Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and multiport laparoscopic colectomy

Rectal Eversion as an Anus-sparing Technique in Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection With Double Stapling Anastomosis: Long-term Functional Results

BACKGROUND

Rectal eversion (RE) is a natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) method that allows anus-sparing resection in very low rectal tumors. This study aims to share the long-term results of RE in laparoscopic rectal resection performed with double stapling anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted for patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection with RE. Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, type of surgery, distance of the tumor to the dentate line, specimen extraction site, cancer stage, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, postoperative complications, and postoperative clinical follow-up findings were recorded. Incontinence was assessed using the Wexner score (WS). Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is determined by the LARS score. A 7-point Likert scale was used to evaluate the satisfaction of the patients.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients underwent resection by RE for rectal tumors. Of the 11 patients included in the study, 4 were female and 7 were male. The mean age was 66.09±15.04 years. The mean follow-up was 64.18±16.83 months. The mean tumor diameter was 3.1 cm (range: 0.9 to 7.2 cm). The mean distance of the tumor from the dentate line was 2.7 cm (range: 1.2 to 5.6 cm). No anastomotic leak was observed in any patient. One patient had an anastomotic stenosis and was treated with balloon dilatation. The median LARS score was 16 (range 0 to 32) and 64% of the patients had no LARS. Two patients had minor LARS and 2 patients had major LARS. The median Wexner score was 3.5 (range 0 to 14). The median Likert scale was 7 (range 5 to 7). It was found that 55% of the patients were extremely satisfied, 18% were satisfied, and 27% were slightly satisfied with their surgery. There were no dissatisfied patients.

CONCLUSION

RE is a safe NOSE technique in laparoscopic double stapling anastomosis for rectal resection. There is a high level of long-term patient satisfaction with anus-sparing procedures via RE, even in the presence of various symptoms.

10-year experience with single-site laparoscopic-assisted Soave operation for Hirschsprung disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes after a transumbilical single-site laparoscopic-assisted Soave operation (TSLSO) for Hirschsprung disease (HD) in children, with a 10-year follow‑up results assessment.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 165 children with HD from January 2013 to January 2023. The operation method was a TSLSO. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative abdominal drainage time, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

All 165 cases were successfully completed using the TSLSO. The median operative time was 160 (120-210) minutes, and the median volume of bleeding was 9 mL (3-15 mL). The median length of the resected intestine was 25 cm (20-32 cm), and the median postoperative peritoneal drainage time was 4.2 days (3-6 days). Postoperative defecation function generally recovered well, there was no recurrence of constipation. There were three cases of anal stenosis, 12 cases of perianal dermatitis, two cases of adhesive intestinal obstruction, 14 cases of soiling, and 18 cases of enterocolitis.

CONCLUSION

The TSLSO is a safe and feasible surgical method for the treatment of HD in children. It has the advantages of little bleeding, a good cosmetic effect, and fast postoperative recovery. However, it does require skilled laparoscopic technique by the surgeon.

Transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for left-sided colorectal resection: A single-centre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Transvaginal natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) is an innovative and feasible approach for left-sided colorectal resections in females. This study aimed to report our experience with transvaginal NOSES for left-sided laparoscopic colorectal resections.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analysed data for all patients with transvaginal extraction performed for left-sided laparoscopic colorectal resections between 2011 and 2021 at a tertiary teaching hospital in Taiwan.

RESULTS

The 18 post-menopausal patients were of a mean age of 69.2 ± 10.14 years. The lesions were located at the descending ( n = 5), sigmoid colon ( n = 12) and rectum ( n = 1). The operative time was 262.5 ± 83.91 min, and the blood loss was 34 ± 35.98 mL. All patients had an end-to-end anastomosis, and the anastomotic height was 15.06 ± 8.57 cm. Two patients received diversion stoma. The mean length of hospital stay was 5.1 days (standard deviation ± 2.42; range: 3-12 days). There were no cases of clinical infection. The pathology was malignancy ( n = 14, 77.8%), diverticulitis ( n = 2, 11.2%) and benign ( n = 2, 11.2%). In cancers, they were Stage I ( n = 1, 7.1%), IIa ( n = 1, 7.1%), IIIb ( n = 15, 78.7%) and IV ( n = 1, 7.1%). Malignant specimens ( n = 14) were mostly moderately differentiated ( n = 11, 78.6%), with two poorly differentiated (14.3%) and one well-differentiated (7.1%). The lymph nodes harvested were 16.1 ± 8.11. The widest dimension of the lesion was 3.43 cm ± 1.28 (range: 1.5-6) and the length of the specimen was 14.69 cm ± 5.01 (range: 8-27).

CONCLUSION

Transvaginal NOSES is safe and feasible for left-sided colorectal resection. Factors to consider are the characteristics of the specimen, anal canal and vagina.

