Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1842-1848. [PMID: 20174950 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-0887-3]

Reduced-port robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with optimized surgical field deployment: early results of single-site plus-two ports method

BACKGROUND

The adoption of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing globally. Meanwhile, reduced-port RPD (RPRPD) remains uncommon, requiring robot-specific techniques not possible with laparoscopy. We introduce a unique RPRPD technique optimizing surgical field exposure.

METHODS

Our RPRPD utilizes a single-site plus-two ports technique, facilitated by a single-port platform through a 5-cm incision. The configuration of robotic arms (arm1, arm2, arm3, and arm4) were strategically designed for optimal procedural efficiency, with the arms2 and arm3, alongside the assistant trocar, mounted on the single-port platform, while the arms1 and arm4 were positioned laterally across the abdomen. Drainage was established via channels created at the arm1 and arm4 insertion sites. A "gooseneck traction" was principally employed with the robotic instrument to prop up the specimen rather than grasp, improving the surgical field's visibility and access. Clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RPRPD performed between August 2020 and September 2023 by a single surgeon across two centers in Taiwan and Japan were reviewed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent RPRPD using the single-site plus-two ports technique. The gooseneck traction technique enabled goodsurgical field deployment and allowed for unrestricted movement of robotic arms with no collisions with the assistant instruments. The median operative time was 351 min (250-488 min), including 271 min (219-422 min) of console time and three minutes (2-10 min) of docking time. The median estimated blood loss was 80 mL (1-872 mL). All RPRPD procedures were successfully performed without the need for conversion to open surgery. Postoperative major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) was observed in 6 (12%) patients and median postoperative hospital stay was 13 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-site plus-two ports RPRPD with the gooseneck traction proves to be a safe, feasible option, facilitating surgical field visibility and robotic arm maneuverability.

Single-Port Cholecystectomy for Cholecystitis Versus Non-Cholecystitis

Background and Objectives:

To assess the safety and efficacy of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) for the treatment of symptomatic cholelithiasis in different gallbladder pathologic conditions.

Methods:

All patients who underwent SPLC in our department between October 1, 2017 and March 31, 2020 were registered consecutively in a prospective database. Patients’ charts were retrospectively divided according to histological diagnosis: normal gallbladder (NG) (n = 13), chronic cholecystitis (CC) (n =47), and acute cholecystitis (AC) (n = 10). The parameters for assessing the procedure outcome included operative time, blood loss, use of additional trocars, conversion to laparotomy, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. Patient groups were statistically compared.

Results:

Seventy patients underwent SPLC. Duration of surgery increased from NG (55 ± 22.7 min) to CC (70 ± 33.5 min), and to AC patients (110.5 ± 50.5 min), which is statistically significant (P = .001). Postoperative complication rates were 7.6% in NG patients, 17% in CC, and 30% in AC (P = .442). Length of hospitalization was shorter for NG patients (1.0 ± 0.6 days) versus CC (2.0 ± 1.1 days) and AC patients (2.0 ± 4.7 days), with statistical significance (P = .020). Multivariate analysis found that pathology type and the occurrence of postoperative complications were independent predictors for prolonged operative times and prolonged hospital stay, respectively.

Conclusion:

SPLC is feasible for acute and chronic cholecystitis with good procedural outcomes. Since SPLC technique itself can be sometimes challenging with the existing technology, its application, especially in cases of acute cholecystitis, should be done with caution. Only prospective randomized studies on this approach for acute and chronic gallbladder diseases will assess the complete reliability of this technique.

Emergency single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: A multi-center study

Single-incision laparoscopy is accepted as a safe alternative to multiple port laparoscopy for elective cholecystectomy; however, there are limited data on its use in patients with acute cholecystitis. The present multi-center study evaluated the outcomes of emergency single-incision surgeries for acute cholecystitis in hospitals in Belgium, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago over a 5-year period. Standardized definitions of uncomplicated and complicated acute cholecystitis were used and the data were compared using SPSS software. The results revealed that over the 5-year period, 108 patients with a mean age of 48±15 years and a mean body mass index of 27±4.2 kg/m² underwent emergency single-incision cholecystectomies. The surgeries were successful in 92.1% of cases without supplemental trocars being used. The overall morbidity rates (9.3%) were also comparable to the historic controls with multiple port cholecystectomy. As was expected, the complicated cholecystitis group required a significantly longer operating time (86.11±30.16 vs. 66.79±16.8; P<0.00194), as well as supplemental trocars (7.9%) vs. 0; P=0.0413). On the whole, the present study demonstrates that emergency single-incision cholecystectomy is a technically feasible and safe procedure for patients with acute cholecystitis. These findings advocate a low threshold to place additional ports to assist with dissection and exposure.

Evaluation of Closure Technique on Incidence of Incisional Hernia Following Single Port Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncology Surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia in women undergoing single-port laparoscopy (SPL) for gynecologic oncology indications with a standardized fascia closure (SC) technique versus historical controls (HC).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single academic institution.

PATIENTS

Women who underwent SPL from 6/1/2017-12/31/2019 for gynecologic oncology indications with SC were compared to HC who underwent SPL from 1/1/2009-12/31/2015.

