Single incision laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy: a retrospective comparative analysis. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2567-2574. [PMID: 20336322 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1004-3]

Intraoperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Modified Bidirectional Intra-Umbilical Incision versus Infra-Umbilical Incision for Direct Trocar Insertion in Gynaecological Laparoscopy: A randomised controlled trial

Objectives

This study aimed to describe a modified, curved, deep, bidirectional, intra-umbilical, vertical incision for primary trocar insertion and prospectively compare its intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with an infra-umbilical incision in gynaecologic laparoscopy.

Methods

Between August 2019 and March 2021, 110 patients subjected to the direct trocar insertion technique for laparoscopic intervention were classified into two groups. Group A comprised 55 cases of infra-umbilical incision, whereas group B comprised 55 cases of a modified, curved, longitudinal, deep, bidirectional, intra-umbilical incision. Afterwards, intraoperative and postoperative assessments were performed.

Results

The increase in the numbers of parity, gravidity and previous caesarean sections was found to be statistically significant; a smaller number of infertility complaints were observed in group B. Similarly, group B expressed a statistically significant less peri-trocar CO2 leakage (46 [83.6%] patients versus 28 [50.9%] patients) and more tightness of the primary portal entry (45 [81.8%] patients versus 30 [54.5%] patients) when compared to group A throughout the whole operation. After a one-month follow-up, a statistically significant (P = 0.029) decrease in the Observer Scar Assessment Scale and Patient Scar Assessment Scale scores in group B (10.4 ± 4.2 and 11.8 ± 4.3, respectively), demonstrating better cosmoses when compared to group A (13.3 ± 5.7 and 16.0 ± 6.8, respectively).

Conclusion

Performing a modified, curved, deep, bidirectional, intra-umbilical, vertical incision for the insertion of a primary laparoscopic trocar (i.e. Darwish laparoscopic entry) is a simple and fast step that results in the elimination of intraoperative gas leakage and trocar slippage without the need for any additional sutures. Aesthetically, it results in a better scar with satisfactory cosmoses when compared to an infra-umbilical incision.

Is single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) dependent on the location of the tumor?

BACKGROUND

We compared the surgical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).

METHODS

We performed single-incision gastric wedge resection on prospectively-enrolled 15 consecutive patients with gastric GIST between November 2020 and April 2022 in a single tertiary center. The early perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared to those of patients who underwent CLS. The indications did not differ from those for conventional laparoscopic procedures for gastric GIST.

RESULTS

In total, 30 patients were assigned to the SILS (n = 15) and CLS (n = 15) groups. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss and intraoperative blood transfusion between the SILS and CLS groups. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to multiple-port or open surgery in the SILS group. Proximally located tumors were more commonly treated with CLS than with SILS (P = 0.045). GISTs located in the greater curvature were more commonly treated with SILS than with CLS, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). The mean incision length in the SILS group was 4.1 cm shorter than that in the CLS group (3.2 ± 0.7 and 7.3 ± 5.2 cm, respectively, P = 0.01). The postoperative analgesic dose was significantly lower in the SILS than in the CLS group (0.4 ± 1.4 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively P = 0.01). Also, the duration of postoperative use of analgesic was shorter in SILS than in CLS (0.4 ± 0.7 and 2.0 ± 1.8, respectively, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the early postoperative complications between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is as safe, feasible, and effective for the treatment of gastric GIST as CLS with comparable postoperative complications, pain, and cosmesis. Moreover, SILS can be considered without being affected by the type or location of the tumor.

Surgical Site Infection Following Single-Port Appendectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common postoperative complications after appendectomy leading to recurrent surgery, prolonged hospital stay, and the use of antibiotics. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have been published on the effect of open versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) reporting faster postoperative recovery and less postoperative pain for CLA. A development from CLA has been the single-port appendectomy (SPA), associated with a better cosmesis but seemingly having a higher risk of wound infections. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether reduced port or SPA alters the ratio of SSIs.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened for suitable articles. All articles published between January 1, 2002, and March 23, 2022, were included. Articles regarding children below the age of 18 were excluded as well as manuscripts that investigated solemnly open appendectomies. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent authors. Incidence of SSI was the primary outcome. Duration of operation and length of hospital stay were defined as secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 25 studies were found through a database search describing 5484 patients. A total of 2749 patients received SPA and 2735 received CLA. There was no statistical difference in the rate of SSI (P = 0.98). A total of 22 studies including 4699 patients reported the duration of operation (2223 SPA and 2476 CLA). There was a significantly shorter operation time seen in CLA. The length of hospital stay was reported in 23 studies (4735 patients: 2235 SPA and 2500 CLA). A shorter hospital stay was seen in the SPA group (P < 0.00001). Separately performed analysis of randomized controlled trials could not confirm this effect (P = 0.29).

Discussion

SPA is an equally safe procedure considering SSI compared to CLA and does not lead to an increased risk of SSI. A longer operation time for SPA and a minor difference in the length of stay does lead to the use of SPA in selected patients only.

Appendicitis-Like Picture Induced by Foreign Body in a 2-Year-Old Boy

Background and Aim. Appendicitis is unusual in toddlers and foreign body- (FB-) induced appendicitis is rare. We present a FB-induced appendicitis in a toddler with no suggestive history of FB ingestion. Case Presentation. A 2-year-old healthy boy presented to the emergency department with irritability for 3 days duration associated with fever of 39°C, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no history of foreign body ingestion. The abdomen was distended and diffusely tender. An abdominal ultrasound (US) was suggestive of perforated appendicitis with appendicular mass formation. An abdominal X-ray showed a pin-like foreign body in the abdomen. An emergent appendectomy was performed. Intraoperatively, a sealed small cecal perforation was noticed. A 5 cm pin-like metallic foreign body was found to obstruct the appendicular lumen. The appendix was grossly normal without inflammatory changes. Conclusion. FB-induced perforations or appendicitis albeit in patients with no history of FB ingestion or infants and toddlers need a high clinical suspicion to prevent the delay in diagnosis and the subsequent complications.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure for beginners to perform: experience from 1948 cases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SIL-A) has recently become an option for treating appendicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and surgical outcomes of SIL-A by residents and surgeons during the learning period.

