Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the use of a single-port device with that of a flexible endoscope with no other device for transumbilical cholecystectomy: LLATZER-FSIS pilot study

Multicenter clinical trial for the resection of rectal polyps using a new laparoendoscopic hybrid transanal access device

INTRODUCTION

Complex polyps require the use of advanced endoscopic techniques or minimally invasive surgery for their approach. In rectal polyps it is of special relevance to reach a consensus on the best approach to avoid under- or overtreatment that increases unnecessary morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We describe a prospective, multicenter, pilot clinical trial with a first-in-human medical device. It is hypothesized that UNI-VEC® facilitates transanal laparoendoscopic surgery for the removal of early rectal tumors. The primary objective is to evaluate that it is safe and meets the established functional requirements. Secondary objectives are to evaluate results, complications and level of satisfaction.

RESULTS

16 patients were recruited in 12 months with a minimum follow-up of 2 months. The mean size was 3.4 cm with the largest polyp being 6 cm. Regarding location, the mean was 6.6 cm from the anal margin. Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) (6.3%), Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ESD (43.8%), REC (6.3%) and TAMIS (43.8%) were performed. The mean time was 73.25 min. The 56.3% used a 30° camera and 43.8% used the flexible endoscope as a viewing instrument. The 56.3% were benign lesions and 43.8% malignant. Complete resection is achieved in 87.5%. Regarding complications, mild bleeding (Clavien I) occurred in 25%, 6.3% and 21.4% at 24 h, 48 h and 7 days respectively. Continence was assessed according to the Wexner scale. At 7 days, 60% showed perfect continence, 26.7% mild FI and 13.3% moderate FI. At 30 days, 66.7% had perfect continence, 20% mild FI and 13.3% moderate FI. At 2 months, 4 patients were reviewed who at 30 days had a Wexner's degree higher than preoperative and perfect continence was demonstrated in 25% of the patients, 50% mild and 25% moderate. In no case did rectal perforation or major complications requiring urgent reintervention occur. As for the level of reproducibility, safety, level of satisfaction with the device and evaluation of the blister, the evaluation on a scale of 0 to 10 (9.43, 9.71, 9.29 and 9.50 respectively). All the investigators have previous experience with transanal devices.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of UNI-VEC® for the treatment of rectal lesions. It will facilitate the implementation of hybrid procedures that seek to solve the limitations of pure endoscopic techniques by allowing the concomitant use of conventional laparoscopic and robotic instrumentation with the flexible endoscope.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Single-incision Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

The implementation of national cancer screening has increased the detection rates of early gastric cancer (EGC) in Korea. Since the successful introduction of laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in the early 1990s, this technique has demonstrated improved short-term outcomes without compromising long-term oncologic results. It is associated with reduced pain, shorter hospitalization, reduced morbidity rates, better cosmetic outcomes, and equivalent mortality rates as those for open surgery. Laparoscopic gastrectomy improves patients' quality of life (QOL) and provides favorable prognosis. Single-incision laparoscopic gastrectomy (SILG) is one extremely minimally invasive method, theoretically offering improved cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, and earlier recovery after surgery than conventional multiport laparoscopic gastrectomy. In this context, SILG is thought to be an optimal method to promote and maximize patients' QOL in the acute postoperative phase. However, the technical difficulties of this procedure have limited its use. Since the first report describing single-incision distal gastrectomy in 2011, only 16 studies to date have evaluated SILG. Most of these studies have focused on the technical feasibility and safety of SILG because its long-term outcomes have not been reported. This article reviews the advantages and limitations of SILG.

Three-Port Versus Five-Port Laparoscopic Distal Gastrectomy for Early Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Case-Control Study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of three-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TP-LDG) as a reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified 146 patients preoperatively diagnosed with early gastric cancer who underwent five-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (FP-LDG) or TP-LDG between May 2013 and July 2016. A propensity score matching analysis was used to create patient groups (48 patients in each group) matched for sex, age, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery history, and American Society of Anesthesiologist score. The short-term surgical outcomes between TP-LDG and FP-LDG were compared.

RESULTS

The TP-LDG group had a statistically shorter umbilical wound length [3.4 (range, 3.0-4.0) cm vs. 3.9 (range, 3.7-4.0) cm, p = .000], shorter operative time [230 (range, 190-310) min vs. 250 (range, 180-320) min, p = .036], and lower estimated blood loss [68 (range, 20-180) mL vs. 80 (range, 40-150) mL, p = .005] compared to that in the FP-LDG group. However, there was no specific superiority regarding inflammatory profiles. Complication rates were also similar (8.4% TP-LDG vs. 12.6% FP-LDG, p = .504).

