Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: a novel approach through a Pfannenstiel incision. Tech Coloproctol. 2011;15:61-65. [PMID: 21287224 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-010-0663-3]

Clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for patients with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with RC operated between 12/2013 and 12/2017 in Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. In total, 177 patients who underwent CLS and 51 who underwent SILS met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching method (PSM).

RESULTS

Compared with the CLS group, the SILS group showed shorter operation time [105 (40) vs. 125 (55) min, P = 0.045], shorter total incision length [4 (1) vs. 6.5 (1.5) cm, P < 0.001], lower VAS score on POD2 [1 (1) vs. 2 (1), P < 0.001], shorter time to soft diet [7 (1) vs. 8 (2) days, P = 0.048], and shorter length of hospital stay [9 (2) vs. 11 (3) days, P < 0.001]. The postoperative complications were similar between two groups [1(2%) vs. 5 (9.8%), P = 0.205]. No readmissions or mortality in either group occurred within 30 days of surgery. All 102 specimens met the requirements of TME. No significant differences were observed in the pathologic outcomes between the two groups. The median follow-up period was 32.6 months in the SILS group and 36.8 months in the CLS group (P = 0.053). The 3-year disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates of the SILS and CLS groups were 89.8% vs. 96.0% (P = 0.224) and 90.9% vs. 96.9% (P = 0.146), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, TME surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively using the SILS technique with better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, faster postoperative recovery, and acceptable clinical and oncological outcomes.

Cosmesis in Patients after Multiport Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: Does the Extraction Incision Matter?

The ideal incision for specimen extraction during laparoscopic colorectal surgery is controversial. The objective of this study was to compare incision types (Pfannenstiel, periumbilical, lower midline, and right upper quadrant transverse) with regard to postoperative scar appearance, symptoms, preference, and satisfaction. This study is a retrospective survey review performed in an urban teaching hospital. The study participants were patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Two web-based questionnaires, the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire and Photo-Series Questionnaire, were used to assess study parameters. The main outcome measures were incision symptoms and cosmetic satisfaction. The 112 study patients included 54 patients with a Pfannenstiel incision (Group P) and 58 patients with an alternate incision (Group A). Of the 58 patients in Group A, 19 (33%) had a periumbilical incision, 10 (17%) a lower midline incision, and 29 (50%) a right upper quadrant transverse incision. Although Groups P and Awere comparable in all five subscales of the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire, more Group P participants (n = 12; 22%) said their incision felt “fairly numb” than Group A participants (n = 2; 3%) (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference between study groups in all Photo-Series Questionnaire domains; however, after comparing patients’ own incisions with photographs of various alternative incisions, 36 (62%) Group A patients would choose an alternative incision compared with only 11 (19%) Group P patients (P = 0.001). Selection bias, recall bias, external validity, and variability of scar lengths were the limitations of the study. It was concluded that although a Pfannenstiel incision seems to be the optimal cosmetic choice, it is associated with a higher incidence of wound numbness than alternate extraction incisions.

Suprapubic single-port approach for complicated diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy is the gold standard for elective surgical treatment of diverticulitis. A periumbilical single-port technique reduces the size of the access wound, usually to 3-4 cm. However, in the presence of large phlegmon or fistulae, the risk of conversion is higher and the extraction site might be enlarged. A suprapubic Pfannenstiel incision reduces the risk of incisional hernia compared to umbilical access and might provide the possibility to perform sigmoidectomy with a hybrid technique. The aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy through a single suprapubic transverse access for large diverticular phlegmon.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a diverticular inflammatory mass ≥ 5 cm, with or without sigmoid-vesical fistula, were considered candidates for laparoscopic sigmoidectomy through a 5-cm single-port suprapubic (SPSP) access, extended (if required) to match the size of the inflammatory mass.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent SPSP sigmoidectomy at our institution in April 2014-April 2017. All procedures were completed by SPSP access, with no intraoperative complications or need for additional trocar placement. Eight patients had a sigmoid-vesical fistula (bladder sutured in three patients). The splenic flexure was mobilized in nine patients. Median operative time was 178 min and median hospital stay was 5.5 days (iqr 4-6). Postoperative complications occurred in four patients and included one subcutaneous hematoma, one urinary tract infection, and two superficial wound infections. After a median follow-up time of 25 months (interquartile range 15-38), all patients experienced complete resolution of symptoms, with no incisional hernias reported.

