and offers promising benefits in the advancement of robotic surgery.

Single versus multiple port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Single port laparoscopic hepatectomy has been applied in some surgeries. We aimed to describe our experience with single port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (SPLS) and to compare the safety and feasibility of this technique with those of conventional multi-port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (MPLS) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

A total of 72 consecutive patients who underwent SPLS (n = 33) and MPLS (n = 39) for HCC were enrolled. The peri-operative parameters of safety and feasibility, as well as the short-term oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (4.12 vs. 4.59 days, P = 0.043). No significant difference between the two groups was found in the operation time (104.58 vs. 95.69 min in the SPLS group and MPLS group respectively, P = 0.353) or the amount of blood loss (62.73 vs. 68.46 ml, P = 0.595). The 1-year recurrence-free survival rate was 77.9% in the SPLS group and 70.7% in the MPLS group (P = 0.82). Subgroup analysis showed that for patients without cirrhosis, the LOS was shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (P = 0.033), while for patients with cirrhosis, the LOS was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.201), although it was shorter in the SPLS group.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLS was a feasible and safe surgical approach for the treatment of HCC on left lateral section.

Long-term outcomes of needlescopic surgery in patients with colon cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive and frequently performed surgical procedure that has become the standard surgery for colorectal cancer. Needlescopic surgery (NS) for colon cancer has also been performed and reported as a less invasive technique. In this study, we investigated the long-term outcomes of NS in comparison with those of conventional surgery (CS).

METHODS

The data of 1122 patients without distant metastasis who underwent laparoscopic surgery between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. In this study, NS was defined as a laparoscopic procedure performed with the use of 3-mm ports and forceps with one 5-mm port for an energy device, as well as with clips. One 12-mm port was placed in the umbilicus for specimen extraction from the abdominal cavity.

RESULTS

A total of 241 patients underwent NS. There was no significant difference between the 5-year recurrence rate and the 5-year total mortality rate (NS: 10.0% and 5.4% vs. CS: 10.3% and 3.5%, p = 0.86/0.23). In the multivariate analysis, NS was not found to be an independent prognostic factor. In terms of the distribution of recurrence sites, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

NS for colon cancer was not inferior to CS in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes.

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

Systematic review of comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared.

Results

A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients’ baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD − 23.49, 95%CI − 36.71 to − 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD − 0.76, 95% `CI − 1.07 to − 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD − 8.46, 95% CI − 14.59 to − 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD − 1.60, 95% CI − 2.66 to − 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.79 to − 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD − 0.51, 95% CI − 0.93 to − 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group.

Conclusion

SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

Single Port Laparoscopic Total and Subtotal Colectomies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in a District General Hospital

Background: Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is expanding, enhancing the advantages of multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS). Limited literature exists regarding SILS total/subtotal colectomies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aim of the study was to present the initial experience with this type of approach in a district general hospital and extrapolate its feasibility and safety in this specific context based on gold standard outcomes reported in literature. Materials and Methods: Preoperative parameters, operative details and surgical outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent colonic SILS for IBD in a 5-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Median length of follow-up was 26 months. Results: Fourteen patients underwent SILS subtotal/total colectomy. Median body mass index was 25 (18.1-35). Two patients had previous abdominal surgeries. Median operating time was 202.5 minutes. Two cases were converted to open. Median length of stay was 5 days. Three patients presented complications. Three patients developed parastomal hernias (21.4%). Five out of 12 patients with ulcerative colitis declined further surgery, 3 are awaiting laparoscopic/SILS pouch formation, 1 underwent SILS pouch formation, 1 SILS ileo-rectal anastomosis and 1 patient had SILS completion proctectomy. One patient was not followed up. Conclusions: Despite literature data heterogeneity, these results provide support to the feasibility and applicability of SILS in the subgroup of patients who undergo subtotal/total colectomies for IBD, offering the option for subsequent SILS completion or restorative procedures. Further studies are required to explore the benefit of SILS over MLS (including cosmesis and quality of life) and non-inferiority of SILS regarding the parastomal hernia issue and the operative duration.

