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

Perioperative outcomes for single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic surgery: a comparative analysis in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) may offer improved cosmesis, reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery than conventional platforms, but widespread implementation was limited by technical demands. A single-port robotic platform was recently introduced, with components that further enhance SILS benefits without the technical challenges. No study to date has compared the two platforms to validate benefits. Our goal was to compare outcomes of SP robotics and SILS in colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

A prospective cancer registry was reviewed for CRC patients undergoing curative resection through a SILS or SP robotic approach from 2010 to 2022. Patient and cancer demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were compared in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for baseline characteristics. The main outcome measures were complications, operative time, and oncologic quality measures.

RESULTS

Matching resulted 50 SP robotic and 50 SILS patients. Cohorts were well matched in all demographics, but SP robotic rectal cancer cases were significantly closer to the anorectal ring than SILS (1.8 cm vs. 3.4 cm, p = 0.018). SP robotic and SILS platforms had similar operative times. Intraoperative conversions was comparable, but more SILS cases required additional ports to be placed (p = 0.040). The intraoperative complications rate, complete total mesorectal excision rates, and lymph node yield were not statistically significantly different. There were no positive margins in either group. Postoperatively, groups had analogous day of return of bowel function, comparable morbidity, and discharge destination. There was no mortality in either group. The length of stay was significantly shorter with SP robotics than SILS (mean 4.135 vs. 5.282 days, median 4 (2-8) vs. 5 (2-14) days; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port robotics provided high quality oncologic surgery, adding the technical benefits of robotics to clinical and cosmetic benefits of single-port surgery. There were comparable operative time, complication rates, and oncologic outcomes in CRC cases, with shorter hospital stays with SP robotics. This early data is encouraging for expansion SP robotic technology.

Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in colorectal cancer resections worldwide and in the UK. Initially conducted as an open procedure, this was replaced with the conventional multiport technique. Laparoscopic colectomy became the standard surgical technique in 1991. With innovation in surgical technology, single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has attracted more attention as the possible next step in colorectal resection. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes between SIL and conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed®, MEDLINE®, Embase®, Google Scholar™ and Cochrane Library databases were used to extract randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2021. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs were extracted with 1,370 patients (686 SIL, 684 CL). There was no significant difference between SIL and CL for operative time (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19 to 0.22, z=0.11, p=0.91), length of hospital stay (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.02, z=1.61, p=0.11) or overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.30, z=0.09, p=0.93). SIL had a shorter mean incision (SMD: -0.99, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.62, z=5.25, p<0.00001). Patients undergoing SIL had a higher conversion rate to CL or an open approach (OR: 3.10, 95% CI: 0.95 to 10.14, z=1.87, p=0.06) but this just missed statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

SIL can be considered a safe alternative to CL if performed by experienced surgeons.