METHODS

A total of 1948 consecutive patients who underwent SIL-A from May 2008 to November 2014 were studied retrospectively. Surgeries were performed by residents and eight surgeons. Prior to the first case, surgeons and residents had been trained in a training protocol during the learning period. Three initial cases of SIL-A were performed under the supervision of experienced surgeons. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (learning period, n = 483), the first 40 cases by each surgeon and resident; and group 2 (experienced period, n = 1465), cases after the 40th procedure performed by each surgeon. Surgical results were compared between the two groups by performing propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in patient demographics and characteristics of appendicitis between the two groups. The operating time was longer in group 1 than in group 2 (45.3 ± 18.0 vs. 33.9 ± 16.1 min, p < 0.001). The morbidity rate (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.795) was similar between the two groups. Readmission rate (2.1% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.414) and reoperation rate (0.8% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.348) were also similar between the two groups. However, the rate of incisional hernia occurrence (0.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.066) tended to be larger in group 1 than in group 2 without showing a significant difference.

CONCLUSION

SIL-A is a technically feasible and safe procedure when it is performed by residents and surgeons during learning period under an appropriate training protocol. However, residents and surgeons in the learning period should perform it carefully to prevent incisional hernias.

Single-Incision, Two-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy as an Alternative to Transumbilical Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Purpose

We designed a modified technique to perform an advanced procedure using conventional instruments and did not employ specialized single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) port equipment. We compared postoperative results for transumbilical, single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TUSPLA) and single-incision, 2-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SITPLA).

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 77 patients who underwent TUSPLA or SITPLA to provide more minimally invasive surgery between May 2017 and April 2018. TUSPLA was performed in 39 patients and 38 underwent SITPLA. In the SITPLA group, two 5-mm trocars were inserted through the umbilicus and an extra puncture site was used for a left-handed instrument. Demographic characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the groups.

Results

The mean total operative time in the SITPLA group was shorter than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.003). The mean laparoscopic instrumental time was also shorter (p<0.001) in the SITPLA. The number of postoperative analgesics in the SITPLA group was less than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.002). The length of hospital day after surgery was shorter in the SITPLA group than in the TUSPLA group (p=0.008). There were no other significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

SITPLA had a shorter operative time, required less pain management, and had a similar cosmetic outcome when compared with TUSPLA.

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.

A single case of single-port access laparoscopic appendectomy during the puerperium

Laparoscopic appendectomy is now widely practiced for the treatment of acute appendicitis. As result of increased demand for minimally invasive surgery, single-incision access was introduced and is being performed in various abdominal surgeries. Conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is gradually being performed in pregnant women. A 33-year-old woman was referred to our department at 39 weeks and 1 day of gestation due to abdominal pain. She was aware of her gastroepiploic pain even after the delivery. Though it was past 2 days, she was not recovering from right lower abdominal pain, so she was transferred to the Department of Gynecology at our hospital on the same day. Although an antibiotic was administered, the right abdominal pain did not improve, and she was referred to our department from the Department of Gynecology. We performed single-port LA (SP-LA). The total operation time was 63 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 0 mL. She was discharged with no complications on postoperative day 7. We report our initial experience with single-port LA (SP-LA) using the glove technique for treatment of acute appendicitis in a postpartum woman. SP-LA using the glove technique was performed successfully during the puerperium without prolongation of operation time. This approach is less invasive, offers a much better cosmetic result than with conventional methods, and can be performed safely and at low cost.

The learning curve of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy performed by emergent operation

Background

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) has the advantage of minimizing abdominal incision scars with patient satisfaction. However, it has the following disadvantages: it provides a narrower surgical field than conventional laparoscopic appendectomy, which requires a considerably longer operative time to achieve surgical skills. This study was conducted to evaluate the learning curve for SPLA.

Methods

This study included a total of 120 patients with acute abdomen who visited our emergency department and were diagnosed with acute appendicitis between March 2013 and February 2015. They underwent SPLA by a single surgeon. Patients were divided into 4 groups of 30 patients each according to operation dates. Operative time, time to resume oral intake, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed.

Results

The mean operative time was 59.9 ± 19.9 min. It was shortened after completion of 30 operations and remained unchanged until it was further shortened after completion of 90 operations. There was no significant difference in time to resumption of oral intake or length of hospital stay between the 4 groups. Postoperative complications occurred in 18 patients, but the frequency of the complications was not significantly different between the 4 groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that surgeons can achieve surgical skills for SPLA after completion of 30 operations and more experienced surgical skills by SPLA successfully after completion of 90 operations.

One-trocar versus multiport hybrid laparoscopic appendectomy: What's the best option for children with acute appendicitis? Results of an international multicentric study

BACKGROUND

One-trocar laparoscopic appendectomy (OTA) is routinely adopted in children with acute appendicitis. In case of a difficult appendectomy, it is necessary to add additional trocar/s to safely complete the procedure. This technique is called multiport hybrid laparoscopic appendectomy (HLA). We aimed to compare the outcome of multiport HLA versus OTA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 1,092 patients underwent LA in 5 European centers of pediatric surgery in the last 5 years. We compared 2 groups: G1 of 575 patients (52.6 %) (average age 10 years) underwent OTA and G2 of 517 patients (47.4 %) (average age 8.2 years) underwent multiport HLA.

RESULTS

No intra-operative complications occurred in both groups. An additional pathology was treated in 12 cases (8 Meckel's diverticulum, 2 carcinoids, 2 ovarian cysts) in G2. Operative time was significantly shorter in G2 compared to G1 (47.8 vs 58.6 min; p < .001). The average analgesic requirement was significantly shorter in G2 compared to G1 (44 vs 56 h; p < .001). As for postoperative complications, the incidence of port-site infections was similar between the two groups, while the incidence of postoperative abdominal abscesses (PAA) was significantly higher in G1 compared to G2 (4.7 vs 0.2 %; p < .001). The cosmetic outcome was excellent in all patients of both groups. A subgroup analysis between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis showed that only in complicated cases, the average operative time, the average VAS pain score, the average analgesic requirements and the incidence of PAA were significantly higher in OTA group compared to multiport HLA group (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that OTA is a valid and safe procedure for the uncomplicated cases, while additional trocars are required in case of complicated appendicitis. Multiport HLA significantly reduces the operative time, the incidence of abdominal abscesses and the analgesic requirements compared to OTA.

Advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma

The greatest advantages of laparoscopy when compared to open surgery include the faster recovery times, shorter hospital stays, decreased postoperative pain, earlier return to work and resumption of normal daily activity as well as cosmetic benefits. Laparoscopy today is considered the gold standard of care in the treatment of cholecystitis and appendicitis worldwide. Laparoscopy has even been adopted in colorectal surgery with good results. The technological improvements in this surgical field along with the development of modern techniques and the acquisition of specific laparoscopic skills have allowed for its utilization in operations with fully intracorporeal anastomoses. Further progress in laparoscopy has included single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice trans-luminal endoscopic surgery. Nevertheless, laparoscopy for emergency surgery is still considered challenging and is usually not recommended due to the lack of adequate experience in this area. The technical difficulties of operating in the presence of diffuse peritonitis or large purulent collections and diffuse adhesions are also given as reasons. However, the potential advantages of laparoscopy, both in terms of diagnosis and therapy, are clear. Major advantages may be observed in cases with diffuse peritonitis secondary to perforated peptic ulcers, for example, where laparoscopy allows the confirmation of the diagnosis, the identification of the position of the ulcer and a laparoscopic repair with effective peritoneal washout. Laparoscopy has also revolutionized the approach to complicated diverticulitis even when intestinal perforation is present. Many other emergency conditions can be effectively managed laparoscopically, including trauma in select hemodynamically-stable patients. We have therefore reviewed the most recent scientific literature on advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma in order to demonstrate the current indications and outcomes associated with a laparoscopic approach to the treatment of the most common emergency surgical conditions.

Innovative technique of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: A comparative study

AIM: To investigate the safety and feasibility of needlescopic grasper-assisted single-incision laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (nSIL-CBDE) by comparing the surgical outcomes of this technique with those of conventional laparoscopic CBDE (CL-CBDE).

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients who underwent CL-CBDE or nSIL-CBDE for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones between January 2000 and December 2014. For performing nSIL-CBDE, a needlescopic grasper was also inserted through a direct puncture below the right subcostal line after introducing a single-port through the umbilicus. The needlescopic grasper helped obtain the critical view of safety by retracting the gallbladder laterally and by preventing crossing or conflict between laparoscopic instruments. The gallbladder was then partially dissected from the liver bed and used for retraction. CBD stones were usually extracted through a longitudinal supraduodenal choledochotomy, mostly using flushing a copious amount of normal saline through a ureteral catheter. Afterward, for the certification of CBD clearance, CBDE was performed mostly using a flexible choledochoscope. The choledochotomy site was primarily closed without using a T-tube, and simultaneous cholecystectomies were performed.

RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic CBDE. Of these patients, 20 underwent CL-CBDE and 20 underwent nSIL-CBDE. The operative time for nSIL-CBDE was significantly longer than that for CL-CBDE (238 ± 76 min vs 192 ± 39 min, P = 0.007). The stone clearance rate was 100% (40/40) in both groups. Postoperatively, the nSIL-CBDE group required less intravenous analgesic (pethidine) (46.5 ± 63.5 mg/kg vs 92.5 ± 120.1 mg/kg, P = 0.010) and had a shorter hospital stay than the CL-CBDE group (3.8 ± 2.0 d vs 5.1 ± 1.7 d, P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that nSIL-CBDE could be safe and feasible while improving cosmetic outcomes when performed by surgeons trained in conventional laparoscopic techniques.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been considered as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy and conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children.

METHODS

An electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE was performed. Operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications including wound infection, intra-abdominal infection, ileus in SILA and CLA were pooled and compared by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective study and 7 retrospective studies) that included 2,109 pediatric patients were studied. Of these patients, 933 and 1,176 patients had undergone SILA and CLA, respectively. There was significant shorter length of hospital stay for SILA compared with CLA in children; however, pooling the results for SILA and CLA revealed no significant difference in operative time and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Compared with CLA, SILA has the advantage of shorter hospital stay. However, SILA failed to show any obvious advantages over CLA in operative time and postoperative complications including wound infection, intra-abdominal infection, and ileus.

A randomized controlled study to establish the effect of articulating instruments on performance in single-incision laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

In single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), operating through 1 incision presents ergonomic challenges. No consensus exists on whether articulating instruments (ARTs) may help. This study evaluated their effect on simulated SILS, hypothesizing that they would affect performance and workload.

DESIGN

Surgeons were randomized to 2 straight instruments (STRs), 1 ART and 1 STR, or 2 ARTs. After baseline testing, 25 repetitions of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) peg-transfer (PEG) task and 5 repetitions of the short-hand for the FLS pattern-cutting task (CIRCLE) were performed. Primary outcomes were maximum FLS PEG scores, CIRCLE times and errors, and Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device hand motion analysis. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Raw Task Load Index (RTLX) questionnaires evaluated a secondary outcome--workload.

SETTING

The trial took place in a simulated operating theater within the Academic Surgical Unit at St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible surgeons had completed at least 5 laparoscopic cases as a primary operator. Surgeons were stratified by laparoscopic experience into intermediate (less than 25 previous procedures as primary operator) or advanced (25 procedures or more). A total of 21 surgeons were recruited and randomized; 7 of them to each instrument combination group. All surgeons completed PEG, and 5 from each group completed CIRCLE.

RESULTS

Groups' baseline PEG scores were similar (p = 0.625). STR-ART achieved higher maximum PEG scores than STR or ART did (median = 236 vs 198 vs 193, respectively, p = 0.002). Fastest CIRCLE times were similar (median = 190s vs 130s vs 186s, p = 0.129) as were minimum errors (median = 1 vs 2 vs 3, p = 0.101). For PEG, Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device demonstrated similar total path lengths (median = 12.3m vs 12.3m vs 16.0m, p = 0.545) and total numbers of movements (median = 89.6 vs 86.4 vs 171, p = 0.080). Groups' NASA Raw Task Load Index scores were similar (p = 0.708).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining 1 STR and 1 ART improved SILS performance in the PEG task. Therefore, this may be the optimum instrument configuration for use within some clinical SILS applications.

Single site multiport umbilical laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional multiport laparoscopic appendicectomy in acute settings

INTRODUCTION

Although conventional multiport laparoscopic appendicectomy (CMLA) is preferred for managing acute appendicitis, the recently developed transumbilical laparoscopic approach is rapidly gaining popularity. However, its wide dissemination seems restricted by technical/technological issues. In this regard, a newly developed method of single site multiport umbilical laparoscopic appendicectomy (SMULA) was compared prospectively with CMLA to assess the former's efficacy and the technical advantages in acute scenarios.

METHODS

Overall, 430 patients were studied: 212 in the SMULA group and 218 in the CMLA group. The same surgeon performed all the procedures using routine laparoscopic instruments. The SMULA technique entailed three ports inserted directly at the umbilical mound through three distinct strategically placed mini-incisions without raising the umbilical flap. The CMLA involved the traditional three-port technique.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable in terms of demographic criteria, indications for surgery, intraoperative blood loss, time to ambulation, length of hospital stay and umbilical morbidity. Although the mean operative time was marginally longer in the SMULA group (43.35 minutes, standard deviation [SD]: 21.16 minutes) than in the CMLA group (42.28 minutes, SD: 21.41 minutes), this did not reach statistical significance. Conversely, the mean pain scores on day 0 and the cosmetic outcomes differed significantly and favoured the SMULA technique. None of the patients developed port site hernias over the follow-up period (mean 2.9 years).