INTERVENTIONS

Data was collected for patient demographics, postoperative outcomes, and incisional hernia development. Univariate analysis and multivariable regression models were built for predictors of incisional hernia.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 1,163 patients, 242 (20.8%) patients had SC and 921 (79.2%) patients had HC. SC cohort had lower rates of diabetes versus HC (10.3% vs. 15.3%; p = .049) but no differences in hypertension (36.8% vs. 43.0% p = .081) and obesity (42.6% vs. 36.9%, p = .11). 1,123 (96.6%) patients did not undergo conversion to multi-port laparoscopy or laparotomy, of whom 7.2% (n=81) of patients developed an incisional hernia; there was no difference in incisional hernia development for SC with SPL (n= 237) versus HC with SPL (n= 886) (9.7% vs. 6.5%, p = .095). On multivariable analysis, increased BMI (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03-1.09, p < .001) and diabetes (OR 2.41; CI 1.34-4.32, p = .003) were associated with incisional hernia, but age (OR 1.00; CI .98-1.02, p = .92), length of surgery (OR 1.00; CI 1.00-1.01, p = .62), and hypertension (OR .89; CI .52-1.53, p = .68) were not. Patients with prior abdominal surgeries (OR 1.92; CI 1.14-3.26, p = .015) and hand-assist surgery (OR 3.17; CI 1.48-6.80, p = .003) were significantly associated with incisional hernia.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a SC protocol did not decrease rate of incisional hernia versus HC during SPL. Risk of incisional hernia must be considered for SPL planning in patients with complex medical comorbidities and prior abdominal surgery.

Single Incision Cholecystectomies for Acute Cholecystitis: A Single Surgeon Series from the Caribbean

Introduction. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is accepted as a safe alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease. Since many surgeons carefully select patients without inflammation, there are limited data on SILS for acute cholecystitis. We report a single surgeon experience with SILS cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis. Materials and Methods. After securing ethical approval, we performed an audit of all SILS cholecystectomies for acute cholecystitis by a single surgeon from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, intraoperative details, surgical techniques, specialized equipment utilized, conversions (additional port placement), morbidity, and mortality. Data were analyzed using SPSS 12.0. Results. SILS cholecystectomy was performed in 25 females at a mean age of 35 ± 4.1 (SD) years and a mean BMI of 31.9 ± 3.8 (SD) using a direct fascial puncture technique without access platforms. The operations were completed in 83 ± 29.4 minutes (mean ± SD) with an estimated blood loss of 76.9 ± 105 (mean + SD). Three (12%) patients required additional 5 mm port placement (conversions), but no open operations were performed. The patients were hospitalized for 1.96 ± 0.9 days (mean ± SD). There were 2 complications: postoperative superficial SSI (grade I) and a diaphragmatic laceration (grade III). No bile duct injuries were reported. There were 9 patients with complicated acute cholecystitis, and this sub-group had longer mean operating times (109.2 ± 27.3 minutes) and mean postoperative hospital stay (1.3 ± 0.87 days). Conclusion. The SILS technique is a feasible and safe approach to perform cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. We advocate a low threshold to place additional ports to assist with difficult dissections for patient safety.

Laparoscopic and single incision laparoscopic repair of Morgagni hernia in adults

Background: In this study, we aimed to compare multiple versus single incision laparoscopic repair of Morgagni hernia in adults and to investigate effectiveness and feasibility of both techniques.

Methods: Between January 2011 and March 2018, a total of 15 patients (5 males, 10 females; median age: 58.6 years; range, 36 to 70 years) who underwent laparoscopic or single-incision laparoscopic repair of Morgagni hernia were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, perioperative data, and treatment outcomes were evaluated.

Results: The median follow-up was 38 (range, 11 to 84) months. Of the patients with Morgagni hernia, 12 were treated with laparoscopic and three were treated with single incision laparoscopic repair technique. Patient satisfaction was excellent for most of the patients in both groups. No recurrence was observed during follow-up.

Conclusion: Morgagni hernia is a very rare type of hernia in adults. Laparoscopic mesh-reinforced primary repair of Morgagni hernia should be one of the first choice in patients, particularly with large hernias that would cause tension on edges of the diaphragm when closed. Single incision laparoscopic repair of Morgagni hernia is also another laparoscopic option with high patient satisfaction.

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.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another.

METHODS

To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Initial Report From the Turks and Caicos Islands

There has been no prior report of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) from the Caribbean island of Turks and Caicos. We report our initial experience with SILS cholecystectomy to show that SILS in this environment is feasible with minimal change to the existing hardware. It is a safe alternative to conventional multi-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy in this setting.

Single-port robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy is associated with decreased post-operative narcotic use in a propensity score matched analysis

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) has proven to be an effective minimally invasive option for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) in recent years. Single-site surgery is theorized to reduce post-operative pain beyond traditional minimally invasive approaches. We sought to assess whether use of a single-port robotic platform decreases post-operative opioid use in patients undergoing robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP). A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing RASP our institution from November 2017 to July 2019. Demographic, intraoperative, and post-operative data, including morphine equivalent (ME) use, were collected. Patients were stratified by robotic platform utilized. Propensity score matching using nearest neighbor method was performed using prostate volume, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and post-op ketorolac use in 4:1 fashion. Chi-squared analysis and Kruskal-Wallis analyses were utilized. Two-hundred-and-seven men underwent RASP. After matching, 80 patients (64 multi-port, 16 single-port) were included in the analysis. Groups were comparable for age, body mass index, CCI, prostate volume, prior opioid use, and use of scheduled ketorolac post op. The single-port approach was associated with a reduction in MEs once admitted to the floor (5 vs. 11 mg, p = 0.025) and an increase in the proportion of patients who did not require any narcotics post-operatively (44 vs. 19%, p = 0.036). In a propensity matched cohort of patients undergoing RASP at a single institution, use of the single-port robotic system conferred a significant decrease in post-operative narcotic use by approximately 50%.

