Single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy for malignancy: assessment of perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes

A Systematic Review of Comparing Single-incision Versus Traditional Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy For Right Colon Diseases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has been promoted in clinic since 2008, but a systematic review of comparing SILS and traditional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (TLS) with long-term follow-up is rare. Here, in this study, comparison of SILS and TLS with long-term follow-up was evaluated by a meta-analysis method.

METHODS

All studies about SILS and TLS for right hemicolectomy from 2010 to 2018 were searched from databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang. Operation index, recovery, and midterm follow-up data were evaluated by fixed-effects models, random-effects models, and Begg test.

RESULTS

We collected 22 studies with 2218 patients. SILS groups contained 1038 (46.7%) patients, and 1180 (53.3%) patients were observed in the TLS group. Patients' baseline data were similar in the 2 groups. Compared with TLS, SILS had shorter operation duration [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.08, P<0.001, χ=49.40], shorter hospitalization time (SMD: -0.27, 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.16, P<0.001, χ=9.17), slightly less blood loss (SMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.10; P<0.001; χ=5.36), and smaller incision length (SMD: -2.19, 95% CI: -3.66 to -0.71, P<0.001; χ=316.1). No statistical differences were observed in other figures.

CONCLUSION

SILS is more convenient and has better efficacy than TLS and could provide a promising surgical approach for right colon diseases.

Systematic review of comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (SILS) has long used in surgery for a long time. However, there is barely a systemic review related to the comparison between the SILS and the conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (CLS) for the right colon cancer in the long term follow-up. Herein, we used the most recent articles to compare these two techniques by meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang databases to compare SILS with CLS for right colon cancer up to May 2019. The operative, postoperative, pathological and mid-term follow-up outcomes of nine studies were extracted and compared.

Results

A total of 1356 patients participated in 9 studies, while 653 patients were assigned to the SILS group and 703 patients were assigned to the CLS group. The patients’ baselines in the SILS group were consistent with those in the CLS group. Compared to the CLS group, the SILS group had a shorter operation duration (SMD − 23.49, 95%CI − 36.71 to − 10.27, P < 0.001, chi-square = 24.11), shorter hospital stay (SMD − 0.76, 95% `CI − 1.07 to − 0.45, P < 0.001, chi-square = 9.85), less blood loss (SMD − 8.46, 95% CI − 14.59 to − 2.34; P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.26), smaller incision length (SMD − 1.60, 95% CI − 2.66 to − 0.55, P < 0.001; chi-square = 280.44), more lymph node harvested (SMD − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.79 to − 0.16, P < 0.05; chi-square = 4.61), and a longer proximal surgical edge (SMD − 0.51, 95% CI − 0.93 to − 0.09, P < 0.05; chi-square = 2.42). No significant difference was found in other indexes. After we removed a single large study, we performed another meta-analysis again. The operation duration in the SILS group was still better than that in the CLS group.

Conclusion

SILS could be a faster and more reliable approach than CLS for the right colon cancer and could accelerate patient recovery, especially for patients with a low BMI.

Single-incision Laparoscopy Versus Multiport Laparoscopy for Colonic Surgery: A Multicenter, Double-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcome of single-port laparoscopy (SPL) and multiport laparoscopy (MPL) laparoscopy for colonic surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Benefits of SPL over MPL are yet to be demonstrated in large randomized trials.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blinded, superiority trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic colonic resection for benign or malignant disease were randomly assigned to SPL or MPL (NCT01959087). Primary outcome was length of theoretical hospital stay (LHS).