CONCLUSIONS

The favourable outcomes for the SMULA technique are likely to be due to the three small segregated incisions at one place and better trocar ergonomics. The SMULA technique is safe in an acute setting and may be considered of value among the options for transumbilical appendicectomy.

Single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a case-matched comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

The multiport technique is the gold standard for laparoscopic appendectomy, but the use of single-incision laparoscopy is on the increase. The aim of the present study was to compare case-matched cohorts of patients who had undergone single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) with those who had undergone conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA).

METHODS

In a case-matched analysis, all single-incision laparoscopic appendectomies performed between July 2009 and December 2013 at one institution were reviewed and compared to multiport laparoscopic appendectomies performed during the same period. Patients who had undergone SILA were matched in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. Statistical evaluation included the description and comparison of demographic factors, details of surgery, and histological data. A univariate analysis was performed to assess potential risk factors for morbidity after SILA.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients who had undergone SILA were reviewed, matched, and compared to the same number of patients who had undergone MLA. No significant difference was noted in mean operating times (50.83 vs. 50.61 min for SILA and MLA, respectively; p = 0.924) and the length of hospital stay (3.60 vs. 3.66 days; p = 0.704). No patient in either group required conversion to the open procedure while 6 (3.8 %) SILA patients were converted to multiport laparoscopy. SILA was not associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity compared to MLA (9.6 % vs. 5.8 %; p = 0.288). Postoperative wound infection rates were higher after SILA (3.2 % vs. 0.6 %), but did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.214). Statistical analysis revealed no risk factors for developing postoperative complications after the single-incision procedure.

CONCLUSION

SILA is a technically feasible and safe alternative to conventional MLA. The two procedures did not differ in terms of operating times, length of hospital stay, and postoperative outcomes.

Single-incision lift laparoscopic appendicectomy: A less expensive technique easy to learn

Appendicectomy is the most common abdominal operation performed on an emergency basis in most parts of the world. The laparoscopic technique has many advantages over conventional open surgery especially in women and obese patients. A further improved version introduced recently is using a single-incision (SILS). Inducing a pneumoperitoneum, as a necessary precondition of laparoscopic procedures, represents a restriction of the surgeon’s freedom of movement and can lead to typical though rare complications. Gasless laparoscopic surgery has most of the advantages of laparoscopic surgery without many of the disadvantages. It is also less expensive, and can be combined with regional anaesthesia. Furthermore, fewer disposable materials are necessary. We describe a series of single umbilical incision gasless laparoscopic appendicectomies performed in rural areas of India.

Efficacy of transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy for appendicitis: a four-year experience at a single center

PURPOSE

To compare the surgical outcomes after transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) and open appendectomy (OA) at a single institution.

METHODS

We compared the surgical outcomes for 94 consecutive patients who underwent TULAA between April 2010 and March 2014 to those for 91 consecutive patients who underwent OA between April 2006 and March 2010.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the clinicopathological backgrounds between the two groups. Although the lengths of the operations were similar in both groups, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TULAA group (4.7 days vs. 5.4 days, P = 0.02). The need for abdominal drain insertion was significantly reduced in the TULAA group owing to sufficient intraperitoneal exploration (P = 0.03). The incidence of postoperative complications was also lower in the TULAA group, but the difference was not significant (8.6 % vs. 12.1 %, P = 0.31). In complicated cases, a lower incidence of surgical site infection was confirmed in the TULAA group (6.7 % vs. 20.7 %, P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that TULAA provided better surgical outcomes, especially a faster recovery. TULAA could be an effective procedure incorporating both open and laparoscopic techniques, and can be implemented as a standard procedure for the treatment of appendicitis, regardless of disease severity.

Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TPLA) has been shown superior to open appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA); alternatively, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is gaining popularity. The choice between SILA and traditional TPLA remains controversial. This meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILA with TPLA for AA.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing SILA with TPLA. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also searched. Primary outcomes were operative time, postoperative complications, hospital duration, and days back to normal activities. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and relative risks (RRs) according to type of data. Methodological quality was evaluated to assess bias risk.

RESULTS

A total of 8 distinct RCTs comparing SILA (n = 616) with TPLA (n = 618) published from 2010 to 2013 were identified in our analysis. SILA took longer to conduct than TPLA (43 vs 38, WMD: 5.96, 95 % CI 2.54-9.38, P = 0.0006). Patients undergoing SILA needed more extra trocars addressed during operation (7 % vs 0 %, RR: 12.36, 95 % CI 3.83-39.90, P < 0.0001), but could return to full activities earlier (6 vs 7, WMD: -0.68, 95 % CI -1.10 to -0.26, P = 0.001). However, these differences were not clinically significant. All other parameters were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide level 1a support for the clinical similarity that SILA is basically as feasible, effective and safe as TPLA when dealing with AA, although statistically, SILA takes longer to perform, requires more extra trocars, and benefits patients with faster recovery compared with TPLA. Further RCTs are needed to update our finding with advancement of surgical techniques and skills.

Suprapubic single incision laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

The single incision method through the umbilicus is commonly used for laparoscopic appendectomy. To obtain a better cosmetic outcome and less surgical complexity, we have designed a new single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy technique performed above the pubic symphysis.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and January 2012, patients with uncomplicated acute or chronic appendicitis, excluding those with abscess, perforation, peritonitis, and previous pelvic surgery, underwent this innovative laparoscopic appendectomy. During each operation, a multichannel trocar composed of a small wound protector and a size 6 sterile glove was deployed after a 2 cm transverse incision was made 1-2 cm above the pubic hair area.