Transumbilical Single-Incision Laparoscopic-Assisted Appendectomy (TULAA) Is Useful in Adults and Young Adolescents: Comparison with Multi-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Background and objectives: Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SLA) in most previous studies has used intracorporeal excision of the appendix and needed a longer operative time than multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA), although SLA does have the potential benefit of an almost invisible scar within the umbilicus. Some studies have reported that extracorporeal transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) in children took a considerably reduced operative time compared to MLA. We adopted TULAA in adults, adding routine dissection of the peritoneal attachment of the appendix. The aim was to compare the operative outcomes between TULAA and MLA. Materials and Methods: Between March 2013 and January 2016, 770 patients with acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis from 15 to 75 years of age were enrolled retrospectively. The operation was performed as early (EA) and interval appendectomy (IA). Results: Operative time was shorter in the TULAA group than in the MLA group, except for IA. No open conversion occurred in the TULAA group, except one case of ileocecal resection for IA. No intra-abdominal fluid collection was found in the TULAA group. Extended resection (especially partial cecectomy) was performed less frequently in the TULAA group than in the MLA group for IA. Mean postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the TULAA group for uncomplicated appendicitis. When the data of the EA group and the IA group were compared, operative time was significantly shorter in the IA group for both MLA and TULAA. The open conversion rate and the complication rate tended to be lower in the IA group. Confined to IA, the TULAA group tended to have shorter mean initial, postoperative, and total hospital stays. Conclusions: TULAA can be a useful surgical alternative to MLA in adults and young adolescents, because it lacks open conversion and provides both a shorter operative time and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. TULAA is feasible for IA in that it showed a lower rate of extended resection and complications.

Preliminary study of short- and long-term outcome and quality of life after minimally invasive surgery for Crohn's disease: Comparison between single incision, robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy

Background

The feasibility of minimally invasive approach for Crohn's disease (CD) is still controversial. However, several meta-analysis and retrospective studies demonstrated the safety and benefits of laparoscopy for CD patients. Laparoscopic surgery can also be considered for complex disease and recurrent disease. The aim of this study was to investigate retrospectively the effect of three minimally invasive techniques on short- and long-term post-operative outcome.

Patients and Methods

We analysed CD patients underwent minimally invasive surgery in the Digestive Surgery Unit at Careggi University Hospital (from January 2012 to March 2017). Short-term outcome was evaluated with Clavien-Dindo classification and visual analogue scale for post-operative pain. Long-term outcome was evaluated through four questionnaires: Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Gastrointestinal Quality Of Life Index (GIQLI), Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Hospital Experience Questionnaire (HEQ).

Results

There were 89 patients: 63 conventional laparoscopy, 16 single-incision laparoscopic surgery and 10 robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RALS). Serum albumin <30 g/L (P = 0.031) resulted to be a risk factor for post-operative complications. HEQ had a better result for RALS (P = 0.019), while no differences resulted for SF-36, BIQ and GIQLI.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive technique for CD is feasible, even for complicated and recurrent disease. Our study demonstrated low rates of post-operative complications. However, it is a preliminary study with a small sample size. Further studies should be performed to assess the best surgical technique.

Short-Term Outcomes of Three-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy Versus Five-Port Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: With a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the short-term and pathological outcomes of TPLRC (Three-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy) and FPLRC (Five-port laparoscopic right hemicolectomy), using propensity score matching analysis. Methods: One hundred and sixty-eight patients who accepted laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with either three ports or five ports from January 2013 to October 2017 were non-randomly selected and analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching model was used to eliminate the patients' selection bias between two groups. Results: A total of 168 patients were involved. After propensity score matching, 39 for each group were compared. The number of harvested lymph nodes was significantly larger in the TPLRC group than in the FPLRC group (18.36 ± 8.58 vs. 14.90 ± 6.63, p = 0.048). A lower mean operative time was observed in the TPLRC group (136.24 ± 26.78 vs. 168.64 ± 43.68 min, p < 0.001). A less blood loss in the TPLRC group (62.44 ± 55.17, 135.54 ± 139.11 ml, p = 0.003). No significant differences in the other short-term outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: TPLRC is a safe and feasible surgical procedure with similar results of FPLRC in short-term clinical outcomes. TPLRC has the advantages of shorter operative time, less blood loss and larger number of harvested lymph nodes. A randomized prospective clinical trial of long-term outcomes of TPLRC is required to further prove the present results.