Feasibility of Solo Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Non-anatomical Minor Liver Resection: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

We introduced solo surgery using a laparoscopic scope holder to wide an operator's activity range and reduce instrument crowding and clashing in single incisional surgery. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of solo single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MULS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Among 477 consecutive patients between January 2004 and December 2017, 214 patients were included. To overcome selection bias, we performed 1:1 match using propensity score matching between SILS and MULS. Baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, and postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences in baseline characteristics and pathologic features were found between the two groups. Operation time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative major complication were not significantly different (119.0 min vs 141.6 min, p = 0.275; 200.0 mL min vs 373.3 min, p = 0.222; 0 vs 0, p = 1.000). However, postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in SILS (2.73 days vs 7.67 days, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Solo SILS had comparable postoperative complications and feasibility in the aspect of operation time and hospital stay compared with conventional MULS for a favorable located single HCC.

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

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a current meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We performed this study to compare the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials comparing SILC versus MPLC. We evaluated the pooled outcomes for complications, pain scores, and surgery-related events. This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomized controlled trials involving 2838 patients in the SILC group and 2956 patients in the MPLC group were included in this study. Our results showed that SILC was associated with a higher incidence of incisional hernia (relative risk = 2.51; 95% confidence interval = 1.23-5.12; p = 0.01) and longer operation time (mean difference = 15.27 min; 95% confidence interval = 9.67-20.87; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between SILC and MPLC regarding bile duct injury, bile leakage, wound infection, conversion to open surgery, retained common bile duct stones, total complication rate, and estimated blood loss. No difference was observed in postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale between the two groups at four time points (6 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h postprocedure).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, SILC did not result in better outcomes compared with MPLC and both were equivalent regarding complications. Considering the additional surgical technology and longer operation time, SILC should be chosen with careful consideration.

Randomized controlled trial of single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy with long-term follow-up

Background

Within the last years, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) emerged as an alternative to multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC). SLC has advantages in cosmetic results, and postoperative pain seems lower. Overall complications are comparable between SLC and MLC. However, long-term results of randomized trials are lacking, notably to answer questions about incisional hernia rates, long-term cosmetic impact and chronic pain.

Methods

A randomized trial of SLC versus MLC with a total of 193 patients between December 2009 and June 2011 was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain on the first day after surgery. Secondary endpoints were conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative morbidity, technical feasibility and hospital stay. A long-term follow-up after surgery was added.

Results

Ninety-eight patients (50.8%) underwent SLC, and 95 patients (49.2%) had MLC. Pain on the first postoperative day showed no difference between the operative procedures (SLC vs. MLC, 3.4 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 1.9, respectively; p = 0.317). No significant differences were observed in operating time or the overall rate of postoperative complications (4.1% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.731). SLC exhibited better cosmetic results in the short term. In the long term, after a mean of 70.4 months, there were no differences in incisional hernia rate, cosmetic results or pain at the incision between the two groups.

Conclusions

Taking into account a follow-up rate of 68%, the early postoperative advantages of SLC in relation to cosmetic appearance and pain did not persist in the long term. In the present trial, there was no difference in incisional hernia rates between SLC and MLC, but the sample size is too small for a final conclusion regarding hernia rates.

Trial registration

German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00012447

NASA-TLX Assessment of Surgeon Workload Variation Across Specialties

OBJECTIVE

With advancements in surgical equipment and procedures, human-system interactions in operating rooms affect surgeon workload and performance. Workload was measured across surgical specialties using surveys to identify potential predictors of high workload for future performance improvement.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical instrumentation and technique advancements have implications for surgeon workload and human-systems interactions. To understand and improve the interaction of components in the work system, NASA-Task Load Index can measure workload across various fields. Baseline workload measurements provide a broad overview of the field and identify areas most in need of improvement.

METHODS

Surgeons were administered a modified NASA-Task Load Index survey (0 = low, 20 = high) following each procedure. Patient and procedural factors were retrieved retrospectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-four surgeons (41% female) completed 662 surgery surveys (M = 14.85, SD = 7.94), of which 506 (76%) have associated patient and procedural data. Mental demand (M = 7.7, SD = 5.56), physical demand (M = 7.0, SD = 5.66), and effort (M = 7.8, SD = 5.77) were the highest rated workload subscales. Surgeons reported difficulty levels higher than expected for 22% of procedures, during which workload was significantly higher (P < 0.05) and procedural durations were significantly longer (P > 0.001). Surgeons reported poorer perceived performance during cases with unexpectedly high difficulty (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

When procedural difficulty is greater than expected, there are negative implications for mental and physical demand that result in poorer perceived performance. Investigations are underway to identify patient and surgical variables associated with unexpected difficulty and high workload. Future efforts will focus on re-engineering the surgical planning process and procedural environment to optimize workload and performance for improved surgical care.

Laparoscopic Single-Port Versus Traditional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background and Objectives

Safety, efficacy, and costs are still debated issues in single-port laparoscopy. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital costs for conventional 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4PLC) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) performed at a single institution.

Methods

A series of 40 SPLC patients operated on from October 2016 to May 2017 were compared to a hystorical series of 40 4PLC patients. Primary endpoints were the operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, length of stay, and morbidity. Secondary endpoints were the operative costs and total hospital costs.

