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

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopy surgery versus conventional multi-port laparoscopy surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colorectal cancer treatment remains unclear. This study compares the short-term and long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 and CLS using a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

Literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, drawing from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until December 10, 2023. Statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan and Stata.

RESULT

The review and meta-analysis included seven studies with 1740 colorectal cancer patients. Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 showed significant improvements in operation time (WMD =  - 18.33, P < 0.00001), blood loss (WMD =  - 21.31, P < 0.00001), incision length (WMD =  - 2.07, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (WMD =  - 14.91, P = 0.009), time to oral intake (WMD =  - 11.46, P = 0.04), and time to ambulation (WMD =  - 11.52, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in lymph node harvest, resection margins, complications, anastomotic leakage, hospital stay, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CLS, SILS + 1 demonstrates superiority in shortening the surgical incision and promoting postoperative recovery. SILS + 1 can provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLS.

Single-incision Laparoscopic Colonic Surgery: A Systemic Review, Meta-analysis, and Future Prospect

Although single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained some attention as a feasible alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) in colonic surgery, it became less prevalent than expected. Hence, we conducted this systematic review to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) with meta-analysis and discussion of the future prospect of SILS. The search was conducted from September to October 2023 using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Articles on colorectal cancer comparing SILC with multiport laparoscopic colectomy (MPLC) from all randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with 50 patients or more per arm were examined. The primary outcomes were the intra- and postoperative complication rates, and the secondary outcomes were the perioperative and oncological outcomes. The trends of the SILS number in Japan and the trends of the number of articles on SILS in PubMed were also reviewed. There were no significant differences in perioperative complication rates, operative factors, and oncological outcomes between SILC and MPLC, although heterogeneity was observed mainly in operative factors and the total length of the skin incision was significantly shorter in SILC. Therefore, SILC is technically and oncologically feasible and safe when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The case number of SILS was gradually increasing but the rate of SILS was decreasing in Japan. The number of articles on SILS was also decreasing. SILS has gained foothold to some extent but has plateaued. The emerging new robotic platform may reappraise the concept of SILS.

PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.

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

BACKGROUND

Though our previous study has demonstrated that the single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) is safe and feasible for sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer and has better short-term outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), the long-term outcomes of SILS + 1 remains uncertain and are needed to evaluated by an RCT.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage T1-4aN0-2M0 rectosigmoid cancer were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to either SILS + 1 (n = 99) or CLS (n = 99). The 3-year DFS, 5-year OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between April 2014 and July 2016, 198 patients were randomly assigned to either the SILS + 1 group (n = 99) or CLS group (n = 99). The median follow-up in the SILS + 1 group was 64.0 months and in CLS group was 65.0 months. The 3-year DFS was 87.8% (95% CI, 81.6-94.8%) in SILS + 1 group and 86.9% (95% CI, 81.3-94.5%) in CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.09 (95% CI, 0.48-2.47; P = 0.84)). The 5-year OS was 86.7% (95% CI,79.6-93.8%) in the SILS + 1 group and 80.5% (95% CI,72.5-88.5%) in the CLS group (hazard ratio: 1.53 (95% CI, 0.74-3.18; P = 0.25)). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in 3-year DFS and 5-year OS of patients with sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer treated with SILS + 1 vs. CLS. SILS + 1 is noninferior to CLS when performed by expert surgeons.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02117557 (registered on 21/04/2014).

Short-term and long-term outcomes of single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity-matched cohort study with conventional laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1) has been demonstrated to be minimally invasive while possessing better cosmesis and less pain compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). However, SILS + 1 as an alternative to CLS for colorectal cancer is still controversial.