Long-term oncological outcomes of single-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively reviewed our consecutive experience from the introduction of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPS) for colon cancer, and its 5-year oncological outcomes are evaluated.

METHODS

A total of 288 patients (140 males) with a mean age of 71.5 years were treated with the single-port laparoscopic colectomy for stage I, II and III colon cancers. Exclusion criteria of SPS were patients with unresolved bowel obstruction, T4b tumour, tumour perforation and severe medical illness.

RESULTS

In 20 patients (6.9%), we inserted an extra port mainly to transect the rectum. The median follow-up period was 52 months. The 5-year relapse-free survival rates in stage I, II and III patients were 95.8%, 80.2% and 61.6%, respectively. The 5-year overall survival rates for stage I, II and III patients were 97.4%, 85.3% and 72.9%, respectively. The 5-year cancer-specific survival rates in patients diagnosed pathologically T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 100%, 100%, 92.1% and 73.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SPS colectomy can be applied to the treatment of colon cancer with good long-term oncological outcomes. However, we should pay more attention when we treat the pathologically diagnosed T4 tumours.

A review of reports on single-incision laparoscopic surgery for Crohn's disease

The aim of this review was to analyze the currently available literature on single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for Crohn's disease (CD) with respect to surgical indications, surgical techniques, feasibility, and possible benefits of SILS for CD. A systematic query of articles published from January 2010 to July 2018 was performed. The studies were assessed for patient's age, gender, body mass index, disease type, SILS procedure, surgical procedure, incision length, operation time, rates of conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and rates of reoperation. After an initial review, 11 reports were selected. The surgical techniques and instruments showed wide variation. The mean operation time for SILS tended to be shorter than that for multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS). The reported rates of conversion to open surgery and postoperative complications were not very different from those reported for MLS. In conclusion, the present review suggests that the SILS technique may be feasible and safe for select patients with CD. However, because we reviewed only a few studies with small sample sizes, prospectively designed trials with a large number of patients are required to clarify the true benefits of SILS for CD.

Clinical outcomes and inflammatory response to single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) colorectal surgery: a single-blinded randomized controlled pilot study

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) surgery is expanding, but its benefits, efficacy and safety compared with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery remain unclear. This pilot study examined clinical outcomes and biochemical markers of inflammation for colorectal resections by SIL and CL in a randomized controlled pilot trial.

METHOD

Fifty patients undergoing elective colorectal resection were randomized to either SIL or CL. Primary outcomes were operating time and length of stay (LoS); secondary outcomes included combined length of scars, pain scores, complications, Quality of Life EQ5D-VAS and the inflammatory markers interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8 and C-reactive protein (CRP) at baseline, 2, 6, 24 and 72 h.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age, gender, body mass index, indications and site of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade or incidence of previous surgery between the groups. Except for one conversion from SIL to open surgery, surgery was completed as intended. No difference between SIL and CL was found for operating time [median 130 (72-220) vs 130 (90-317) min, respectively, P = 0.528], LoS [median 4 (3-8) vs 4 (2-19)days, P = 0.888] and time to first flatus [2 (1-4) vs 2 (1-5) days, P = 0.374]. The combined length of scars was significantly shorter for SIL [4 (2-18) vs 7 (5-8) cm, P < 0.001]; in each group, four postoperative complications occurred (16%). Postoperative pain scores were similar [mean 7.67 (interquartile range 4) vs 7.25 (interquartile range 3.75), P = 0.835] to day 3. EQ5D-VAS was no different for both groups at discharge [72.5 (40-90) vs 70 (30-100), P = 0.673] but slightly higher for CL at 3 months [79 (45-100) vs 90 (50-100), P = 0.033].The IL-6, IL-8 and CRP levels between both groups showed similar peaks and no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIL colorectal surgery by experienced laparoscopic surgeons appears to be safe and equivalent to CL, with no discernible difference in its effect on the physiological response to surgical trauma.