Results

No patient required surgical conversion in both groups. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in the SPLC group. Length of hospitalization was shorter for patients operated on by SPLC (1.9 ± 0.9 vs 2.3 ± 1.2 days; P = .104). According to visual analogue scale evaluation, the pain profile was similar. Minor postoperative complications were present in 12.5% of the SPLC group and 2.5% in 4PLC group (P = .200). The total hospitalization costs associated with SPLC procedure were lower compared to standard 4PLC procedure. As regards the disposable operating room equipment costs, a statistically significant difference in favor of SPLC technique was found.

Conclusion

SPLC has shown relevant procedure and postoperative outcomes when compared to traditional 4PLC. The technique has proved to be promising even in cases of acute cholecystitis considered to date a relative contraindication. Further studies are needed to confirm its safety and feasibility in this setting. In contrast with the current evidence of increased costs for the single-port technique, a reduction of material and hospitalization costs was experienced in our study.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic single-port surgery has widely been introduced for the treatment of various abdominal conditions. But controversies still exist regarding its potential advantages and risks, especially for emergency surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of a single-port laparoscopic repair using straight laparoscopic instruments for the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcers.

METHODS

A prospective consecutive case series was conducted including all patients with a perforated duodenal ulcer who underwent a laparoscopic single-port repair at a single institution from January 2012 to June 2018. The operation was performed through a single port using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments and intra-corporeal knot tying techniques.

RESULTS

Out of 75 patients, simple closure of the perforation without omental patch was accomplished in 96% of cases. Conversion to an open operation was required in one patient (1.3%) due to a posterior duodenal perforation, and additional trocar placement was needed in another patient (1.3%). The mean incision length was 2.0 ± 0.2 cm. The mean operation time was 63.0 ± 26.6 min. Meantime a nasogastric tube remained in place was 2.9 ± 0.8 days. Mean duration of analgesic use was 2.8 ± 0.8 days. The rate of postoperative complications was 2.7%, including two patients with wound infections. There were no instances of intestinal leak or abscess. The postoperative hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.2 days.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic single-port repair using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments with intra-corporeal knot tying technique was safe and feasible for patients with perforated duodenal ulcers with low risk factors. This method offers results comparable to those expected with the standard multiport laparoscopic approach with the addition of improved cosmetic outcomes.

Solo single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the parallel method; Surgical technique reducing a steep learning curve

Backgrounds/Aims

To describe the techniques, short-term outcomes, and learning curve of solo single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Solo-SILC) using a laparoscopic scope holder.

Methods

A total of 591 patients who underwent Solo-SILC from July 2014 to December 2016 performed by four experienced hepatobiliary surgeons were retrospectively assessed. Solo-SILC was performed using the parallel method using a scope holder. The moving average method was used to investigate the learning curve in terms of operative time.

Results

In total, 590 Solo-SILC procedures were performed. Very few procedures were converted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was one case of bile duct injury. The mean operative time (59.93±25.77 min) was shorter than that in other studies of SILC. Three postoperative complications, delaying bile leakage, occurred in the patients treated by one surgeon. These cases were resolved by ultrasound-guided puncture and drainage. The learning curve for surgeons A, B, and C was overcome after 14, 12, and 12 cases. Surgeon D, who had the most experience with SILC, had no obvious learning curve.

Conclusions

Hepatobiliary surgeons experienced in LC can perform Solo-SILC almost immediately. Solo-SILC using the parallel technique represents a more stable option and is a promising treatment for gallbladder disease.

Higher cost of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to longer operating time. A study of opportunity cost based on meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to calculate the opportunity cost of the operating time to demonstrate that single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is more expensive than classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

METHODS

We identified studies comparing use of both techniques during the period 2008-2016, and to calculate the opportunity cost, we performed another search in the same period of time with an economic evaluation of classic laparoscopy. We performed a meta-analysis of the items selected in the first review considering the cost of surgery and surgical time, and we analyzed their differences. We subsequently calculated the opportunity cost of these time differences based on the design of a cost/time variable using the data from the second literature review.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles were selected from the first review: 26 for operating time (3.138 patients) and 3 for the cost of surgery (831 patients), and 3 articles from the second review. Both echniques have similar operating costs. Single incision laparoscopy surgery takes longer (16.90min) to perform (p <0.00001) and this difference represents an opportunity cost of 755.97 € (cost/time unit factor of 44.73 €/min).

CONCLUSIONS

SILC costs the same as CLC, but the surgery takes longer to perform, and this difference involves an opportunity cost that increases the total cost of SILC. The value of the opportunity cost of the operating time can vary the total cost of a surgical technique and it should be included in the economic evaluation to support the decision to adopt a new surgical technique.

Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Better Cosmesis at the Price of an Increased Incisional Hernia Rate?

Background: The incidence of trocar site hernia (TSH) in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPC) is still a debated issue. Aim of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence of postoperative hernia and cosmetic results among patients undergoing SPC and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPC) performed at a single institution. Methods: A series of 60 SPC and 60 MPC patients operated on between July 2016 and May 2018 were compared. Primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of TSH at long term. All the patients were admitted as outpatients for physical examination and scar measurement. Secondary endpoints were the cosmetic results assessed by a cosmesis score (CS) and the body image questionnaire (BIQ). Results: After a median 18-month follow-up (range: 6-29 months), a hernia in umbilical trocar site was detected in 4 (7.1%) SPC patients and 1 (2%) MPC patient, the difference not being statistically significant (P = .216). BIQ was almost equivalent in SPC and MPC groups (5.15 versus 5.27; P = .518), respectively. Statistically significant differences in favor of SPC were found in CS (22.3 versus 19.72; P = .001) and in total length of scars (1.2 cm versus 4 cm; P < .001). Conclusions: SPC technique has proved to be safe and effective in experienced hands. Superior cosmesis of SPC over MPC is confirmed, but close attention to fascial closure is a vital component of SPC, and surgeons performing single-site surgery need to be aware of this increased potential for hernia formation.