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized and 125 analyzed: 62 SPL and 63 MPL, including 91 right (SPL: n = 44, 71%; MPL: n = 47, 75%) and 34 left (SPL: n = 18, 29%; MPL: n = 16, 25%) colectomies, performed for Crohn disease (n = 53, 42%), cancer (n = 36, 29%), diverticulitis (n = 21, 17%), or benign neoplasia (n = 15, 12%). Additional port insertion was required in 5 (8%) SPL patients and conversion to laparotomy occurred in 7 patients (SPL: n = 3, 5%; MPL: n = 4, 7%; P = 1.000). Total length of skin incision was significantly shorter in the SPL group [SPL: 56 ± 41 (range, 30-300) mm; MPL: 87 ± 40 (50-250) mm; P < 0.001]. Procedure duration, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative 30-day morbidity, postoperative pain, and time to first bowel movement were similar between the groups, leading to similar theoretical LHS (SPL: 6 ± 3 days; MPL: 6 ± 2; P = 0.298). At 6 months, quality of life was similar between groups, but patients from the SPL group were significantly more satisfied with their scar aspect than patients from the MPL group (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

SPL colectomy does not confer any additional benefit other than cosmetic result, as compared to MPL.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Clinical Outcomes of Single-port Surgery for Colon Cancer in Octogenarians

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of single-port surgery for colon cancer in octogenarians.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients who underwent single-port surgery for colon cancer from 2010 to 2014 at a single institution. Patients were categorized into the following 3 groups according to age: ≤69 years (n=196), 70 to 79 years (n=143), and ≥80 years (n=86). Short-term and long-term outcomes were assessed among 3 groups.

RESULTS

The rate of overall postoperative complications in the octogenarian group did not differ significantly, compared with the other groups (20.9% in the octogenarians group vs. 14.3% in the ≤69 y group and 15.4% in the 70 to 79 y group, P=0.363). The 3-year relapse-free survival rates were similar among groups (83.9% in the octogenarians group vs. 87.8% in the ≤69 y group and 87.5% in the 70 to 79 y group, P=0.754). The 5-year overall survival rates were 79.8% in the octogenarians group, 89.9% in the ≤69 years group, and 81.7% in the 70 to 79 years group (P=0.063).

CONCLUSION

Single-port surgery is safe, feasible, and can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes in octogenarians with colon cancer.

Three-Port Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Versus Conventional Five-Port Laparoscopy for Right-Sided Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of three-port laparoscopic right colectomy (3-LRC) for right-sided colon cancer compared with conventional five-port laparoscopic right colectomy (5-LRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred sixty-three patients diagnosed with right-sided colon adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) between April 2011 and December 2017. Seventy-four of these patients underwent 3-LRC procedure and 89 patients underwent 5-LRC. Clinical characteristics, perioperative short-term outcomes, and pathologic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in TNM stage, tumor location, estimated blood loss, complications, and open conversion rates. The operation time was shorter in the 3-LRC group than in 5-LRC group (140.9 ± 27.5 minutes versus 178.2 ± 38.2 minutes; P = .001). The number of harvested lymph nodes (28.5 ± 13.9 versus 22.6 ± 11.7; P = .004) was also higher in the 3-LRC group. The first passage of flatus and first oral diet were significantly faster in the 3-LRC group than in the 5-LRC group (2.8 ± 1.0 days versus 4.0 ± 1.2 days; P = .001, 3.6 ± 2.9 days versus 5.0 ± 1.5 days; P = .001). The number of patients who required analgesics is less in the 3-LRC group (32.4% versus 43.8%; P = .583).

CONCLUSION

3-LRC for right-sided colon cancer is technically feasible and is associated with a short operation time. We believe that 3-LRC effectively reduces the costs associated with equipment and manpower and represents a standard procedure.

Single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic right colectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only one meta-analysis (performed in 2013; including 9 studies, a total of 585 cases) compared single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy (SILRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (CLRC). An updated meta-analysis was undertaken to explore more convinced comparative findings between SILRC and CLRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search for studies that compared SILRC with CLRC was done on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 17 studies (including 1778 cases) were identified, the data of appointed outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index and previous abdominal operation) did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between SILRC and CLRC in operative time, conversion, reoperation, perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and 30-days readmission. Pathological outcomes, including lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin, were similar. SILRC showed less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.67 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.36 to -6.98; p = 0.0004), less skin incisions (WMD: -1.56 cm; 95%CI, -2.63 to -0.49; p = 0.004) and shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.73d; 95%CI, -1.04 to -0.41; p < 0.00001), without publication bias.