CONCLUSIONS

SPSP sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis is feasible and effective, minimizing the size of the access wound and avoiding increased risk of hernia. This approach might be especially valuable for the management of large diverticular phlegmon and sigmoid-vesical fistula.

Single-incision laparoscopic ileocecal resection using an organ retractor

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been reported to be a safe and feasible technique for colorectal cancer. However, the technique needs skill due to the limitations of the device. An organ retractor is a new grasp device that has the potential to overcome these limitations.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 63-year-old woman with a tumor palpated in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen presented to hospital. Colonoscopy showed a type 2 mass with nearly complete stenosis, and a biopsy specimen showed well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery ileocecal resection was performed using an organ retractor. A 3-cm incision was placed in the umbilicus, and three conventional ports were inserted. An organ retractor was used for hepatocolic ligament resection, resection of the ileocolic vessels, and resection of the insertion of the mesentery proper. For each resection, the trailer line's tension was adjusted to provide a good operative view. The patient's postoperative course was good, and she was discharged 7days after surgery.

DISCUSSION

An organ retractor was effective for single-incision laparoscopic surgery technique not only to maintain a good operative view, but also to change trailer line tension, which enabled safe dissection.

CONCLUSION

An organ retractor could facilitate single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

Review of 500 single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery cases - Lessons learned

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a minimally invasive platform with specific benefits over traditional multiport laparoscopic surgery. The safety and feasibility of SILS has been proven, and the applications continue to grow with experience. After 500 cases at a high-volume, single-institution, we were able to standardize instrumentation and operative steps, as well as develop adaptations in technique to help overcome technical and ergonomic challenges. These technical adaptations have allowed the successful application of SILS to technically difficult patient populations, such as pelvic cases, inflammatory bowel disease cases, and high body mass index patients. This review is a frame of reference for the application and wider integration of the single incision laparoscopic platform in colorectal surgery.

Review of single incision laparoscopic surgery in colorectal surgery

As surgical techniques continue to move towards less invasive techniques, single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), a hybrid between traditional multiport laparoscopy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, was introduced to further the enhanced outcomes of multiport laparoscopy. The safety and feasibility of SILS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease has been proven. SILS provides the potential for improved cosmesis, postoperative pain, recovery time, and quality of life at the drawback of higher technical skill required. In this article, we review the history, describe the available technology and techniques, and evaluate the benefits and limitations of SILS for colorectal surgery in the published literature.

SILS v SILS+1: a Case-Matched Comparison for Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is safe and feasible for benign and malignant colorectal diseases. SILS has comparable or improved outcomes compared to multiport laparoscopy but technical limitations when operating in the pelvis. To address these limitations, we developed an innovative SILS+1 approach using a single Pfannenstiel incision for pelvis access with one additional umbilical port. Our goal was to compare outcomes for SILS and SILS+1 in lower abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent an elective reduced port laparoscopic lower abdominal/pelvic colorectal procedure from 2009 to 2014. Cases were stratified by approach: SILS versus SILS+1 then matched 1:2 on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, and procedure. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative outcome variables were evaluated. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay, complication, morbidity, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two reduced port AR/LAR patients were evaluated-44 SILS and 88 SILS+1. The groups were similar in age, gender, BMI, and ASA class. The primary diagnosis in both cohorts was diverticulitis (90.9 % SILS, 87.5 % SILS+1), and main procedure performed an anterior rectosigmoidectomy (86.4 % SILS, 88.2 % SILS+1). Significantly more SILS+1 patients had previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.01). The operative time was significantly shorter in SILS+1 (mean 166.6 [SD 48.4] vs. 178.0 [SD 70.0], p = 0.03). The conversion rate to multiport or open surgery was also significantly lower with SILS+1 compared to SILS (1.1 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.02). Postoperatively, the length of stay across the groups was similar. SILS trended towards higher complication and readmission rates (NS). There were no unplanned reoperations or mortality in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS+1 facilitates pelvic and lower abdominal colorectal surgery, with shorter operative times and lower conversion rates. The additional port improved visualization and outcomes without any impact on length of stay, readmission, or complication rates.