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Single-Port Vs Multiport Laparoscopic Total Abdominal Colectomy With End Ileostomy for Medically Refractory Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Medically refractory ulcerative colitis necessitates surgical intervention, with total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy being a definitive treatment. The comparison between single-port and multiport laparoscopic surgery outcomes remains underexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy for medically refractory ulcerative colitis.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis comparing single-port to multiport surgery in patients with ulcerative colitis from 2010 to 2020. Patients were propensity score-matched 3:1 (multiport to single-port) on baseline characteristics.

SETTINGS

Single-center academic hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 756 patients with medically refractory ulcerative colitis who underwent multiport vs single-port total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy from 2010 to 2020 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Binary outcomes were compared using a multivariable logistic regression model, and a subset analysis was conducted for postoperative stump leak based on stump implantation during surgery. These metrics were compared between the single-port and multiport groups to assess the differences in surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The multiport and single-port groups included 642 and 114 patients, respectively. The matched cohort included 342 multiports and 114 single ports. We observed a statistically significant difference in mean operation time, with the single-port procedure taking 43 minutes less than the multiport laparoscopy. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative stump leaks, postoperative ileus, stoma site complications, postoperative readmission within 30 days, postoperative reoperation within 30 days, and subsequent IPAA surgery. In the subset analysis, stump implantation was associated with a higher risk of stump leak in the multiport group. The single-port group had a shorter hospital stay.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective nature and being conducted at a single center.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy in the treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis is a safe, effective, and efficient approach. In our cohort, single-incision laparoscopy has had shorter operation times and better overall length of stay compared with the multiport approach. Taking into account a less invasive approach, decreased abdominal trauma, and faster recovery, single-port surgery is a viable alternative to multiport surgery. See Video Abstract .

UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA COLECTOMA ABDOMINAL TOTAL LAPAROSCPICA CON PUERTO NICO VERSUS PUERTO MLTIPLE CON ILEOSTOMA TERMINAL PARA LA COLITIS ULCEROSA MDICAMENTE REFRACTARIA

ANTECEDENTES:La colitis ulcerosa (CU) médicamente refractaria requiere una intervención quirúrgica, siendo la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal un tratamiento definitivo. La comparación entre los resultados de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único y con puerto múltiple aún no se ha explorado lo suficiente.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados quirúrgicos de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único versus con puerto múltiple en pacientes sometidos a colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal para CU médicamente refractaria.DISEÑO:Un análisis retrospectivo que comparó la cirugía de puerto único con la de puerto múltiple en pacientes con CU de 2010 a 2020. Los pacientes fueron emparejados por puntuación de propensión 3:1 (puerto múltiple a puerto único) según las características iniciales.AJUSTES:Hospital académico unicentrico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados binarios se compararon utilizando un modelo de regresión logística multivariable y se realizó un análisis de subconjunto para la fuga postoperatoria del muñón basado en la implantación del muñón durante la cirugía. Estas métricas se compararon entre los grupos de puerto único y de puerto múltiple para evaluar las diferencias en los resultados quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Los grupos de puerto único y multipuerto incluyeron 642 y 114 pacientes, respectivamente. La cohorte emparejada incluyó 342 puertos múltiples y 114 puertos únicos. Observamos una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en el tiempo medio de operación, ya que el procedimiento de puerto único duró 43 minutos menos que la laparoscopia de puerto múltiple. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en las fugas del muñón posoperatorio, el íleo posoperatorio, las complicaciones del sitio del estoma, el reingreso posoperatorio dentro de los 30 días, la reoperación posoperatoria dentro de los 30 días y la cirugía IPAA posterior. En el análisis de subconjunto, la implantación del muñón se asoció con un mayor riesgo de fuga del muñón en el grupo multipuerto. El grupo de puerto único tuvo una estancia hospitalaria más corta.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo, realizándose en un único centro.CONCLUSIÓN:La colectomía abdominal total laparoscópica de incisión única en el tratamiento de la colitis ulcerosa mucosa es un enfoque seguro, eficaz y eficiente. En nuestra cohorte, en comparación con el abordaje multipuerto, la laparoscopia de incisión única ha mostrado tiempos de operación más cortos y una mejor duración total de la estancia hospitalaria. Teniendo en cuenta un enfoque menos invasivo, un menor traumatismo abdominal y una recuperación más rápida, la cirugía con puerto único es una alternativa viable a la cirugía con puertos múltiples. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles's procedure for low rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes of patients with low rectal cancer after stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic Miles procedure or conventional multi-port laparoscopic Miles procedure, as well as to evaluate the safety and efficacy of stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery in low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between September 2020 and September 2021, 51 low rectal cancer patients scheduled for Miles procedure at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College were randomly assigned to the single-port laparoscopic surgery group (SPLS) and the multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) group. The perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In this study, 25 patients underwent SPLS and 26 underwent MPLS. All patients completed the study, and there were no perioperative deaths in either group. Observation indicators such as intraoperative bleeding (39 mL vs. 41 mL), number of lymph nodes (20.12 ± 3.29 vs. 21.84 ± 3.74), average hospital stay (7.15 ± 1.52 vs. 7.64 ± 1.66), and time to flatulence (2.5d vs. 2.5d) showed no significant differences between the SPLS and MPLS groups (p > 0.05). However, the operation duration (180 min vs. 118 min) and perioperative complications showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in the SPLS group had significantly higher satisfaction scores than those in the MPLS group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with low rectal cancer requiring Miles surgery, stoma-site approach single-port laparoscopic surgery has comparable safety and efficacy to multi-port laparoscopic surgery.