METHODS

A total of 1071 patients who underwent curative laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer between 2015 and 2018 were included. Of these patients, 258 SILS + 1 cases and 516 CLS cases were analyzed using propensity score matching. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, pathologic findings and recovery course, morbidity and mortality within postoperative 30 days and 3-year disease-free and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The mean operating time was significantly shorter in SILS + 1 group, with less estimated blood loss. Tumor size, tumor differentiation, number of harvested lymph nodes, resection margin and pathologic T, N, TNM stage was similar between the groups. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications. Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed that SILS + 1 was not a risk factor for complications. Postoperatively, SILS + 1 group showed faster recovery than CLS group in terms of ambulation, bowel function, oral intake and discharge. The 3-year disease-free survival rates of SILS + 1 and CLS groups were 90.1% and 87.3%(p = 0.59), respectively and the 3-year overall survival rates were 93.3% vs. 89.8%(p = 0.172).

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that SILS + 1 is safe, feasible, oncologically efficient, and may be considered as a surgical option for selected patients with colorectal cancer.

Clinical application of two-port laparoscopic surgery in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection

Background

In the field of minimally invasive surgery, the two-port laparoscopic surgery is on the rise. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of two-port laparoscopic surgery (TLS) for resecting sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancers compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

Methods

The clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid colon cancer and upper rectal cancer resection at the Department of General Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical College between July 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively collected. Grouped according to different laparoscopic surgery. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria,A total of 81 patients were enrolled, of the 25 patients from the TLS group,and of the 56 patients from the CLS group. We mainly compared whether there were statistical differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, postoperative complication rate, and other surgical outcomes.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). In terms of the surgical outcomes, there were statistical differences in the total incision length (TLS: 6.21 ± 0.67 cm, CLS: 8.64 ± 1.08 cm, P < 0.001)), time to first ambulation (TLS: 2.0 ± 0.7 d, CLS:3.1 ± 0.9 d, P < 0.001), time to first flatus (TLS: 2.5 ± 0.8 d, CLS: 3.0 ± 0.8 d, P = 0.028), time to first defecation (TLS: 3.8 ± 1.3 d, CLS: 5.1 ± 2.1 d, P = 0.010), and time for liquid diet (TLS: 4.3 ± 1.4 d, CLS: 5.3 ± 1.9 d, P = 0.021). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the pathology (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

In terms of safety, TLS in sigmoid colon and upper rectal cancer resection is comparable to CLS. However, its incision is smaller and more aesthetic, and it causes lesser trauma than CLS. Additionally, it is also superior to CLS in postoperative recovery.

Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been an increase in colorectal cancer resections worldwide and in the UK. Initially conducted as an open procedure, this was replaced with the conventional multiport technique. Laparoscopic colectomy became the standard surgical technique in 1991. With innovation in surgical technology, single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has attracted more attention as the possible next step in colorectal resection. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes between SIL and conventional laparoscopy (CL).

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed®, MEDLINE®, Embase®, Google Scholar™ and Cochrane Library databases were used to extract randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2021. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs were extracted with 1,370 patients (686 SIL, 684 CL). There was no significant difference between SIL and CL for operative time (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19 to 0.22, z=0.11, p=0.91), length of hospital stay (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.02, z=1.61, p=0.11) or overall complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.30, z=0.09, p=0.93). SIL had a shorter mean incision (SMD: -0.99, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.62, z=5.25, p<0.00001). Patients undergoing SIL had a higher conversion rate to CL or an open approach (OR: 3.10, 95% CI: 0.95 to 10.14, z=1.87, p=0.06) but this just missed statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

SIL can be considered a safe alternative to CL if performed by experienced surgeons.

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.

Clinical outcomes of single incision laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis between well-experienced and novice surgeons

Background

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a recent advancement in minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, SILS is a technically challenging procedure for novice surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for CRC performed by novice surgeons compared with those performed by well-experienced surgeons.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 1004 consecutive patients with stage I-IV CRC who underwent SILS between May 2009 and December 2018, using propensity score-matched analysis.