CONCLUSION

SILRC may provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLRC with similar short-term outcomes and aesthetic advantage of less skin incision. Well-designed randomized controlled trials, involving large cases and carrying long-term outcomes, are needed.

Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site. The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency.

RESULTS

We identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 - 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 - 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD = -1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients.

CONCLUSION

The currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

Oncologic Outcomes of Single-incision Laparoscopic Surgery Compared With Conventional Laparoscopy for Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to document perioperative results and mid-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) colectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic (CL) colectomy.

BACKGROUND

SIL surgery is an advance in minimally invasive operative techniques and is widely accepted for various types of surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from 767 patients who underwent radical colectomy (250 SIL colectomy and 517 CL colectomy) between 2010 and 2011 due to primary colon cancer and retrospectively analyzed these patients with propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Before matching, patients with CL surgery had a significantly higher percentage of comorbidities (49.2% vs 57.8%, P = 0.024). Tumor location significantly differed between 2 groups: SIL surgery was performed more frequently in patients with right colon cancer. After propensity score matching, each group included 239 patients, and there was no difference between the SIL and CL surgery groups. Estimated blood loss was more in the patients with SIL colectomy, but the rate itself of intraoperative complications was not statistically different (P = 0.662). The median follow-up period was 37 months. There were 20 recurrences in the SIL surgery group (8.4%), including 3 locoregional recurrences and 18 (7.5%) in the CL surgery group. Disease-free survival at 48 months did not differ significantly between the SIL and CL surgery groups (89.8% vs 89.9%, P = 0.548).

CONCLUSIONS

SIL colectomy for colon cancer shows probably higher, but an acceptable complication rate and can provide resection and oncologic outcomes equal to those of CL colectomy.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM: To determine the effect of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colorectal cancer on short-term clinical and oncological outcomes by comparison with multiport conventional laparoscopic colectomy (CLC).

METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE for the time period of 2008 to December 2014 to retrieve all relevant literature. The search terms were “laparoscopy”, “single incision”, “single port”, “single site”, “SILS”, “LESS” and “colorectal cancer”. Publications were included if they were randomized controlled trials, case-matched controlled studies, or comparative studies, in which patients underwent single-incision (SILS or LESS) laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Studies were excluded if they were non-comparative, or not including surgery involving the colon or rectum. A total of 15 studies with 589 patients who underwent SILC for colorectal cancer were selected.

RESULTS: No significant differences between the groups were noted in terms of mortality or morbidity. The benefit of the SILC approach included reduction in conversion rate to laparotomy, but there were no significant differences in other short-term clinical outcomes between the groups. Satisfactory oncological surgical quality was also demonstrated for SILC for the treatment of colorectal cancer with a similar average lymph node harvest and proximal and distal resection margin length as multiport CLC.

CONCLUSION: SILC can be performed safely with similar short-term clinical and oncological outcomes as multiport CLC.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Right Hemi-Colectomy: a Systematic Review

As surgeons became more adept with laparoscopic colon surgery, other less invasive procedures, such as single-incision laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy (SIL-RH), have been applied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of SIL-RH as well as its intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for right-sided colon diseases. A detailed search in PubMed for citations that included SIL-RH from 2000 to 2014 revealed 21 studies fulfilling the criteria of the present review. A total of 684 patients were analyzed. Of the patients, 50.2 % were men. Mean patient age was 64.8 years. Of the patients, 36.1 % had already undergone an abdominal operation before the performance of SIL-RH, while 69 % of the patients underwent SIL-RH for colon cancer. Relatively low rates of overall morbidity (15 %) and mortality (0.75 %) were reported in the included studies. Mean length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was 5.5 days. Bowel motility return had a mean value of 2.8 days. Mean number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) was 19.2 LN. All resection margins were tumor-free. SIL-RH was a safe alternative to multiport laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy (ML-RH) in terms of morbidity and mortality, postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, LOS, as well as oncological radicalness.