RESULTS

Of the 42 patients, 24 were male and 18 were female. Their mean age was 30 ± 11 y. The mean operative time was 58 ± 11 min, mean time to first flatus postoperatively was 17 ± 8 h, and mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 3 ± 1 d. No complications occurred during surgery. No patient required conversion to either multiport or open appendectomy. Postoperative wound inflammation was observed in one case (2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy seems to be safe and feasible for selected patients, in consideration of cosmetic outcomes.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in 688 patients: a retrospective comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard for treating appendicitis. The cosmetic benefits of using single-incision laparoscopy are well known, but its duration, complications and time to recovery have not been well documented. We compared 2 laparoscopic approaches for treating appendicitis and evaluated postoperative pain, complications and time to full recovery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of consecutive patients with appendicitis and compared those who underwent conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) performed using 3 incisions and those who underwent single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA). During SILA, the single port was prepared to increase visibility of the operative site.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 688 consecutive patients: 618 who underwent CLA and 70 who underwent SILA. Postsurgical complications occurred more frequently in the CLA than the SILA group (18.1% v. 7.1%, p = 0.018). Patients who underwent SILA returned to oral feeding sooner than those who underwent CLA (median 12 h v. 22 h, p < 0.001). These between-group differences remained significant after controlling for other factors. Direct comparison of only nonperforated cases, which was determined by pathological examination, revealed that SILA was significantly longer than CLA (60 min v. 50 min, p < 0.001). Patients who underwent SILA had longer in-hospital stays than those who underwent CLA (72 v. 55 h, p < 0.001); however, they had significantly fewer complications (3.0% v. 14.4%, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

In addition to its cosmetic advantages, SILA led to rapid recovery and no increase in postsurgical pain or complications.

Quality and safety of minimally invasive surgery: past, present, and future

Adverse events because of medical errors are a leading cause of death in the United States (US) exceeding the mortality rates of motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS. Improvements can and should be made to reduce the rates of preventable surgical errors because they account for nearly half of all adverse events within hospitals. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has proven patient benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and hospital stay, its operative environment imposes substantial physical and cognitive strain on the surgeon increasing the risk of error. To mitigate errors and protect patients, a multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve MIS. Clinical human factors, and biomedical engineering principles and methodologies can be used to develop and assess laparoscopic surgery instrumentation, practices, and procedures. First, the foundational understanding and the imperative to transform health care into a high-quality and safe system is discussed. Next, a generalized perspective is presented on the impact of the design and redesign of surgical technologies and processes on human performance. Finally, the future of this field and the research needed to further improve the quality and safety of MIS is discussed.

Two-port laparoscopic appendectomy as transition to laparoendoscopic single site surgery

BACKGROUND:

According to the precepts of reduced surgical trauma and better cosmesis, an intermediate laparoscopic appendectomy technique between the conventional three-trocar procedure and Laparoendoscopic Single Site Surgery (LESS) was performed, based on literature review and experience of the surgical team.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

Patients with early stage acute appendicitis and a favourable anatomical presentation were selected. The procedure was performed with two ports: A 10 mm trocar at the umbilicus site for laparoscope and a 5 mm one just above the pubic bone for grasper. The appendix was secured by external wire traction through a right iliac fossa puncture with 14-gauge intravenous catheter.

RESULTS:

From August 2009 to December 2012, we performed 42 cases; two required conversion to a conventional laparoscopic technique. There were no complications in the remaining, no wound infections and a mean operation time of 64.5 minutes.

CONCLUSION:

The use of two-port laparoscopic appendectomy can act as a LESS intermediate step procedure, without loss of instrumental triangulation and maintenance of appropriate counter-traction. This technique can be used as an alternative to the three-port laparoscopic procedure in patients with initial presentation of appendicitis and a favourable anatomical position.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: State of the art. Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy?

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.

Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy using conventional instruments: the single working channel technique

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and cosmetic results of a novel technique, transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (TSILA), using a single working channel with conventional instruments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study enrolled 84 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. To test the advantages of TSILA on the management of patients with acute appendicitis, a prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted. Surgical outcomes such as operation time, complication, and hospital stay of 42 patients undergoing TSILA were analyzed and compared with those of 42 patients undergoing classic 3-port appendectomy. All patients received a follow-up visit for 3 to 12 months.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 42 patients undergoing TSILA and 42 patients undergoing classic 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy with an average age of 34.1 and 34.9 years, respectively. The mean operative time of TSILA did not show any difference when compared with the classic procedure (84.8 vs. 77.9 min, P=0.271). No operative complications occurred in patients undergoing TSILA, whereas 2 patients undergoing the classic procedure showed incisional infection. The average postoperative hospital stay was 2.7 days in the TSILA group and 2.9 days in the classic procedure group with no difference (P=0.316). At the follow-up visit, no patient showed any evidence of incisional hernia. The transumbilical incisions were visible minimally, and the cosmetic scores given by patients undergoing TSILA was higher than that given by patients undergoing the classic procedure (4.5 vs. 3.9, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study demonstrate that laparoscopic appendectomy can be achieved through a single umbilical incision and a single working channel using conventional instruments and that this approach is successful, safe, economic, and esthetic.

Comparison between single-incision and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis from eight RCTs

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA), we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of SILA and CTLA were searched for in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Operative time, the pain visual analogue scales scores (VAS scores), dose of analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital charges, and duration of postoperative hospitalization in SILA and CTLA were pooled and compared by meta-analysis. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the effect of SILA.

RESULT

Eight original RCTs investigating 760 adults and 684 children, 1,444 patients in total, of whom 721 received SILA only and 723 received CTLA only, met the inclusion criteria. Both in adults and children, the mean operative time was significantly longer in SILA than CTLA (WMD5.45, 95% CI 2.15 to 8.75, p = 0.01). Compared with CTLA, in children, SILA have higher analgesic consumption (WMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.3, p = 0.03) and greater hospital charges (WMD 0.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.48, p = 0.005), which was not statistically different in adults (p > 0.05). Pooling the results for SILA and CTLA revealed no significant difference in VAS scores, wound infection rate, overall complications, and postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

SILA failed to show any obvious advantages over CTLA in perioperative and postoperative outcomes. Therefore, it represents a possible alternative to conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.

Reduced port surgery for appendectomy: Early experience and surgical technique

AIM: To evaluate our experience and surgical technique of laparoscopic appendectomy via reduced port surgery (LARPS).

METHODS: Sixteen patients (8 men and 8 women; median age: 31.0 years) who underwent LARPS between November 2009 and May 2012 were included in the present study. We performed LARPS, in which access devices were inserted through an umbilical skin incision with 1 additional skin incision in the left lower abdomen. After setting access devices, pneumoperitoneum was maintained at 10 mmHg using CO₂ and a 3 mm trocar was positioned (or direct puncture was performed by the Endo Relief system) under laparoscopic guidance. The mesoappendix was dissected using an ultrasonically activated device. After mesoappendix dissection, ligation was performed near the appendix base and the appendix was dissected using an ultrasonically activated device. The appendix was then removed. At the end of surgery, we administered local anesthesia with ropivacaine 1% (10 mL) for the skin incisions. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay and surgical complications.