Single-incision laparoscopic clockwise continuous total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy in ulcerative colitis; surgical technique and results of a 7-year experience

BACKGROUND

Total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy is the first stage of the three-stage surgical treatment of medically refractory ulcerative colitis. Laparoscopic surgery is a safe approach offering several benefits. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is an alternative minimally invasive approach providing excellent cosmetic results. Literature on single-incision laparoscopic clockwise continuous total abdominal colectomy in the treatment of ulcerative colitis is limited. Aim of the study is to describe our surgical technique and report the outcomes.

METHODS

Medically refractory ulcerative colitis patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic clockwise continuous total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy by a single surgeon between January 2013 and December 2020 at our tertiary care center are included. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

52 patients were included in the final analysis. 51.9% patients were male with the median age of 31.5 years and body mass index of 22.2 kg/m². Median duration of operation was 100 min with estimated blood loss of 50 ml. There were no intraoperative complications, conversions to conventional laparoscopy or open surgery. Postoperative complications were reported in 13 (25%) patients with most common being ileus (17.3%). 3 patients had surgical site infections. 2 patients had postoperative bleeding requiring blood transfusion. 2 patients had reoperation within postoperative 30 days. Median length of hospital stay was 2 days. No mortalities were reported.

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopic clockwise continuous approach is safe and effective in ulcerative colitis patients undergoing total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of single-incision and traditional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

Background

Single-incision laparoscopy surgery (SILS) is a new laparoscopic technique that has emerged in the past decade. Whether it has advantages over conventionl laparoscopy surgery (CLS) is inconclusive. This article aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer through high-quality literature text mining and meta-analysis.

Methods

Relevant articles were searched on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2012 to November 2021. All data was from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to increase the confidence of the analytical results.The main outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1609 patients. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the postoperative complications, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, number of lymph nodes removed, readmission, reoperation, complication level I- II, complication level IIIa, complication level IIIb, prolonged Ileus, blood loss, infection, anastomotic leakage and operation time. The results showed that SILS group had a higher rate of intraoperative complications, but it had lower incision length and better cosmetic effects.

Conclusion

These results indicate that SILS did not have a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. On the contrary, SILS has higher intraoperative complications, which may be related to the more difficulty of SILS operation, but SILS still has better cosmetic effects, which is in line with the concept of surgical development. Therefore, the SILS needs to be selected in patients with higher cosmetic requirements and performed by more experienced surgeons.

Reduced-port robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a single-institute experience

Background

Reduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy can potentially reduce postoperative pain and improve recovery time. However, the inherent difficulty caused by the narrow manipulation angle makes this operation difficult, especially during lymph node dissection. The intrinsic advantage of the da Vinci^® robotic system might offset this difficulty, maintaining adequate surgical quality with risks of surgical complications equal to those by the conventional four-port robotic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the reduced-port robotic approach and the conventional four-port approach in terms of postoperative pain and short-term surgical outcomes.

Methods

All patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection using the da Vinci Xi robotic system, including reduced-port or conventional four-port approach, were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 30-day complications.

Results

Forty-eight patients were enrolled in the study, 10 cases in the reduced-port and 38 in the conventional four-port group. Postoperative NRS revealed no significant difference between the reduced-port and conventional four-port groups [postoperative day (POD) 1: 4.5 vs. 3, p = 0.047, POD 3: 4 vs. 3, p = 0.178]. After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in the median number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, and length of hospital stay between the groups. The postoperative 30-day complications were more frequent in the conventional four-port group, but there was no significant difference compared with the reduced-port group after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

Reduced-port robotic gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection might be comparable to the conventional four-port robotic operation in terms of postoperative pain, surgical quality, and short-term outcomes. However, further studies are required to confirm our results and clarify the advantages of the robotic reduced-port approach.

Concepts and prospects of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery

It is important that clinical radiologists understand and appreciate the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options available to surgeons. Operative technologies are constantly evolving, and accurate, informed interpretation of clinical imaging is essential for optimum surgical management. Concurrent advancements in both MIS and radiological staging have certainly improved treatment decisions and outcomes. This article outlines the history, current concepts, evolving techniques, and future prospects of MIS as it pertains to colorectal cancer surgery.

Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies

PURPOSE

To compare single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and multiport laparoscopic surgery (MLS) for colorectal cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing SILS and MLS for colorectal cancer were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (6 RCTs and 10 PSM studies) published between 2012 and 2020 with a total of 2425 patients were enrolled. Compared with MLS, SILS was associated with less postoperative pain at postoperative day (POD) 1 (P = 0.02, MWD = -0.73, 95%CI: -1.37, -0.09) and POD2 (P < 0.001, MWD= -1.10, 95%CI: -1.45, -0.74) and shorter length of total incision length (P < 0.001, MWD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95, -2.67). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, incision hernia, and pathological or survival outcomes between SILS and MLS. Subgroup analysis for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid colon cancer showed that the SILS group was only associated with less postoperative pain and shorter total incision length. The surgical and pathological outcomes were comparable between SILS and MLS.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is a beneficial alternative to MLS in select colorectal cancer patients, especially for right-sided colon cancer, sigmoid colon cancer, and rectosigmoid cancer, with better cosmetic effects and less postoperative pain. Simultaneously, SILS does not compromise intraoperative and postoperative complications, surgical quality, or long-term outcomes.

Dual trocar laparoscopy improves reduced-port surgery of the distal pancreas

BACKGROUND

The technical feasibility of transumbilical single-incision surgery (SIL) for pancreatic resections has been demonstrated. However, this technique is hampered by the limited degrees of freedom for instrument handling. Dual-incision laparoscopy (DIL) with an additional trocar may simplify dissection and allow drainage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between December 2009 and May 2017, 21 patients were treated with SIL (12/2009 to 01/2014) or DIL (02/2014 to 05/2017) pancreatic resection. All data were collected in a database and retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Demographic parameters of the patients did not differ significantly in the DIL or the SIL group. No conversion to open surgery was required. No intraoperative complication occurred in either group. The surgical difficulty score was significantly higher in the SIL group (4.4 ± 1.56 vs 2.18 ± 1.95; p = .006). Postoperative serum amylase levels were higher (101.9 U/l ± 50.11 vs 48.91 U/l ± 35.20; p = .01) and return to normal levels (6.4 ± 9.66 days vs 2.09 ± 1.98 days; p = .045) was later in the SIL group. Three complications requiring radiological or surgical intervention were witnessed in the SIL group and one complication in the DIL group (p = .42).

CONCLUSION

DIL surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to SIL surgery, facilitating key steps of distal pancreatic tail resection.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer: results of a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for colon cancer (CC), as practiced in real-world settings, especially in relation to disease stage, have not been established. We examined, retrospectively, both short- and long-term outcomes of SILC versus those of multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) performed for CC in a propensity-score-matched cohort.

METHODS

The study involved 263 patient pairs matched 1:1 from among 691 patients who, between January 2008 and May 2014, underwent either SILC or MPLC for a primary solitary CC at our hospital. Short-term and long-term operative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Operation time was the only surgical outcome that varied significantly between the two groups (p = 0.0004). Overall 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the SILC group was 93.7 (95% CI 89.6-96.2)%, and CSS per pathological stage (I, II and III) was 98.5 (90.0-99.8)%, 96.0 (88.2-98.7)%, and 88.3 (79.6-93.6)%, respectively, whereas overall 5-year CSS in the MPLC group was 93.3 (89.4-95.9)%, and CSS per pathological stage was 100%, 95.4 (88.3-98.3)%, and 84.1 (74.1-90.8)% (p = 0.5278, 0.2679, 0.7666, and 0.9073), respectively. Overall 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in the SILC group was 94.0 (90.2-96.4)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological stage was 98.6 (90.4-99.8)%, 90.1 (81.4-95.0)%, and 79.0 (69.4-86.2)%, respectively, whereas overall 3-year DFS in the MPLC group was 93.2 (89.4-95.7)%, and 3-year DFS per pathological disease stage was 100%, 94.5 (87.4-97.7)% and 75.5 (64.7-83.8)% (p = 0.2829, 0.7401, 0.4335 and 0.8518), respectively. Thus, oncological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Incisional hernia occurred in 21 (8.0%) SILC group patients and 17 (6.5%) MPLC group patients, without a significant between-group difference (p = 0.6139).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that perioperative and oncological outcomes of SILC performed for CC are comparable to those of MPLC performed for CC.

Natural orifice versus conventional mini-laparotomy for specimen extraction after reduced-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: propensity score-matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Although reduced port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS), defined as laparoscopic surgery performed with the minimum possible number of ports and/or small-sized ports, is less invasive than conventional laparoscopic surgery by reducing the number of surgical wounds, an extension of the incision is still needed for specimen extraction, which can undermine the merits of RPLS.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) in patients undergoing RPLS for colorectal cancer. The endpoints were perioperative outcome and oncologic safety at 3 years.