Evaluation of postoperative pain at the stoma site in patients who underwent a single-port Hartmann's procedure

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this retrospective study were to evaluate postoperative pain at the stoma site in patients who underwent a single-port Hartmann's procedure (SPH) and to compare the SPH to the multiport Hartmann's procedure (MPH) in terms of postoperative pain.

METHODS

We studied 17 consecutive patients who underwent SPH or MPH for left colon cancer. Postoperative pain was evaluated from postoperative day 1 to 7 with the Numeric Rating Scale.

RESULTS

The postoperative pain score at the stoma site was highest on postoperative day 2 (Numeric Rating Scale score = 3.6). The duration of narcotics use was significantly shorter in the SPH group than in the MPH group (2.1 vs 3.3 days; P = 0.012). The rescue analgesia was administered fewer times in the SPH group than in the MPH group (1.3 vs 4.6; P = 0.012), and the duration of rescue analgesia use was shorter (1.1 vs 3.7 days; P = 0.013). The worst Numeric Rating Scale score in the SPH group was significantly lower than that in the MPH group on postoperative day 3 (1.9 vs 4.1; P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative pain at the stoma site was highest on postoperative day 2. The SPH was associated with less postoperative pain than the MPH.

Single-Site Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Provides Similar Clinical Outcomes Compared With Standard Laparoscopic Surgery: An Analysis of 626 Patients

BACKGROUND

Compared with standard laparoscopy, single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may potentially offer advantages by creating fewer surgical incisions and providing a multifunctional trocar. Previous comparisons, however, have been limited by small sample sizes and selection bias.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare 60-day outcomes between standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery patients undergoing elective and urgent surgeries.

DESIGN

This was an unselected, retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent elective and unplanned standard laparoscopic or single-site laparoscopic colorectal resections for benign and malignant disease between 2008 and 2014. Outcomes were compared using univariate analyses.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single institution.

PATIENTS

A total of 626 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity and mortality rates within 60 postoperative days were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 318 (51%) and 308 patients (49%) underwent standard laparoscopic and single-site laparoscopic procedures. No significant differences were noted in mean operative time (standard laparoscopy, 182.1 ± 81.3 vs single-site laparoscopy, 177.0 ± 86.5; p = 0.30) or postoperative length of stay (standard laparoscopy, 4.8 ± 3.4 vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.5 ± 6.9; p = 0.14). Conversions to laparotomy and 60-day readmissions were also similar for both cohorts across all of the procedures performed. A significant difference was identified in the number of patients who developed postoperative complications (standard laparoscopy, 19.2% vs single-site laparoscopy, 10.7%; p = 0.004), especially with respect to surgical-site infections (standard laparoscopy, 11.3% vs single-site laparoscopy, 5.8%; p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective, single institution study.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery demonstrates similar results to standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery with regard to operative time, length of stay, and readmissions. Single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery may provide advantages in limiting the development of certain complications, such as superficial surgical-site infections.

Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes after single- or multiport surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the short-term surgical results of single-port surgery (SPS) with those of multiport surgery (MPS) for colorectal cancer.

METHOD

We studied 673 consecutive patients who underwent SPS or MPS for colorectal cancer in our department from January 2008 to December 2013. The operative parameters and oncological outcome were analysed and compared between the SPS and the MPS groups retrospectively.

RESULTS

The SPS and MPS groups did not differ significantly in terms of preoperative evaluation. The median operative time was significantly shorter with SPS than with MPS (176 min vs 193 min; P < 0.001). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of postoperative complications. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with SPS than with MPS (8 days vs 10 days; P < 0.001). Oncological resection was similar in the two groups. The disease-free survival rates at 2 years according to the TNM stage did not differ significantly between the two groups (Stage I, 98.5% vs 94.7%; Stage II, 93.4% vs 90.7%; and Stage III, 70.8% vs 68.4%).