Results

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 344 patients (n = 172 in each group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age (P = 0.034) and tumor location (P < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups, but operative time was longer in the Novice group (213 vs 171 min, P < 0.001). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the Novice group (23 vs 25, P = 0.040), and the number of patients with lymph node metastases was smaller in the Novice group (57 vs 86, P = 0.002). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 85.8% in the Novice group and 89.9% in the Experienced group (P = 0.512). Three-year overall survival rate was 92.2% in the Novice group and 90.0% in the Experienced group (P = 0.899).

Conclusion

SILS for CRC was safely performed by novice surgeons under the guidance of well-experienced surgeons, and could provide satisfactory oncological outcomes.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for rectal cancer is technically challenging, and its clinical impact is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of SILS for rectal cancer compared with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MPLS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 357 consecutive patients with stage I-III rectal cancer located in the rectosigmoid or upper rectum who underwent SILS or MPLS between January 2012 and December 2016, using propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score-matching, we enrolled 204 patients (n = 102 per group). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in tumor location (p < 0.001). After matching, preoperative clinical factors were similar between groups. SILS was successful in 73.5% of cases, an additional port was required in 23.5%, and 2.9% were converted to open surgery. Compared to the MPLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operative time (192 vs. 211 min, p = 0.015) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (9 vs. 11 days, p = 0.038). Other operative factors and morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups. The number of harvested lymph nodes was smaller in the SILS group (24) than in the MPLS group (27, p = 0.008). Postoperative recurrence did not differ between groups, either before or after matching. No significant differences in 3-year disease-free, 3-year local recurrence-free, or 5-year overall survival were found between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS is safe, is feasible, and offers satisfactory oncological outcomes in selected patients with rectosigmoid or upper rectal cancer.

Effect of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery assisted with enhanced recovery after surgery on colorectal cancer: study protocol for a single-arm trial

Background

Studies have proved that the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol can significantly improve the recovery course of patients during the perioperative period. The application of minimally invasive surgery is a critical component of ERAS protocol. Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS plus one) could achieve further minimally invasive surgical results than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The objective of this trial is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SILS plus one with ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer.

Methods

This is a prospective, single-center, open-label, single-arm trial. A total of 120 eligible patients with colorectal cancer will receive SILS plus one followed by the ERAS management during the perioperative period. The primary endpoint is postoperative hospital stay. The secondary endpoints include rehabilitative rate of the fourth postoperative day, postoperative medical cost, postoperative pain score, postoperative recovery indexes, inflammatory immune response indexes, compliance with ERAS measures, 6 min postoperative walking test (6MWT), hospital readmissions, and early postoperative complications.

Discussion

This trial will be the first to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SILS plus one assisted with ERAS protocol for patients with colorectal cancer and will provide valuable clinical evidence on the benefit of the combination of these two techniques, hopefully, to provide patients with more safe, economic, feasible, and rapid surgery and perioperative strategies.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trial Registry, NCT0426829. Registered February 15, 2020 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268290).

Comparative study on short-term efficacy of single incision plus one (SI+1) port and multiportal 3D laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of single incision plus one (SI+1) port three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

Methods

Clinical data of patients who underwent 3D thoracic laparoscopic MIE in our department from September 2020 to March 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the different methods of laparoscopic surgery, the patients were divided into 2 groups: SI+1 port 3D laparoscopy group and multiportal 3D laparoscopy group. The operation time of the 3D laparoscopy component, amount of intraoperative blood loss, number of celiac lymph node dissections, postoperative abdominal drainage days, postoperative total abdominal drainage, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were analyzed.

Results

There was no significant difference between the 2 methods in laparoscopic operation time (30.11±5.86 vs. 28.45±4.72 min, P=0.49), intraoperative blood loss (34.44±9.82 vs. 35.91±6.25 mL, P=0.69), number of celiac lymph node dissections (8.44±3.13 vs. 7.09±2.12, P=0.27), postoperative abdominal drainage days (3.11±0.33 vs. 3.00±0.00 days, P=0.28), postoperative total abdominal drainage (95.00±23.33 vs. 92.27±11.26 mL, P=0.74), postoperative complications (22.2% vs. 27.3%, P=0.33), and hospital stay (9.67±0.71 vs. 10.18±0.87 days, P=0.17). None of the patients enrolled in the study had recurrence or death to date.