CONCLUSIONS

TP-LDG is a feasible and safe surgical procedure for the patients with early gastric cancer and provides the benefit of better cosmesis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for biliary tract disease

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, has been employed in various fields to minimize traumatic effects over the last two decades. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) has been the most frequently studied SILS to date. Hundreds of studies on SILC have failed to present conclusive results. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been small in scale and have been conducted under ideal operative conditions. The role of SILC in complicated scenarios remains uncertain. As common bile duct exploration (CBDE) methods have been used for more than one hundred years, laparoscopic CBDE (LCBDE) has emerged as an effective, demanding, and infrequent technique employed during the laparoscopic era. Likewise, laparoscopic biliary-enteric anastomosis is difficult to carry out, with only a few studies have been published on the approach. The application of SILS to CBDE and biliary-enteric anastomosis is extremely rare, and such innovative procedures are only carried out by a number of specialized groups across the globe. Herein we present a thorough and detailed analysis of SILC in terms of operative techniques, training and learning curves, safety and efficacy levels, recovery trends, and costs by reviewing RCTs conducted over the past three years and two recently updated meta-analyses. All existing literature on single-incision LCBDE and single-incision laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy has been reviewed to describe these two demanding techniques.

Comparison of single-port and reduced-port totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for patients with early gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) is a treatment method for patients with early gastric cancer; however, single- or reduced-port LADG for these patients has been rarely reported.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer undergoing single-port totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) to those of patients undergoing reduced-port (three ports) TLDG.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 94 patients with early gastric cancer who underwent single-port or reduced-port TLDG at Samsung Medical Center between May 2014 and December 2014. Surgical outcomes were compared between operation methods.

RESULTS

There are more female patients (54.2 vs. 19.6 %, p = 0.001) and less obese patients (21.1 ± 2.1 vs. 24.6 ± 3.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.001) in the single-port TLDG group. There were no significant differences in blood loss during surgery, the number of dissected lymph nodes, and the pain score at postoperative first day between two groups. The variance in operation time for the reduced-port TLDG was significantly greater than that for single-port TLDG (p = 0.01). Complication rates in the single-port and reduced-TLDG groups were similar (20.8 vs. 21.7 %, p = 1.000). No postoperative deaths occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port TLDG might be considered as a treatment option for a limited subset, such as females or less obese patients with early gastric cancer.

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved versus linear instruments assessed by systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery poses significant ergonomic limitations. Curved instruments have been developed in order to address the issue of lack of triangulation. Direct comparison between single-incision laparoscopic surgeries with conventional linear and curved instruments has not been performed to date.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CENTRAL and OpenGrey were searched to identify relevant randomized trials. A network meta-analysis was applied to compare operative risks, conversion, duration of surgery and the need for placement of an adjunct trocar in single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with linear and curved instruments. The random-effects model was applied for two sets of comparisons, with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the reference treatment. Odds ratios, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized trials encompassing 1737 patients were included. The use of curved instruments was associated with increased operative time (mean difference 32.53 min, 95% CI 24.23-40.83) and higher odds for the use of an adjunct trocar (odds ratio 22.81, 95% CI 16.69-28.94) compared to the use of linear instruments. Perioperative risks could not be comparatively assessed due to the low number of events.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with curved instruments may be associated with an increased level of operative difficulty, as reflected by the need for auxiliary measures for exposure and increased operative time as compared to the use of linear instruments. Current instrumentation requires further improvement, tailored to the features of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (CRD42015015721).

Single incision versus standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: up-dated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to compare single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) to the standard multiport technique (MLC) for clinically relevant outcomes in adults.

METHODS

Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of randomized trials.

RESULTS

We identified 30 trials (SILC N = 1209, MLC N = 1202) mostly of moderate to low quality. Operating time (30 trials): longer with SILC (WMD = 12.4 min, 95% CI 9.3, 15.5; p < 0.001), but difference reduced with experience - in 10 large trials (1321 patients) WMD = 5.9 (-1.3, 13.1; p = 0.105). Intra-operative blood loss (12 trials, 1201 patients): greater with SILC, but difference practically irrelevant (WMD = 1.29 mL, 0.24-2.35; p = 0.017). Procedure failure (27 trials, 2277 patients): more common with SILC (OR = 13.9, 4.34-44.7; p < 0.001), but overall infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 4.39%) and almost exclusively addition of a trocar. Post-operative pain (29 trials) and hospital stay (22 trials): no difference. Complications (30 trials): infrequent (SILC pooled incidence 5.35%) with no overall SILC vs. MLC difference. Incisional hernia (19 trials, 1676 patients): very rare (15 vs. 4 cases), but odds significantly higher with SILC (OR = 4.94, 1.26-19.4; p = 0.025). Cosmetic satisfaction (16 trials, 11 with data at 1-3 months): in 5 trials with non-blinded patients (N = 513) in favour of SILC (SMD = 1.83, 0.13, 3.52; p = 0.037), but in 6 trials with blinded patients (N = 719) difference small and insignificant (SMD = 0.42, -1.12, 1.96; p = 0.548).

DISCUSSION

SILC outcomes largely depend on surgeon's skill, but regardless of it, when compared to MLC, SILC requires somewhat longer operating time, risk of incisional hernia is higher (but overall very low) and early cosmetic benefit is modest.

CONCLUSION

From the (in)convenience and safety standpoint, SILC is an acceptable alternative to MLC with a modest cosmetic benefit.