Clinical Outcomes of Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Patients With Sigmoid Colon Cancer: Surgery With 1 Surgeon and 1 Camera Operator

Purpose

This study compared the perioperative clinical outcomes of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) with those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for patients with sigmoid colon cancer and investigated the safety and feasibility of RPLS performed by 1 surgeon and 1 camera operator.

Methods

From the beginning of 2010 until the end of 2014, 605 patients underwent a colectomy for sigmoid colon cancer. We compared the characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and pathologic results for the patients who underwent RPLS and for the patients who underwent MPLS. We also compared the clinical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and 3-port laparoscopic surgery.

Results

Of the 115 patients in the RPLS group, 59 underwent SILS and 56 underwent 3-port laparoscopic surgery. The MPLS group included 490 patients. The RPLS group had shorter operating time (137.4 ± 43.2 minutes vs. 155.5 ± 47.9 minutes, P < 0.001) and shorter incision length (5.3 ± 2.2 cm vs. 7.8 ± 1.2 cm, P < 0.001) than the MPLS group. In analyses of SILS and 3-port laparoscopic surgery, the SILS group showed younger age, longer operating time, and shorter incision length than the 3-port surgery group and exhibited a more advanced T stage, more lymphatic invasion, and larger tumor size.

Conclusion

RPLS performed by 1 surgeon and 1 camera operator appears to be a feasible and safe surgical option for the treatment of patients with sigmoid colon cancer, showing comparable clinical outcomes with shorter operation time and shorter incision length than MPLS. SILS can be applied to patients with favorable tumor characteristics.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches to Colon Cancer

Colon cancer remains the most common abdominal visceral malignancy affecting both men and women in America. Open colectomy has been the standard of care for colon cancer patients the past 100 years; although highly effective, the major trauma associated with it has a significant morbidity rate and represents a large operation for patients to recover from. Minimally invasive colon surgery was developed as a new and alternative option, and surgeons aim to continue to make it simpler, more reproducible, and easier to teach and learn. We describe herein the current state of minimally invasive colorectal surgery for colon cancer and compare it with open surgery to offer insights to future directions.

Three-Port Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Versus Conventional Five-Port Laparoscopy for Right-Sided Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic right colectomy (3-LRC) for right-sided colon cancer compared with conventional five-port laparoscopic right colectomy (5-LRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred sixty-three patients diagnosed with right-sided colon adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) between April 2011 and December 2017. Seventy-four of these patients underwent 3-LRC procedure and 89 patients underwent 5-LRC. Clinical characteristics, perioperative short-term outcomes, and pathologic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in TNM stage, tumor location, estimated blood loss, complications, and open conversion rates. The operation time was shorter in the 3-LRC group than in 5-LRC group (140.9 ± 27.5 minutes versus 178.2 ± 38.2 minutes; P = .001). The number of harvested lymph nodes (28.5 ± 13.9 versus 22.6 ± 11.7; P = .004) was also higher in the 3-LRC group. The first passage of flatus and first oral diet were significantly faster in the 3-LRC group than in the 5-LRC group (2.8 ± 1.0 days versus 4.0 ± 1.2 days; P = .001, 3.6 ± 2.9 days versus 5.0 ± 1.5 days; P = .001). The number of patients who required analgesics is less in the 3-LRC group (32.4% versus 43.8%; P = .583).

CONCLUSION

3-LRC for right-sided colon cancer is technically feasible and is associated with a short operation time. We believe that 3-LRC effectively reduces the costs associated with equipment and manpower and represents a standard procedure.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND

At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

Early results of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with the conventional: Does it have any impact on quality of life?

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard treatment for gallbladder diseases. In recent times, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC) has developed as a less invasive alternative technique to conventional laparoscopy. In the literature, many studies have compared SILC and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) procedures but a limited number of studies have compared the two techniques with regard to quality of life (QOL). The choice of surgical procedure was effected by QOL of the patients. The effects of SILC on QOL remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) procedures on the clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients by short-term follow-up evaluation.