RESULTS: Our surgical procedure allowed operators to use instruments as in conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. The basic principle of triangulation of instrumentation was maintained to some degree. LARPS was performed in 9 patients with catarrhal appendicitis, 5 with phlegmonous appendicitis, and 2 with gangrenous appendicitis. The median surgery time was 60 min and the median intraoperative blood loss was 1.2 mL. The median length of postoperative hospitalization was 4 d. There were no conversions to open surgery, no operation-related complications or mortality.

CONCLUSION: Our experience and surgical technique suggest that LARPS is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with appendicitis.

Safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for appendectomies: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare single incision laparoscopic surgery for an appendectomy (SILS-A) with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (C-LA) when implemented by experienced surgeons.

METHODS: Studies and relevant literature regarding the performance of single-incision laparoscopic surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for appendectomy were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and World Health Organization international trial register. The operation time (OR time), complications, wound infection and postoperative day using SILS-A or C-LA were pooled and compared using a meta-analysis. The risk ratios and mean differences were calculated with 95%CIs to evaluate the effect of SILS-A.

RESULTS: Sixteen recent studies including 1624 patients were included in this meta-analysis. These studies demonstrated that, compared with C-LA, SILS-A has a similar OR time in adults but needs a longer OR time in children. SILS-A has similar complications, wound infection and length of the postoperative day in adults and children, and required similar doses of narcotics in children, the pooled mean different of -0.14 [95%CI: -2.73-(-2.45), P > 0.05], the pooled mean different of 11.47 (95%CI: 10.84-12.09, P < 0.001), a pooled RR of 1.15 (95%CI: 0.72-1.83, P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 1.9 (95%CI: 0.92-3.91, P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 1.01 (95%CI: 0.51-2.0, P > 0.05) a pooled RR of 1.86 (95%CI: 0.77-4.48, P > 0.05), the pooled mean different of -0.25 (95%CI: -0.50-0, P = 0.05) the pooled mean different of -0.01 (95%CI: -0.05-0.04, P > 0.05) the pooled mean different of -0.13 (95%CI: -0.49-0.23, P > 0.05) respectively.

CONCLUSION: SILS-A is a technically feasible and reliable approach with short-term results similar to those obtained with the C-LA procedure.

Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and three-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (TILA) in the treatment of appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies published since 1992 that compared SILA versus TILA in laparoscopic appendicectomy were collected. Data on operative parameters, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications, and hospitalization costs for SILA and TILA were meta-analyzed using fixed-effect and random-effect models.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 16 retrospective studies) that included 1809 patients were studied. Of these patients, 793 and 1016 had undergone SILA and TILA, respectively. There was significantly shorter length of hospital stay; however, there were evidently higher conversion rate, and perhaps higher surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs for SILA compared with TILA. Other outcome variables such as operative time, blood loss, time to first oral intake, postoperative pain and complications were not found to be statistically significant for either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TILA, SILA has the advantage of shorter hospital stay, and it can achieve comparable operative time, blood loss, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain and complications with TILA. The drawback is that SILA is associated with higher conversion rate, and perhaps higher surgical difficulty and hospitalization costs. Whether it can achieve improvement in cosmesis remains to be confirmed.

Meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus that single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILS-A) is on a par with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of SILS-A when compared with CMLA.

METHODS

A literature search for studies comparing SILS-A and CMLA was performed. Studies were reviewed for the outcome of interest: patient characteristics, operative outcome, postoperative recovery, postoperative morbidity, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic results.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comparing SILS-A and CMLA were reviewed: two prospective randomized trials, four prospective studies, and seven retrospective studies. Overall, 893 patients were operated on: by SILS-A in 402 cases (45.0%) versus 491 cases (55.0%) by CMLA. Patients in the SILS-A group were significantly younger than those in the CMLA group (31.2 versus 33.5 y). No other differences were found. Patient satisfaction score was impossible to meta-analyze.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendectomy via SILS-A may be considered as an alternative to CMLA. However, these results must be approached with caution as they are based on data from nonrandomized observational studies. The feasibility and safety of SILS-A must be mainly assessed for difficult clinical situations such as severe obesity, localized abscess, or diffuse peritonitis from a ruptured appendix in the setting of new prospective randomized trials.

Comparative study between single-incision and three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a new procedure used to treat a variety of diseases requiring surgical intervention. The aim of this prospective comparative study is to compare the technical feasibility and safety of single-incision and three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Between February 2009 and April 2010, 102 patients with appendicitis were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: single-incision or three-port laparoscopic appendectomy. Patients with perforated appendicitis were not excluded. We analyzed the patients' clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative patient demographics between the two groups with respect to body mass index (22.03±4.07 kg/m(2) in the single-incision group versus 21.97±3.49 kg/m(2) in the three-port group, P=.930). The pain score on the visual analog scale on postoperative Day 1 was significantly lower in the single-incision group than in the three-port group (3.22±1.22 versus 3.90±1.46, P=.012). Additionally, recovery time to daily life was significantly shorter in the single-incision group than in the three-port group (3.22±1.04 versus 3.94±1.43 days, P=.005). In patients with perforated appendicitis, the single-incision procedure took approximately 10 minutes less than the three-port procedure (44.11±7.75 versus 54.14±32.21 minutes, P=.449), and the postoperative hospital stay (P=.033) and recovery time to daily life (P=.001) were significantly shorter in the single-incision group.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy is a feasible and safe procedure, even in patients with perforated appendicitis, and this procedure is even less invasive than three-port laparoscopic surgical techniques.

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical outcomes and quality of life between single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in patients with acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND

A prospective randomized single center study was performed to compare the outcome of SPLA and CLA in patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A total of 248 patients were randomized, but because of 18 withdrawals, the outcome of 224 is analyzed, 116 in CLA and 114 in SPLA.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate (P = 0.470). There were no significant differences in infectious complications between the SPLA group and the CLA group (10.2% and 12.4%, respectively). The wound complication rate between the 2 groups was not significant (5.1% and 10.6%, respectively; P = 0.207). Cosmetic satisfaction score, 36-item short-form health survey, and postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLA failed to show any advantages over CLA relative to pain and cosmesis. However, SPLA is as safe as CLA (RCT number 01348464).

A review of minimally invasive single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SPILA) is a modern advancement toward stealth surgery, using a single point of entry. Despite the paucity of clinical data, it is increasingly being used to minimize scarring and, potentially, pain associated with the multiple entry points. We aimed to summarize and present available data on this new approach.