SETTING

Single-center experience (2013-2019).

PATIENTS

We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively collected patient records (American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I-III sigmoid or upper rectal cancer (tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm) who underwent curative anterior resection via RPLS. We excluded patients who did not undergo intestinal anastomosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared between patients undergoing natural orifice (RPLS-NOSE) or conventional (mini-laparotomy) specimen extraction (RPLS-CSE). Patients were matched by propensity scores 1:1 for tumor diameter, AJCC stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and tumor location.

RESULTS

Of 119 eligible patients, 104 were matched (52 RPLS-NOSE; 52 RPLS-CSE) by propensity scores. Compared with RPLS-CSE, RPLS-NOSE was associated with longer operative time (223.9 vs. 188.7 min; p = 0.003), decreased use of analgesics (morphine dose 33.9 vs. 43.4 mg; p = 0.011) and duration of hospital stay (4.2 vs. 5.1 days; p = 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in morbidity or wound-related complication rates between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 34.3 months, no local recurrence was observed in RPLS-NOSE. The 3-year disease-free survival did not differ statistically significantly between groups (90.9 vs. 90.5%; p = 0.610).

CONCLUSION

NOSE enhances the advantages of RPLS by avoiding the need for abdominal wall specimen extraction in patients with tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm. Surgical and oncologic safety are comparable to RPLS with CSE.

Comparing the short-term outcomes and cost between solo single-incision distal gastrectomy and conventional multiport totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

Single-incision laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (SIDG) requires experienced camera operators for a stable image. Since it is difficult for skilled camera operators to participate in all SIDG, we began performing solo surgery using mechanical camera holders. We aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and cost between solo SIDG and conventional multiport laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (MLDG) for early gastric cancer (EGC).

Methods

From January 2014 to December 2016, a total of 938 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy for EGC. Solo SIDG (n = 99) and MLDG patients (n = 198) were selected and 1:2 propensity score matching was done to compare the quality of operation and cost-effectiveness. All solo SIDG was performed by a surgeon using a camera holder, without any assistant.

Results

Mean operation time (120 ± 35.3 vs. 178 ± 53.4 minutes, P = 0.001) and estimated blood loss (24.6 ± 47.4 vs. 46.7 ± 66.5 mL, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the solo SIDG group. Hospital stay, use of analgesics, and postoperative inflammatory markers (WBC, CRP) were similar between the 2 groups. The early (<30 days) complication rate in solo SIDG and MLDG groups was 21.2% and 23.7%, respectively (P = 0.240); the late (≥30 days) complication rate was 7.1% and 11.1%, respectively (P = 0.672). The manpower cost of solo SIDG was significantly lower than that of MLDG (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that solo SIDG performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons is safe and feasible for EGC. Solo SIDG is expected to be a promising potential treatment for EGC.

Single-incision robotic colectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: A matched case control study

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and single incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are both advanced minimally invasive operative techniques. However, studies comparing these two surgical methods have not been published. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the short-term outcomes of SIRC with those of SILC.

METHODS

A total of 21 consecutive patients underwent SIRC and 136 consecutive patients underwent SILC in separate institutes between January 2013 and December 2019. We used retrospective cohort matching to analyze these patients.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, patients who underwent SIRC had a lower percentage of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades III-IV (5% vs. 19%, P = 0.11) compared with patients who underwent SILC. The SIRC group revealed a higher proportion of sigmoid colon lesions and anterior resections than the SILC group (61% vs. 45%, P = 0.16). After 1:4 cohort matching, 21 patients were enrolled in the SIRC group and 84 patients were enrolled in the SILC group. No statistically significant difference in terms of operative time (SIRC: 185 ± 46 min, SILC: 208 ± 53 min; P = 0.51), estimated blood loss (SIRC: 12 ± 22 ml, SILC: 85 ± 234 ml; P = 0.12), and complications (SIRC: 4.7%, SIRC: 7.1%; P = 0.31) was observed between these groups. Length of postoperative hospital stay (SIRC: 8.3 ± 1.7 days, SILC: 9.3 ± 6.5; P = 0.10) and number of harvested lymph nodes (SIRC: 21.3 ± 10.3, SILC: 21.3 ± 9.5; P = 0.77) were also similar between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, numbers of harvested lymph node is less in SIRC than SILC (SIRC: 18.1 ± 4.7 vs. SILC: 18.9 ± 8.1, P = 0.04) in anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

SIRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical and pathological outcomes for right- and left-side colectomy.

Role of single-incision laparoscopic surgery in the management of small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) arises on various backgrounds, and the surgical procedure is often modified intraoperatively as needed. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is less invasive than conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPS) and reported to be equally safe and efficient. We have been applying SILS to SBO requiring surgical treatment, and we conducted a retrospective study to clarify the role of SILS in the management of SBO.