Material and methods

In this study, 142 patients who underwent cholecystectomy operations with either technique underwent SILC and CLC were evaluated. The quality of life index in the patients was measured with short form 36 (SF 36) test.

Results

The results of mean operative time, length of stay and complication rate for SILC and CLC were similar. The postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores were not significantly different between the SILC and CLC patients but only physical functioning score were higher in SILC patients.

Conclusions

SILC is a safe and effective alternative to CLC. To detect the effects of SILC on HRQOL, we need long-term prospective comparative studies.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only exploring the role of single incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resections

Background

The objective of this article is to evaluate the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery (MILS) for colorectal resections.

Methods

The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing SILS versus MILS for colorectal resections was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The combined outcome of dichotomous data was represented as risk ratio (RR) and continuous data was shown as standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results

Five RCTs on 525 patients reported the colorectal resections by SILS versus MILS technique. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the operation time (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.52; z=1.28; P=0.20), length of in-patient stay (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.14; z=1.10; P=0.27) and lymph node harvesting (SMD, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.33; z=0.76; P=0.45) were comparable between both techniques. Furthermore, post-operative complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.54; z=0.02; P=0.99), post-operative mortality, surgical site infection rate (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.13-70.92; z=0.68; P=0.50), anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11-1.63; z=1.24; P=0.21), conversion rate (P=0.13) and re-operation rate (P=0.43) were also statistically similar following SILS and MILS.

Conclusions

SILS failed to demonstrate any superiority over MILS for colorectal resections in all post-operative surgical outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right colectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only one meta-analysis (performed in 2013; including 9 studies, a total of 585 cases) compared single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy (SILRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (CLRC). An updated meta-analysis was undertaken to explore more convinced comparative findings between SILRC and CLRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search for studies that compared SILRC with CLRC was done on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 17 studies (including 1778 cases) were identified, the data of appointed outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index and previous abdominal operation) did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between SILRC and CLRC in operative time, conversion, reoperation, perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and 30-days readmission. Pathological outcomes, including lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin, were similar. SILRC showed less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.67 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.36 to -6.98; p = 0.0004), less skin incisions (WMD: -1.56 cm; 95%CI, -2.63 to -0.49; p = 0.004) and shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.73d; 95%CI, -1.04 to -0.41; p < 0.00001), without publication bias.

CONCLUSION

SILRC may provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLRC with similar short-term outcomes and aesthetic advantage of less skin incision. Well-designed randomized controlled trials, involving large cases and carrying long-term outcomes, are needed.

Multidimensional analyses of the learning curve for single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Single-incision plus one port surgery (SILS + 1) provides the advantages of being minimally invasive and easier to perform than pure single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the learning curve (LC) for SILS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer.

METHOD

From November 2012 to May 2014, a series of 85 consecutive patients underwent selective SLIS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer performed by a single surgeon at Nanfang Hospital. The LC for SILS + 1 was evaluated using cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM methods. Data for all the perioperative variables and pathologic results among the phases were compared.

RESULTS

The LC had three phases: phase 1 (cases 1-13) was the initial learning period; phase 2 (cases 14-44) was the learning plateau period; and phase 3 (cases 45-85) was the competent period. The differences in total operating time among the three phases were significant. The number of harvested lymph nodes increased along with increases in the surgeon's experience.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced CLS surgeons, the learning process reached the plateau period after the 13th case, and technical competence was achieved after the 44th case.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colon Cancer: Experiences with 308 Consecutive Cases

