Transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a reliable one-port procedure. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1115-1120. [PMID: 20848141 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1326-1]

Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well-established surgical procedure to manage acute appendicitis. The operation was historically performed as an open procedure and is currently performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques. A recent development in appendicectomy technique is the introduction of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. This incorporates all working ports (either one multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports) through a single skin incision; the procedure is known as single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy or SILA. Unanswered questions remain regarding the efficacy of this novel technique, including its effects on patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, and long-term outcomes, when compared to multi-incision conventional laparoscopy (CLA). This is an update of a review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy, on benefits, complications, and short-term outcomes, in patients with acute appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018 Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1983 to January 2024), Ovid Embase (1983 to January 2024), the WHO International Clinical Trial Register (January 2024), and Clinicaltrials.gov (January 2024). We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases. The searches were carried out on 20 January 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the single-incision procedure SILA against CLA for patients (male and female) over the age of 10 years, diagnosed with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, and undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data into a standardised form, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. We extracted data relevant to the predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous data. We used Review Manager Web for our statistical analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This review was first published in 2011, when there was no RCT evidence available. For this update, we identified 11 RCTs involving 1373 participants (689 in the SILA groups and 684 in the CLA groups). The participants were similar at baseline in terms of age (mean 31.7 (SILA) versus 30.9 years (CLA)) and sex (female: 53.0% (SILA) versus 50.3% (CLA)). Diagnosis of appendicitis was based on clinical assessment; none of the studies used a diagnosis confirmed by imaging as part of their inclusion criteria. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, and the outcomes were predominately reported in the short term. Pain scores at 24 hours after surgery may be similar between the SILA and CLA groups (mean score SILA 2.53 versus CLA 2.65; mean difference (MD) in pain score -0.12, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.28; 294 participants, 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). SILA probably had superior cosmetic results as indicated by patients using the Body Image questionnaire (5 to 20) (mean score SILA 14.9 versus CLA 12.4; cosmesis score MD 1.97, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.33; 266 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The rate of visceral and vascular injury was probably similar with both techniques (SILA 0/168 versus 4/169; OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79; 337 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The conversion rate to CLA or open surgery may be higher for SILA procedures than the conversion rate from CLA to open surgery (SILA 32/574 versus CLA 7/569; OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.36 to 6.42; 1143 participants, 9 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Use of an additional port site was probably more likely with SILA compared to CLA (SILA 28/328 versus CLA 4/336; OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.13 to 12.72; 664 participants, 5 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The recovery time was probably similar for both interventions for hospital stay (mean length of stay in hospital for SILA 2.25 days versus 2.29 days for CLA patients; MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.03; 1241 participants, 10 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and time to return to normal activities (SILA 9.28 days versus CLA 10.0 days; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.99 to 0.81; 451 participants, 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). We have low-to-moderate confidence in our findings due to differences in the measurement of certain outcomes, and lack of blinding in the studies, which makes them prone to performance bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-to-moderate certainty evidence that single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in terms of complications, length of hospital stay, return to normal activities, and postoperative pain in the first 24 hours. The disadvantage of SILA may be a higher conversion rate, but SILA is probably associated with better patient cosmetic satisfaction.

Inappropriate manipulation and drainage exacerbate post-operative pain and prolong the hospital stay after laparoscopic appendectomy for pediatric complicated appendicitis

Background

This study examined whether drain placement or not is associated with the postoperative outcomes of pediatric patients following trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TUSPLA) for complicated appendicitis.

Methods

The medical records of pediatric patients undergoing TUSPLA for acute complicated appendicitis from January 2012 to September 2018 in Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital were reviewed retrospectively. They were classified according to whether they received passive drainage with a Penrose drain (Penrose group) (19), active drainage with a Jackson-Pratt drain with a vacuum bulb (JP group) (16), or no drain (non-drain group) (86). The postoperative outcomes of the three groups were compared.