Surgical team workload comparison for 4-port and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures

Advanced minimally invasive procedures may cause postural constraints and increased workload and stress for providers. This study compared workload and stress across surgical team roles for 48 laparoscopic cholecystectomies (4-port vs single-port) using a task load index (NASA-TLX), a procedural difficulty question, and salivary stress hormones. Statistical analyses were performed based on the presence intra-cluster correlation within team roles, at α=0.05. The single-port technique resulted in an 89% increase in physical workload for the surgeon and 63% increase for the assistant (both p<0.05). The surgeon had significantly higher salivary stress hormones during single-port surgeries. The degree of procedural difficulty was positively correlated between the surgeon and most roles: resident (r=0.67), assistant (r=0.81), and technician (r=0.81). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the surgeon and assistant for all selfreported workload measures (p<0.05). The single-port technique requires further improvement to balance surgical team workload for optimal patient safety and satisfaction.

Feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an ambulatory setting

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has emerged as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the clinical setting. Limited information is available on the possibility of performing single-incision laparoscopic surgery as an ambulatory procedure. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) versus conventional LC in an ambulatory setting.

METHODS

Ninety-one patients were randomized to SILC (n = 49) or LC (n = 42). The success rate, operative duration, blood loss, hospital stay, gallbladder perforation, drainage, delayed discharge, readmission, total cost, complications, pain score, vomiting, and cosmetic satisfaction of the two groups were then compared.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the operative time (46.89 ± 10.03 min in SILC vs. 37.24 ± 10.23 min in LC; P < 0.001). As compared with LC, SILC was associated with lower total costs (8012.28 ± 752.67 RMB vs. 10258.91 ± 1087.63 RMB; P < 0.001) and better cosmetic satisfaction (4.94 ± 0.24 vs. 4.74 ± 0.54; P = 0.031). There were no significant differences between-group in terms of general data, success rate, blood loss, hospital stay, gallbladder perforation, drainage, delayed discharge, readmission, complications, pain score, and vomiting (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory SILC is safe and feasible for selected patients. The advantages of SILC as compared with LC are improved cosmetic satisfaction and lower total costs.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery from a caribbean perspective

Conventional laparoscopy with multiple ports has recently gained a strong foothold in the Caribbean, but single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has lagged behind. In this paper, we compare the data on SILS and conventional multi-port laparoscopy in the English-speaking Caribbean.

Intracorporeal overlap gastro-gastrostomy for solo single-incision pylorus-preserving gastrectomy in early gastric cancer

This report discusses the technique of solo single-incision pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (SIPPG) for early gastric cancer. To overcome difficulties regarding lymph node dissection (LND), a scope holder and an energy device were used, allowing fine dissection in a fixed field of view. The overlap gastro-gastrostomy technique was used for anastomosis. Seventeen patients underwent solo SIPGG. The mean operation time was 150.1 ± 28.7 min, and no patients developed postoperative complications or delayed gastric emptying within 30 days of the operation. Using scope holders and performing fine dissection with the energy device, challenges regarding LND in SIPPG can be overcome. INTACT anastomosis was initially used; however, due to its inconsistency and the high degree of surgical skill required, it was changed to the overlap method. Solo SIPPG with overlap gastro-gastrostomy may be safe and feasible with good cosmetic results and fast patient recovery.

Clinical significance of wound infiltration with ropivacaine for elderly patients in china underwent total laparoscopic radical gastrectomy: A retrospective cohort study

The study aimed to evaluate analgesic effects and postoperative recovery of ropivacaine wound infiltration for elderly patients in China after total laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.We retrospectively received clinical data of 132 elderly patients who received total laparoscopic gastrectomy and tracheal intubation general anesthesia from cancer center of First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University between September 2014 and September 2017, patients were divided into 2 groups according to local injection of drug: group I (ropivacaine group, 0.5% ropivacaine, 40 mL in total, n = 69), group II (control group, no analgesic, n = 63). The demographics, postoperative pain using numeric ratings scale (NRS), rescue analgesics as well as incidence of complications were investigated.Significantly lower pain scores were observed in group I than in group II at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively; the use of remedy analgesia was less in group I than in group II; there was no statistical significance in the incidence of surgical-related complications between the 2 groups. The recovery time were shorter in group I than in group II, meanwhile, postoperative hospital stay, medical expenses, and anesthesia-related complications were significantly less in group I than in group II.This is a review of ropivacaine infiltration use in the elderly patients underwent total laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. This analysis describes the postoperative analgesic effect and postoperative recovery of wound infiltration with ropivacaine. Multicentered large sample prospective randomized controlled study is needed to evaluate the feasibility, security, and economic practicality.

Laparoscopic entry techniques

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A large-cohort comparison between single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a single center; 2080 cases

Backgrounds/Aims

This study was conducted to verify and compare the safety and feasibility of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC).

Methods

A total of 2,080 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a single center, Konyang University Hospital, between 2010 and 2016. We retrospectively compared the demographics, perioperative outcome, and postoperative complication results between the CLC and SILC groups.