METHODOLOGY

All available databases until December 2010 including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched and cross-referenced for studies describing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy. Case and experimental reports, series with fewer than 5 patients, and non-English articles were excluded. Outcome measures were operative time, postoperative hospital stay, pain scores, complications, conversion, and mortality, stratified according to type of SPILA approach. SPSS version 18.0.0 software was used for data collection.

RESULTS

Database query yielded 79 articles; 45 were included (1 randomized controlled trial, 44 case series). Total cases were 2806, with mean patient age for studies ranging from 7.0 to 37.5 years. No mortality was reported. The overall complication rate was 4.13%. The overall weighted mean operating time was 41.3 minutes (range, 15.0-95.9 minutes). The weighted mean hospital stay was 2.79 days (range, 1.0-6.6 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of complications with SPILA remains low and operating times between new and traditional approaches are comparable in case-based literature, adequately powered randomized trials are required to assess its effectiveness. Occurrence of long-term complication types remains unexplored.

Single-incision appendectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis remains the common gastrointestinal emergency in adults. Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as the next evolution in minimally invasive surgery. SILA is postulated to reduce postoperative pain and enhance cosmesis, while effectively removing an inflamed appendix. However, the efficacy and benefits of SILA compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) remain to be determined. Our objectives were to systematically review the literature comparing SILA with CLA for acute appendicitis and perform a pooled analysis on the efficacy of SILA.

METHODS

Published English-language manuscripts were considered for review inclusion. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, BIOSIS Previews, and the Cochrane Library) using broad search terms was completed. All comparative studies were included if they incorporated adult patients undergoing appendectomy for acute appendicitis by SILA. The primary outcomes of interest were operative time and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

From a total of 366 articles, 34 articles were identified. A total of 9 comparative studies were included for pooled analysis. There was no significant difference in operative time, length of stay, pain scores, and conversion or complication rates between SILA and CLA for acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and pooled analysis demonstrates that SILA is comparable to CLA for acute appendicitis in adults. However, this review identifies the need for randomized controlled trials to clarify the efficacy of SILA compared with CLA.

A comparison of the periumbilical incision and the intraumbilical incision in laparoscopic appendectomy

Purpose

The intraumbilical incision is being used more frequently, with increasing cases of single incision laparoscopic surgery. Since the umbilicus is deeper than the surrounding wall, it has abundant bacteria. No study has compared the adverse outcomes of periumbilical and intraumbilical incisions. We analyzed the wound complication rates of perforated appendicitis patients according to the types of umbilical incision.

Methods

A retrospective review was done of 280 patients with perforated appendicitis. One hundred fifty nine patients were treated with the intraumbilical incision, and 121 patients were treated with the periumbilical incision. We compared the perioperative outcomes according to each laparoscopic incision.

Results

There was no difference in operation time, postoperative hospital stay and analgesic requirement between the two groups. One case in the intraumbilical group (0.6%) and three cases in the periumbilical group (2.5%) developed wound infections. The umbilical complication rate showed no difference.

Conclusion

The wound complication rate of intraumbilical and periumbilical incisions are not different. Although this retrospective study has inherent limitations, the intraumbilical incision seems to be a safe and feasible alternative for the periumbilical incision that can be easier to perform, with better cosmetic results.

Transumbilical single port laparoscopic appendectomy using basic equipment: a comparison with the three ports method

PURPOSE

Single port laparoscopic surgery is a rapidly evolving laparoscopic surgical approach. We report a comparison of transumbilical single port laparoscopic appendectomy (TUSPLA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in a Korean military hospital.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study of 63 patients who received laparoscopic appendectomy was conducted between May 2011 and October 2011. Nineteen patients received TUSPLA and 44 patients received CLA. Clinical outcomes such as operation time, hospital stay, postoperative pain, diet, and postoperative complication were reviewed.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between TUSPLA and CLA patients, respectively, in operation time (58.9 minutes vs. 52.3 minutes, P = 0.262), duration of hospitalization (10.2 days vs. 10.6 days, P = 0.782), mean visual analogue scale score (2.6 vs. 2.5, P = 0.894), and return to diet (1.6 days vs. 1.7 days, P = 0.776). There were two cases (10.5%) of short-term complications in the TUSPLA group and four cases (9.1%) of short-term complications in the CLA group. All patients were fully recovered at discharge.

CONCLUSION

TUSPLA is a feasible alternative for CLA. When a glove port is used, no special instruments are needed. Thus, it can be performed in a hospital equipped with basic laparoscopic surgical instruments.

Impact of body habitus on single-site laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis: subset analysis from a prospective, randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

There have been several series documenting the utility of single-site laparoscopic appendectomy. However, there are no data to support patient selection based on their physical characteristics. We recently completed a large prospective, randomized trial comparing single-site laparoscopic appendectomy with standard three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis. This dataset was used to examine the relative impact of body habitus on operative approach.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed an analysis of the dataset collected in a prospective, randomized trial of 360 appendectomy patients who presented with nonperforated appendicitis. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated and plotted on a growth chart to obtain BMI percentile according to gender and age. Standard definitions for overweight (BMI 85-95%) and obesity (BMI >95%) were used.

RESULTS

In the single-site group there were 26 overweight and 19 obese patients. In the three-port group there were 25 overweight and 16 obese patients. There were no significant differences between overweight and normal with either approach. However, with the single-site approach there was longer mean operative time, more doses of postoperative narcotics given, longer length of stay, and greater hospital charges in obese patients. In the three-port group, there were no differences between normal and obese patients.

CONCLUSIONS

When using the single-site approach for appendectomy, obesity in children creates longer operative times, more doses of postoperative analgesics, longer length of stay, and greater charges. However, obesity has no impact on three-port appendectomy.

Current status of single-incision laparoscopic surgery: European experts' views

Recent advances in minimally invasive surgery have centered on reducing the number of incisions required, which has led to the development of the single-incision laparoscopic technique. A panel of European single-incision laparoscopy experts met to discuss the current status of, and the future expectations for, the technique. The experts reached agreement on a number of statements and recommendations, which will support surgeons in adopting the technique. The panel agreed that the single-incision technique may offer a number of benefits to patients; however, further clinical data need to be published to confirm its value. An ideal training route for surgeons who are adopting the technique was agreed upon, as was the need for a single, large clinical registry of data.

Safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes of single port access colorectal surgery: a single institutional case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Feasibility of single port access (SPA) colorectal surgery has been established for various procedures from ileocecal resection to proctectomy. Nevertheless, its benefits compared to conventional laparoscopy still need to be assess. The aim of this study was to compare SPA to conventional colorectal laparoscopic surgery in a single institutional case-matched study.