Conclusions

The application of SI+1 port 3D laparoscopy in minimally invasive resection of esophageal carcinoma is safe and feasible.

Long-term Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Single-incision Versus Multi-port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes that were the secondary endpoints of a RCT of multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) versus SILC in colon cancer surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The actual long-term outcomes, such as the 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns after surgery, have not been evaluated by a RCT.

METHODS

Patients with histologically proven colon carcinoma located in the cecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III were eligible for this study. Patients were preoperatively randomized and underwent complete mesocolic excision. The 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed (UMIN-CTR 000007220).

RESULTS

Between March 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015, a total of 200 patients were randomly assigned to either the MPC arm (n = 100) or SILC arm (n = 100). The median follow-up for all patients was 61.0 months. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the 5-year RFS was 91.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1%-96.9%] in the MPC arm and 88.0% (95% CI 82.1%-93.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.37; 95% CI 0.58-3.24; P = 0.479). The 5-year OS was 95.0% (95% CI 91.1%-98.9%) in the MPC arm and 93.0% (87.1%-98.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio: 1.39; 95% CI 0.44-4.39; P = 0.568). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the 2 arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though the results of the 5-year OS and RFS in this trial were exploratory and underpowered, there were no statistically significant differences between the SILC and MPC arms. SILC may be an acceptable treatment option for select patients with colon cancer.

Short-term clinical and oncological outcomes after single-incision plus one-port laparoscopic surgery for rectosigmoid cancer: a retrospective clinical analysis of 30 cases

Objective

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-incision laparoscopic surgery+1 (SILS+1) radical resection of sigmoid and upper rectal cancer.

Methods

The clinical data of 30 consecutive patients with sigmoid and upper rectal cancer who underwent SILS+1 radical resection between October 2018 and January 2020 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. An initial 5-cm periumbilical transverse incision was made. Then, a multiport device was placed in the umbilical incision. Two 10-mm ports were used for laparoscope insertion, and the other two ports were used for laparoscope device insertion. A 12-mm trocar was placed in the right lower abdominal quadrant under laparoscopic view and served as the surgeon’s dominant operating channel.

Results

All operations were performed successfully without conversion to conventional laparoscopic surgery or open operation. Three patients developed postoperative complications: one patient developed ileus, one developed postoperative bleeding, and one developed wound infection. There were no perioperative deaths.

Conclusions

The safety and feasibility of SILS+1 radical resection of sigmoid and upper rectal cancer was established by experienced surgeons in our study. However, further studies are needed to demonstrate the advantages of this procedure compared with the benefits of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

A learning curve in using organ retractor for single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has the potential to improve perioperative outcomes, including less postoperative pain, shorter operation time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, SILS is technically difficult and needs a longer learning curve. Between April 2016 and September 2019, a total of 198 patients with clinical stage I/II right colon cancer underwent curative resection. In the case of the SILS approach, an organ retractor was usually used to overcome SILS-specific restrictions. The patients were divided into two groups by surgical approach: the SILS with organ retractor group (SILS-O, n = 33) and the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (LAC, n = 165). Clinical T status was significantly higher in the LAC group (p = 0.016). Operation time was shorter and blood loss was lower in the SILS-O group compared to the LAC group (117 vs. 197 min, p = 0.027; 10 vs. 25 mL, p = 0.024, respectively). In the SILS-O group, surgical outcomes including operation time, blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and postoperative complications were not significantly different between those performed by experts and by non-experts. Longer operation time (p = 0.041) was significantly associated with complications on univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio 2.514, 95%CI 1.047–6.035, p = 0.039). SILS-O was safe and feasible for right colon cancer. There is a potential to shorten the learning curve of SILS using an organ retractor.