Results

Postoperative visual analog scale pain score was significantly higher in the non-drain group than in either the JP group or Penrose group. Patients in the Penrose group had a significantly longer postoperative hospital stay than those in the non-drain group and a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess, while patients in the JP group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay; moreover, no patient in JP group developed a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess.

Conclusions

Compared to passive drainage with a Penrose drain or no drain, active drainage with a JP drain shorter the postoperative hospital stay and decreased the risk of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess.

Outcomes of Transumbilical Laparoscopic-Assisted Appendectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Acute Pediatric Appendicitis in a Single Institution

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is a potentially safe and feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy using three ports (CLA). However, the safety and efficacy of SILA for complicated appendicitis (gangrenous and perforated) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) not only for simple appendicitis but also for complicated appendicitis, and to compare them with the outcomes of CLA. Methods: All cases of acute pediatric appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic appendectomies in our hospital from 2007 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. CLA was performed between January 2007 and October 2011, and TULAA was performed between November 2011 and December 2016. In this study, patients' demographics and operative outcomes for simple appendicitis (catarrhal and phlegmonous) and complicated appendicitis were analyzed, comparing the results of TULAA and CLA. Results: In total, 262 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy: CLA in 103 patients and TULAA in 159 patients. All appendectomies were performed in the acute phase. Complicated appendicitis accounted for 60 CLA cases and 81 TULAA cases. There were no significant differences in patients' demographics. Mean operative time in simple appendicitis was significantly shorter in TULAA than in CLA. In addition, complication rates in complicated appendicitis were significantly lower in TULAA than in CLA. Moreover, in each comparison, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in TULAA than in CLA. Conclusion: In our institution, TULAA has shown to be a safe and effective alternative for both simple and complicated appendicitis in children compared with CLA.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has gained enormous popularity worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess feasibility, safety, and benefits of SILA as compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, reoperation rate, and time to return to normal activity.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, totaling 1,211 patients (604 for SILA and 607 for CLA), met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus were statistically similar between the SILA and CLA groups. Compared with CLA, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 5.28 min; 95 % confidence interval = 3.61 to 6.94). Time to return to normal activity was shorter in the SILA group (by 0.69 days). Length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, and reoperation rate were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

SILA is feasible and safe with no obvious advantages over CLA. Therefore, it may be considered as an alternative to CLA.

Laparoscopic-assisted single-port appendectomy in children: it is a safe and cost-effective alternative to conventional laparoscopic techniques?

Aim. Laparoscopic-assisted single-port appendectomy (SPA), although combining the advantages of open and conventional laparoscopic surgery, is still not widely used in childhood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and the cost effectiveness of SPA in children. Methods. After institutional review board approval, we retrospectively evaluated 262 children who underwent SPA. The appendix was dissected outside the abdominal cavity as in open surgery. For stump closure, we used two 3/0 vicryl RB-1 sutures. Results. We identified 146 boys (55.7%) and 116 girls (44.3%). Median age at operation was 11.4 years (range, 1.1–15.9). Closure of the appendiceal stump using two sutures (cost: USD 15) was successful in all patients. Neither a stapler (cost: USD 276) nor endoloops (cost: USD 89) were used. During a follow-up of up to 69 months (range, 30–69), six obese children (2.3%, body mass index >95th percentile) developed an intra-abdominal abscess after perforated appendicitis. No insufficiency of the appendiceal stump was observed by ultrasound. Five of them were treated successfully by antibiotics, one child required drainage. Conclusion. The SPA technique with conventional extracorporal closure of the appendiceal stump is safe and cost effective. In our unit, SPA is the standard procedure for appendectomy in children.

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.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy vs conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the differences in clinical benefits and disadvantages of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were electronically searched up through January 2013 to identify randomized controlled trails (RCTs) comparing SILA with CLA. Data was extracted from eligible studies to evaluate the pooled outcome effects for the total of 1068 patients. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2.0. For dichotomous data and continuous data, the risk ratio (RR) and the mean difference (MD) were calculated, respectively, with 95%CI for both. For continuous outcomes with different measurement scales in different RCTs, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated with 95%CI. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when necessary.

RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified that compared SILA (n = 535) with CLA (n = 533). Five RCTs had a high risk of bias and one RCT had a low risk of bias. SILA was associated with longer operative time (MD = 5.68, 95%CI: 3.91-7.46, P < 0.00001), higher conversion rate (RR = 5.14, 95%CI: 1.25-21.10, P = 0.03) and better cosmetic satisfaction score (MD = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.30-0.73, P < 0.00001) compared with CLA. No significant differences were found for total complications (RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 0.76-1.75, P = 0.51), drain insertion (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.24), or length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.08-0.16, P = 0.57). Because there was not enough data among the analyzed RCTs, postoperative pain was not calculated.

CONCLUSION: The benefit of SILA is cosmetic satisfaction, while the disadvantages of SILA are longer operative time and higher conversion rate.

A comparison of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: from the diagnosis to the hospital cost

Purpose

Recently many cases of appendectomy have been conducted by single-incision laparoscopic technique. The aim of this study is to figure out the benefits of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TULA) compared with conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).

Methods

From 2010 to 2012, 89 patients who were diagnosed as acute appendicitis and then underwent laparoscopic appendectomy a single surgeon were enrolled in this study and with their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Cases of complicated appendicitis confirmed on imaging tools and patients over 3 points on the American Society of Anesthesia score were excluded.

Results

Among the total of 89 patients, there were 51 patients in the TULA group and 38 patients in the CTLA group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) of postoperative day (POD) #1 was higher in the TULA group than in the CTLA group (P = 0.048). The operative time and other variables had no statistical significances (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Despite the insufficiency of instruments and the difficulty of handling, TULA was not worse in operative time, VAS after POD #2, and the total operative cost than CTLA. And, if there are no disadvantages of TULA, TULA may be suitable in substituting three-port laparoscopic surgery and could be considered as one field of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery with the improvement and development of the instruments and revised studies.

Single-incision pediatric endosurgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Single-incision pediatric endosurgery (SIPES) is defined as minimally invasive surgery performed through a unique incision in the abdomen, chest, or retroperitoneum. Several publications exist, but no previous systematic review has been made to evaluate the real benefits of this approach in terms of feasibility and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an electronic search in PubMed up to March 2012 with the terms "single AND incision OR site OR port OR trocar AND children" including related articles and obtained 197 articles. After applying our inclusion criteria, 78 articles were reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified prospective controlled trials (n=1), case-control studies (n=12), case series (n=49), and case reports (n=16). In total, 4212 patients had been operated on by SIPES and were separated by systems: gastrointestinal (n=2888), urologic (n=390), gynecologic (n=27), other abdominal (n=874), and thoracic (n=33) procedures. The most common procedure was SIPES appendectomy, and a unique prospective controlled trial supports its safety and effectiveness. Technically demanding surgeries such as hepatojejunostomy and colonic surgeries were described. Multichannel ports and multiple ports, standard and articulated instruments, transparietal instruments, retraction sutures, and magnets were used. Operative times, length of stay, and complications similar to standard laparoscopic surgery were described. A low conversion rate (to a reduced port, standard laparoscopy and open procedures) was also mentioned. No comparable measure for pain and cosmesis assessment was used.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide experience in SIPES and feasibility has already been described with good clinical outcomes and low rate of conversion. Appendectomy is the unique procedure in which SIPES has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. It is pending the execution of prospective controlled trials for other operations to demonstrate, with objective evidence, the real benefits of this less invasive approach.

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.

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 1-port laparoscopic resection of benign ovarian tumor

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

We evaluated the effectiveness of transumbilical 1-port laparoscopic resection of benign ovarian tumors in children with limited working space.