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been developed with the aim to further reduce the invasiveness of conventional laparoscopy. Our experiences with more than 300 consecutive patients with SILS for colon cancer are reviewed, and its outcomes are evaluated to determine the midterm clinical and oncologic safety of SILS for colon cancer in a community hospital. A single surgeon's consecutive experience of SILS for colon cancer is presented. Three hundred and eight patients were treated with the SILS procedure for colon cancer between December 2010 and March 2015. Data were analyzed according to intention to treat. Of these 308 patients, 19 (6.2%) were converted to laparotomy. Intraoperative injury occurred in five patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 19 patients (6.2%). The 2-year relapse-free survival rates of patients with Stage I, Stage II, and Stage III were 97.8, 92.2, and 80.4 per cent, respectively, and the 2-year overall survival rates of patients with Stage I, Stage II, Stage III, and Stage IV were 100, 95.7, 93.0, and 74.4 per cent, respectively. Our initial experiences showed that SILS colectomy for cancer can be performed safely and with good short-term oncologic outcomes by a skilled surgeon.

The single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique has questionable advantages in colorectal surgery

Background

Laparoscopic procedures have increasingly been accepted as standard in surgical treatment of benign and malignant entities, resulting in a continuous evolution of operative techniques. Since one of the aims in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is to reduce access trauma, one possible way is to further reduce the surgical site by the single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique (SLS). One of the main criticisms concerning the use of SLS is its questionable benefit combined with its technical demands for the surgeon. These questions were addressed by comparing SLS versus conventional laparoscopic multitrocar surgery (LMS) in benign and malignant conditions with respect to technical operative parameters and early postoperative outcome of the patients.

Methods

Between 2010 and 2013, we performed SLS for colorectal disease. Of the 111 patients who underwent colorectal resection, 47 patients were operated by SLS and 31 using the LMS technique. The collected data for our patients were compared according to operating time, postoperative morbidity and mortality, pain score numeric rating scale on day 1 and day 5 postoperatively and postoperative hospital stay. To complement the pain scores, the required pain medication for adequate pain relief on these days was given.

Results

There was no significant difference in age, BMI or sex ratio between the two groups. The intraoperative and early postoperative course was comparable as well. Postoperative hospital stay was the only parameter with a significant difference, showing an advantage for SLS.

Conclusion

SLS is a feasible surgical method and a technical option in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, we were not able to identify substantial advantages of SLS that would favor this technique.

Single-Port Surgery in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review of Current Evidence

The majority of patients with Crohn’s disease and up to 35 % of patients with ulcerative colitis will ultimately require surgery during the course of their disease. Over the past few years, surgical techniques and experience in minimal invasive surgery have evolved resulting in single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this approach is to diminish the surgical trauma by reducing the number of incision sites. This review discusses the benefits and disadvantages of single-port surgery in various procedures in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Short-term postoperative results, functional outcome, and costs available in the literature will be discussed. Single-port surgery in IBD has several benefits when compared to multi-port laparoscopic surgery. By using fewer incisions, a potential reduction of postoperative pain with less morphine use can be accomplished. In addition, accelerated postoperative recovery can result in a shorter hospital stay. Furthermore, a superior cosmesis can be reached with placement of the port at the future ostomy site or at the umbilicus. Literature on single-port surgery in IBD consists mainly of case series and a few matched case series. These studies demonstrated that single-port surgery seems to be a safe and feasible approach for the surgical treatment of IBD patients.

Short-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Diseases: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Prospective Evidence

BACKGROUND

Conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) has been established as an alternative to open surgery for colorectal diseases (CRDs); simultaneously, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is gaining popularity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of SILS with CLS for CRDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized and prospective studies. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Outcome measures included surgical parameters, postsurgical recovery, pain, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate, comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) according to data type.

RESULTS

A total of nine prospective (three randomized and six non-randomized) researches published from 2011 to 2015 were identified. The overall pooled results showed compared to CLS, SILS was associated with fewer blood transfusions, shorter incision length, and slighter postoperative pain, but more extra ports. All the other parameters were comparable. Randomized evidence supported SILS was associated with less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but longer operative time. For only colectomy cases, SILS was associated with more conversions to open surgery. SILS was associated with longer surgical time for Easterners, but not for Westerners. The detected differences were clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results based on randomized and prospective evidence provide convincing support for the clinical similarity that SILS is basically as applicable, effective, and safe as CLS when dealing with colorectal lesions, but not for superiority.