Single port laparoscopy in gastroenterology and hepatology: A fine step forward

Single incision laparoscopy (SIL) has become an emerging technology aiming at a further reduction of abdominal wall trauma in minimally invasive surgery. Available data is encouraging for the safe application of standardized SIL in a wide range of procedures in gastroenterology and hepatology. Compared to technically simple SIL procedures, the merit of SIL in advanced surgeries, such as liver or colorectal interventions, compared to conventional laparsocopy is self-evident without any doubt. SIL has already passed the learning curve and is routinely utilized in expert centers. This minimized approach has allowed to enter a new era of surgical management that can not be acceded without a fruitful combination of prudent training, consistent day-to-day work and enthusiastic motivation for technical innovations. Both, basic and novel technical specifics as well as particular procedures are described herein. The focus is on the most important surgical interventions in gastroenterology and aims at reviewing the current literature and shares our experience in a high volume center.

Suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) has gained significance recently. The umbilicus has been the preferred access site for SIL. Suprapubic access site (SAS) can be an alternative, especially for a right hemicolectomy (RH).

METHODS

Between November 2011 and July 2012, 7 consecutive patients underwent suprapubic SIL RH (SSILRH). The median age was 53 years, and the median body mass index was 23.9 kg/m2. Indications for surgery included appendicular tumor (1) and adenocarcinoma of the right colon (6). Three reusable trocars were used, and the resection was performed through the SAS. An intracorporeal linear stapled anastomosis was performed, the mesenteric defect was closed, and the access site was used for specimen extraction.

RESULTS

No patient required additional trocars or conversion to an open surgery. The median laparoscopic time was 222 minutes, and the median final incision length was 50 mm. The median Visual Analogue Scale score (0-10) at 6, 18, 30, 42, 54, 66, and 78 postoperative hours was 6, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, and 2, respectively. The median hospital stay was 4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

SSILRH is useful because the SAS can be enlarged for extraction of the specimen without compromising the cosmetic outcome. The mesocolic and mesenteric dissections are on the same axis as the access site. The intracorporeal anastomosis can be performed without traction. Finally, positioning of the operative table improves exposure of the operative field and allows the surgeon to maneuver the colon and small bowel intracorporeally.

Systematic review of single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown multiport laparoscopic surgery to be safe compared with open surgery in elective colonic disease. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) represents the latest advance in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the safety and complication profile of colonic SILS.

METHODS

The search was performed in October 2011 using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Search terms were 'colorectal', 'colon', 'colectomy', 'rectal' and single incision/port/trocar/site/scar. Only pure single-incision laparoscopic colonic surgery for benign and malignant colonic disease was included. Primary outcomes were the early postoperative complication profiles of colonic SILS. Secondary outcomes were duration of operation, lymph node yields, conversion rate and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Colonic SILS data were compared with data from a Cochrane review on the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colonic surgery and four main RCTs on laparoscopic colonic surgery. Median operating times and time to first bowel motion for colonic SILS were comparable with those for laparoscopic colonic surgery. The median lymph node retrieval for malignant disease achieved with SILS was acceptable. Evidence for a reduction in postoperative pain with SILS was conflicting. There was no significant reduction in length of hospital stay with SILS. Most patients selected for colonic SILS had a low body mass index, non-bulky tumours and were operated on by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. There was significant heterogeneity in study group characteristics, indications for surgery, research methodology, operative techniques and follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

Colonic SILS should be restricted to highly selected patients; operations should be performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with critical appraisal of clinical outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than a thousand procedures

AIM

Single-incision laparoscopy for colorectal surgery is of growing importance. The experience of colorectal resection through single-incision laparoscopic surgery was assessed, including the patient outcomes.

