Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal malignancy--results of a matched-pair comparison to conventional surgery

Da Vinci single-port robotic system current application and future perspective in general surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Single-Port Robot System (DVSP) allows three robotic instruments and an articulated scope to be inserted through a single small incision. It received FDA approval in 2014 and was first introduced in 2018. The aim of this new system was to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Since then, it has been approved for use only for urologic and transoral surgeries in some countries. It has been used as part of experimental protocols in general surgery.

OBJECTIVE

By obtaining the CE mark at the end of January 2024, DVSP will soon enter the European market. This review aims to comprehensively describe the applications of DVSP in general surgery.

DESIGN

A search of PubMed, Embase, and Ebsco databases up to March 2024 was conducted, with registration in PROSPERO (CRD42024536430), following the preferred reporting items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses for scoping review (PRISMA-Scr) guidelines. All the studies about the use of DVSP in general surgery were included.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies were included. The following surgical areas of use were identified: transabdominal and transanal colorectal, cholecystectomy, abdominal wall repair, upper gastroesophageal tract, liver, pancreas, breast, and thyroid surgery. The reported surgical and short-term outcomes are promising; a wide range of procedures have been performed safely. Some groups have found advantages, such as faster discharge, shorter operative time, and less postoperative pain compared to multiport robotic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Five years after its initial clinical applications, the use of the DVSP in general surgery procedures has demonstrated feasibility and safety. Hernia repair, cholecystectomy, and colorectal surgery emerge as the most frequently conducted interventions with this robotic system. Nevertheless, there is anticipation for further studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods to provide more comprehensive insights and data on the long-term outcomes, including the incidence of incisional hernia.

Short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: A multicenter propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for colon cancer is a recent innovation in minimally invasive surgery that can improve short-term outcome. However, several biases exist in current favorable comparisons of SILS with conventional laparoscopic (CL) surgery. Moreover, the oncological outcomes in SILS remain unclear. The aim of this study was to identify outcomes following SILS and CL for right colectomy using a propensity score-matched analysis.

METHODS

A total of 553 patients underwent curative resection for right colon cancer (58 SILS and 495 CL). After propensity score matching, 58 patients in each group were matched.

RESULTS

Before matching, median age was younger (p = 0.037) and clinical stage was lower (p < 0.001) in the SILS group. After matching, operation time was shorter (172 versus 193 min, p = 0.007) and blood loss was less (12 versus 20 mL, p = 0.037) in the SILS group. Most of the SILS cases were performed (43.1%) or supervised (51.7%) by an expert surgeon. Median follow-up duration was 30 and 37 mo in the SILS and CL groups, respectively. Three-year relapse-free survival was 92.5% and 92.4% (p = 0.781); and overall survival was 100% versus 98.1% (p = 0.177).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the control of expert surgeons, SILS appeared to be a safe and feasible approach and had similar oncological outcomes compared with CL in a propensity score-matched cohort of patients with 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.

Initial clinical experience of single-incision robotic colorectal surgery with da Vinci SP platform

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, which is challenging due to its restrictions regarding triangulation and retraction. The purpose of this article is to describe the initial experience with single-incision surgery using the da Vinvci Single-Port Platform (dVSP).

METHODS

The medical records of patients with colorectal disease, who underwent single-incision robotic surgery using the dVSP, were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Five patients with appendiceal and colorectal cancer, and two with diverticulitis were enrolled. All procedures were completed using a pure single-incision approach, with an exception for low anterior resection. There were two minor complications. For patients with colorectal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes and status of the resection margin were acceptable, and cosmetic results were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The dVSP is a novel surgical platform that can be used as an alternative surgical modality for colorectal surgery.

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer: A propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate oncologic, perioperative, and pathologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILRC) compared to conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLRC) for right colon cancer using propensity score-matching analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From November 2009 through September 2014, 260 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for right colon cancer. Data on short-term and long-term outcomes were collected and reviewed. Propensity score-matching was applied at a ratio of 1:2 to compare the SILRC (n = 40) and the CLRC (n = 80) groups.

RESULTS

Operation time, estimated blood loss, time to diet were not different; however, the SILRC group showed less pain on operative day and postoperative day #2 (4.8 vs. 5.9, p < 0.001 and 3.6 vs. 4.6, p = 0.006, respectively) as well as shorter incision lengths (4.0 vs. 7.3 cm, p < 0.001). Morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups. The 3-year overall survival rates were 96.0% vs. 97.5% (p = 0.740), and disease-free survival rates were 93.5% vs. 97.5% (p = 0.444) in the SILRC and the CLRC groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The long-term oncologic outcomes as well as short-term outcomes of SILRC were comparable to CLRC. It appears to be a safe and feasible option with shorter incision lengths.

Postoperative analgesia using fentanyl plus celecoxib versus epidural anesthesia after laparoscopic colon resection

PURPOSE

Effective postoperative analgesia is essential to a patient's recovery after laparoscopic colon resection (LCR). We introduce a new analgesic protocol using fentanyl plus celecoxib following LCR.

METHODS

The subjects of this retrospective comparative study were 137 patients who underwent LCR, 63 of whom were treated with 72 h of epidural anesthesia (group E), and 74 of whom were treated with 24 h of fentanyl intravenous injection followed by 7 days of oral celecoxib (group FC). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of this new protocol.

RESULTS

The combination of fentanyl and celecoxib maintained a low postoperative pain score (<1.5, evaluated by the FACES Pain Scale) and reduced the need for rescue analgesic drugs for 7 days (groups E vs. FC: 5.39 ± 3.77 vs. 2.79 ± 2.92, p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was almost equal for the two groups (E vs. FC: 11.1 ± 4.5 vs. 10.3 ± 4.8 days, p = 0.315). The operating room stay other than for surgery was significantly shorter for group FC (E vs. FC: 128.7 ± 30.5 vs. 107.2 ± 17.0 min, p < 0.001). Neither group experienced complications, apart from one group FC patient, who suffered transient nausea and vertigo.

CONCLUSIONS

The new analgesic protocol using fentanyl plus celecoxib is an effective and time-saving strategy for LCR.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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