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients were identified for inclusion in the study through a review of hospital records of patients having undergone surgery for SBO between May 2013 and June 2018. Patients with tumor- or hernia-related SBO were excluded. We also identified, for comparison, a group of patients who had undergone open surgery for SBO during the preceeding 5-year period. The primary study endpoint was the SILS completion rate, and analyses were performed to identify risk factors for conversion to open surgery and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

The SILS completion rate was 70.6% (24/34 patients), with conversion open surgery required for the remaining 10 (29.4%) patients. Conversion was necessitated by limited working space in 5 (50%) patients, discovery of massive necrosis in 3 (30%), and non-detection of the responsible lesion in 2 (20%). Univariable analysis showed an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score (p = 0.020) and severe intra-abdominal adhesions (p = 0.007) to be risk factors for conversion. Conversion to open surgery (vs complete SILS) was significantly associated with increased operation time (p = 0.018), blood loss (p = 0.021), postoperative stay (p = 0.010), and postoperative complications (p = 0.004). Open surgery was significantly associated with increased postoperative stay (p = 0.026) and postoperative complications (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

SILS appears to be a reasonable surgical treatment option for selected patients with SBO.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Colectomy for Colon Cancer

Background. Our aim was to compare the emerging technique of single-incision laparoscopic surgery complete mesocolic excision (SILS CME) colectomy with the standard multiport laparoscopic CME (MPL CME) colectomy. Methods. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane library were searched. Studies comparing the SILS CME with MPL CME in adults with colon adenocarcinoma were included. The Jadad and Newcastle Ottawa Scales were used to critically appraise the studies. The presence of statistical heterogeneity or publication bias was examined. Results. Seven studies (3 randomized) with a total number of 1344 patients were included (546 SILS CME and 798 MPL CME). No difference was found in anastomotic leakage (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [0.31 to 2.03]; P = .63), number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.85 [-0.97 to 2.66]; P = .36), hospital stay (WMD = 0.01 [-0.19 to 0.20]; P = .96), overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19 [0.29 to 4.80]; P = .81), and disease-free survival (HR = 1.30 [0.30 to 5.61]; P = .72). Skin incision was shorter in SILS CME group (WMD = -3.02 [-3.25 to -2.80]; P < .00001) but with no difference in pain reported in postoperative day 1 (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.21 [-0.50 to 0.09]; P = .17) or day 2 (SMD = 0.16 [-0.52 to 0.84]; P = .64). Conclusions. SILS CME, although technically more demanding, has equivalent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with MPL CME. Potential benefits in cosmesis or postoperative pain need to be further explored by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Single Port Laparoscopic Total and Subtotal Colectomies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in a District General Hospital

Background: Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is expanding, enhancing the advantages of multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS). Limited literature exists regarding SILS total/subtotal colectomies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aim of the study was to present the initial experience with this type of approach in a district general hospital and extrapolate its feasibility and safety in this specific context based on gold standard outcomes reported in literature. Materials and Methods: Preoperative parameters, operative details and surgical outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent colonic SILS for IBD in a 5-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Median length of follow-up was 26 months. Results: Fourteen patients underwent SILS subtotal/total colectomy. Median body mass index was 25 (18.1-35). Two patients had previous abdominal surgeries. Median operating time was 202.5 minutes. Two cases were converted to open. Median length of stay was 5 days. Three patients presented complications. Three patients developed parastomal hernias (21.4%). Five out of 12 patients with ulcerative colitis declined further surgery, 3 are awaiting laparoscopic/SILS pouch formation, 1 underwent SILS pouch formation, 1 SILS ileo-rectal anastomosis and 1 patient had SILS completion proctectomy. One patient was not followed up. Conclusions: Despite literature data heterogeneity, these results provide support to the feasibility and applicability of SILS in the subgroup of patients who undergo subtotal/total colectomies for IBD, offering the option for subsequent SILS completion or restorative procedures. Further studies are required to explore the benefit of SILS over MLS (including cosmesis and quality of life) and non-inferiority of SILS regarding the parastomal hernia issue and the operative duration.

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.

Comparison of the effects of an ERAS program and a single-port laparoscopic surgery on postoperative outcomes of colon cancer patients

Advancement of the surgical modality and perioperative care are the two main dimensions for the modern improvement of surgical outcome. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the two by using the data from the single-port laparoscopic surgery and the early recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. Patients who underwent elective surgery for primary adenocarcinoma of the colon were divided into three groups and compared: ERAS (multi-port laparoscopic surgery with ERAS perioperative care), Conventional-SILS (single-port surgery with conventional perioperative care), or Conventional-Multi (multi-port laparoscopic surgery with conventional perioperative care). Ninety-one, 83, and 96 patients were registered, respectively. There were no differences among the three groups in baseline characteristics except pathological stage and operation site in colon. Although the ERAS group started a soft diet earlier and had earlier discharge, there were no differences in intra- and post-operative morbidity rate, readmission rate, or reoperation rate. The ERAS perioperative care was a significant factor for reducing length of hospital stay in the multivariate analysis, while single-port surgery was not. In modern laparoscopic colon cancer treatment, a systemic approach such as the ERAS program appears to be more effective than a technical approach for significantly improving short-term surgical outcomes.