METHOD

A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic with multiport laparoscopy. Endpoints included conversion to laparotomy, operation time, postoperative morbidity, length of skin incision and length of hospital stay. The MEDLINE database was searched and only comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data were retrieved from full-text manuscripts. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects.

RESULTS

From October 2008 to December 2011, 1026 colorectal resections including 921 colonic and 105 rectal procedures using single-incision laparoscopic surgery were reported in 64 studies. Meta-analysis of the 15 comparative studies, including a total of 1075 procedures (494 single-incision and 581 multiport laparoscopies), showed no difference in conversion to open laparotomy [odds ratio (OR) 0.58 (0.24, 1.38); P=0.22], morbidity [OR 0.84 (0.61, 1.15); P=0.27] or operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.27 (-6.50, 5.95); P=0.93], but a significantly shorter total skin incision [WMD -0.52 (-0.79, -0.25); P<0.001] and a significantly shorter postoperative length of stay [WMD -0.75 (-1.30, -0.20); P=0.008] after single-incision laparoscopic surgery compared with a multiport laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSION

Although only 15 nonrandomized comparative studies of varying methodology have been reported, this systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 1000 colorectal procedures suggest that single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe.

Umbilical incision laparoscopic colectomy with one additional port for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, laparoscopic colorectal surgery using a single incision usually made at the umbilical area has emerged as a tool to minimize the numbers of scars and provide better cosmetic results. But experience in laparoscopic skills is needed to maintain the oncologic principles of colorectal cancer surgery with the restricted operating field during the procedure. Adding an additional port to single-incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery (SILS) may be a bridge between conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery and SILS. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with one additional port (ULAP) could be performed in a similar manner to conventional multiport surgery.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-three patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent laparoscopic colectomy between February 2011 and August 2011. Forty of these patients underwent ULAP and were compared with the other 123 patients who had conventional laparoscopic surgery. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar in age (p = 0.438), gender (p = 0.818), body mass index (p = 0.149), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p = 0.417), history of previous abdominal operation (p = 0.503), and tumor location (p = 0.051). Operation time was longer in the ULAP group (255.5 min) than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (144.6 min) (p < 0.001). No significant differences were evident between groups for estimated blood loss (p = 0.263), transfusion requirements (p = 0.841), conversion to open procedures (p = 0.40), length of umbilical incisions (4.6 vs. 4.4 cm, p = 0.628), postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.862), tumor size (p = 0.455), number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.203), proximal margins (p = 0.189), and distal resection margins (p = 0.151). Postoperative morbidity (p = 0.736) was similar in both groups. There was no mortality postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Umbilical incision laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with an additional port is a feasible and safe approach, although it is more time consuming than conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

Pearls and pitfalls in SILS colectomy

Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy has developed into a viable option for the treatment of benign and malignant colorectal diseases with the innovation of new access devices, instrumentation, and surgical techniques. Although cosmesis has been highly touted as the most apparent advantage of the approach, the single-incision platform also affords the potential for enhanced recovery, early hospital discharge, and reduction in postoperative wound complications. Despite increasing evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy, wide-ranging adaptation has been tempered in part as a result of the technical demands of the approach. We aim to describe our surgical pearls for overcoming various pitfalls and technical challenges experienced during single-incision laparoscopic colectomy to facilitate successful application of this technique.