Results

Among the 2,080 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 1,080 had CLC and 1,000 had SILC. When retrospectively reviewed, the SILC group had significantly higher percentages of patients who were aged under 80 years, who were women, and had the American Society of Anesthesiologist score of lower than 3 points compared to those of the CLC group. Furthermore, the CLC group had a higher percentage of patients with acute cholecystitis or empyema, whereas the SILC group had a higher percentage of patients with chronic cholecystitis. Preoperative percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage insertion or H-vac insertion was more frequently conducted, bleeding loss was more common, and hospital stay was longer in the CLC group. Postoperative complications such as wound infection, biloma, bile duct injury, and duodenal perforation were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

In conclusion, if performed after preoperative patient selection such as in younger and female patients with no abdominal operation history at the time of benign gallbladder surgery, SILC can be considered feasible and safe without additional complications when compared with CLC.

Proposal for a New Training Exercise for Single Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

This paper presents the design and implementation of a new training exercise to improve technical textbfskills in the surgeons who performtextbf Single Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (SPLC), a technique that requires active improvements to overcome the lack of triangulation and collision of instruments both within and outside the abdominal cavity. The proposed mechanisms were developed based on peg transfer tests, performed by an expert surgeon in SPLC, with straight forceps and SILS$^{\mathbf {TM}}$ access in a pelvictrainer afterwards an unstructured interview was showed to the surgeon. These methodological tools provided the characteristics of the type of movement required by the peg transfer test at the time of performing the training task, which was taken as a reference to propose a new protocol to be implemented. The mentioned structure was tested by an expert surgeon, who performed 5 tasks, within an average running time of 170 seconds. At the end of the tests, a semi-structured interview was carried out again to the surgeon, where the improvement of the technique was tested.

Quality of life after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Controversy continues as to whether single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with the somewhat larger incision at the umbilicus, may lead to a worse postoperative quality of life and more pain compared with the more classic 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to compare single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy from the perspective of quality of life.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial. A total of 120 patients who were scheduled to undergo elective cholecystectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 into the single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy or the 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and then assessed continuously for 2 weeks during the postoperative period. The primary outcome was quality of life, defined as the time to resume normal daily activities. Postoperative pain was also assessed. To explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects, we assessed the interactions of sex, age, and working status on recovery time.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients in the single-incision group and 53 in the 4-port group (n = 111, 47 male, mean age 57 years) were analyzed. The mean time to resume daily activities was 10.2 days and 8.8 days, respectively, for single-incision and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 3.2, P = .12). Similarly, the time to relief from postoperative pain did not differ significantly between the groups. Statistically insignificant but qualitative interactions were noted; in the subgroups of women, full-time workers, and patients younger than 60 years, recovery tended to be slower after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative quality of life did not differ substantially between single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 4-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients younger than 60 years, women, and full-time workers tended to have a somewhat slower recovery after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is responsible for increased adverse events: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) has gained popularity, although it is not evident if benefits of this procedure overcome the potential increased risk. Aim of the study is to compare the outcome of SLC with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only.

METHODS

A systematic Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials literature search of articles on SLC and MLC for any indication was performed in June 2017. The main outcomes measured were overall adverse events, pain score (VAS), cosmetic results, quality of life, and incisional hernias. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-six trials were included and data from 5141 participants were analysed; 2444 underwent SLC and 2697 MLC, respectively. Mortality reported was nil in both treatment groups. Overall adverse events were higher in the SLC group (RR 1.41; p < 0.001) compared to MLC group, as well severe adverse events (RR 2.06; p < 0.001) and even mild adverse events (RR 1.23; p = 0.041). This was confirmed also when only trials including 4-port techniques (RR 1.37, p = 0.004) or 3-port techniques were considered (RR 1.89, p = 0.020). The pain score showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of - 0.36 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Cosmetic outcome by time point scored a SMD of 1.49 (p < 0.001) in favour of SLC. Incisional hernias occurred more frequently (RR 2.97, p = 0.005) in the SLC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite SLC offers a better cosmetic outcome and reduction of pain, the consistent higher rate of adverse events, both severe and mild, together with the higher rate of incisional hernias, should suggest to reconsider the application of single incision techniques when performing cholecystectomy with the existing technology.

Safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a common procedure performed worldwide. In this study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of SILC for acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent SILC between September 2012 and December 2016 were retrospectively enrolled and divided into acute and chronic groups. Demographic, operative and outcome data were obtained by reviewing medical records, physical examination and telephone follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 1435 patients were included in this study: 220 (15.3%) in the acute group and 1215 (84.7%) in the chronic group. The mean operative time was longer in the acute group than in the chronic group (44.7 ± 21.6 versus 32.8 ± 9.8 min; P < 0.001). Insertion of additional ports was performed in 17 patients: six in the acute group and 11 in the chronic group. Conversion to abdominal laparotomy was performed in eight patients: one in the acute group and seven in the chronic group. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 31.7 ± 20.4 h in the acute group and 27.7 ± 13.7 h in the chronic group. The complication rate was similar between the acute (n = 8, 3.6%) and chronic (n = 33, 2.7%) groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC does not increase the complication rate and is a safe and feasible technique for both chronic and acute cholecystitis.

Single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conventional instruments and ports: Initial experience at tertiary care public sector Hospital

Objective:

To find out safety and feasibility of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLIC) using conventional instruments.