METHODS

This study involved 15 children and adolescents with benign ovarian tumors treated from January 2006 to December 2010. Preoperative evaluation included physical findings, tumor markers, and imaging studies. A single surgeon performed the procedure using a 10-mm 0° operative laparoscope with a 5-mm working channel. The fallopian tube was suspended with transabdominal suspensory sutures passing through the mesosalpinx to expose the tumor and remove it after aspiration of the contents. The tumor was contained in the endobag and chopped into pieces before removal through the small umbilical wound.

RESULTS

The patients' age ranged from 2 to 17 years (mean, 9.7 years). Tumor size ranged from 3.6 to 23 cm. Tumor markers including α-fetoprotein, β-human chorionic gonadotropin, cancer antigen 125, and carcinoembryonic antigen were negative. The average operating time was 134 minutes. Except for 1 patient with associated encephalomyelitis, all patients were discharged within 3 days after surgery. Pathologic examination and follow-up studies revealed benign tumors, with no residual lesions in the abdomen or recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Transumbilical 1-port laparoscopic resection is effective for resection of benign ovarian tumors in children, with a satisfactory cosmetic outcome. However, to prevent inadequate resection of a potential malignant lesion, thorough preoperative evaluation with physical signs, tumor markers, and imaging studies, as well as flexible intraoperative tactics, should be adopted.

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.

Technical approaches to single port/incision laparoscopic appendicectomy: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery (SPILS) is a modern advancement toward stealth surgery. Despite the paucity of high-quality scientific studies assessing its effectiveness, this procedure is being used increasingly. This review aims to describe commonly used techniques for SPILS appendicectomies (SPILA), to summarise complication rates in the literature and to provide discussion on indications and implementation.

METHODS

All available databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE(®) and Embase™ were searched in February 2011 and cross-referenced for available English literature describing SPILA in patients of any age.

RESULTS

Three broad technical approaches are described: procedures using laparoscopic instruments through a single skin incision in the abdominal wall, regardless of the number of fascial incisions, with or without the additional use of percutaneous sutures or wires to 'assist' the operation, and hybrid procedures, in which the appendix is exteriorised using a single incision laparoscopically assisted operation but subsequently divided using a conventional 'open' appendicectomy technique. Complication rates seem to be highest in SPILA procedures unassisted by sutures or wires.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research assessing the efficacy of single incision laparoscopic procedures should consider variation in technique as a possible factor affecting outcome.

Transumbilical laparoscopically assisted appendectomy in children: the results of a single-port, single-channel procedure

BACKGROUND

Even for pediatric patients, the use of laparoscopic appendectomy has been widely accepted, and three trocars usually are necessary to perform a laparoscopic appendectomy. However, single-port appendectomy for children represents an attractive alternative. To reduce the number of incisions and trocars, the authors have adopted a transumbilical laparoscopically assisted single-port appendectomy (TULAA) approach. This study aimed to evaluate the results of their single-channel, single-port appendectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective study of TULAA was performed during 12 years with 500 children ages 2-16 years (median, 10.2 years). The TULAA approach is a single-channel surgery using a 12 mm conventional single-port. The vertical incision through the umbilicus is used for laparoscopic access. Two laparoscopic instruments, a 5 mm telescope and a 5 mm grasper, are inserted simultaneously into the single-channel. The grasper holds the base of the appendix, and the appendix is exteriorized through the umbilical incision. Thereafter, a conventional appendectomy is performed extracorporeally.

RESULTS

The TULAA procedure was successful for 416 patients (83.2%). These successful TULAA procedures required a mean surgery time of 44.5 min. The pathologic diagnosis of the appendix was acute for 59 patients, phlegmonous for 203 patients, gangrenous for 152 patients, and not detected for two patients. Complications occurred for 47 of these patients (11.3%). Most of the complications were associated with severe intraabdominal inflammation. Two patients needed reoperation under general anesthesia. Conversion to multitrocar surgery or open appendectomy was performed for 84 of the patients (16.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The TULAA procedure is a preferable operation for acute appendicitis in children because it is simple and provides good cosmetic results.

Single port laparoscopic appendectomy: are we pursuing real advantages?

Single port appendectomy, due to its cosmetic appeal and to a technique similar to classic laparoscopic appendectomy, is provoking an increasing number of publications and case series to explore its feasibility and effective improvements for patients with acute appendicitis. The margins for improvement are not so large, as laparoscopic appendectomy is, after 20 years from its beginning, still debated. A literature search has been accomplished to investigate the outcomes of the operation. 23 case series or retrospective comparisons with classic laparoscopy have been found. The numbers and low quality of the published data do not permit to draw evidence based conclusions. Still, trends seem to evidence an increase in complications especially in complicated appendicitis, which suggests caution in its dissemination outside clinical trials.

Single-incision multiport laparoscopy does not cause more pain than conventional laparoscopy: a prospective evaluation in children undergoing appendectomy

BACKGROUND

The benefit of single-incision multiport laparoscopy (SIMPL) remains a matter of vivid discussion. For good reason it has been speculated that SIMPL causes more postoperative pain, because a minilaparotomy is required to place the multiport system. We prospectively evaluated postoperative pain scores and requirement of analgesic medication following conventional laparoscopic (CL) versus SIMPL appendectomy in children.

METHODS

The access for laparoscopic appendectomy was decided upon the surgeon's preference. Between April and October 2010, individual abdominal pain scores at 8, 16, 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively as well as the incidence of umbilical or shoulder pain and the total amount of peri- and postoperative analgesics, operative time, length of hospital stay, and demographics were assessed. Analgesics (paracetamol and/or metamizole, 15 mg/kg body weight) were administered regularly or on inquiry of the patient. Data are presented as means±standard deviation tested at a significance level of P<.05.

RESULTS

All operations were laparoscopically completed without conversion or addition of extra ports. Thirty-nine patients (8 SIMPL appendectomy) at a mean age of 12.3±2.4 years and a mean body mass index of 19.16±3.2 kg/m(2) were included. Equal operation times were observed (SIMPL: 68.5±19.9 minutes versus CL: 66.2±19.5 minutes). There were no significant differences for the individual pain scores or the incidence of umbilical and shoulder pain between study groups. The total amount of required analgesic medication was significantly lower after SIMPL appendectomy (SIMPL: 65.73±43.8 mg/kg versus CL: 106.39±46.4 mg/kg, P=.04).

CONCLUSION

In summary, the present study substantiates the evidence that SIMPL appendectomy in children and adolescents is not only feasible but also beneficial for the patient without translation into increased postoperative pain. Presently, we are conducting a randomized, blinded study to validate these findings.

Single incision versus conventional multi-incision appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy is a well established surgical procedure used in the management of acute appendicitis.  The operation can be performed with minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic) or as an open procedure. A recent development in appendicectomy has been the introduction of less invasive single incision laparoscopic surgery, using a single multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports, through a single skin incision. There are yet unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of this new and novel technique including: patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, long-term outcomes, and survival.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to perform meta-analysis using data from available trials comparing single incision with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis, in order to ascertain any differences in outcome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the electronic databases including MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1980 to December 2010), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11) with pre-specified terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy, in which at least one arm involves single incision procedures and another multi-incision procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

There were no RCTs or prospectively controlled trials found that met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Three authors performed study selection independently.No studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review were identified. Current evidence exists only the form of case-series.This review has been authored as 'empty' pending the results of 5 ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No RCTs comparing single incision laparoscopic appendectomy with multi-incision surgery could be identified. No definitive conclusions can be made at this time. Well designed prospective RCTs are required in order to evaluate benefit or harm from laparoscopic surgical approaches for appendicectomy. Until appropriate data has been reported, the institutional polices of healthcare providers must be based on the clinical judgement of experts in the field.