Impact of single-incision laparoscopic surgery on postoperative analgesia requirements after total colectomy for ulcerative colitis: a propensity-matched comparison with multiport laparoscopy

AIM

To compare the requirements for postoperative analgesia in patients with ulcerative colitis after single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic total colectomy.

METHOD

All patients undergoing single-incision or multiport laparoscopic total colectomy as a first stage in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis between 2010 and 2016 at the University Hospital of Leuven were included. The cumulative dose of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia was used as the primary end-point. A Z-transformation was performed combining values for patient-controlled epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia, resulting in one hybrid outcome variable. The two groups were matched using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis was performed to analyse the impact of extraction site on postoperative pain.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients underwent total colectomy for ulcerative colitis (median age 35 years). Thirty patients underwent single-incision laparoscopy, while 51 patients had a multiport approach. The mean normalized patient-controlled analgesia dose was significantly lower in patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopy (-0.33 vs 0.46, P < 0.001). This difference was no longer significant in subgroup analysis for patients with stoma site specimen extraction (P = 0.131). The odds of receiving tramadol postoperatively was 3.66 times lower after single-incision laparoscopy (P = 0.008). The overall morbidity rate was 32.1% (26/81). The mean Comprehensive Complication Index in single-incision and multiport laparoscopy group was 18.33 and 21.39, respectively (P = 0.506). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after single-incision laparoscopic surgery (6.3 days vs 7.6 days, P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Single-incision total colectomy was associated with lower postoperative analgesia requirements and shorter hospital stay, with comparable morbidity. However, the specimen extraction site played a significant role in postoperative pain control.

Prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clinically evident Anastomotic Leakage (AL) remains one of the most feared complications after colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether Prophylactic Drainage (PD) after colorectal anastomoses confers any advantage in the prevention and management of AL.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases for randomized studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients with Drained (D) or Undrained (UD) colorectal anastomoses performed for any cause.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials comparing D and UD patients undergoing colorectal resections with primary anastomosis were included for quantitative synthesis. In total, 1120 patients were allocated to group D (n = 566) or group UD (n = 554). The clinical AL rate was 8.5% in the D group and 7.6% in the UD group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.57). Rates of radiological AL (D: 4.2% versus UD: 5.6%; P = 0.42), mortality (D: 3.6% versus UD: 4.4%; P = 0.63), overall morbidity (D: 16.6% versus UD: 18.6%, P = 0.38), wound infection (D: 5.4% versus UD: 5.3%, P = 0.95), pelvic sepsis (D: 9.7% versus UD: 10.5%, P = 0.75), postoperative bowel obstruction (D: 9.9% versus UD: 6.9%, P = 0.07), and reintervention for abdominal complication (D: 9.1% versus UD: 7.9%, P = 0.48) were equivalent between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the value of PD following colorectal anastomoses does not support the routine use of prophylactic drains.

Clinical impact of single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal resection for advanced colon cancer: propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has become an acceptable treatment for right-sided colon cancer. Most centers use multiport laparoscopic right hemicolectomy extracorporeally (MRHE), whereas single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy intracorporeally (SRHI) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques using propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We analyzed the data from 111 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy between December 2015 and December 2016. The propensity score was calculated according to age, gender, body mass index, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, and D3 lymph node dissection. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and postoperative analgesic use was an outcome measure.

RESULTS

The length of skin incision in SRHI was significantly shorter than in MRHE [3 (3.5-6) versus 4 (3-6) cm, respectively; P = 0.007]. The VAS score on day 1 and day 2 after surgery was significantly less in SRHI than in MRHE [30 (10-50) versus 50 (20-69) on day 1, P = 0.037; 10 (0-50) versus 30 (0-70) on day 2, P = 0.029]. Significantly fewer patients required analgesia after SRHI on day 1 and day 2 after surgery [1 (0-3) versus 2 (0-4) on day 1, P = 0.024; 1 (0-2) versus 1 (0-4) on day 2, P = 0.035]. There were no significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, and postoperative course between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SRHI appears to be safe and technically feasible. Moreover, SRHI reduces the length of the skin incision and postoperative pain compared with MRHE.