Transanal endoscopic video-assisted (TEVA) excision

BACKGROUND

Transanal endoscopic video-assisted (TEVA) excision represents an alternative approach for the surgical treatment of middle and upper rectal lesions not amenable to colonoscopic removal. Utilizing principles of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, this novel minimally invasive approach optimizes access for safe and complete removal of these lesions without the need for a formal rectal resection. We describe our technique and early outcomes with TEVA excision.

METHODS

Between March 2010 and September 2011, TEVA excision was performed for patients presenting for management of rectal lesions not amenable to colonoscopic or standard transanal removal. Patients were selected if they presented with benign disease or superficial adenocarcinoma, and the proximal extent of the lesion extended beyond 8 cm from the anal verge. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were assessed. A SILS™ port was placed in the anal canal for access in all cases. Standard laparoscopic instruments were utilized for visualization, full-thickness transanal excision, and primary closure.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (50% male) with a mean age of 64.6 ± 10.9 years, mean body mass index of 28.2 ± 4.9 kg/m(2), and median American Society of Anesthesiologist score of 2 underwent TEVA excision. Fourteen patients (70%) presented with benign disease and six patients (30%) presented with malignant disease. The mean size of the lesions was 3.0 ± 1.4 cm, and the mean distance from the anal verge was 10.6 ± 2.4 cm. All excisions were successfully completed with a mean operative time of 79.8 ± 25.1 (range, 45-135) min. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.1 ± 0.7 (range, 0-3) days.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVA excision is a safe and feasible approach for local excision of rectal lesions not otherwise amenable to standard techniques. Continued investigation and development will be important to establish its role in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Outcomes for case-matched single-port colectomy are comparable with conventional laparoscopic colectomy

AIM

With the introduction of single-port surgery, expected advantages are improved cosmesis, decrease of pain and shorter length of stay. The aim of this study was to compare early outcomes of single-port colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

METHOD

All consecutive patients undergoing single-port colectomy between January and June 2010 were identified from a prospective database. They were matched for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score and type of resection with patients who had conventional laparoscopic colectomy. All perioperative data, analgesic requirement, pain scores and inflammatory response were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients [five men, nine women; median age (interquartile range) 56 (30-73) years, body mass index (interquartile range) 22 (20-24) kg/m2] underwent single-port colectomy and were matched with patients who had conventional laparoscopic colectomy. Median operating times, estimated blood loss, pain scores, analgesic requirement, inflammatory response and length of hospital stay were similar. Median increase in incision length was significantly higher in the single-port group (P=0.004), but maximal incision length for specimen extraction was comparable. There were no anastomotic leaks, wound infections or 30-day readmissions.

CONCLUSION

In a case-matched setting with a small sample size, single-port laparoscopic colectomy has comparable outcomes to conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

Outcomes for consecutive patients undergoing single-site laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Single-site laparoscopy (SSL) represents an innovation whose wider adoption may be limited by technical challenges and a current dearth of outcomes data.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on all consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections, including elective and emergent surgeries. Patient demographics and operative details were collected, and outcomes were analyzed for 30 days following surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-one single-site laparoscopic procedures were performed, with 12 (29%) being nonelective. Surgeries included seven right colectomies, eight sigmoidectomies, four ileocolectomies, five total colectomies, two low anterior resections, and two abdominoperineal resections. The most frequent indication for surgery was inflammatory bowel disease (31.7%), followed by cancer (24.4%) and diverticular disease (24.4%). Thirty-seven percent of the patients had undergone previous abdominal surgery, with 64% of these having undergone previous laparotomy. One (2.5%) patient required conversion to multiple trocar laparoscopy, and five (12%) required conversion to laparotomy. Mean length of hospital stay was 4.2 days for SSL without a conversion. There was one anastomotic leak, no postoperative bleeding, no surgical site infections, and no deaths. The readmission rate was 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

SSL is safe when applied to unselected patients undergoing colorectal surgery, including those patients who have undergone a previous laparotomy.

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and colorectal cancer?