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates that SPS is safe and can provide oncological outcomes equal to those of MPS in patients with colorectal cancer.

Comparison of short-term surgical results of single-port and multi-port laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-port surgery is a recent advancement in minimally invasive techniques for colon disease. However, single-port laparoscopic rectal resection (SPLR) is rare. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term results of SPLR with those of multi-port laparoscopic rectal resection (MPLR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent SPLR (n = 50) or MPLR (n = 50) for rectal cancer from July 2010 to March 2014 were analyzed. Patients with tumor diameter less than 40 mm and body mass index less than 30 kg/m(2) were matched for age, sex, tumor location, and preoperative evaluation. Operative parameters and outcomes were compared between groups. Patients with lower rectal cancer were excluded.

RESULTS

SPLR was successful in 98.0% of cases. Operative procedure, operative time, blood loss, field of lymph node dissection, and rate of postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Length of hospital stay was shorter with SPLR than with MPLR (8 vs 10 days, respectively; P = .018). Oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

SPLR is safe and feasible in selected patients with rectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a new minimally invasive technique which has frequently been applied for treatment of benign colorectal diseases. However, there is still little experience with this technique for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with SILS resections for colon (n = 25) or rectal cancer (n = 43) were compared to a group of conventionally operated patients who were matched for surgical procedure, tumor stage and tumor location, and the use of preoperative radiochemotherapy.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable for lymph node harvest, specimen length, and the duration of surgery. No significant differences were observed for the number of positive circumferential resection margins, or the distance of the tumor to both the aboral or lateral resection margin, but two positive resection margins were only present after SILS and not after conventional surgery. Hospitalization tended to be shorter after SILS (p = 0.097). Overall, morbidity was equivalent between the two groups, with a difference for colon cancer where it was significantly lower after SILS as compared to open surgery (p = 0.025) mainly due to a lower rate of wound complications.

CONCLUSION

SILS might be an acceptable alternative to open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer. For rectal cancer, no apparent benefit could be documented. As no sufficient data on the oncologic quality are available, single-incision laparoscopic surgery can yet not be recommended for the treatment of rectal cancer out of clinical trials.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery-systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this pooled analysis is to determine the effect of single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILC) on short-term clinical and oncological outcomes compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery (CLC).

METHODS

An electronic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for the effect size of SILC on continuous variables and pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated for discrete variables.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the groups were noted for mortality or morbidity including anastomotic leak, reoperation, pneumonia, wound infection, port-site hernia, and operative time. The benefits of a SILC approach included reduction in time to return of bowel function (WMD = -1.11 days; 95 % C.I. -2.11 to -0.13; P = 0.03), and length of hospital stay (WMD = -1.9 days; 95 % C.I. -2.73 to -1.07; P < 0.0001). Oncological surgical quality was also shown for SILC for the treatment of colorectal cancer with a similar average lymph node harvest, proximal and distal resection margin length compared to CLC.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC can be performed safely by experienced laparoscopic surgeons with similar short-term clinical and oncological outcomes to CLC. SILC may further enhance some of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with a reduction in blood loss and length of hospital stay.

Oncologic outcomes of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate oncologic outcomes, as well as perioperative and pathologic outcomes, of single-incision laparoscopic anterior resection (SILAR) compared with conventional laparoscopic anterior resection (CLAR) for sigmoid colon cancer using propensity-score matching analysis.