METHODS

From July 2009 to July 2010, 25 SPA colorectal resections were matched on main predictive risk factors of postoperative complications, in a one to two fashion, with patient having the same procedure for the same indication by conventional laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were comparable between both groups. SPA was successfully performed in 24 of 25 patients, with a need to conversion to standard laparoscopy in one case (4%). SPA was associated with a significantly shorter median operative time (130 vs 180 min, p = 0.04) and hospital stay (6 vs 7 days, p = 0.005). Postoperative morbidity rates were similar between the two groups (4% vs 16%, p = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

SPA colorectal resection can be safely performed in selected patients with results comparable to those observed after conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, larger studies including randomized controlled trail are needed to demonstrate possible benefits of SPA colorectal resection over conventional colorectal laparoscopic surgery.

Pain after laparoscopic appendectomy: a comparison of transumbilical single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgery

Purpose

Conventional laparoscopic appendectomy is performed using three ports, and single-port appendectomy is an attractive alternative in order to improve cosmesis. The aim of this study was to compare pain after transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SA) with pain after conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TA).

Methods

From April to September 2011, 50 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for simple appendicitis without gangrene or perforation. Patients who had undergone appendectomy with a drainage procedure were excluded. The type of surgery was chosen based on patient preference after written informed consent was obtained. The primary endpoint was postoperative pain evaluated by the visual analogue scale score and postoperative analgesic use. Operative time, recovery of bowel function, and length of hospital stay were secondary outcome measures.

Results

SA using a SILS port (Covidien) was performed in 17 patients. The other 33 patients underwent TA. Pain scores in the 24 hours after surgery were higher in patients who underwent SA (P = 0.009). The change in postoperative pain score over time was significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.021). SA patients received more total doses of analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) in the 24 hours following surgery, but the difference was not statistically significant. The median operative time was longer for SA (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgeons should be concerned about longer operation times and higher immediate postoperative pain scores in patients who undergo SA.

Public perception of LESS surgery and NOTES

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to determine public attitudes toward laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and to determine how they are impacted by age, gender, and obesity.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-two citizens completed a validated questionnaire. Pearson correlations were computed to determine relationships among items queried. Scores ranged from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and are presented as median, mean ± SD.

RESULTS

The citizens generally liked their physique (4, 4 ± 1.0) and felt attractive (4, 4 ± 1.0). LESS surgery was appealing if it involved no more risk or recovery and none to minimally more pain, operative time, and cost. Older and heavier citizens were more interested in reduced risk, pain, and operative/recovery time and less interested in scarring/appearance. Thirty-nine percent would consider NOTES, though only with no more risk, pain, operative time, and cost (<$200). Older people regarded NOTES more favorably. Lack of scarring with NOTES was most important by only 32% of those participants that would consider undergoing a NOTES procedure.

CONCLUSION

Acceptance of LESS surgery and NOTES depends upon no additional risk and no or minimally increased pain, recovery time, and cost. Improved cosmesis is not generally a priority, particularly in older or heavier people. Safety, pain, and recovery time remain major issues in deciding operative choices.

The evolution of the appendectomy: from open to laparoscopic to single incision

Beginning with its initial description by Fitz in the 19th century, acute appendicitis has been a significant long-standing medical challenge; today it remains the most common gastrointestinal emergency in adults. Already in 1894, McBurney advocated for the surgical removal of the inflamed appendix and is credited with the initial description of an Open Appendectomy (OA). With the introduction of minimally invasive surgery, this classic approach evolved into a procedure with multiple, smaller incisions; a technique termed Laparoscopic Appendectomy (LA). There is much literature describing the advantages of this newer approach. To name a few, patients have significantly less wound infections, reduced pain, and a reduction in ileus compared with the OA. In the past few years, Single Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has gained popularity as the next major evolutionary advancement in the removal of the appendix. Described as a pioneer in the era of "scarless surgery," it involves only one transumbilical incision. Patients are postulated to have reduced post-operative complications such as infection, hernias, and hematomas, as well as a quicker recovery time and less post-operative pain scores, in comparison to its predecessors. In this review, we explore the advancement of the appendectomy from open to laparoscopic to single incision.

Patient reported outcomes and their importance in the development of novel surgical techniques

INTRODUCTION

Although traditional quality measures such as morbidity and mortality outcomes still pay an important role in the assessment of health care quality, greater emphasis is now being placed on patient-reported outcome measures such as patient satisfaction. This area is especially important for novel surgical technologies such as single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). These new innovations are able to minimize or abolish surgical scarring and are likely to have most benefit in the area of patient satisfaction as opposed to traditional outcome measures. Therefore, it is important to gauge the public opinion regarding these new techniques, as continued public interest can help support further research in this up-and-coming field.

METHODS

A questionnaire study was carried out with members of the general public. Questions were asked regarding preference for surgical techniques, including open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, NOTES, and SILS, in the situation of acute appendicitis.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 1006 individuals. Results indicated that an established safety profile was necessary before the introduction of these new techniques into general practice. The concept of scarless surgery did appeal to the public, with SILS being the treatment of choice in the scenario of acute appendicitis.

DISCUSSION

The patient perspective on health care is an important aspect of health care quality assessment. This is especially important with regard to the development of novel surgical techniques such as SILS and NOTES. With these techniques, the potential benefits are most likely to be found in the realms of reduced scarring and improved patient satisfaction. The findings from this study demonstrate the public's interest in these new techniques and thus give further support to continued research and development in this area.

Single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery, experience with 50 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is one of the most recent developments in laparoscopic surgery. Having proven its effectiveness in cholecystectomy and appendectomy, the feasibility of SILS in more advanced surgery, such as hemicolectomy and low anterior resection, is now a point of discussion.

METHODS

This study reports on the results of the first 50 SILS colorectal operations at our institution. Twenty right hemicolectomies, 16 sigmoid resections, 9 low anterior resections, and 5 total colectomies were performed. Nineteen patients were operated for benign colonic diseases, 31 for malignant disease.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 130 min, and the median duration of postoperative hospital stay was 6 days. None of the procedures needed conversion to a laparotomy, but four patients were converted to a multiport laparoscopy. In one case, an anastomotic leakage occurred, which was treated by creating a diverting ileostomy laparoscopically. Minor complications were four wound infections and two incisional hernias.

CONCLUSION

SILS colectomy is a safe and feasible procedure even in more complex cases. Comparative studies are needed to demonstrate advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery.