Long-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

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.

Long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer utilising a craniocaudal approach

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for right-sided colon cancer (CC) using a craniocaudal approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of patients who underwent SILC for right-sided CC at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2022 were retrospectively collected. Surgery was performed using a craniocaudal approach. Short- and long-term operative outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 269 patients (127 men, 142 women; median age 74 years) underwent SILC for right-sided CC. The cases included ileocaecal resection (n = 138) and right hemicolectomy (n = 131). The median operative time was 154 min, and the median operative blood loss was 0 ml. Twenty-seven cases (10.0%) required an additional laparoscopic trocar, and 9 (3.3%) were converted to open surgery. The Clavien-Dindo classification Grade III post-operative complications were detected in 7 (2.6%) cases. SILC was performed by 25 surgeons, including inexperienced surgeons, with a median age of 34 years. The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 96.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.3%-98.2%), and CSS per pathological disease stage was 100% for Stages 0-I and II and 86.2% (95% CI 71.3%-93.7%) for Stage III. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 90.6% (95% CI 85.7%-93.9%), and RFS per pathological disease stage was 100% for Stage 0-I, 91.7% (95% CI 80.5%-96.6%) for Stage II and 76.1% (95% CI 63.0%-85.1%) for Stage III.

CONCLUSIONS

SILC for right-sided CC can be safely performed with a craniocaudal approach, with reasonable short- and long-term outcomes.

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).

Comparative study of video recordings of non-medical devices in laparoscopic surgery: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is the approach of choice for multiple procedures, being laparoscopic cholecystectomy one of the most frequently performed surgeries. Likewise, video recording of these surgeries has become widespread. Currently, the market offers medical recording devices (MRD) with an approximate cost of 2000 USD, and alternative non-medical recording devices (NMRD) with a cost ranging from 120 to 200 USD. To our knowledge, no comparative studies between the available recording devices have been done. We aim to compare the perception of the quality of videos recorded by MRD and NMRD in a group of surgeons and surgical residents.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey to compare recordings from three NMRDs (Elgato 30 fps, AverMedia 60 fps, Hauppauge 30 fps) and one MRD (MediCap 20 fps) during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The survey assessed: definition of anatomical structures (DA), fluidity of movements (FM), similarity with the operating room screen (ORsim), and overall quality (OQ). Descriptive and nonparametric analytical statistics tests were applied. Results were analyzed using JMP-15 software.

RESULTS

Forty surveys were collected (80% surgeons, 20% residents). NMRDs scored significantly higher than MRD in DA (p = 0.003), FM (p < 0.001), ORsim (p < 0.001), and OQ (p < 0.001). One NMRD was chosen as the highest quality device (70%), and MRD as the poorest (78%). No significant differences were found when analyzing by surgical experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of recording laparoscopic procedures, non-medical video recording devices (NMRDs) outperformed medical-grade recording device (MRD) with a higher overall score. This suggests that NMRDs could serve as a cost-effective alternative with superior video quality for recording laparoscopic surgeries.