METHODS

From July 2009 through April 2012, a total of 407 patients underwent laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer. Data on short- and long-term outcomes were collected prospectively and reviewed. Propensity-score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:2 comparing the SILAR (n = 60) and CLAR (n = 120) groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in operation time, estimated blood loss, time to soft diet, and length of hospital stay; however, the SILAR group showed less pain on postoperative day 2 (mean 2.6 vs. 3.6; p = 0.000) and shorter length of incision (3.3 vs. 7.7 cm; p = 0.000) compared with the CLAR group. Morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar in both groups. The 3-year overall survival rates were 94.5 versus 97.1% (p = 0.223), and disease-free survival rates were 89.5 versus 87.4% (p = 0.751) in the SILAR and CLAR groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The long-term oncologic outcomes, as well as short-term outcomes, of SILAR are comparable with those of CLAR. Although SILAR might have some technical difficulties, it appears to be a safe and feasible option, with better cosmetic results.

Evaluation of technical feasibility and safety of Single-Site™ robotic right colectomy: three case reports

BACKGROUND

Robotic Single-Site™ surgery overcomes the technical constraints of single-access laparoscopy. After performing over 130 Single-Site robotic cholecystectomies and stabilizing operative times, we applied this technology to right colon surgery.

METHODS

We successfully completed three Single-Site robotic right colectomies (SSRRCs) using the da Vinci Si Surgical System(®) with a Single-Site kit (© Intuitive Surgical™) inserted through a suprapubic incision.

RESULTS

Overall SSRRC operative time was 218.3 ± 75.9 min. A side-to-side anisoperistaltic anastomosis was fashioned intracorporeally (two cases) or extracorporeally (one case). All patients were discharged within 5 days. There were no complications and oncological principles were satisfied. There were no recurrences up to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report of SSRRC with intracorporeal anastomosis using the da Vinci(®) Single-Site™ port inserted through a suprapubic incision. This approach is feasible and safe, with oncological outcomes potentially equivalent to those of robotic or laparoscopic multiport surgery.

What should we intend for minimally invasive treatment of colorectal cancer?

Non-inferiority of laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials although operative and perioperative management varies widely among centers. Literature data in English language published up to April 15, 2014 were analyzed in order to give an up to date analysis that would highlights the key aspects of a modern and factual minimally invasive treatment of CRC. Laparoscopic resection is the first choice treatment of colon cancer. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer should be considered an investigational procedure to be performed in high volume centers with special interest in laparoscopy and colorectal surgery. Less invasive approaches should be taken into account with the aim of reducing surgical stress. The adoption of ERAS programs has demonstrated to optimize short-term results. Future research should be directed to prove possible long-term advantages, in terms of overall and disease-free survival, of minimally invasive treatment of CRC.

Single incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

A meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcome of single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with standard multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.

METHOD

A systematic search of databases was carried out to extract comparative studies (randomized and non-randomized, prospective and retrospective). Data were analysed according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. A meta-analysis was performed when the data permitted this form of analysis.

RESULTS

Nine comparative studies were retrieved comprising 241 patients with single incision and standard laparoscopy. None of these was randomized. There was no significant difference between the two methods for the primary end-points of mortality, morbidity and cancer-specific parameters and for the secondary end-points of operation time, blood loss, ileus, hospital stay and conversion. It was not possible to analyse pain and cosmetics data owing to insufficient information.

CONCLUSION

Single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is comparable with standard multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in primary and secondary outcomes. Given current information it is justified to use single incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, but there is a need for a prospective randomized study.

Advanced laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: NOTES/NOSE or single port?

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease is an evolving, dynamic subject undergoing constant adaptation. Hence there are significant ongoing advances in technique and technology as has been seen with the emergence of single port and Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic operations with already considerable ramifications for many aspects of minimal access surgery. Most recently single port technologies and expertise have synergized with Transanal Endoscopic (TEM/TEO) experience to allow their convergence out of their respective niches so that pelvic surgery can be laparoendoscopically performed from both its abdominal and perineal aspects. Distinct from wound-related benefits, such capacity for high resolution and multi-dimensional imaging relates significant benefit to the operating team and patient. This state of the art review demonstrates the crucial perspective that advanced practices and performance capabilities are intrinsically complimentary rather than competitive. All surgeons need therefore to participate in adapting their practice styles to allow technical step-advance across the discipline.