Methods:

This study was conducted at surgical department of LUMHS Jamshoro Pakistan from Jan: 2014 to Dec: 2015. All cases of symptomatic cholelithiasis that consented for laparoscopic surgery were included. The exclusion criteria were acute cholecystitis, acute gall stone pancreatitis, common bile duct stones and patients with co-morbid. A midline 3cm incision made supraumbilically and 10mm port placed. Two 5mm ports placed on either side of umbilicus slightly superior and laterally in or-der to triangulate. A 2/0 prolene suture placed through the infundibulum of the gall bladder to achieve retraction. The rest of the procedure is like standard 4 ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Results:

Total no of cases were 50. The age ranged from 30-59 years (mean 35.20 years ±4.886.) There were 43(86%) females and 07(14%) males. The mean operating time was 80 minutes (range 50-120 ±16.020). Four (8%) cases were converted to standard four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to bleeding and difficult dissection in Calot’s triangle. Minimal blood loss was observed during the procedure with no postoperative complications. The range of hospital stay was 1-2 days (mean 1.08 ±0.274).

Conclusion:

SILC is a safe and feasible procedure with conventional laparoscopic instruments without additional cost of single port and articulated instruments. The cosmetic results are excellent with minimal increase in the operating time.

Randomized controlled trial of EndoWrist-enabled robotic versus human laparoendoscopic single-site access surgery (LESS) in the porcine model

INTRODUCTION

A robotic laparoendoscopic single-site access surgery (R-LESS) platform that incorporates the EndoWrist function of robotic instruments may provide better triangulation and retraction during LESS. The aim of the study is to assess if R-LESS is feasible with standard robotic instruments via a single incision and whether the approach could reduce the difficulty of the procedure and confer additional benefits over conventional LESS.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study investigating the workload performance, efficacy, and risks of performing R-LESS when compared with human LESS (H-LESS) in a survival porcine model for cholecystectomy and gastrojejunostomy. The primary outcome is the NASA task load index. Secondary outcomes included the difficulty of the procedures, procedural time, morbidities, and mortalities.

RESULTS

Twenty-four cholecystectomies and gastrojejunostomies using the R-LESS or H-LESS approach (12:12) were performed. None of the swine suffered from procedural adverse events and none of the procedures required conversion. In both the cholecystectomy and gastrojejunostomy groups, R-LESS was associated with significantly lower NASA task load index (P < 0.001) and reduced difficulties in various steps of the procedures. No differences in the overall procedure times of the two procedures were observed (P = 0.315).

CONCLUSION

The R-LESS approach significantly reduced the workload and difficulties of LESS cholecystectomies and gastrojejunostomies. A dedicated single-site platform that could reduce instrument clashing while retaining the EndoWrist function is eagerly awaited.

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.

Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) is considered the new golden standard for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) can further reduce the number of abdominal incisions and visible scars.

METHODS

Major databases were researched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing SILA and CTLA for acute appendicitis from January 1983 and to March 2015. The technical feasibility, effectiveness, and safety between SILA and CTLA were compared. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 11 RCTs with 1489 patients were analyzed. The patients in the SILA group had a significantly shorter hospital duration (WMD: -0.63; 95% CI: -1.04, -0.21; P = 0.003) and return to activity (WMD: -2.91; 95% CI: -5.45, -0.37; P = 0.02) but experienced a longer operating time (WMD: 6.56; 95% CI: 3.55, 9.58; P < 0.0001) and higher rate of conversion (OR: 6.82; 95% CI: 3.14, 14.79; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between the two groups in visual analog pain scores, doses of analgesics, overall complication rates, wound infection, or cosmesis (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SILA is a safer and more effective than CTLA in both pediatric and adult patients.

Kinematic and ergonomic assessment of laparoendoscopic single-site surgical instruments during simulator training tasks

While laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) appears to be feasible and safe, instrument triangulation, tissue handling, and other bimanual tasks are difficult even for experienced surgeons. Novel technologies emerged to overcome LESS' procedural and ergonomic difficulties of "tunnel vision" and "instrument clashing." Surgeon kinematics, self-reported workload and upper body discomfort were used to compare straight, bent and two articulating instruments while performing two basic surgical tasks in a LESS simulator. All instruments resulted in bilateral elevation and rotation of the shoulders, excessive forearm motion and flexion and ulnar deviation of wrists. Surgeons' adopted non-neutral upper extremity postures and performed excessive joint excursions to compensate for reduced freedom of movement at the single insertion site and to operate the instrument mechanisms. LESS' cosmetic benefits continue to impact laparoscopic surgery and by enabling performance through improved instruments, ergonomic improvement for LESS can reduce negative impact on surgeon well-being and patient safety.

A Comparative Study of Outcomes Between Single-Site Robotic and Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Experience from a Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy with multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy within a high-volume tertiary health care center.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data was conducted on patients undergoing single-site robotic cholecystectomy or multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy between October 2011 and July 2014. A single surgeon performed all the surgeries included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 678 cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 415 (61%) were single-site robotic cholecystectomies and 263 (39%) were multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Laparoscopic patients had a greater mean BMI (30.5 vs. 29.0 kg/m²; p = 0.008), were more likely to have undergone prior abdominal surgery (83.3 vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of preexisting comorbidities (76.1 vs. 67.2%; p = 0.014) as compared to the robotic group. There was no statistical difference in the total operative time, rate of conversion to open procedure and mean length of follow-up between the two groups. The mean length of hospital stay was shorter for patients within the robotic group (1.9 vs. 2.4 days; p = 0.012). Single-site robotic cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of wound infection (3.9 vs. 1.1%; p = 0.037) and incisional hernia (6.5 vs. 1.9%; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy should remain the gold standard therapy for gallbladder disease. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is an effective alternative procedure for uncomplicated benign gallbladder disease in properly selected patients. This must be carefully balanced against a high rate of surgical site infection and incisional hernia, and patients should be informed of these risks.

Meta-analysis of single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy comparing body image and cosmesis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate improvements in cosmetic results and postoperative morbidity for single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) in comparison with multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC).