Is Single-Incision Laparoscopic Liver Surgery Safe and Efficient for the Treatment of Malignant Hepatic Tumors? A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The objective of this review was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of single-incision laparoscopic liver surgery (SILLS) for malignant liver lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the Medline database was performed, including studies published up to February 2019.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 patients (50 males) with a median age of 61 years (range, 31-90) from 16 studies underwent SILLS for malignant liver disease and were included in this review. The majority of patients underwent resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 52, 75 %), followed by metastatic disease (n = 15, 22 %). The hepatic lesions were located in anterolateral liver segments in 62 patients (90 %) and in posterosuperior liver segments in 7 patients (10 %). Sixty-five patients (94 %) underwent minor liver resection. The median blood loss was 200 mL (range 0-2500), while 4 patients that underwent single-port resection were converted to either conventional laparoscopy or open resections. Two cases were reported to be associated with postoperative complications in the single-port group (1 [1.7 %] grade Dindo-Clavien I-II, 1 [1.7 %] grade Dindo-Clavien III-IV), while no complications were noted in the multiport group. All patients successfully underwent R0 resection.

CONCLUSIONS

SILLS seems to be a safe and efficient treatment modality for malignant liver disease when performed by experienced surgeons in carefully selected patients. More studies are needed to better identify which patients may benefit from such an operative approach.

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.

Analgesic Efficacy of Nefopam as an Adjuvant in Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Acute Postoperative Pain After Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Despite rapid advancements in laparoscopic surgical techniques and perioperative management, postoperative pain remains a significant clinical issue. We examined the analgesic efficacy of nefopam as an adjuvant in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 120 patients who did or did not receive 80 mg of nefopam as an adjuvant in fentanyl PCA; they were allocated to the nefopam (n = 60) or non-nefopam group (n = 60). The demographic, clinical, and anesthetic data, with data on pain severity and opioid administration at the postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 5, were compared between the groups. The pain score and opioid administration did not differ at the PACU or on PODs 1, 3, or 5. The day of PCA discontinuation, time to pass flatus, length of the hospital stay, and incidence of nausea/vomiting, dizziness, and headache also did not differ between the groups. Fentanyl PCA with 80 mg of nefopam as an adjuvant did not have a superior analgesic effect after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

The comparison of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction between single-incision and multiport laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: A sub-study of a randomized, prospective clinical trial

AIM

The present study clarified the effect on the health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy compared with multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, control trial comparing single-incision and multiport laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer. We performed a pre-planned secondary analysis of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction data of 200 patients. Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the Japanese 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2.0 before surgery and at 1 month after surgery. Patient satisfaction was compared using seven questionnaires at 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were assigned to each group. After excluding 18 patients (9.0%) who did not complete the SF-36, 182 patients (91.0%) were included in the analysis (92 cases of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy and 90 cases of multiport laparoscopic colectomy). The SF-36 scores at 1 month after surgery were not significantly different between the two arms. The role physical, bodily pain, vitality and physical component summary were significantly lower at 1 month after surgery than before in both groups. However, the role emotional was significantly lower after surgery than before only in the single-incision laparoscopic colectomy group. In terms of patient satisfaction at 1 month after surgery, there were no significant differences in any of the seven items on the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy was similar to multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. However, single-incision laparoscopic colectomy may be inferior than multiport laparoscopic colectomy in terms of the role emotional.

Feasibility of Single-Incision Plus One Port Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is a recently developed minimally invasive surgical technique. We aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic low anterior resection (S+1-LAR) with those of multi-port laparoscopic low anterior resection (M-LAR) for mid-to-low rectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patient characteristics and surgical outcomes by assessing data collected from the medical records of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-to-low rectal cancer at the Gangneung Asan Hospital.

RESULTS

From April 2015 to April 2019, 52 patients underwent S+1-LAR (n=28) or M-LAR (n=24) for mid-to-low rectal cancer at Gangneung Asan Hospital. There were no significant between-group differences in clinical characteristics. The mean postoperative 1-day pain score was significantly lower in the S+1-LAR group. Surgical outcomes and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

S+1-LAR is a feasible and safe technique and is comparable with M-LAR in terms of surgical outcomes of patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer.