Short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port surgery (SILS + 1) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

BACKGROUND

At present, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy remains technically challenging. The use of SILS + 1 as an alternative has gained increasing attention; however, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2 M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The morbidity and mortality within 30 days, operative and pathologic outcomes, postoperative recovery course, inflammation and immune responses, and pain intensity were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two groups (17.2 vs. 16.3%, P = 1.000). The total operating time for the SILS + 1 group was significantly shorter (100.8 ± 30.4 vs. 116.6 ± 36.6, P = 0.002). Blood loss was significantly greater in the CLS group (20 vs. 50, P < 0.001). Thirteen patients (14%) in the CLS group required additional postoperative analgesics, which was significantly more than four patients in the SILS + 1 group. Notably, on postoperative day three, the visual analogue scale score of the CLS group was greater than that of the SILS + 1 group (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, P = 0.023). Tumor diameter, pathologic stage, length of the proximal and distal margins, and number of lymph nodes harvested were similar, other values were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SILS + 1 might be safe and feasible for rectosigmoid cancer when performed by experienced surgeons. It offers minimal invasiveness without compromising oncologic treatment principles. Trial Registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02117557).

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.

Multidimensional analyses of the learning curve for single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Single-incision plus one port surgery (SILS + 1) provides the advantages of being minimally invasive and easier to perform than pure single-incision laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the learning curve (LC) for SILS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer.

METHOD

From November 2012 to May 2014, a series of 85 consecutive patients underwent selective SLIS + 1 for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer performed by a single surgeon at Nanfang Hospital. The LC for SILS + 1 was evaluated using cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted CUSUM methods. Data for all the perioperative variables and pathologic results among the phases were compared.

RESULTS

The LC had three phases: phase 1 (cases 1-13) was the initial learning period; phase 2 (cases 14-44) was the learning plateau period; and phase 3 (cases 45-85) was the competent period. The differences in total operating time among the three phases were significant. The number of harvested lymph nodes increased along with increases in the surgeon's experience.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced CLS surgeons, the learning process reached the plateau period after the 13th case, and technical competence was achieved after the 44th case.

Application of a commercial single-port device for robotic single-incision distal pancreatectomy: initial experience

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy has proven to be feasible and safe. Moreover, robotic surgery provides unique advantages for pancreatic procedures, although single-incision robotic pancreatic surgery is rarely discussed. We applied the single-port modified platform to accomplish robotic distal pancreatectomy in a series of patients.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were ten patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy in our hospital between July 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2016. All patients were placed supine in the reverse Trendelenburg position with the legs abducted. Surgery was performed via a trans-umbilical 5.0-cm incision, using a modified single-port platform (LAGIPORT^®) combined with the da Vinci Si Surgical System. The three arms and scope (30-degree up) were inserted through the LAGIPORT^® and positioned in a triangle. Endoscopic ultrasound was used to localize the tumor and plan the resection margin. We recorded the surgical time, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, hospital stay, and complications.

RESULTS

The surgical time was 236 ± 32 min, the operation time was 172 ± 30 min, and the blood loss was 149 ± 65 ml. All patients underwent robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy without conversion. The average pain score on postoperative day (POD) 3 was 4.5 ± 1. Complications included subsplenic hematoma (n = 1) and minor pancreatic leakage (n = 2). There was no surgical mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate the safety and efficiency of robotic single-incision distal pancreatectomy via the modified platform (LAGIPORT^®).

Comparison of Single-Port Versus Standard Multiport Left Lateral Liver Sectionectomy

It remains unclear if single incision laparoscopic liver surgery is superior to standard multiport resections and in what regard patients might benefit from this approach. We retrospectively analyzed the course of all patients undergoing laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy at our center between 2009 and 2017. In total, 11 single incision and 31 multiport left lateral sectionectomies were performed at our center between July 2009 and May 2017. Six patients were excluded due to multivisceral resections. Indications included adenoma (n = 7 vs n = 2), focal nodular hyperplasia (n = 4 vs n = 3), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 4 vs n = 4), colorectal liver metastasis (n = 4 vs n = 0), noncolorectal metastasis (n = 2 vs n = 1), hemangioma (n = 3 vs n = 0), abscess (n = 1 vs n = 0), and cysts (n = 1 vs n = 0). Length of operation was significantly shorter in the single incision group (206 vs 137 minutes, P = .003). One complication was observed in the single incision group (grade IIIb, n = 1) while 3 patients in the multiport group suffered from postoperative complications (grade II, n = 1; grade IIIa, n = 2), resulting in a morbidity rate of 12.5% and 11.5%, respectively. No mortality was observed in both groups. Length of hospital stay did not significantly differ in both groups (median 7 vs 7 days, P = .513). The single incision approach is safe and has become the standard approach for the left lateral sectionectomy at our center. Shorter operation times technique might well be due to the easy retrieval of the liver specimen via the umbilical incision with no need for a Pfannenstiel incision.

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.

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

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

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

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.