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken for RCTs comparing SILC with MLC in adult patients with benign gallbladder disease. Primary outcomes were body image and cosmesis scores at different time points. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain and frequency of port-site hernia.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven RCTs were included, with a total of 3051 patients. The body image score favoured SILC at all time points (short term: mean difference (MD) -2·09, P < 0·001; mid term: MD -1·33, P < 0·001), as did the cosmesis score (short term: MD 3·20, P < 0·001; mid term: MD 4·03, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 4·87, P = 0·05) and the wound satisfaction score (short term: MD 1·19, P = 0·03; mid term: MD 1·38, P < 0·001; long-term: MD 1·19, P = 0·02). Duration of operation was longer for SILC (MD 13·56 min; P < 0·001) and SILC required more additional ports (odds ratio (OR) 6·78; P < 0·001). Postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) was lower for SILC at 12 h after operation (MD in VAS score -0·80; P = 0·007). The incisional hernia rate was higher after SILC (OR 2·50, P = 0·03). All other outcomes were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSION

SILC is associated with better outcomes in terms of cosmesis, body image and postoperative pain. The risk of incisional hernia is four times higher after SILC than after MLC.

Harmonic Scalpel versus Monopolar Electrocauterization in Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using surgical electrocautery is considered to be the gold standard procedure for the treatment of uncomplicated cholecystitis and cholelithiasis. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Harmonic scalpel, an advanced laparoscopic technique associated with less thermal damage in LC, when compared to electrocautery.

METHODS

From October 2010 through June 2013, a total of 198 patients were randomly allocated to LC with a Harmonic scalpel (experimental group, 117 patients) or conventional monopolar electrocautery (control group, 81 patients). The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion to laparotomy, postoperative hospital stay, post-LC pain, and cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were comparable with respect to baseline patient characteristics. When compared to conventional monopolar electrocautery, there were no significant reductions in the operative time, bleeding, frequency of conversion to laparotomy, and duration of postoperative recovery with the Harmonic scalpel (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using conventional monopolar electrocautery is as effective and safe as that with the Harmonic scalpel, for treating uncomplicated cholecystitis and cholelithiasis.

The use of expanding ports in laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery may cause more pain: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses on the clinical outcome after laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not revealed any major differences in postoperative pain between the two procedures. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the difference in postoperative pain between the two procedures, focusing on whether LESS was conducted with a non-expanding port (LESSnonex) or a port expanding (LESSex) within the incision.

METHOD

EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on LESS versus CLS for general abdominal procedures. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs with 2999 procedures were included. Pain (VAS 0-10) 6 h after surgery was significantly lower in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSnonex compared to CLS, WMD=-0.72 (- 1.10 to - 0.33). Pain 18-24 h was significantly higher in the group where LESS was conducted with LESSex compared to CLS, WMD = 0.38 (0.01-0.75). Wound-related complications were significantly more frequent in LESSex procedures compared to CLS, OR = 1.94 (1.03-3.63).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indirectly indicates that the type of access device that is used for an abdominal LESS procedure may contribute to the development of early postoperative pain as the use of a non-expanding model was associated with a more advantageous outcome. Direct randomized comparison of LESSnonex and LESSex is warranted to confirm if the use of expanding access devices generates more pain and wound complications.

[Single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: advantages and disadvantages]

AIM

To analyze the outcomes of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Early and long-term postoperative period has been analyzed in 240 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCE) including 120 cases of single-port technique and 120 cases of four-port technique. Both groups were compared in surgical time, pain syndrome severity (visual analog scale), need for analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital-stay, daily activity recovery and return to physical work, patients' satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect.

RESULTS

It was revealed that single-port LCE is associated with lower severity of postoperative pain, quick recovery of daily activity and return to physical work, high satisfaction of surgical results and their aesthetic effect compared with four-port LCE. Disadvantages of single-port LCE include longer duration of surgery, high incidence of postoperative umbilical hernia. However hernia was predominantly observed during the period of surgical technique development.

CONCLUSION

Further studies to standardize, evaluate the safety and benefits of single-port LCE are necessary.

Comparative analysis of outcomes after multiport and single-port laparoscopic colectomy in emergency situations: Is single-port laparoscopic colectomy safe and feasible?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Although consensus has been reached on the superiority of laparoscopy for a majority of conditions underlying acute abdominal pain, the safety and feasibility of single-port laparoscopic colectomy (SPLC) in emergency situations have not been determined.

METHODS

A prospective electronic database of all emergency patients who underwent either multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) or SPLC between April 2006 and December 2014 was used to compare the surgical outcomes of these operative methods.

RESULTS

During the study period, 31 MPLCs and 76 SPLCs were performed. These two operative methods resulted in similar operating times, transfusion amounts, lengths of stay, postoperative complications, attainment of lymph nodes, and proximal and distal cut margins. However, the SPLC group had a shorter time to first flatus (2.8±1.9 days vs. 3.8±1.5 days, p=0.005), earlier reinitiation of free oral fluids (3.2±2.1 days vs. 4.4±1.8 days, p=0.002), and lesser requirement of narcotic analgesics (2.5±3.9 times vs. 4.7±4.8 times, p=0.017).

CONCLUSION

SPLC could be a safe and effective alternative to MPLC, even in emergency situations when performed by surgeons who have overcome the learning curve associated with single-port laparoscopic techniques. The tendency toward earlier returns to bowel function and decreased incidence of postoperative analgesic use would be potential benefits of SPLC in emergency situations.