Initial experience of single-incision plus one port left-side approach totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with uncut Roux-en-Y reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Single incision plus one port left-side approach (SILS+1/L) totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) is an emerging technique for the treatment of gastric cancer. Reduced port laparoscopic gastrectomy has a number of potential advantages for patients compared with conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy: relieving postoperative pain, shortening hospital stay and offering a better cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, there are no previous reports on the use of SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut Roux-en-Y (uncut R-Y) reconstruction.

AIM

To investigate the initial feasibility of SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut Roux-en-Y digestive tract reconstruction (uncut R-Y reconstruction) to treat distal gastric cancer.

METHODS

A total of 21 patients who underwent SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut R-Y reconstruction for gastric cancer were enrolled. All patients were treated at The Second Hospital of Shandong University. Reconstructions were performed intracorporeally with 60 mm endoscopic linear stapler and 45 mm no-knife stapler. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical details, postoperative short-term outcomes, postoperative follow-up upper gastrointestinal radiography findings and endoscopy results were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

All SILS+1/L operations were performed by SILS+1/L TLDG successfully. The patient population included 13 men and 8 women with a mean age of 48.2 years (ranged from 40 years to 70 years) and median body mass index of 22.8 kg/m². There were no conversions to open laparotomy, and no other port was placed. The mean operation time was 146 min (ranged 130-180 min), and the estimated mean blood loss was 54 mL (ranged 20-110 mL). The mean duration to flatus and discharge was 2.3 (ranged 1-3.5) and 7.3 (ranged 6-9) d, respectively. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 42 (ranged 30-47). Two patients experienced mild postoperative complications, including surgical site infection (wound at the navel incision) and mild postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade A). Follow-up upper gastrointestinal radiography and endoscopy were carried out at 3 mo postoperatively. No patients experienced moderate or severe food stasis, alkaline gastritis or bile reflux during the follow-up period. No recanalization of the biliopancreatic limb was found.

CONCLUSION

SILS+1/L TLDG with uncut R-Y reconstruction could be safely performed as a reduced port surgery.

Analgesic Efficacy of Preemptive Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Despite rapid advancements in laparoscopic surgical devices and techniques, pain remains a significant issue. We examined the efficacy of preemptive transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 153 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with or without TAP block; among them, 142 were allocated to the TAP or non-TAP group. We performed between-group comparisons of demographic, clinical, and anesthetic data and pain scores at a postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) and at postoperative days 1, 3, and 5. There were no significant between-group differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. The mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) were significantly lower in the TAP group at the start and end of surgery. The post-extubation bispectral index was significantly higher in the TAP group. There were no significant between-group differences in the pain scores and opioid consumption at the PACU or at postoperative days 1, 3, and 5, or in the time to pass flatus, the hospital stay length, and postoperative complications. Preemptive TAP block showed an intraoperative, but not postoperative, analgesic effect, characterized by a low mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and MAC.

Single-incision laparoscopic total colectomy using an organ retractor: A case report

Introduction

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has benefits, including less postoperative pain, a shorter incision, and improved cosmesis. However, SILS is technically difficult because of the limited movement. An organ retractor is an instrument that has the potential to overcome these limitations.

Presentation of case

An 85-year-old woman with hematochezia was referred to our hospital. Emergency endoscopy showed diverticulosis of the entire colon and active bleeding from the ascending colon. Despite endoscopic clipping, the bleeding continued. SILS total colectomy using an organ retractor was performed due to uncontrollable diverticular bleeding. A 3-cm incision was placed in the umbilicus, and three conventional ports were inserted into the single umbilical incision. An organ retractor was used for hepatocolic ligament transection, transection of the ileocolic vessels, and transection of the mesentery of the sigmoid colon. For each transection, the tension was adjusted to provide a good operative view. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful.

Conclusion

An organ retractor was effective for SILS total colectomy to maintain an adequate operative view, which enabled safe dissection.