Surgical techniques and technologies are rapidly evolving. In the field of colorectal surgery the transanal video-assisted approach was introduced by Buess, 30 years ago, with transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). In more recent years different techniques and technologies have been proposed, including natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE), natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-access surgery. Furthermore, a better understanding of the prognostic and risk factors of rectal cancer has allowed TEM to expand its indications to local resection of selected tumours, and more recently there have been proposals for sentinel node biopsy in colon and rectal cancer.

Single incision laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a single surgeon experience of 102 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Due to the recent heightened interest in even less invasive surgery, single port laparoscopic colorectal surgery is quickly gaining acceptance. While this access technique was first described in 2007 for colorectal resective procedures, large series are lacking.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and October 2010, all patients undergoing single port colorectal surgery performed by a single surgeon were prospectively entered into an IRB-approved database and studied with regard to perioperative events, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred and two consecutive patients underwent a single port colorectal procedure. Mean age was 47 years (9-93 years), and average body mass index was 26 kg/m(2) (15-39 kg/m(2)). Primary diagnoses included ulcerative colitis (51), neoplasia (23), Crohn's disease (14), diverticulitis (11), familial adenomatous polyposis (1), and other (2). Procedures included 23 total colectomies, 40 segmental colectomies, and 19 other procedures. There was 1 conversion to an open operation, and 18 (18%) patients required placement of additional ports (1 port: N = 13; 2 ports: N = 2; 3 ports: N = 3). Average operating room time was 99 min (13-245), mean length of incision was 3.7 cm (1.2-7.8 cm), and average estimated blood loss was 140 ml (0-750 ml). There was one postoperative death, and 39 (38%) patients experienced minor postoperative complications. Mean lymph node harvest for oncologic resections was 44 (14-142). The average length of hospital stay was 5.9 days (2-24 days).

CONCLUSIONS

With proper patient selection and laparoscopic experience, single port colorectal surgery can be performed for even the most complex colorectal procedures. Further studies are needed to assess the benefits that single port colorectal surgery has over a conventional laparoscopic approach.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: a case-matched series

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery is an emerging modality that has proven to be safe and feasible for colon resection in multiple case reports and series. Nonetheless, comparative analyses with established techniques are limited in the published literature. We evaluated the efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) for the treatment of sigmoid disease through a matched-case comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy (CLC).

METHODS

Twenty patients who underwent single-incision laparoscopic sigmoid resection for benign or malignant disease between July 2009 and September 2010 were matched to patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty SILC and CLC cases each were paired based on gender (p < 1.0), age (p < 0.47), pathology (p < 1.0), and surgical procedure (p < 1.0). Ten patients (50%) in the SILC group and eight patients (40%) in the CLC group had a history of prior abdominal surgery (p < 0.53). There were no conversions to open surgery; however, one SILC procedure (5%) required conversion to CLC (p < 0.31). There was no significant difference in mean operating time between groups (p < 0.80). Mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower for SILC compared to CLC (p < 0.007). Mean lymph node extraction was comparable between groups in the subset of patients with malignant disease (p < 0.68). Two postoperative complications were encountered in each group. The mean length of hospital stay for SILC and CLC was 3.2 ± 1.0 and 3.8 ± 2.1 days, respectively (p < 0.25). There were no readmissions or reoperative interventions in either group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional laparoscopic technique, single-incision laparoscopic surgery results in similar intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. The technique avoids use of multiple trocar sites and may safely be performed in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery while maintaining a short length of hospital stay and low complication rate.

A simple and safe technique for performing single-port laparoscopic resection of appendiceal mucocele

We report a new method of performing single-port laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal mucocele. The key points of our technique are placing a 3/4 circumferential skin incision with multiple radial splits on the confine of the umbilicus, use of a "home-made" multichannel port system, and trimming the skin incision straight through the confine of the umbilicus at the time of wound closure. A 65-year-old woman with appendiceal mucocele, 80 mm in diameter, successfully underwent ileocecal resection by this procedure. She remains in good health without any wound complications 8 months postoperatively.